Do You Hear What I Hear, or My Favorite Commentators

For the new cricket fan a key element in learning the game is obviously watching and/or listening to matches. With the plethora of games available online, there are plenty of opportunities to watch highlights, watch matches and listen to matches.

As a former public radio journalist and radio guy in general, I have always been a fan of the art of audio coverage. It is through listening to online commentary that my love, enjoyment and knowledge of the game have grown. But if you are to listen to any commentator, it helps to listen to someone who knows what he or she is doing.

Growing up in east-central Indiana, I spent a lot of nights hiding beneath the covers of my bed, listening to live radio play-by-play of Cincinnati Reds baseball. I loved the Big Red Machine—my favorite player on a squad of stars like Johnny Bench, Pete Rose, David Concepcion, Tony Perez, George Foster and Ken Griffey was center fielder Cesar Geronimo (an early indicator of my penchant for taking an alternate path in everything). But what I really loved was hearing the play-by-play commentators, Marty Brennaman and Joe Nuxhall. I especially loved Nuxhall, who always sounded sort of grandfatherly to me. I would listen intently to the games and the post game wrap-ups, right up until Nuxhall would give his trademark signoff, “This is the old left-hander, rounding third and heading for home.” His laid-back “old-timer” approach was the perfect complement to Brennaman’s more classic AM radio delivery. Those voices, to a backdrop of window fans, crickets and distant traffic, provided the soundtrack to midsummer nights of my youth.

Later, when I headed off to college, I became a Chicago Cubs fan. This was in the early- and mid-80s, the days of Greg Luzinski, Ron Cey, Rick Sutcliffe, Andre Dawson and Ryne Sandberg (and later Mark Grace, Greg Maddux, et. al.). Not even good players could bring World Series or much playoff success to Wrigley Field. The Cubs had little going for them, but I quickly became a fan because of the iconic play-by-play man on WGN-TV, Harry Caray, and his color analyst Steve Stone. Harry was a real character. He was often three sheets to the wind by the time the seventh inning rolled around, and his traditional singing of “Take Me Out to the Ball Game” would often be nearly incomprehensible. Harry would sometimes call a home run that would immediately turn out to be a routine fly ball out to center field. But Harry was a man of the people. He and Steve drew you into the game—they made it OK to be a fan, without having to be some sort of uber stats machine. You could have fun, cheer and boo with little knowledge of the intricacies of the Infield Fly Rule, then slap the opponents on the bum and say “nice game, how about a drink” after the game.

It was also in my college years that I was exposed to Red Barber. Back in the golden age of American baseball, Red was the play-by-play man for the Brooklyn Dodgers. In the 1980s, he did weekly guest interviews on National Public Radio’s Morning Edition with Bob Edwards. I loved his voice, his drawl, his verbal mannerisms and his elegant and unique descriptions (“he’s in the catbird seat,” and “he’s a dirt picker-upper” among them).

My final baseball voice of preference belonged to Vin Scully. It is Scully’s voice describing Boston Red Sox first baseman Bill Buckner allowing a routine grounder to go through his legs which is etched in the national baseball consciousness. It was also Scully who described Kirk Gibson’s iconic World Series home run: “In a year that has been so improbable, the impossible has happened!” Vin, like the others on my list of favorites, knew how to describe a scene and, just as important, he knew when to shut up and let the scene play without commentary.

One thing nearly all of the above people had in common is that they didn’t have what I call “radio chops.” At the times I was listening to them, anyway, they didn’t feel the need to grab hold of themselves and shout in their most masculine, serious and deep tones. They were artists and craftsmen. Like Eric Clapton, they knew when to soar, and when to let the space between the notes tell the story.

So, what does this have to do with cricket? As I mentioned very early on, when listening to cricket it is important to listen to someone who makes it easy for you to draw a mental picture, and understand what is going on. They draw you into the experience of being a fan at the game. The above examples from my baseball listening days will give you an idea of what I like to listen for in a commentator.

