Ian Chappell thinks that Olympics aren't the best way to globalise cricket. Comments? ?

Question

Adam Gilchrist, Steve Waugh and Sourav Ganguly on the other hand have backed the suggestion that an effort needs to be made for cricket's inclusion in the Olympics.

Answer 1

Because of the complexities of the game and the very definite English ethno-centrism towards the game, Cricket is a very difficult sell to American audiences.

Curling is understood much better because it is pretty straightforward, really, sliding stones on the ice towards a stick or target much like shuffleboard. But cricket sometimes defies all explanations. American baseball is only second to cricket in terms of complexity.

In order to globalize cricket, you need to draw more attention to the game itself. Americans watched curling on the Olympics because there was nothing else on, well, almost nothing, but it was shown that ordinary people could play curling as opposed to years of demanding physical training for another Olympic sport. It became the idea of the sport for the regular joe, just like bowling or horse shoes. Cricket is too much like but not the same as American baseball to be accepted, that is, Americans will prefer to stick to baseball because it is American, thank you very much.

Now, get some hotties on the field playing cricket in beer commercials, and have them kick butt against the staid, proper gents, and maybe more Americans will have a look at the sport...

Answer 2

Chappell is an old fool.He never thinks outside the square. He is living in his own little world where peace, serenity & cricket reign(back in the 60s-70s). He forgets things move on, & that includes cricket. Much as I am against 20/20 taking over from traditional cricket,I think that there is a definate place for it in the Olympics.So only a few countries play it now. Don't you think others should be introduced to it as a future event to contest? I can see some interest from a lot of countries who will try anything to win a medal.Who would have thought Australia could win a medal in the winter Olympics? Good old sunny Aus, where we don't see snoww unless we travel to one tiny spot in the Southern Alps. So is it not possible that other countries could embrace cricket?I back Gilchrist & Ganguly here.

Answer 3

Olympics is the biggest sporting event in the world..Introducing cricket in olympics will popular cricket in non-cricket playing countries..This will help cricket..

Answer 4

Ian is right.  Olympic games cann't make cricket global but if cricket can become global sport, it can appear in Olympics.

Answer 5

I'm in Chappellis corner, cricket is a popular game in about 10 - 12 countries, Yanks, chinese, vast majority of europe have no interest!!

Has handball had a huge rise in popularity because it is an Olympic sport?, archery, sychronized diving ? the answer is a resounding NO let's preach to the converted, cricket has been around long enough for other countries to embrace, having it as an olympic sport would denegrade it, can you imagine Australia v Turkey or South Korea, I mean who would we play????   Stupid, stupid idea  

Answer 6

It isn't going to work as an olympic sport. They've tried it as a Commonwealth Games sport since a lot of cricketing countries compete in that and it didn't work then, so I don't think it will work now.

Answer 7

I don't agree with Chappel. Olympics would be a great break through for this under-rated sport & rest of the world will come to know more about cricket. T20 is very suitable to present a strong contention for cricket's Olympic inclusion. Change is a need of time & sticking on the same place forever is not going to help!

Answer 8

Olympics is  the best way to globalize cricket.  

Answer 9

I'm not so sure as to whether including cricket in the Olympics would globalise the game. There are 38 sports in the Beijing Olympics. Have Taekwondo, volleyball or fencing become mass popular global sports? No, they haven't. Even some of the popular sports, such as hockey, rowing, and badminton, are played at a serious level by only a limited number of nations.

Cricket in the Olympics would be good for those of us who are interested in the game, and would like to see our country's cricketers winning Olympic medals. However, I feel it would only be of interest to us. There are far too many other sports being performed at the Olympics for a country with no interest in the game to be able to sit up and take notice. I only watch the sports I am interest in at the Olympics. If they put badminton, volleyball, or synchronised swimming on, I'll tiurn it off and watch something else.

So I agree with Chappell, the Olympics aren't the best way to globalise cricket. If they want to do that, they need to break America. And that is unlikely to happen.

Answer 10

There are already many so called "sports"  in the olympics, with a very narrow following,(beach volley ball as an example) so why not include cricket, at least it is a genuine sport, and like anything else, if it is not showcased, it is always going to be a mystery in some parts of the world.

Answer 11

Entirely agree with him there.

Firstly you need something exciting in the Olympic games, there's no point bringing in a game that lasts 6 or more hours because people who don't ussually watch cricket are not going to be interested. So T20 is the only option for cricket.

Secondly, Ask yourself whether you want T20 cricket to be the highlight of cricket. I say no. There's so much more to cricket than slogging a ball, and if we sell cricket to the Olympics T20 will become the highlighted game of cricket. It already has a heap of money in it, the olympics are just going to give it more money and in time more power; it has the potential to become the most played form of cricket with all this money.

I for one do not want T20 to become teh highlight of cricket, i've stressed this point in so many questions about this issue. It's an easy question really.

Do you want people to fall in love with T20 or cricket?

T20 in my opinion is just a degree of cricket, there's so much more to it, but people won't be exposed to the real cricket.

Answer 12

I'm going with Gilly! Cricket cannot survive with only ten to twelve nations. What GEESTER says about preaching to the converted is BS. Cricket should be actively campagning to make itself a global sport, instead of being condescendingly looked down upon by the rest of the world as an eccentric Commonwealth pastime. While some say that Tests are the best form of cricket... well, most of the world does not see it as that. They view it as an overly-long, boring opportunity for a nap. T20, with the action, the cheerleaders, and, the new generation of more athletic cricket players, is the way to go! Olympics 2020, here comes cricket!

Answer 13

I think he's right to a certain extent, I don't think the Olympics are the best way to globalize or even advertise cricket. Especially as they're proposing that the main representative of the game there should be 20/20 cricket. It would give the impression that it's the only form of the game. And an Olympic medal is seen as one of the highest achievements in sport so who (outside of the main cricketing nations that is) would want to participate in the forms of the games that have no Olympic significance. That could have an adverse effect on the longer forms of the game. Not to mention the amount of money that would have be thrown at it and it could be disastrous if it's Americanized in any way (or more than it already is).

I'm not against cricket being part of the Olympics as pretty much every other sport (baring snooker, fishing and a few others) are represented there, including baseball. It could be good for the sport especially if it gets more nations playing and competing on a competitive level. It just needs to be done in the right way without rushing to use 20/20 as the pinnacle of the sport.

Answer 14

every one has its own view.. but at my view the olympics is the best place to promote and globalize cricket

Answer 15

I don't know about it globalising the game, but I for one would love to see cricket in the Olympics. Twenty20 is the perfect format - short, exciting, and easily understood.