Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-15-2019, 12:28 AM
russian heel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,958

Which is bigger for England: 1966 Football World Cup or 2019 Cricket World Cup?


Asking this knowing I’m guessing 1/2 the posters here were probably born after 1966.

I’m going to guess the 2019 win was more dramatic, but 1966 meant more since football is a bigger sport worldwide and England all but invented it.

OR——-is there a third English sporting accomplishment even more important than these????


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #2  
Old 07-15-2019, 01:54 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,905
WAG as a non-Brit: Cricket still doesn't hold a candle to football. 1966 World Cup hands down, in the eyes of the Brits.

Last edited by Velocity; 07-15-2019 at 01:54 AM.
  #3  
Old 07-15-2019, 03:20 AM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,459
If you want to see a nation totally lose the run of itself, have England win a football World Cup. I love cricket, i love it more than football, I 'd watch it over football pretty much any day of the week but I am in the extreme minority. To put it in American terms, if you've got NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL, football in England is all 4 of them at once. Rugby and cricket are nowhere near, and until England wins another football World Cup, 1966 trumps all.
  #4  
Old 07-15-2019, 03:22 AM
SanVito is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 4,995
English person here - the football World Cup, by a considerable margin.

Put it like this, it's Monday morning in the office, and a few of the cricket loving guys are talking about it. Many people aren't, really.

If we'd just won the football World Cup, my boss might have declared it a company holiday, and we'd all still be down the pub.
  #5  
Old 07-15-2019, 03:46 AM
Dead Cat is offline
I was curious...
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,545
Agreed on all counts. Winning the Rugby World Cup in 2003 was probably slightly bigger than yesterday's victory, but neither come close to winning a football World Cup. It simply has much greater mass appeal both in England and worldwide.

It is interesting to note (as many have done before me, already) that all three of these titles have involved extremely dramatic, last minute endings.
  #6  
Old 07-15-2019, 05:21 AM
penultima thule is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,442
England chat, to the tune of Camptown Races;
“Two World Wars and one World Cup, doo dah, doo dah.”

Way more significant to the national sport psyche, beating Germany and the context.
  #7  
Old 07-15-2019, 07:02 AM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 9,534
On a scale of 1-10 I've got the football world cup at 10, cricket world cup at about a 7, Rugby world cup at 8, Andy Murray winning Wimbledon at 7, The GB Olympic Team triumphs or recent years at about an 8.

That's my personal assessment anyway
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #8  
Old 07-15-2019, 07:30 AM
Quercus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: temperate forest
Posts: 7,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
On a scale of 1-10 I've got the football world cup at 10, cricket world cup at about a 7, Rugby world cup at 8, Andy Murray winning Wimbledon at 7, The GB Olympic Team triumphs or recent years at about an 8.

That's my personal assessment anyway
Just curious, can you give me a number for a hypothetical (hey, only a couple goals away) England Women's World Cup win?
  #9  
Old 07-15-2019, 07:41 AM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,808
Incidentally in one of the 1966 heros memoirs, (maybe Martin Peters?) he says that 1966 was not as big a deal when it actually happened as it later became. He pointed out there was a pretty damn good Test series that year and while people were delighted in winning, there were other sports distractions. Unlike then.

Wonder if in 20/30 years time it might be the same for this if cricket popularity recovers.
  #10  
Old 07-15-2019, 07:47 AM
Shearer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: uk
Posts: 195
Getting to the semi final of the World Cup last year was a bigger deal for the majority of people

Cricket should only be played over five days anyway.
  #11  
Old 07-15-2019, 08:39 AM
Dead Cat is offline
I was curious...
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quercus View Post
Just curious, can you give me a number for a hypothetical (hey, only a couple goals away) England Women's World Cup win?
On the same scale (with which I happen to agree, though I wasn't alive in '66), I'd probably give it a 6. It would be a big deal, but women's sport just doesn't get the same attention (IMO, because in absolute terms the quality is demonstrably and significantly lower, albeit it is catching up fast and I found this year's WWC much more watchable than in the past).
  #12  
Old 07-15-2019, 08:44 AM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Cat View Post
On the same scale (with which I happen to agree, though I wasn't alive in '66), I'd probably give it a 6. It would be a big deal, but women's sport just doesn't get the same attention (IMO, because in absolute terms the quality is demonstrably and significantly lower, albeit it is catching up fast and I found this year's WWC much more watchable than in the past).
I'm not sure about this. The viewing figures are starting to come out for the game yesterday and across all channels, the cricket reached 7.5m viewers, it seems. More than 10m watched the WWC semi between England and the USA, and I reckon if they'd got to the final, you'd be lumping on more.

There's a danger in conflating how consequential something is with the viewing figures for it, but I think England's women winning the football World Cup would be a bigger deal than winning the cricket has been yesterday. This is largely because it is football, I think.
  #13  
Old 07-15-2019, 08:44 AM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 5,398
Football World Cup 1966 all day long.