My favorite cricket commentator, hands down, is Mark Church. The commentary man and jack-of-all-media-trades for Surrey is friendly, knowledgeable, engaging and well-spoken. Back when I was first getting interested in cricket, and searching online for an England county to follow, I picked Surrey mostly because I liked the way Mark Church calls a game. Much like the best cricketers build an innings through the fluid use of skills, timing, momentum and intuition, Church takes his listeners through each day’s play with an aura of friendly self-assurance. He draws listeners into the seat next to him through the open friendliness of his approach, and his gentle humor and obvious love of the game make sitting there next to him a real pleasure. He isn’t overly technical—he does a nice job, in my opinion, of making his commentary accessible to all levels of cricket followers. And if, as a beginner, you need to ask a question, he is always there on Twitter or via e-mail to engage with the listener. I am also an admirer of Church’s chemistry with his analyst, Johnny Barran. They poke and prod one another gently like old friends who’ve been coming to the county ground since Prince Charles had ears smaller than the Hobbs Gate. Barran’s well-timed statistics and his now-famous Cricketing Question of the Day add to the overall ambience and help make Surrey’s matches a can’t miss audio experience for me.

I am also a huge admirer of Henry Blofeld, the man with the name and sartorial leanings of a Bond villain. Bloefeld is a long-time fixture of Test Match Special, BBC Radio’s program providing coverage of England’s international cricket. Listening to Bloefeld is a real pleasure. He is an elder statesman, so it is a bit like sitting at the feet of your grandfather, hearing stories of the great feats of history and giving relevance and context to what is happening out on the cricket pitch today. Bloefeld’s detractors take aim at his attention to details such as trains, buses and pigeons. What they miss is the importance of such details in delivering listeners to the cricket ground. Blofeld is a master of creating a picture in the mind’s eye. What does someone likely notice when they are at the cricket—or any other sporting event? Other than the sport, of course? They notice the pigeons swooping down onto the field; the wildly dressed fans; the traffic going past the ground; the smells and the sounds and the tastes in the air. These are the gifts Blofeld brings us as listeners—gifts that pick us up and place us bodily in the seats at Lord’s or the Oval or Trent Bridge. Some may be put off by Henry’s aging and crackly voice; I am not. Even though listening to archival footage of Blofeld is a sumptuous joy for the ears, I wouldn’t trade the wizened version for anything. Those cracks are like the shiny wear on a baseball glove—they bring comfort to the fit.

My other choice for a list of favorite cricket commentators may be seen by the establishment as a dark horse, while others may see him as the first choice to make sense. Daniel Norcross is the founder and head honcho of Test Match Sofa. Test Match Sofa is billed as an alternative cricket commentary. It was born from the need to get cricket match audio coverage to overseas fans because the BBC’s coverage of “away” matches is blocked from overseas listeners. Norcross and his compatriots literally sit on a sofa and watch cricket coverage on TV, with the sound turned down. They then commentate for a large and growing community of online followers. I like several of the sofa sitters, but Norcross to me is the pick of the lot. He could do this as a profession. He is a fan, and his encyclopedic knowledge, exuberance and love for the game help draw one into the match. If there is a weakness it would be that beginning listeners may get lost in the swell of cheers and guffaws at happenings on the pitch, but that is more than made up for by the technical knowledge displayed by Norcross and his colleagues. When you are listening to Test Match Sofa, you really are just another fan, hanging out with friends, watching the cricket—only this time it is from home, and not from the cricket ground. The sofa sitters—and Norcross in particular—have excellent, clear voices and are actually quite good at communicating what is happening at the match. And they have fun with it—something the more staid purveyors of commentary could learn and practice. They have funny jingles, they kid one another mercilessly but lovingly and they have created a soon-to-be classic lunch game, called the Birthday Game. You’ll need to tune in to learn more about that one. Norcross also has a pleasant voice with admirably fluid tones and clear delivery. Norcross makes much of being an alternative to Test Match Special, but I enjoy both versions of TMS. One needs a classic standard before one can be an alternative, after all!

So, there you have it, my list of favorite commentators. There are many, many fine BBC county cricket commentators and analysts out there, and my “favoriting” these particular folks in no way demeans the collective or individual appeal or ability of those I left out.

To check out Test Match Sofa, visit http://www.testmatchsofa.com/.

For Test Match Special, go to http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/tms.

For a list of matches with live audio commentary each day on the BBC, visit http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/13629853.

For an online archive of England county cricket commentaries from this season, available as MP3s for downloading or streaming any time, visit http://pupheadsoftware.com/ccc/lv/.

Outstanding in a Field, or Cricket Fielding Positions

The really cool thing about fielding positions in cricket is that you can have people positioned at different places depending on the batsman, and fielders can be moved and changed as needed (except during periods of fielding restrictions during shorter forms of the game-more on that later).

