You might not know it as you zip up your coat to brave the rain and the wind, but summer is here in England. And that means one thing. Cricket. The Ashes are in full (reverse) swing at the moment, and the feelgood factor is pretty high following England’s triumph at Lords.
I have to admit it, I like cricket, I enjoy playing it and watching it. But there is still that nagging feeling that the only reason I really enjoy it is because of the void left by another sport. Namely football.
Would I be as enthused by Paul Collingwood scratching around for a fifty if there was a World Cup on? Would Graeme Swann’s doosra really get the blood pumping if Messi, Kaká & Torres were going head to head? I doubt it. It might upset the MCC, but here goes. Football is better than cricket. And here’s why:
The Clothing
Let’s face it here; cricket kits are ridiculous aren’t they? The whites worn by all countries during test cricket may be traditional, and Australians will talk all day about the pride felt wearing the “Baggy Green” cap representing their country, but in the end they really are just glorified pyjamas. When you see fielders sliding around a grassy outfield wearing white slacks, it is a soap powder commercial’s heaven.
And let’s not even get started on the one day strips. Football may have been a little more pure in the days before shirt sponsorship, but even with AIG or Carlsberg or Emirates plastered on your chest, this Arsenal home shirt looks a damn sight better than this Lancashire kit, don’t you think?
International Participation
According to the International Cricket Council (ICC), there are 104 members which actively participate in international cricket. Eerily this is exactly half of the number possessed by its football equivalent, FIFA. However, the ICC houses only ten full members- a figure swelled as recently as 2000 with the arrival of Bangladesh. This means that all International first class cricket consists of matches between these ten nations- England, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, West Indies, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe.
And whilst tournaments such as the Cricket World Cup open their doors to “associate members” (teams such as Ireland, Holland & Scotland), there is a feeling that the ICC is, and will remain to be, a pretty closed shop with regards to new members. The sport may be on the rise in nations such as the Netherlands and the USA, but it has been nine years since Bangladesh were admitted to the elite, and in that time they have managed just three test victories, and remain bottom of the Test Rankings (ignoring the current ban on the Zimbabwe team). The omens are not great for associate members, and as for affiliate members (the likes of the Falkland Islands, Belize & Rwanda), the sport remains very much an amateur one.
Compare that to football for a second. In the past five World Cups we have seen nations such as Croatia,South Korea, Bulgaria, Romania, USA and the Ukraine enjoy prosperous (and surprising) runs, whilst at European level we have witnessed the remarkable success of Greece in 2004, the Czechs in 1996, andDenmark in 1992. Football is certainly a more levelled out sport, with more countries able to compete at a high level, increasing the competitiveness of the game, and helping it to avoid monotony.
The Cost
I don’t wish to preach here, my political and social knowledge is limited enough to make such acts a little difficult. But simple facts remain. To play football, what do I need? Two posts, a football, and some appropriate footwear (trainers or boots). I don’t even need that many other people, a goalkeeper will do. And whilst top-end football boots are pricey, it is possible to pick up some for a reasonable sum.
Compare that to what is required to have a useful game of cricket. If we are playing correctly you will need a proper cricket ball, a couple of bats, some stumps, some pads and a helmet (unless you are hard enough to take on the big red cherry without….which you aren’t). It can be an expensive pastime (see for yourself). Especially as a decent bat can cost up to £200, gloves can cost up to £50, helmet up to £40, ball around £30 and pads upwards of £60. And let’s not forget a pretty hefty holdall to carry it all around in too by the way.
Understandably, such costs can prove pretty prohibitive, especially for young working class families. Despite obvious blurring of class lines, especially in England, over the past few decades, such issues still reveal themselves in professional sport. Comparing the backgrounds of England football internationals and cricket internationals is interesting. Inner city kids- your Wayne Rooneys, Steven Gerrards etc- tend to find themselves priced out of sports such as cricket (and tennis) at a young age, and therefore turn to football.
Time Scales
Test cricket is a wonderful sport, I can’t deny it. The ultimate examination of a cricketer’s technique, temperament and, equally significantly, endurance. A test match is played over five gruelling days and, whilst this is necessary to ensure a fair result and a decent spectacle, it can dissuade some people from following the sport. Considering that you could, theoretically, watch five seven-hour days of cricket, and end without a result, it is not hard to see why some thrill-seekers are turned away from the game, and why the shorter format- One Day Internationals & Twenty20- is beginning to dominate the sport.
Comparing it to football, it is easy to understand why it lags behind in terms of spectator-friendliness. Prices may be relatively similar (and one could argue that a full day’s viewing represents better value for money) but football offers an infinitely more intense spectacle, and one which has an air of exclusivity that cannot be replicated by cricket. Knowing that a game lasts 90 minutes only (unless Sir Alex Ferguson is in charge of the watch….ok, cheap gag) adds to the whole experience. In cricket you simply don’t get that level of intensity or suspension, at least not until one team is chasing in the fourth innings. The Ashes series of 2005 was unique in a sense that it seemed to emit drama at just about every turn, but it is fair to say that it was a rare occurrence.
