CG Posted August 15, 2012 Posted August 15, 2012 What are you talking about 90% of Olympic sports are not spectator friendly? Atleast paraphrase such statements with a - FOR ME - as in - 90% of Olympics sports are not spectator friendly FOR ME. And you really should research on what "90%" of the modern world thinks of cricket by the way. Brazil has many other sports that are extremely popular. Volleyball for example. England has a strong following in Formula 1 (more than cricket), snooker/billiards are followed pretty regularly. Cycling and many other olympic games has a good strong following too. China is fast becoming the largest market for every game from NBA to Football (both soccer and NFL), even baseball. To say TT and badminton is all they watch is ridiculous. Only in India do we watch ONLY cricket. Heck we were watching cricket even when we were world champions in hockey. In india epl ,football wc,F-1 are popular amoung youth.Cricket coverge by media has reduced drastically nowadays .
Vijay.Sharma Posted August 15, 2012 Posted August 15, 2012 I will have to disagree with you there. What constitutes spectator sport is pretty much well defined. It is according to these known parameters that cricket is being modified and we have it in the currently popular formats (ODIs and T20s). Cricket was transformed into a spectator sport from the top-down. Not because players were falling dead from sheer fatigue after five days of play.Please educate me and while doing so can you also see how these sports fare w.r.t the definition: football, cricket, chess, kho-kho, hammer throw, marathon
Vijay.Sharma Posted August 15, 2012 Posted August 15, 2012 Scientists discover the elusive Sind-Punjab Dribbling Gene. When isolated the gene tends to dribble a rare enzyme KXIP. Sequence TalvindertoBhatiatoKhantoSinghtoIqbaltoSandhutoLakhaniauryehGoal Although recent mutations have changed the end to "auryehPenaltyShotAuryehMiss"Beauty! :hysterical: The guy is going nuts over genetics for hockey...lol!
Sid Posted August 15, 2012 Posted August 15, 2012 In india epl ' date='football wc,F-1 are popular amoung youth.[b']Cricket coverge by media has reduced drastically nowadays . lolwut?
Laaloo Posted August 15, 2012 Posted August 15, 2012 lolwut? lol he's probably living in some alternate universe or maybe too high
CG Posted August 15, 2012 Posted August 15, 2012 lolwut? the coverage of recent india srilnaka odi series was very poor and in recent years coverage has been very limited earlier you had talk shows on every news channel going on for hoursnow you do not get these. ,even selections were scruntised on these shows nobody cares nowadays.
CG Posted August 15, 2012 Posted August 15, 2012 lol he's probably living in some alternate universe or maybe too high may be you have not followed indian tv channels recently or you are not in india to do so.
Sid Posted August 15, 2012 Posted August 15, 2012 the coverage of recent india srilnaka odi series was very poor and in recent years coverage has been very limited earlier you had talk shows on every news channel going on for hoursnow you do not get these. ' date='even selections were scruntised on these shows nobody cares nowadays.[/quote'] Ind-SL series was an exception due to Olympics.We still have pre,mid and post match analysis on prominent news channels .A 30 minutes sports bulletin is dominated by cricket,especially talking about Hindi channels(which are higher in number).And we have 2 channels solely dedicated to cricket,so dont know what you are talking about.
CG Posted August 15, 2012 Posted August 15, 2012 Ind-SL series was an exception due to Olympics.We still have pre' date='mid and post match analysis on prominent news channels .A 30 minutes sports bulletin is dominated by cricket,especially talking about Hindi channels(which are higher in number).And we have 2 channels solely dedicated to cricket,so dont know what you are talking about.[/quote'] We do not have mid match analysis anymore and post match analysis like we used to have 3-4 years back ,every series you had shows like match ke mujrim and on sahara samay also 4-5 experts would come ,Mainstream english channels have shows at 7.30 pm and thats it .Earlier every two hrs you would get something about cricket but not now.Regarding sports channels thye obviously are going to show cricket ,but general media coverage has reduced .Earlier media were showing live hwn dhoni goes to saloon and all other bogus stuff .
Sid Posted August 15, 2012 Posted August 15, 2012 We do not have mid match analysis anymore and post match analysis like we used to have 3-4 years back ' date='every series you had shows like match ke mujrim and on sahara samay also 4-5 experts would come ,Mainstream english channels have shows at 7.30 pm and thats it .E[/quote'] That match ka mujrim crap iirc was there for only 1-2 series,otherwise post match analysis have been same on every news channel for years and its still the same.And English news channels have always been like this ,they also have their experts on match days.Talking about english channels,you must have seen Times Now's special programming on IPL with 4-5 experts,lol Bottom line ,media's coverage of cricket has only increased and will only increas in this country .
