Had Abbot and Costello know about this the future of cricket might have been forever changed.
Or their routine would have been way longer.
I don’t think cricket will catch on because America is already very sports-saturated. Hockey, baseball, soccer, football, golf, NASCAR, basketball, etc. I think American minds are already filled with about as many sports as they can entertain in their capacity and are not really going to make room for another.
Agree, but there are 300M of us, so even a tiny piece of that can be a sizable market, even if you discount all that do not follow sports.
With a bunch of terms new to audiences (a googly?), it could go either way, tho. It could be fun to add some of these to our common sports vernacular.
If cricket does catch on in the US, it’ll be because of south Asian immigrants. I remember I stopped at a gas station in Colorado about 10 years ago, and the guy running that had the cricket playing, so I stopped a while and talked to him about it. He was Indian, and other than his family didn’t really have anyone to talk to about it.
I’ll give him his due, he was absolutely right about recent debutant Virat Kohli.
When I was in PE, there was only one thing in the locker room that looked like a cricket bat. Americans are conditioned to hate and fear cricket.
I love cricket. Go Orcas!
But putting it on a little know provider (Willow TV) and making me pay for it through an Indian service that specialized in “exclusive offers” services? Almost $10 per month; how many people are willing to pay for watching cricket? You need the paid subscription even to watch the replays of the matches.
And I’m concerned about the official T20 gear. The site looks scammy with being able to pay for gear in dollars or rupees and they photoshopped the sponsor logo on the jersey. Looks like they do not want Americans to get into cricket.
First match was yesterday.
I’m watching the MI New York vs San Fracisco Unicorns game and the numbers are peeling off the official Unicorn uniforms.
It’s basically the same game; just that in baseball the rules are set to favor the pitcher, while in cricket the rules favor the batter.
I agree that there isn’t much room in the market for 2 games so similar.
I agree, but aren’t there countries where there are two different variations of rugby, and both are popular? I’m not sure of the names. Maybe rugby league and rugby union? Or rugby sevens?
Likewise, a hitter who’s not quite good enough for the bigs might find success using a bat with three hitting surfaces, on a field with no foul lines.
On the other hand, if he can’t catch a hot line drive with a big old glove, he sure as hell ain’t going to catch one with his bare hands from a few feet away.
…I mean, people play baseball in Australia. Just like how people play cricket in the US. But cricket in Australia is a religion. Bradman. Ponting. Warne. Benaud. Lillee. Lee. Chapell. The Waugh brothers. Some of the best players in the world, all household names. Excuse the pun, but the two sports aren’t even on the same ballpark.
I was amused when I saw the list of countries in the last Cricket World Cup; Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, England, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka and the West Indies.
What do they all have in common? They’re pretty much all former British colonies.
Cricket does have a long history here in the U.S. The very first international match, and the start of the oldest rivalry in cricket, was a match between Canada and the United States ; or at least, a Canadian and an American club, in Manhattan in September of 1844. That’s 33 years before the first England vs. Australia match.
English teams toured the United States in the late 1860s and 1870’s, playing exhibition games; W.S. Grace was one one in 1872.
Harry Wright, a young English bowler from the St. George’s Cricket Club, the American team in the 1844 international game, was hired as a player and manager for the Cincinnati Red Stockings baseball team; he introduced cricket strategies like backing up plays and shifting infielders from batter to batter; he can be fairly claimed one of the fathers of professional baseball.
Going back even farther, Revolutionary troops, including George Washington himself, were known to have played a form of the game. John Adams wrote that he disliked the title “President”, as he felt the nation’s chief executive should have a grander title than the head of a village cricket club.
…I’m not sure what is amusing about this? It’s pretty much common knowledge. We all know our own history.
I’m sure you do know your history. Perhaps what I find amusing is that interest in the sport has not expanded beyond the borders of former British colonies (unlike, say, soccer).
That seems like an “of course” kind of factoid. Travel between England and Australia in the 1800s was a bit of a hassle.
EDIT: And Google is telling me that Australia was still a penal colony until 1865.
…what sports have expanded “beyond the borders” the way that soccer has though? Soccer is pretty much it. If that’s the benchmark here, the way that every sport has evolved worldwide is amusing.
I deeply apologize for offending you.