On the graphic below I've noted most of the main positions (although some might debate including one or two others).

In addition, you will often hear some positions used in conjunction with modifiers such as "silly" or "deep." Here is what those modifiers mean. My source for this list is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fielding_(cricket)#Modifiers.

Deep, long: Farther away from the batsman.
Short: Closer to the batsman.
Silly: Very close to the batsman, so-called because of perceived danger.
Square: Somewhere along an imaginary extension of the popping crease.
Fine: Closer to an extension of an imaginary line along the middle of the pitch bisecting the stumps, when describing a fielder behind square.
Straight: Closer to an extension of an imaginary line along the middle of the pitch bisecting the stumps, when describing a fielder in front of square.
Wide: Further from an extension of an imaginary line along the middle of the pitch bisecting the stumps.
Forward: In front of square; further towards the end occupied by the bowler and further away from the end occupied by the batsman on strike.
Backward: Behind square; further towards the end occupied by the batsman on strike and further away from the end occupied by the bowler.

Reebok Invests in the Future of U.S. Cricket

Additional Note: I was asked to pull this from my blog while comments were vetted by corporate PR. That was more th a month ago. With no response to my initial query, nor to any of my several follow-ups, I have decided to go ahead and re-post. I doubt anyone will get in trouble for their comments; obviously this small fry is below corporate PR’s radar!
Note: This is not an advertisement. I have received nothing from either Reebok or USYCA in return for featuring Reebok in this story—I simply felt like it was an interesting enough topic to cover, and just the sort of thing we need to see more of!
The recent announcement that the United States Youth Cricket Association has secured sponsorship funding from Reebok strikes me as a very positive step in the advancement of cricket in the United States. There are a couple of reasons for this, and they have little or nothing to do with my opinion of the USYCA (very high) and its grassroots approach (also very high).

First of all, it struck me as important because it is a sign that a major sporting brand believes U.S. Cricket actually HAS a future; and, secondly, it is a sign that there is money and support out there to go along with the desire to promote the game in the States.

The story of Reebok’s support of the USYCA (from the Reebok side) starts with an IT guy. Yes, you read right. The man behind Reebok’s interest in developing cricket in the United States is an IT guy.

Sai Vajha’s story sounds typically of many people with whom I have spoken about cricket in the U.S. He worked a day job—in, as I said, IT—and played cricket on the weekends—for Vajha that meant playing in the Massachusetts Cricket League.

“One of the challenges is the availability of quality equipment for people in the U.S. to play cricket,” according to Vajha, who set about trying to come up with a way to make quality cricket gear more readily available. Particularly, of course, gear from Reebok.

“Reebok is a leader in the cricket equipment sales in the subcontinent and because I worked at Reebok I thought that it made sense to have something here.”

Vajha started gathering information—the number of leagues which exist in the United States, what kind of player base there is and of course what kind of fan base. He used his research to create a story to help Reebok understand the American cricket segment. The company was impressed enough to say OK, but there were conditions.

“They said we can give it a try, but only if you want to run this, because we don’t want you to leave IT. We have no expertise, no knowledge base here for doing this kind of thing.” In other words, Vajha says, start small and see what happens. “So, we started to get some equipment that was already developed by Reebok India and start exposing those products to the North American base.”
US Youth Cricket Association sponsorshipNow we come to Reebok’s decision to put some money into developing the sport in the United States. According to Vajha, 2012-2013 is the time frame in which Reebok sees the possibility of some realistic sales and growth in the States. In other words, this is crunch time for determining whether or not Reebok can make cricket a viable business in the United States, so Vajha and Reebok are looking for ways to grow the sport, and thus grow the business.

“One of the better organizations in the North American continent is the US Youth Cricket Association,” according to Vajha, who says he was impressed by the structure developed by Jamie Harrison. In the roughly two years or so since he started USYCA, Harrison has been able to reach out to 700 schools so far, with plans to reach 1,000 more schools. And that, according to Vajha, is where Reebok sees the value—the grass roots program.

“Unless you get into schools and colleges, it will be very difficult for cricket to be a sustainable sport, because expats dominate the sport,” Vajha admits. “Basically what we are trying to do is create some kind of support and also have the Reebok product available to the schools and kids community … cricket uniforms, that sort of thing.”

