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.
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.
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.
Well, OK, aside from specific rivalries.
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…
Another prediction after reading the first post, who do you think invented cricket :D? (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.)
My predictions were correct, but I overlooked the fact that this is a demizom.
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!
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.
Maybe not -
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.
Not if it’s Toronto.
Honestly, that really understates the importance of the World Cup.
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.
Just a note that The Stafford Crips didn’t bump this thread; that was done by a spammer, who’s since been redcarded.