Sid Posted August 15, 2012 Posted August 15, 2012 Earlier every two hrs you would get something about cricket lolwut again? Earlier media were showing live hwn dhoni goes to saloon and all other bogus stuff Thats still the bread and butter of Hindi news channels.
CG Posted August 15, 2012 Posted August 15, 2012 That match ka mujrim crap iirc was there for only 1-2 series,otherwise post match analysis have been same on every news channel for years and its still the same.And English news channels have always been like this ,they also have their experts on match days.Talking about english channels,you must have seen Times Now's special programming on IPL with 4-5 experts,lol Bottom line ,media's coverage of cricket has only increased and will only increas in this country . No it was not for one to 2 series it was for more than that ,Its not the same anymore.
Sid Posted August 15, 2012 Posted August 15, 2012 No it was not for one to 2 series it was for more than that ' date='[b']Its not the same anymore. Okay if you think so ...... :nice:
Prakat Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 Please educate me and while doing so can you also see how these sports fare w.r.t the definition: football' date=' cricket, chess, kho-kho, hammer throw, marathon[/quote'] I would, except it has nothing to do with the point I was making, which was that there is nothing intrinsically watchable about cricket, that we do is due to factors other than compelling viewing. Also, I don't see any merit in championing random sports while you bat for cricket, so to speak.
Mariyam Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 the coverage of recent india srilnaka odi series was very poor and in recent years coverage has been very limited earlier you had talk shows on every news channel going on for hoursnow you do not get these. ' date='even selections were scruntised on these shows nobody cares nowadays.[/quote'] Thats because you guys had a blackout for 2 days on the trot. Northern grid fail and all. The rest of India could watch the coverage/pre and post game talk shows etc.
Vijay.Sharma Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 I would' date=' except it has nothing to do with the point I was making, which was that there is nothing intrinsically watchable about cricket, that we do is due to factors other than compelling viewing. Also, I don't see any merit in championing random sports while you bat for cricket, so to speak.[/quote']I think you misunderstood me...I am not championing the cause of cricket being a spectator sport. I don't think it is especially Test cricket. However T20 may be more watchable by people who are new to cricket and can attract them. My point was that "spectator sport" is a subjective thing. It all depends upon what an individual finds attractive in a sport to watch. So while I may find Test cricket attractive to watch it is very ironic that I find Baseball boring because there are so many pitches that are not even touched by the batter (imagine the same me cheering a well-left in cricket!). Even though it might be beside the point you make, I really want to know what is this established definition for a spectator sport. I don't think any such definition or consensus exists unless of course you can educate me otherwise.
Prakat Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 Re: what we like in sport is subjective Sure, if we are talking about Canadians and curling or even if we were discussing our abiding love of amateur kho-kho. But if you claim that we like cricket in India because this sport and this sport alone speaks to our national character or is suited to our unique temperament, I would find that a bit odd. Like I said, I disagree with you based on my understanding and nurse no desire to make you see things my way. :)
Vijay.Sharma Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 Re: what we like in sport is subjective Sure, if we are talking about Canadians and curling or even if we were discussing our abiding love of amateur kho-kho. But if you claim that we like cricket in India because this sport and this sport alone speaks to our national character or is suited to our unique temperament, I would find that a bit odd. What gave you that impression? All along I have maintained that spectator sport is a subjective thing which you seem to be agreeing to finally Like I said' date=' I disagree with you based on my understanding and nurse no desire to make you see things my way. :)[/quote']It's not about seeing things your way. You said there is an "established common way" to distinguish spectator sports. I only wanted you to educate me with that. It appears there is no such established common way after all...innit? :icflove:
Prakat Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 What gave you that impression? All along I have maintained that spectator sport is a subjective thing which you seem to be agreeing to finally It's not about seeing things your way. You said there is an "established common way" to distinguish spectator sports. I only wanted you to educate me with that. It appears there is no such established common way after all...innit? :icflove: So you were making irrelevant assertions appropos nothing? Bringing up what you like is subjective is a copout within this discussion. One could walk into a wine tasting and say the same and it would be true within its context. But does that make all wines equal with the only difference being different people like different wines? (not an analogy but an equivalence because in the end you are speaking of different tastes leading to varied opinions: in sport as in TV shows/wines/cuisine/dogs). Just reverse engineer T20 to test cricket and it becomes readily apparent what constitutes spectator sport. No secret rules outside of reality :)
