A recent article I read somewhere said that Football is the most played/watched sport with a following of over 3.5 bn people. Unsurprisingly, Cricket comes second with a following of 2.2 bn. Hockey, Tennis are other games with following of over 1 bn people. I always wondered why some games are more popular than others and why some regions love specific sports more than others. Team sports naturally have bigger following than individual sports as the loyalties and association(nation,club) surpasses the glory of individual achievers, who are limited by their own individual frailties and span of their career.
Cricket was definitely not the most popular sport in India some 50 years ago. A game played by the elite, complicated rules and little spectator involvement, while being stretched over 5 long days. Hockey was sport of choice for long, inspired by the unending streak of gold medal winning performances. For a brief period in 50s, Indian football team did raise the hopes of many in the country. What about individual sports? .. Tennis .. Wrestling .. Badminton, these are largely based on individual skills. It was mere serendipity, that right talent was provided the right opportunity and the right support, while nursing an extraordinary hunger for sporting glory. But individual sporting achievements can never generate the mass interest that team sport generates.
A few would say, the the success of Indian cricket is because of its sporting legends in the 70s and 80s, who brought the game to the common man. If one world cup victory could do that, then why couldn't 8 consecutive gold medals didn't do the same to the game of hockey in India ?. While football continued to have a global appeal, why was the interest in India pushed to the corners of kerala and west bengal only.
I feel there is more to the story. Cricket's uniqueness lies in the fact that, its a game that relies on hand- eye coordination for batting and fielding and a strong shoulder for bowling. While every other team sport, depends on strong overall physical fitness, which I must confess Indians lack big time. While the rest of world, witnessed declining interest in cricket due its lack of physical exertion and spectator involvement, Indians took to it like fish to water. Personally, I would have loved to play football or hockey. While I lack the stamina to run around for 90 minutes, hockey brought in an additional issue for being an injury prone game and the game being not adaptable to being played in any available ground. While interest in cricket as a player is justified, I should say that despite being a hard core fan of the game, my attention span in test cricket never lasts beyond 10 minutes. Then why would spectators pay a few hundreds to waste their time on the ground for 5 full days.
That brings me to T20. While reducing the game's duration to 180 minutes, the excitement and the convenience is comparable to any other easily accessible recreation/ entertainment option. A movie, a football game or a dinner. Now the question .. what appeals to the spectator most, is it bowling, batting or fielding ? Honestly, Bowling is fun to watch only on TV not on ground with all the camera angels and replays. Batting is as much on Ground as on TV mostly because of the anticipation from the pavilion. But to me fielding would generate the maximum spectator involvement. But in the rules of the game, fielding is relegated to a support activity, where the reward is not commiserate to the effort. I would like reformed game of cricket, where each of the activities are equally rewarded without the unwarranted bias towards batting.
Another way to get more people in non playing nations to take to the sport is to simplify the adaptability. Why not popularise, tennis ball cricket in these countries ?. Simplify the rules. I guess over 50% of the people across the world who play football barely understand the offside rule, while still continue to play the game.
Cricket has one big advantage over football or other like games. In its very nature of scoring, the game has provision for some amazing twists and turns of fate, which offers excitement unlike the simplistic goal scoring nature of football. You are welcome to disagree on this :).
One thing I have failed to understand all these years, what draws people to watch formula one. Publicity/Push strategy can generate initial interest, but it can be sustained only through some peculiar aspect of the game.
hmm .. some food for thought
Cricket was definitely not the most popular sport in India some 50 years ago. A game played by the elite, complicated rules and little spectator involvement, while being stretched over 5 long days. Hockey was sport of choice for long, inspired by the unending streak of gold medal winning performances. For a brief period in 50s, Indian football team did raise the hopes of many in the country. What about individual sports? .. Tennis .. Wrestling .. Badminton, these are largely based on individual skills. It was mere serendipity, that right talent was provided the right opportunity and the right support, while nursing an extraordinary hunger for sporting glory. But individual sporting achievements can never generate the mass interest that team sport generates.
A few would say, the the success of Indian cricket is because of its sporting legends in the 70s and 80s, who brought the game to the common man. If one world cup victory could do that, then why couldn't 8 consecutive gold medals didn't do the same to the game of hockey in India ?. While football continued to have a global appeal, why was the interest in India pushed to the corners of kerala and west bengal only.
I feel there is more to the story. Cricket's uniqueness lies in the fact that, its a game that relies on hand- eye coordination for batting and fielding and a strong shoulder for bowling. While every other team sport, depends on strong overall physical fitness, which I must confess Indians lack big time. While the rest of world, witnessed declining interest in cricket due its lack of physical exertion and spectator involvement, Indians took to it like fish to water. Personally, I would have loved to play football or hockey. While I lack the stamina to run around for 90 minutes, hockey brought in an additional issue for being an injury prone game and the game being not adaptable to being played in any available ground. While interest in cricket as a player is justified, I should say that despite being a hard core fan of the game, my attention span in test cricket never lasts beyond 10 minutes. Then why would spectators pay a few hundreds to waste their time on the ground for 5 full days.
That brings me to T20. While reducing the game's duration to 180 minutes, the excitement and the convenience is comparable to any other easily accessible recreation/ entertainment option. A movie, a football game or a dinner. Now the question .. what appeals to the spectator most, is it bowling, batting or fielding ? Honestly, Bowling is fun to watch only on TV not on ground with all the camera angels and replays. Batting is as much on Ground as on TV mostly because of the anticipation from the pavilion. But to me fielding would generate the maximum spectator involvement. But in the rules of the game, fielding is relegated to a support activity, where the reward is not commiserate to the effort. I would like reformed game of cricket, where each of the activities are equally rewarded without the unwarranted bias towards batting.
Another way to get more people in non playing nations to take to the sport is to simplify the adaptability. Why not popularise, tennis ball cricket in these countries ?. Simplify the rules. I guess over 50% of the people across the world who play football barely understand the offside rule, while still continue to play the game.
Cricket has one big advantage over football or other like games. In its very nature of scoring, the game has provision for some amazing twists and turns of fate, which offers excitement unlike the simplistic goal scoring nature of football. You are welcome to disagree on this :).
One thing I have failed to understand all these years, what draws people to watch formula one. Publicity/Push strategy can generate initial interest, but it can be sustained only through some peculiar aspect of the game.
hmm .. some food for thought
well written :)
ReplyDeletewell, i am not quite into sports to say anything beyond this... !
Welcome to Blogging dude!
ReplyDeleteOn the F1 part, I completely agree with you. How can any spectator bear that kind of boredom is beyond me. Anyways, just ensure Raj/Mahesh don't see this :)
Seen it my boy....if one cant understand formula 1...then i am sorry...one cant understand sports.
ReplyDeletestrategy, speed, thrill and all what u said...hand/eye coordination...team sports,money,