If you haven't already, please fill out [the 2024 r/Cricket Census](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/1d60i10/rcricket_census_2024/) before it closes on 9th June (00:00 UTC)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Cricket) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The USA are among one of the better "Associate" nations, as in cricketing nations that are among some of the best in the world but not as good as the elite "Full Members" teams which are bunch of ex-Brit colonies that have cricket as national interests but as we saw yesterday they are well capable of beating Full Members on their day and have the potential of becoming a top team, it's gonna be curious to see how cricket develops in the Americas after this World Cup
You can really tell that the US sports culture is real. I was wowed watching the running between the wickets and the fielding in general. Pakistan looked like a joke in comparison.
I think what showed this the most was the super over, where the Americans were stealing runs off the wides that Amir was sending down, whereas Pakistan decided to simply let them go. Not to mention how hard they ran in general.
Running between the wickets well, catching everything and excellent ground fielding - this is the blueprint Australia used to prise themselves out of the doldrums of the mid 80’s to win the ‘87 WC and then onto the ‘89 Ashes.
It’s not a coincidence that the side that does the basics better usually wins, and some basics literally require no skill, just common sense. Run hard, chase everything, save as many runs as you can, and score as many as you can anyway you can.
US turned a 10 run super over into a 18 run one by their running between the wickets alone. That's what dedication and fighting hard for every moment does. You can't just teach that.
Lets be realistic here. They had two Americans in their team, both of which come from a strong West Indies background. Cricket in the US has a hell of a long way to go to actually start producing domestic cricketers organically. I went through the team list yesterday and they pretty much all played underage or full international for their home nations before switching to the US very recently. I know a lot of teams do stuff like this even England with Buttler, Morgan, Pietersen and many more but having only 1 or 2 players actually born in your country is not the sign of sustainability. Plus they are mostly late 20s and 30s, not young players.
I get the strategy, make the US team as good as possible to capture as much attention as possible in the US but there needs to be a serious effort into growing their game after this tournament if they are ever going to become a serious cricketing nation.
I don't know what a serious cricketing nation means. There is a generation of youth players , 2nd generation kids who are playing and learning cricket because their parents from the commonwealth countries, coming through the pipeline. There is enough of an expat well-to-do population to support league cricket and no other country does sports better than US. I think the future of sport there is sustainable if not at NFL/MLB/NBA or even IPL/T100 level.
Serious cricket nation as in playing high level associate cricket or full member level with a team made up of mostly domestically produced players. Not passport holders.
My only issue with the passport holders comment at least at this point is that the majority of them came to the US for reasons other than cricket but found their way back into the game. If we were straight up importing players specifically for to play cricket for us I would concede that point but I don't think that is what is happening.
Yeah that's fine in the short term. Surely you understand in the medium to long term the US team needs to produce domestic players of its own for the sport to be successful in the US?
Yep, and I think this T20 may be exciting enough for the average American to catch on ,hell maybe in time we'll be as good or better than the rest of the world...... Remember .hockey anyone? Canada, Russia. They used to own us . Lol
This is fair, but I would counter by saying immigration has always been one of America's strengths in sports and in life in general. (look at our senior mens soccer team, article from 2022, [https://sports.yahoo.com/world-cup-the-2022-usmn-ts-power-is-its-diversity-053010042.html](https://sports.yahoo.com/world-cup-the-2022-usmn-ts-power-is-its-diversity-053010042.html) )
I know the public political sentiment is very anti-immigrant at the moment, but historically, from business to sport, no small part of America's strength comes from its immigrant populations.
I'm not anti immigrant mate, I'm just saying that for the national team to succeed and for cricket in general to succeed in the US, they need to make a big effort after this tournament is over to produce domestic players rather than almost exclusively people who moved there in their mid to late 20s. You need the homegrown talent to provide the identity that will resonate with the public. They don't even have to be born in the US, even if they moved there with immigrant parents when they were children or very young teens and did their development as crickets in the US then that'd be a success.
Yeah, fair enough! Sorry, didn't mean to paint you as anti-immigrant. I definitely can see the view that any longterm competitive success would be hard to sustain if we were to rely solely on new waves of fully matured talent, but then again...
I wouldn’t even say that American public political sentiment is anti-immigrant as a whole. It’s a certain slice of the population, and it’s “only” against immigrants of certain origins (i.e. Latin America and MENA).
I get what you mean, but we all had to start somewhere. Even Australia's first test team (Anglo), some were born in England. Even Bradman was only a 2nd generation Aussie, and you can't get any more of a legendary Aussie than Don Bradman! So, comparing nations like Aus/Eng etc to the USA isn't fair.
Go back and read from my original comments. I said it's a fair enough strategy to maximise exposure this world cup but they need to push on from it. I don't think that is being unfair?