On the subject of cricket, here's an interesting piece of trivia:

Who was the first international game of cricket played between?
SPOILER:
The first ever international cricket game was between the US and Canada in 1844. The match was played at the grounds of the St George's Cricket Club in New York.
  #14  
Old 07-15-2019, 09:04 AM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cumbrian View Post
I'm not sure about this. The viewing figures are starting to come out for the game yesterday and across all channels, the cricket reached 7.5m viewers, it seems. More than 10m watched the WWC semi between England and the USA, and I reckon if they'd got to the final, you'd be lumping on more.

There's a danger in conflating how consequential something is with the viewing figures for it, but I think England's women winning the football World Cup would be a bigger deal than winning the cricket has been yesterday. This is largely because it is football, I think.
FIFA numbers....
Its who watched at least 1 minute.
Reading actual numbers, the BBC sports page got 40 million hits for the CWCFinal vesus only 14 for Tennis.
Social Media was also dominated by the Cricket (surprisingly).
Online figures aren't out yet,
https://twitter.com/danroan/status/1150694676338544640
  #15  
Old 07-15-2019, 09:46 AM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 9,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quercus View Post
Just curious, can you give me a number for a hypothetical (hey, only a couple goals away) England Women's World Cup win?
2?
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #16  
Old 07-15-2019, 09:55 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 87,302
Cricket is a distinctively British game (yes, there are other countries that play it, some with much greater populations, but they're all part of the Commonwealth). Americans don't get excited when a US team wins the baseball World Series, because of course they did. If it's really been that long since England won the Cricket World Cup, it seems to me like that's the much more interesting fact.

Nearly everyone plays association football, though. The larger the field you're competing against, the more significant the win.
  #17  
Old 07-15-2019, 10:01 AM
SanVito is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 4,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Cricket is a distinctively British game (yes, there are other countries that play it, some with much greater populations, but they're all part of the Commonwealth). Americans don't get excited when a US team wins the baseball World Series, because of course they did. If it's really been that long since England won the Cricket World Cup, it seems to me like that's the much more interesting fact.

Nearly everyone plays association football, though. The larger the field you're competing against, the more significant the win.
Well, the second point I do agree with, but in your first point you imply that England really 'should' win the cricket, because it's a British game (so is football, but anyway...). Which just doesn't stack up - India and Pakistan are obsessed, it's practically the only sport they play. England may have started cricket, but we're also heavily focussed on many other sports (football, rugby, cycling, various Olympic sports, and on and on). It's also been dropping in popularity. The real question is, why don't India always win?
  #18  
Old 07-15-2019, 10:18 AM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,613
Worldwide, it would have to be the soccer World Cup, hands down. Heck, I'm not even a soccer fan, but I watch matches during the final stages of that tournament. I've never seen even a single Cricket match much less know any of the rules.
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
--Daniel J Boorstin
  #19  
Old 07-15-2019, 10:19 AM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
FIFA numbers....
Its who watched at least 1 minute.
Reading actual numbers, the BBC sports page got 40 million hits for the CWCFinal vesus only 14 for Tennis.
Social Media was also dominated by the Cricket (surprisingly).
Online figures aren't out yet,
https://twitter.com/danroan/status/1150694676338544640
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...on-free-to-air

Peak TV audience in the UK - 8m for the cricket. Less than the Wimbledon men's final and well behind the semi final of the Women's World Cup figures.

I personally find it unsurprising that social media is dominated by the cricket - 1bn people love cricket across Southern Asia and are increasingly online and using British websites, as well as local ones, for the cricket - and following multiple journalists from across the globe on Twitter. A whole load of the comments to the British cricket journalists I follow (like George Dobell, Vitushan Ehantharajah, etc) and Aussie guys like Jarrod Kimber come from followers in Asia. They're massively important to the game and to helping drive money and interest, but the question is about what would be most important in England and it's pretty clear it's not the cricket. I still think if the English women won the World Cup in football, it would be a far bigger deal in the UK than the cricket has been.
  #20  
Old 07-15-2019, 10:27 AM
Dead Cat is offline
I was curious...
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,545
You may be right, I won't disagree, but that women's world cup semi-final did not have to compete for viewers with the most prestigious tennis match of the year, played between two of the greatest players of all time, one of whom is a British crowd favourite going for a record-breaking win at an age when most players have long since retired. Not only that, it reached its peak (with another historic moment - the first 12-12 final set tiebreak in a Grand Slam) at more or less the same time of day.
  #21  
Old 07-15-2019, 11:22 AM
Shearer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: uk
Posts: 195
If the Cricket was on BBC1 it would have a few more million viewers. If the Womens football wasn't it would have a few million less.

At work the interest in the WWC was nil, cricket slightly above nil
  #22  
Old 07-15-2019, 01:04 PM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 9,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shearer View Post
If the Cricket was on BBC1 it would have a few more million viewers. If the Womens football wasn't it would have a few million less.

At work the interest in the WWC was nil, cricket slightly above nil
In a mixed office area the interest in the Women's football was zero, I don't remember a conversation. The cricket and tennis were pretty constant topics of discussion over their run.