Crookbond Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 This is a damn fitting reply to the populist article in the OP :hatsoff: You know what they say about cliches if you donÃÕ treat them like cliches, and approach them with freshness, they arenÃÕ really cliches anymore. Nirmal Shekar rides on this very theory to make a rather emotional and attractive but in the ultimate analysis, cliched argument about how Indians donÃÕ win gold medals because Indians only care about cricket. About how Indians ÅÇail their Olympians every time by forgetting them for three years and eleven months. Right. Let us consider the case of the United States. The most popular sports in the US arenÃÕ 100m freestyle swimming, sprinting or uneven bars in gymnastics they are the NBA, NFL, MLB and NHL. American football isnÃÕ played anywhere else. Baseball is played in two or three other countries. Same for ice hockey. Basketball is popular, yes, but that can only account for one medal in the Olympics, right? Most Americans would recognise LeBron James but not, say, Tyson Gay. I donÃÕ think a vast number of Americans follow the lives and careers of track-and-field athletes as closely as they follow Tiger Woods affairs. How many people know how well Phelps does even in events outside of the Olympics? Are many gymnasts or discus throwers featured in advertisements? Are they preferred to, say, mid-grade American football stars? The US still wins medals. LetÃÔ come to England, and test the converse popularity, popular support and mass encouragement makes better sportspersons. Football (the real one where people actually use their feet, not the bizarrely named American fake) is a religion there, much like how cricket is in India. Their domestic league is amongst the most competitive in the world, they spend millions of pounds on the incredible infrastructure, some the best coaches in the world are in England manning English football clubs. When did England last win the World Cup? Or the Euro? And thatÃÔ the same thing with the IPL. It has the biggest financial clout, extreme fan support, the best players, the best exposure, and still, if we were to give out medals based on the ICC world cricket rankings, India would win even a bronze for ODI cricket, and no medals in Tests or T20. The countries that are at the top of the Olympics medal tallies, barring China (and we know what they do to win medals), are all countries whose economies allow them to spend on world class infrastructure for all kinds of sports. How many Olympic-sized swimming pools do you have in your locality? How accessible are they financially? How many turf running tracks do you know in your city? Are they open for anyone to go practice running? Is there are cycling velodrome anywhere in this country? And those posh cycles who can afford them? And arenÃÕ shooting ranges, responsible for two medals this year, the preserve of army men, the police and a few of the richest? The per capita GDP of the US is $48,387. They have 104 medals. The figure for the UK is $36,090. They have 65 medals. The figure for India is $3,694, and we have 6 medals. Rather neat, isnÃÕ it? ChinaÃÔ at $8,382 is more than twice IndiaÃÔ, but I admit itÃÔ not much. Still, their Government has more control over discretionary funding than India does, and they do view medal-gathering as a nation-building exercise. The first African country is South Africa, at number 23 with 6 medals. ThatÃÔ hardly a typical African country their per capita GDP is $10,973. Below them are Ethiopia and Kenya, who have won most of their medals in long-distance running events that do not require extensive spending on infrastructure. Our neighbours, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Bangladesh have a sum total of zero medals. Imagine a smart, 15 year old, State-level 200m champion, who competes at the nationals in his age group, but misses out on the medals narrowly. He thinks that with a year of practice, he can find himself on that podium, and maybe start looking beyond borders. His parents, though, want him to join IIT classes and secure his future. This happens to cricketers too and I know a couple but the economics of cricket are alluring enough to push a lot of 15 year olds to give it more serious thought. In the more developed countries (who dominate the top half of the Olympics table), the Government is able to sponsor and support these athletes, the taxpayer is able to take on the burden for athletes who donÃÕ make it. India cannot afford that. The mistake Nirmal Shekar makes, is to link everything with popular support and turn the blame on the people who watch only cricket. Olympic sports at least the ones that bring bagful of medals are not popular anywhere in the world. Do you know the world weightlifting championÃÔ name? Do you understand equestrian dressage? Would you travel 10 km to watch the nationals of synchronised diving? Of course, in India, thereÃÔ corruption, thereÃÔ malaise, thereÃÔ apathy and thereÃÔ the pachydermic bureaucracy, and these are serious problems. Of course cricket dominates our discourse like no other sport. But I think the economics hurt IndiaÃÔ medal chances more. This is a per capita income versus Olympic medals in 2012 graph. If you do the math, you can see that until around 50 medals, the graph is fairly linear, i.e. for every medal increase, the per capita income increases by around $400. After 50, the data is completely unreliable because there are only 4 data points, and the entire graph is based on them. ThatÃÔ why you have the big dip for China at around 80 medals, and a jump to the US from there at 104 medals. http://thegabbar.com/popularity-and-the-medals-tally/
Recommended Posts