Cricket: Is it Time?As I said earlier in this piece, Reebok sees this year as when the company can expect to begin seeing to realistic cricket gear sales in the United States market. But can it? Is it finally time for cricket to start making an impact on the American sporting consciousness? And what will that take? One thing that needs to happen is an uptick in the overall skills of cricketers in the United States. That means overall, not any particular cricketer or cricketers.

“I see a lot of talent here definitely,” Vajha says, adding that there needs to be a plan to bring Test and First Class players from other countries into U.S. leagues—quality players who can start adding value to the existing players, and raise the value of the game here. From that standpoint, Vajha sees the plan by the United States of America Cricket Association to work with the New Zealand Cricket Board—known to American cricket followers as Cricket Holdings America—to get New Zealand’s First Class players available to play in USA as a good step.

“You get the best players from a Test-playing nation to come in and partner with local clubs, be part of them play with them and help raise the standards.”

Ultimately, Vajha feels, that approach can help cricket develop a success story similar to the American soccer story. Of course, successes on the pitch that could result from raising standards of play wouldn’t hurt.

“If the USA gets to a certain stage where it can be represented on the bigger platform—where they can play with those top 10-12 cricket playing nations, maybe in one of the World Cups, that is where I see the turnaround happening.”

Throw in programs like the USYCA and the possibility of the new Cricket Premier League, and Vajha feels like you have the start of something.

“There are so many ingredients that are being cooked that the end result has to happen. Certainly we are moving in the right direction. The next 2-3 years it will completely turn into a significant game here I think.”

Cricket, Cricket Everywhere But not a Game to Watch?Vajha is quick to point out there is a cricket fan base here—one only need look at the numbers as far as players and purchases of pay-per-view cricket matches to see that. But, as is often pointed out, a lot of that support comes from South Asian expats. Getting other American communities involved in the sport is necessary for cricket to grow into a nationally recognized American sport or pastime. One thing Vajha thinks will draw in other American fans is the development of the planned premier league.

“Fans don’t know where they can associate and support a team. Once the premier league starts it will create that momentum. Once it comes on a media major television channel things will start to improve a lot.”

But what matches to play and to show? What form of the game should take precedence as it is developed and moved into the mainstream? Even though Americans will watch days and days of golf coverage, or spend all day watching several games of the same sport being played, they seem to balk at the idea of watching a four day cricket match. So, Vajha says, the shorter versions of cricket are the future in America.
“Even the one day international may be tough. I think the T20, which takes three hours or less, is the only way to introduce the sport and have it survive here.

My Kingdom for a United States Cricket ShirtOne sore spot with some American cricket fans is the lack of replica U.S. kit available for purchase. But for a national team that is lucky just to have the name of its country on its shirts, that is going to be a tough sell to any athletic apparel and equipment manufacturer. Reebok has outfitted and equipped the members of Team USA; the company does not have the right to sell “official” gear to the public.

Right now we are trying to get the fan base what they want,” according to Vajha. “The lifestyle t-shirt, the cool headgear. We’re just introducing the related stuff for the fans and players to establish ourselves as the leading cricket brand here.”

But even if there is a licensing agreement in place sometime soon for Reebok (or anyone else, for that matter), that is no guarantee official U.S. gear and replica kit will be immediately available. That availability is a question of demand. And right now there isn’t enough demand, because people do not have the awareness.

“But once they create some difference and hit the headlines consistently I think we will try and look for those kinds of things.”

For more information on Reebok Cricket North America, here are some links:
www.facebook.com/pages/Reebok-Cricket-North-America/245266768831127
www.reebokcricket.com
blog.reebokcricket.com

For more information on the United States Youth Cricket Association, visit www.usyca.org.

I feel the heat of the World’s Judging Glare, or Why DON’T Americans Like/Play/Follow Cricket? Corrected

CORRECTED VERSION

This is a corrected version. I apologize for earlier mistakenly uploading an early draft. For a really interesting comment, though, see the comments section of the earlier draft, which I have left up.

                                                

As an American who is a fan of cricket, and who participates in social media as a way to help promote the sport in my own small way, one question I hear from cricket fans from around the globe is: “Why don’t Americans like Cricket?”

That, it would appear, and with apologies to Wink Martindale and countless other game show hosts, is the $64 thousand question. After failed attempts to get a professional league going, get a national team to have some consistent success or to raise the profile of the game outside communities of immigrants from traditional cricket-playing countries, it really does seem to be that Americans don’t like cricket. SO the obvious solution is to make them like it.