I tried to summon up enthusiasm for the Women's world cup but the games I had on couldn't hold my attention for too long and ended up as background.
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #23  
Old 07-16-2019, 06:49 PM
Wallaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Melbourne, Far South
Posts: 924
The Cricket World cup is a bastardised version of the real game - extremely popular though it be. There's no doubt still a few diehards left who will have 'refused to watch it, because it's not real cricket!'.

The upcoming test series against Australia will garner as much or more interest. When they finally beat Australia in 2005 after 16 years and 8 losing series, it was a bigger story than this.

The Soccer world cup is the biggest and most important sporting event in the world.

Last edited by Wallaby; 07-16-2019 at 06:50 PM.
  #24  
Old 07-17-2019, 04:09 PM
Dahu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Cricket is a distinctively British game (yes, there are other countries that play it, some with much greater populations, but they're all part of the Commonwealth). Americans don't get excited when a US team wins the baseball World Series, because of course they did. If it's really been that long since England won the Cricket World Cup, it seems to me like that's the much more interesting fact.

Nearly everyone plays association football, though. The larger the field you're competing against, the more significant the win.
This last sentence isn't necessarily true in a cricket context. Winning the CWC for sure is nice and scratches an itch, but I'd say beating the Aussies in the Ashes this summer will be more satisfying.
  #25  
Old 07-17-2019, 08:02 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 87,302
Well, OK, aside from specific rivalries.
  #26  
Old 02-27-2020, 01:05 PM
MorganWoods is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 1
I think Football means more to england than Cricket because at that time it was about talent but now we can improve our sports via getting new equipment and improve our game . just on one click we can buy cricket equipment online . but in 1966 it was all how we put efforts and get the job done.
  #27  
Old 02-27-2020, 02:19 PM
The Stafford Cripps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,475
Not even going to read the thread before posting, but it's '66. The 2003 rugby world cup may also have been 'bigger' than the cricket world cup.

I say this as a Scot who often supports the English cricket teams but who wouldn't support their football or rugby teams. I predict that others will agree with me that winning the Ashes is bigger, or at least more meaningful, than the CWC. Let's see...
  #28  
Old 02-27-2020, 02:26 PM
The Stafford Cripps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,475
Another prediction after reading the first post, who do you think invented cricket ? (My 2d: Scotland and other countries contributed far more to the development of football than anybody outside England did to cricket before the professional era.)
  #29  
Old 02-27-2020, 02:37 PM
The Stafford Cripps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,475
My predictions were correct, but I overlooked the fact that this is a demizom.
  #30  
Old 02-28-2020, 03:44 AM
Dead Cat is offline
I was curious...
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stafford Cripps View Post
I predict that others will agree with me that winning the Ashes is bigger, or at least more meaningful, than the CWC. Let's see...
I think this can be true in some cases (e.g. 2005, which was a dramatic series and ended a long drought), but a lot of recent series have been fairly humdrum victories by the home side, I would rank those lower than a World Cup win. Plus, the Ashes just proves you're better than one other team (albeit in a more respected and venerable format of the game), to win the WC you have to demonstrate you are better than most, if not all, the best teams. There are many Ashes series which haven't featured one of the top Test sides at the time, and quite a few which have featured neither!
  #31  
Old 02-28-2020, 05:08 AM
Fiendish Astronaut's Avatar
Fiendish Astronaut is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: London - England
Posts: 1,276
I do think the cricket world cup has overtaken the Ashes in importance, but the Ashes stretches back to 1882 with competition between the two sides from even before that. The cricket world cup has only been going since 1975. But I think it's arguably a bigger deal now seeing as every cricket playing nation takes it so seriously. And it's probably a win that gets more kids playing in the playgrounds than an Ashes win would - and that's a great measure as far as I'm concerned.
  #32  
Old 02-28-2020, 06:12 AM
Dahu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stafford Cripps View Post
Another prediction after reading the first post, who do you think invented cricket ? (My 2d: Scotland and other countries contributed far more to the development of football than anybody outside England did to cricket before the professional era.)
Maybe not -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7919429.stm
Quote:
New academic research claims cricket is not English, but was imported by immigrants from northern Belgium.
  #33  
Old 02-28-2020, 12:08 PM
Manwich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Japan
Posts: 463
I'd say the 6.7056 m / s good jog is proud talk for many a Brit.

Roger Banister also appeals with his stage name reference to staircases and buggery.
  #34  
Old 02-29-2020, 01:43 PM
Quintas is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Americans don't get excited when a US team wins the baseball World Series, because of course they did.
Not if it's Toronto.
  #35  
Old 02-29-2020, 04:32 PM
RickJay is online now
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 42,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
On a scale of 1-10 I've got the football world cup at 10, cricket world cup at about a 7, Rugby world cup at 8, Andy Murray winning Wimbledon at 7, The GB Olympic Team triumphs or recent years at about an 8.

That's my personal assessment anyway
Honestly, that really understates the importance of the World Cup.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #36  
Old 03-08-2020, 01:12 AM
DorthyPrange is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 2
In my view, 1966 FIFA world cup was a bigger event for England, since football has a global audience than cricket which is limited to few countries.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017