I have to admit it, I like cricket, I enjoy playing it and watching it. But there is still that nagging feeling that the only reason I really enjoy it is because of the void left by another sport. Namely football.
Would I be as enthused by Paul Collingwood scratching around for a fifty if there was a World Cup on? Would Graeme Swann’s doosra really get the blood pumping if Messi, Kaká & Torres were going head to head? I doubt it. It might upset the MCC, but here goes. Football is better than cricket. And here’s why:
The Clothing
Let’s face it here; cricket kits are ridiculous aren’t they? The whites worn by all countries during test cricket may be traditional, and Australians will talk all day about the pride felt wearing the “Baggy Green” cap representing their country, but in the end they really are just glorified pyjamas. When you see fielders sliding around a grassy outfield wearing white slacks, it is a soap powder commercial’s heaven.
And let’s not even get started on the one day strips. Football may have been a little more pure in the days before shirt sponsorship, but even with AIG or Carlsberg or Emirates plastered on your chest, this Arsenal home shirt looks a damn sight better than this Lancashire kit, don’t you think?
International Participation
According to the International Cricket Council (ICC), there are 104 members which actively participate in international cricket. Eerily this is exactly half of the number possessed by its football equivalent, FIFA. However, the ICC houses only ten full members- a figure swelled as recently as 2000 with the arrival of Bangladesh. This means that all International first class cricket consists of matches between these ten nations- England, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, West Indies, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe.
And whilst tournaments such as the Cricket World Cup open their doors to “associate members” (teams such as Ireland, Holland & Scotland), there is a feeling that the ICC is, and will remain to be, a pretty closed shop with regards to new members. The sport may be on the rise in nations such as the Netherlands and the USA, but it has been nine years since Bangladesh were admitted to the elite, and in that time they have managed just three test victories, and remain bottom of the Test Rankings (ignoring the current ban on the Zimbabwe team). The omens are not great for associate members, and as for affiliate members (the likes of the Falkland Islands, Belize & Rwanda), the sport remains very much an amateur one.
Compare that to football for a second. In the past five World Cups we have seen nations such as Croatia,South Korea, Bulgaria, Romania, USA and the Ukraine enjoy prosperous (and surprising) runs, whilst at European level we have witnessed the remarkable success of Greece in 2004, the Czechs in 1996, andDenmark in 1992. Football is certainly a more levelled out sport, with more countries able to compete at a high level, increasing the competitiveness of the game, and helping it to avoid monotony.
The Cost
I don’t wish to preach here, my political and social knowledge is limited enough to make such acts a little difficult. But simple facts remain. To play football, what do I need? Two posts, a football, and some appropriate footwear (trainers or boots). I don’t even need that many other people, a goalkeeper will do. And whilst top-end football boots are pricey, it is possible to pick up some for a reasonable sum.
Compare that to what is required to have a useful game of cricket. If we are playing correctly you will need a proper cricket ball, a couple of bats, some stumps, some pads and a helmet (unless you are hard enough to take on the big red cherry without….which you aren’t). It can be an expensive pastime (see for yourself). Especially as a decent bat can cost up to £200, gloves can cost up to £50, helmet up to £40, ball around £30 and pads upwards of £60. And let’s not forget a pretty hefty holdall to carry it all around in too by the way.
Understandably, such costs can prove pretty prohibitive, especially for young working class families. Despite obvious blurring of class lines, especially in England, over the past few decades, such issues still reveal themselves in professional sport. Comparing the backgrounds of England football internationals and cricket internationals is interesting. Inner city kids- your Wayne Rooneys, Steven Gerrards etc- tend to find themselves priced out of sports such as cricket (and tennis) at a young age, and therefore turn to football.
Time Scales
Test cricket is a wonderful sport, I can’t deny it. The ultimate examination of a cricketer’s technique, temperament and, equally significantly, endurance. A test match is played over five gruelling days and, whilst this is necessary to ensure a fair result and a decent spectacle, it can dissuade some people from following the sport. Considering that you could, theoretically, watch five seven-hour days of cricket, and end without a result, it is not hard to see why some thrill-seekers are turned away from the game, and why the shorter format- One Day Internationals & Twenty20- is beginning to dominate the sport.
Comparing it to football, it is easy to understand why it lags behind in terms of spectator-friendliness. Prices may be relatively similar (and one could argue that a full day’s viewing represents better value for money) but football offers an infinitely more intense spectacle, and one which has an air of exclusivity that cannot be replicated by cricket. Knowing that a game lasts 90 minutes only (unless Sir Alex Ferguson is in charge of the watch….ok, cheap gag) adds to the whole experience. In cricket you simply don’t get that level of intensity or suspension, at least not until one team is chasing in the fourth innings. The Ashes series of 2005 was unique in a sense that it seemed to emit drama at just about every turn, but it is fair to say that it was a rare occurrence.