But is that the correct question?

I think I’d like to reframe the question. Instead of saying “Why don’t Americans like cricket?’ let’s make the question “What is keeping cricket from becoming a mainstream sport in American culture?”

Among many Americans (both naturalized and native born) who already love and follow cricket, the answer is education. To others the answer is T20, a shorter format that Americans can handle because it is about the length of a baseball game. To still others the answer is to get rid of or work without the United States of America Cricket Association, which has been variously described as corrupt, incompetent or both.

While there are elements of truth in all of these answers, as with most other things involving Americans the real situation is more complicated, I think. In this post, I will look at this issue of why cricket isn’t more popular in the United States, and what is keeping it from growing into a mainstream sport in American culture. Of course, this is based on my own limited experiences and views, but if people named Kardashian get to say what they think on subjects about which they’ve no idea, then so do I! LOL, as the kids say.

Survey Says!

The difficulty of convincing people about cricket, at least short-term, was brought home to me in recent weeks as I attempted to set up a lunchtime cricket league in my workplace. We have a small field on which to play, a time set aside to do it, company support and about 500 employees. Surely 15-20 people would be interested enough to learn about cricket and play a few overs once or twice a week? Alas, only six people signed up, so the idea never got off the ground.

So, I thought, why this lack of interest? In personal conversations things like time and unfamiliarity with the sport were mentioned. To learn even more, I put together a short survey and e-mailed it to co-workers, and also made it available via my Twitter and Facebook feeds.

Thirty-two people responded. Of those, 17 said they don’t follow cricket, three do and the rest didn’t answer. For those who don’t follow cricket, several reasons were given:

             -Complete ignorance of the sport, players or teams;

-Games are often played in vastly different time zones, when Americans are asleep;

-It is not visible in major media;

-The sport is not commonly supported or promoted in the U.S.;

-There is nowhere to follow it;

-It is boring and confusing; and

-The respondent has never been exposed to it;

Notice a common thread there? The majority of respondents say no exposure or publicity is why they don’t follow the sport. And that seems to be backed up by responses to the question, “What would it take for you to give cricket a try, either as a spectator, a recreational player or a TV watcher?”

             -More knowledge of the sport and its rules;

-More widespread television coverage and more U.S. teams;

-Availability on television at a time when I normally watch; and

-Games organized for young kids, so I could watch my grandchildren play.

True, two people answered it would take “leg irons and a strait jacket” or “medication,” and one respondent joked that “if there was some bizarre scandal making headlines, I might tune in out of morbid curiosity.” But I think those answers came from a couple of friends (and I know who you are).

Based on those comments, the answer must be more media coverage, plus short and easier-to-understand cricket such as T20, right? Interestingly, those who answered this tiny survey seem to go a bit against that conventional wisdom. Fifteen were unfamiliar with short form cricket such as T20. Twenty-one believed they definitely would or might watch cricket matches in person or on television if they had some understanding of the game. Only 10 tied that willingness to the availability of short format cricket.

So that is how Americans (32 at least) answered when put on the spot about cricket. And there are some lessons—some very obvious lessons—in there. But those answers don’t provide the entire picture. We need to know how to take those answers and develop a plan of action.

But how do we use this information?

First of all, there are some things already being done to address the needs brought up in the survey. The United States Youth Cricket Association is taking the game directly to kids in schools, getting them exposure and experience. They are also helping to get the game out into communities, where parents and grandparents can go watch the kids play.

The need for teams and leagues is really basic. There are leagues out there, and the planned T20 pro league will hopefully be a major plus. But it has to be handled properly, and there needs to be infrastructure in place. In Indiana, high school basketball was king for decades. Something like 18 of the world’s largest high school basketball gymnasiums are located in Indiana. If you’ve ever seen the movie “Hoosiers,” then you know what high school basketball fans were like. High school basketball was wildly popular and inspirational to fans because the sport was obviously community-based, so there was personal investment in the teams. Also, communities wanted to host tournament games and intimidate opponents, so they built those bigger and bigger gyms to win those important tourney games. I live in New Castle, home of the world’s largest high school basketball gym. It seats nearly 10,000 people in a town of maybe 15,000.