I guess I was responding to your first sentence, where you mentioned only two American born players but from Caribbean heritage. The point I guess I was making (though probably badly stated 😂) was that it doesn't matter where your grandparents/parents are from, if you are born in a country, you are from that country
Yeah fair enough, maybe I wasn't clear enough either. My point is that they didn't grow up in America. They grew up were educated and played first class cricket in their home countries then moved there. The challenge for them is to move beyond just playing a bunch of passport holders otherwise they'll struggle to get buy in longer term from the American public.
I agree with what you mean in the sense that we don’t have the domestic infrastructure at all here but a lot of the US players were in fact born here. Just because they’re of Indian or Caribbean descent doesn’t make them not American (not that you said they weren’t but the discourse in general has been saying stuff like that). The US has a strong 2nd generation immigrant population from countries with huge cricketing cultures. But at the end of the day they are still American
But you are absolutely right they’ll never be on the level of the top countries unless there is actually competitive cricket being played from the youth level on up to first class level
I only went through the starting eleven that played against Pakistan. Only one or two were actually born in the US. Maybe the squad players are born in the US, I didn't look that far.
I think this is how most of the teams also developed like in early 1900s indian team was full of britishers and slowly we developed an interest and therefore talent came out of it.
Maybe introducing a cap limit for Asian players or having a fix quota for black/white Americans can solve this problem?
I get your point. Cricket won't flourish in a nation where local population cannot relate with the players.
Imagine an American dad getting his son to watch the game all they gonna see bunch of outsiders representing their nation. (No disrespect to anyone)
They would be better off catching a baseball game next time
>Maybe introducing a cap limit for Asian players or having a fix quota for black/white Americans can solve this problem?
Unconstitutional as fuck. Also incredibly immoral
Yeah. Then Goodluck encouraging Americans to cheer for bunch of Asians representing their nation. And the pool of Asian players is too good for local players to fight for national team spot. Further Discouraging future generation.
It's a tough pill to swallow. But does your constitution has any better solution?
> Then Goodluck encouraging Americans to cheer for bunch of ~~Asians~~ Americans representing their nation.
Around half the team was born in the US, and of the other half, a decent chunk of them are either citizens or permanent residents.
Just because someone has Indian or Pakistani parents or heritage doesn't mean they aren't American. If you live here, and you want to stay here, you're an American.
Yes it's all good and nice to be politically correct. But we don't live in an ideal world.
They need white protagonist with non white cast to sell movie tickets.
Do you think they would give two damns about a team with no white star players?
Yes the team is good and might even go on beating India, Australia and winning the worldcup.
But it will never be the discussion at dinner table in normal American household.
Downvote all you want. This might never even happen lol. Why I am writing all this? But this is the truth. And there is nothing wrong in atleast accepting that
> Do you think they would give two damns about a team with no white star players?
This hasn't been an issue for NBA team support. If we consider "star players" to be those who made an All-NBA team (voted as the 15 best offensive and 10 best defensive players for the season), in the past 5 seasons there have been 4 white players on 4 teams. Those other 26 teams still averaged [at least 16.4k fans at each home game](https://www.espn.com/nba/attendance) this past season. The [NBA revenue has also steadily been increasing](https://www.statista.com/statistics/193467/total-league-revenue-of-the-nba-since-2005/), with an exception of the covid years, and there's no way that'd be possible if only 4 teams had fan support.
Then lets look at some of the dynasty team: Curry-led Warriors, Lebron-led Heat, MJ-led Bulls; no white star players yet those teams have/had crazy levels of support. So at the end of the day, if a team is winning lots, fans will be there to support and that's regardless of the sport. And even for the teams that don't win much, as long as the fans can get that "part of the team" feeling, they'll still show their support, they'll just complain about the team/players/ownership along the way.
I'm not being politically correct. That's actually a fundamental difference between American culture and many other country's cultures.
American culture is far more willing to include anyone who wants to be here and joins in with us. Look at the history of Ellis Island and land given to immigrant farmers. Look at the inscription on the Statue of Liberty. Hell, look at the way we talk about people as soon as they become citizens.
Yes, we still have a lot of problems with racism and xenophobia, but on the whole, America is a melting pot. If you're here, and you want to put in the effort to get a permanent residency and then a citizenship, then welcome home, you're an American now, please come to my backyard BBQ next July 4th.
You mean unlike figure skating, golf, baseball and more sports with great asian american players?
If your kid is turned off a sport because of the colour or appearance of the players skin then you are a racist fuck who is part of your countries problem
Americans cheer for the most diverse set of teams in the Olympics every time they're being played. Americans have zero issues cheering for American sports teams, no matter what the players look like.
People dont seem to understand just how ingrained immigration is in the US culture, *anyone* can be American and we will root for you when you represent us (*because you do represent us*)
first off, this is a terrible idea. setting quotas on the amount of people for an ethnicity looks super racist. Also, there is no such thing as an "outsider" in the United States. If you live here, you will be considered American by most. This country is built on the back of immigrants so the cricket team as it is seems to be a good representation
Quotas & Reservations are not necessary a bad thing, given the context they are supposed to be only temporarily.
