I was reading an article on attempts to get cricket into the Olympics. One thing that surprised me was a lot of the comments were stuff like “T20 (a form of cricket that can be played in a few hours) is an abomination” or “real men only play test cricket (the traditional several day form of cricket”). First off, why are so many loyal to a certain style of cricket? And what other sports have fans that are loyal to a sport played in a specific way?
I’m sure there are many loyal to rugby league over Union.
T20 is to cricket what rugby sevens is to rugby (union) or what futsal is to football (soccer), i.e. they’re variants of the sports that were created to distill certain aspects of the sports with the intention of creating more excitement/accessibility, but invariably many purists see them as bastardized versions of the sports lacking essential elements of the originals.
The rugby league/union split is a little different, they’re just two of the seven major football codes, albeit the two that are most similar and most closely-related.
I’m not a massive cricket fan, but I will watch a bit of test cricket, it’s main attraction for me is that in a good match the build-up is so slow, but then over several days it can build-up in to a tense, high tempo finale. Equally I remember being off school ill watching Lara making his record-breaking 501 on TV and it was magnificent seeing one of the all time greats being magnificent for 8 hours. T20 has none of that and is a less nuanced version of the sport, which is why it holds no interest to me.
While it’s not quite the difference you seem to be talking about with cricket there is always the DH/no DH in MLB. The DH was done for the same reason as the forms of cricket, to increase the excitement of the sport and all right thinking people dislike it.
I think many American football fans scoff at arena football.
Philadelphia sports fans might be a good example. If you are an athlete in Philadelphia, its more important to “work hard” show “heart” and be a "mucker and grinder"than to have pure talent.
Phillies shortstop Jimmie Rollins is a potential Hall of Famer, but was constantly criticized by many fans for lack of hustle. Ryan Howard, who like Rollins won an MVP, is “lazy” at the plate. But then theres Chase Utley, second baseman, who never won an MVP, who "plays hard "every at bat, and “plays baseball the right way” and out of the three, if you took a poll, Utley is far and away the most favorite player. (I think a LITTLE of that is racism too, but I get into trouble here when I bring that up.)
Philly fans prefer hockey players than can fight and are physical over pure talent guys. They immediately gravitate to the latest thug the Flyers sign up.
They prefer defense, not offense, in football.
Maybe most sports town are the same way, but let me put it this way: they will worship and remember a Rocky Balboa hard-work “tough” blue collar team that almost makes it but fails way longer than a highly talented team that goofs off but is so talented they win the championship anyway. The fluke 1993 Phillies with their “Macho Row” are the second most worshipped team here to only the Broad Street Bullies.