Of course there’s more to it than just being an important part of the community. How did the NBA go from something some people liked to a hugely successful commercial and sporting enterprise? Free-to-air television. The NBA (and perhaps NFL as well?) grew because networks in need of cheap weekend programming started airing games. So, there is a need not just for media coverage and availability—that coverage/availability needs to be FREE (or very cheap). Americans love free stuff.

Earlier, I mentioned that several respondents to this minor survey didn’t tie their willingness to give cricket a try to the availability of short format/T20 cricket. Realistically, though, I believe that short format cricket is the way to start. And there needs to be a coordinated public relations effort to obtain big-time and consistent publicity. How about members of the national team going on Letterman and playing cricket on the roof of the Ed Sullivan Theater? Or having Ellen DeGeneres face a couple of overs? Or giving an exhibition on Rockefeller Plaza during the Today Show? Or putting together a national high school or college championship and getting it on free TV? Another idea: Put together a barnstorming tour of State Fairs or other venues where the public can see the sport for free and learn about it.

Or try something smaller and more grassroots. Develop some traveling exhibits on the history of cricket in the United States and on the current sport, and send these exhibits around the country to small museums, big museums, fairs or any other venue one can think of. Promote the sport by providing free equipment and instructional materials to corporate wellness programs. Choose a member of the national team through a reality show—or get one of the team members to appear on one. Can you imagine the residents of the Big Brother house (is Big Brother still on, by the way?) playing the national team in a short game of cricket on national TV (heavily edited of course)?

In addition, the materials and approaches frankly need to be slicker and more professional. The governing body needs a MUCH better Web presence, a Twitter feed that isn’t a joke and simple, glossy how-to information that is free to the public and easy to access.

Finally, a word on governance. As someone (and I think I know who) said, if there is a bizarre scandal, then people will pay attention to the sport. With all the problems we’ve had in U.S. cricket in recent years, we already have that going for us! But, seriously, there is no easy answer here. There are problems and nobody—not the ICC, not players, not leagues—seems to be able to solve them. But it is time to leave behind people who appear to have no interest in cricket other than being in charge of it. They aren’t carrying cricket forward, so it must be up to the rest of us. Cricket will carry them along until they get tired and their fingers uncurl and they drop away. Maybe then cricket can rise.

Of course these are one person’s thoughts on the dilemma. One person’s stab at a few answers to the question with which I started this rather lengthy post. What are your thoughts?

I feel the heat of the World’s Judging Glare, or Why DON’T Americans Like/Play/Follow Cricket?

As an American who is a fan of cricket, and who participates in social media as a way to help promote the sport in my own small way, one question I hear from (very few I admit) cricket fans from around the globe is: “Why don’t other Americans like Cricket?

That, it would appear, and with apologies to Wink Martindale and countless other game show hosts, is the $64 thousand question. After failed attempts to get a professional league going, get a national team have some consistent success, or even raise the profile of the game outside communities of immigrants from traditional cricket-playing countries, it really does seem to be that Americans don’t like cricket, and so we need to figure out a way to make them like it.

But is that the correct question?

I think I’d like to reframe the question. Instead of saying “Why don’t Americans like cricket?’ let’s make the question “What is keeping cricket from becoming a mainstream sport in American culture?”

Among many Americans (both naturalized and native born) who already love and follow cricket, the answer is education. To others the answer is T20, a shorter format that Americans can handle because it is about the length of a baseball game. To still others the answer is to get rid of or work without the United States of America Cricket Association, which has been variously described as corrupt, incompetent or both.

While there are elements of truth in all of these answers, as with most other things involving Americans the real situation is more complicated, I think. In this post, I will try and look at this issue of why cricket isn’t more popular in the United States, and what is keeping it from growing into a mainstream sport in American culture. Of course, this is based on my own limited experiences and views, but if people named Kardashian get to say what they think of things about which they’ve no idea, then so do I! LOL, as the kids say.

Survey Says!

The difficulty of convincing people about cricket, at least short-term, was brought home to me in recent weeks as I attempted to set up a lunchtime cricket league in my workplace. We have a small field on which to play, the time to do it and about 500 employees from which to pull players. Surely 15-20 people would be interested enough to learn about cricket and play a few overs once or twice a week? Alas, only six people signed up, so the idea never got off the ground.

So, I thought, why the lack of interest? In personal conversations things like time and unfamiliarity with the sport were mentioned. To learn even more, I put together a short survey and e-mailed it to co-workers, and also made it available via my Twitter and Facebook feeds.

Thirty-two people responded. Of those, 17 said they don’t follow cricket, three do and the rest didn’t answer. For those who don’t follow cricket, several reasons were given:

               -Complete ignorance of the sport, players or teams;

-Games are often played in vastly different time zones, when Americans are asleep;

-It is not visible in major media;

-The sport is not commonly supported or promoted in the U.S.;

-There is nowhere to follow it;

-It is boring and confusing; and

-The respondent has never been exposed to it;

Notice a common thread there? The majority of respondents say no exposure or publicity is why they personally don’t follow the sport. And seems to be backed up by their responses to the question, “What would it take for you to give cricket a try, either as a spectator, a recreational player or a TV watcher?”

               -More knowledge of the sport and its rules;

-More widespread television coverage and more U.S. teams;

-Available on television at a time when I normally watch; and

-If the game was organized for young kids, I would watch my grandchildren play.

True, two people answered it would take “leg irons and a strait jacket” or “medication,” and one respondent joked that “if there was some bizarre scandal making headlines, I might tune in out of morbid curiosity.” But I think those answers came from a couple of friends I know.

Based on those comments, the answer must be not only more media coverage, but shorter and easier-to-understand cricket such as T20, right? Interestingly, those who answered this tiny survey seem to go a bit against that conventional wisdom. Fifteen were unfamiliar with short form cricket such as T20. Twenty-one believed they definitely would or might watch cricket matches in person or on television if they had some understanding of the game, but only 10 tied that willingness to the availability of short format cricket.

So that is how Americans (32 at least) answered when put on the spot about cricket. And there are some lessons—some very obvious lessons—in there. But those answers don’t provide the entire picture. We need to know how to take those answers and develop a plan of action.

But how do we use this information?

First of all, there are some things already being done to address the needs brought up in the survey. The United States Youth Cricket Association is taking the game directly to kids, getting them exposure and experience. They are also helping to get the game out into communities, where parents and grandparents can go watch the kids play.

The need for teams and leagues is really basic. There are leagues out there, and the planned T20 pro league will hopefully be a major plus. But it has to be handled properly, and there needs to be infrstructure. In Indiana, high school basketball was king for decades. Something like 18 of the world’s largest high school basketball gymnasiums are located in Indiana. If you’ve ever seen the movie “Hoosiers,” then you know what high school basketball fans were like. High school basketball was wildly popular and inspirational to fans because the sport was obviously community-based, so there was personal investment in the teams. Also, communities wanted to host tournament games and intimidate opponents, so they built those bigger and bigger gyms to win those important tourney games.

Of course there’s more to it than just being an important part of the community. How did the NBA go from something some people liked to a hugely successful commercial and sporting enterprise? Free-to-air television. The NBA (and perhaps NFL as well?) grew because networks in need of cheap weekend programming started airing games. SO, there is a need not just for media coverage and availability—that coverage/availability needs to be FREE. Or very cheap. Americans love free stuff.

Earlier, I mentioned that several respondents to this minor survey didn’t tie their willingness to give cricket a try to the availability of short format/T20 cricket. Realistically, though, I believe that short format cricket is the way to start. And there needs to be a coordinated public relations effort to obtain big-time and consistent publicity. How about members of the national team go on Letterman and play cricket on the roof of the Ed Sullivan Theater? Or have Ellen DeGeneres face a couple of overs? Or give an exhibition on Rockefeller Plaza during the Today Show? Put together a barnstorming tour of State Fairs or other venues where the public can see the sport for free and learn about it.

Or try something smaller and more grassroots. Plan a national high school or college championship and get it on free TV. Develop some traveling exhibits on the history of cricket in the United States and on the current sport, and send these exhibits around the country to small museums, big museums, fairs or any other venue one can think of. Promote the sport by providing free equipment and instructional materials to corporate wellness programs.

In addition, the materials and approaches frankly need to be slicker and more professional. The governing body needs a MUCH better Web presence, a Twitter feed that isn’t a joke and simple, glossy how-to information that is free to the public and easy to access.

Finally, a word on governance. As someone (and I think I know who) said, if there is a bizarre scandal, then people will pay attention to the sport. With all the problems we’ve had in U.S. cricket in recent years, we already have that going for us! But, seriously, there is no easy answer here. There are problems and nobody—not the ICC, not players, not leagues—seems to be able to solve them. But it is time to leave behind these people who seem to have no interest in cricket other than being in charge of it. They aren’t carrying cricket forward, so it must be up to the rest of us. Cricket will carry them along until they get tired and their fingers hopefully uncurl and they drop away. Maybe then cricket can rise.

Of course these are one person’s thoughts on the dilemma. One person’s stab at a few answers to the question with which I started this rather lengthy post. What are your thoughts?

Stiff Arms and Stiff Upper Lips, or, Why Do they throw the Ball That Way?

OK, before I get any further into this post, allow me to get one thing out of the way. Despite the sub-title of this piece, in cricket the bowler does NOT throw the ball; s/he bowls it. Saying that a bowler throws a ball is actually a criticism of the bowler’s skill, a questioning of the legality of the bowler’s action and a bit of an insult as well.

                                               

Not that we have that out of the way, this post will be discussing how one bowls the ball in cricket. This will be a very basic (repeat with me, OCD rules-mongers with spirit levels and tape measures in your pockets: BASIC) explanation. In softball/baseball, the pitcher stands on the pitcher’s mound and throws the ball toward home plate.

Pretty simple. Sure, I know there are some rules to follow as far as keeping one’s foot on the pitching rubber, which way the pitcher goes with the front leg and how much one can or cannot pause once the windup preceding the delivery has started.

In cricket, the act of delivering the ball to the batter is called bowling. OK, OK—let me stop you right there, before the questions rolling around inside your head jingle out through your mouth and onto the ground. I know that cricket bowling looks nothing like what Americans call bowling. But it used to.

Way back in the mists of time, when cricket was first developed, the bowlers did bowl underarm, and the bats looked more like Happy Gilmore’s ginormous putter than today’s cricket bats. If you’ve no idea who Happy Gilmore is and have no desire to go anywhere near an Adam Sandler movie, then think of old cricket bats as being similar to field hockey sticks.

The art of bowling involves the arm and the legs and feet—again similar to baseball. First, let’s look at the arm.

Over the years, bowlers slowly raised their actions-bowling first round arm then over arm. Today, when a bowler bowls the cricket ball, she must her arm straight. Basically, that’s it. Whether you are a fast bowler, running in form the boundary to build up speed and add to your bowling velocity, or you are a spin bowler trotting in from about 10 or 20 feet away, that’s it. Keep your arm straight.

OK, to be exact and rules-mongerish, the international bowler is allowed to straighten the elbow joint 15 degrees. Here’s the exact wording from the International Cricket Council’s rulebook: “Definition of fair delivery - the arm. A ball is fairly delivered in respect of the arm if, once the bowler’s arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the elbow joint is not straightened partially or completely from that point until the ball has left the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery swing.” (You can refer to the graphics here for what I'm talking about: http://www.americanarmchaircricketer.blogspot.com/2012/03/dimensions-of-cricket-or-how-big-is-it.html.)

I also mentioned the legs and feet. Placement of the foot is as important as baseball. In baseball, if you don’t get it right the pitcher is called for a “balk,” and the batter gets to go to first base. In cricket, something similar applies, except it’s tougher to keep those feet in line when you’re running up like a long jumper and you can’t let your planted foot go beyond a certain point. And the umpire calls a “no ball” and the bowler has to do it again. Again, to quote from the ICC: “5. Fair delivery - the feet. For a delivery to be fair in respect of the feet, in the delivery stride (a) the bowler’s back foot must land within and not touching the return crease appertaining to his stated mode of delivery. (b) the bowler’s front foot must land with some part of the foot, whether grounded or raised (i) on the same side of the imaginary line joining the two middle stumps as the return crease described in (a) above and (ii) behind the popping crease. If the bowler’s end umpire is not satisfied that all of these three conditions have been met, he shall call and signal No ball.”

To see the laws relating to “throwing,” check here: http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-24-no-ball,50,AR.html.

Reebok Invests in the Future of U.S. Cricket

My apologies. I have had to temporarily remove this post.

I will have it back up very soon. Probably my the middle of next week ... the first week of April!

I apologize for the inconvenience. I apparently jumped the gun a bit on posting and will let you know as soon as it is back up. Normally I would not likely remove a post, but since this is a personal blog, and the interview subject does need to make sure what he says about his employer's plans and role don't get him into hot water, I have agreed to do so.

Thanks for understanding ... or at least not booing ... and I again apologize. Meanwhile look for more posts this week.

Terry Coffey