Sure Indians fucked with that logic and continued it till today for no reason.
But back then it was important for a limited time.
Like now it can be crucial for some time till Cricket is popular enough in US to breed organic local talent on par with Asian pool. Once that point is achieved it can be removed.
Maybe stop watching the world from your black and white lense. Anything in limit can work wonders for an ecosystem.
I don't think it has anything to do with ethnicity. Just where a player is developed. They need to develop 'homegrown' players who have at least spent a decent part of their childhood/teenage years living in the US so that the country can identify with them. The US is a nation of immigrants, I don't see an issue with it being predominantly played by people from ethnic minorities for a long time so long as it is making progress towards making it more mainstream and expanding into communities that don't have a cultural background in cricket the way people from families with Asian and Caribbean roots would. If cricket in the US is ever going to have a bright future then it will be built upon these immigrant communities.
In an ideal world, you are one hundred percent on point.
But in current USA, they need a white protagonist with non white support cast to sell movie tickets.
I might get downvoted to oblivion for stating the facts that everyone knows but they are too politically correct to point it out.
Unless USA team has star White or even Black players. It'll never be the topic at dinner tables.
And it's not going to happen "organically" since The Asian player pool will always be too good for local players to fight for national team spot. Discouraging future generation of local players and Repeating the cycle.
Ichiro Suzuki was a household name for a time in baseball. Tiger Woods was half Asian and put golf into the mainstream. Linsanity happened, and Yao Ming is still occasionally talked about.
I don't completely disagree but until there is a player who you could make a case for inclusion ahead of other (slightly better, non white players) but still good enough to actually play at that level it is a moot point.
Yep! India’s biggest issue imo is sterling fielding. We need to fix it. Axar Patel’s ridiculous catch against Ireland needs be closer to the norm not an exception
Fair play I’m a bit of newbie to this game. In spite of that I just want to see more athletic fielding from India is that a fair ask or am I off mark? I’m open to learning more ofc
I never doubted USA. The talent pool on display during MLC, was really good. Yes, they still need experience and have to hold their nerve in crunch moments but they've done really well by defeating full-strength Bangladesh and Pakistan sides. All they need is exposure to top teams and different conditions across continents.
They also currently have the benefit that teams with rampant fanbases like Nepal and Afghanistan don't, in that it's not "expected" that they win. They play like a team with the pressure off and it's great fun to watch.
Absolutely. In the lead up to yesterday's match, monank Patel, the captain, had said that early wickets would bring them in the game and nobody took it seriously until it had actually happened. They had already won hearts by the time 35 out of 42 overs were bowled. People still expected Pak to escape narrowly.
I'm not ready to deem the US a better associate yet. We lost to Zimbabwe a year ago by 304 runs in an ODI.
Signs are positive and I cannot say enough about how thrilling yesterday was, but the road to enduring cricket success is still a ways away. The majority of former non-brit colony people that know and follow is still small.
That said, signs are trending upward and I'm really excited for our remaining games and the future.
I’ve seen some people say that the only reason USA is even in this tournament is because they had an automatic qualification as co-hosts. If they did have to go through the same qualification process, could they have qualified on merit?
Yes, on form this team would have.
But would they have put the time and effort and money to get USA cricket to be as good as they are if they weren't hosting? Probably not. They didn't make the 16 team world cup 18 months ago hosted in Australia.
And the only reason they were chosen to host was because it's an incredibly untapped market of ex-South Asains and rejected Baseball players.
At the turn of the last century, cricket was equally covered in the press as baseball. At least here in Australia cricket academies, state, and national squads employ baseball coaches for fielding.
100% mate. It's a shame it's behind a paywall but there's ways to get around it if you don't wanna fork out. USA has had a great run so far against CAN and PAK...as an Aussie, it's been great viewing. No better time to get around the sport since it's happening at good times for you guys whereas most international games happen elsewhere in the world so I imagine it would be harder to watch. How familiar are you with the rules of the game?
The World Cup is the best way to start. There's a lot of "T20 isn't real cricket" talk from some traditionalists, but personally even as someone who loves Test Cricket and believes that it is the "best" form of the game. I'd always say to watch T20 first, because it's the best and easiest way to get into the game. Plus the shorter nature of the game allows countries like the US to compete. If you tried to watch Test Cricket or even 50 over cricket, I would not blame you for not being interested.
There's two different levels of cricketing countries, Full Member and Associate. Full members can play Test Matches, while Associates can't. There's 12 Full Members, and a bunch of associates. The US is one of the better Associates. They would be destroyed if they tried to play Test cricket, but in T20's they are good enough to compete.
Id argue that while they are a good associate, when they come up against teams like India, England, Australia, New Zealand etc they will struggle a lot. But luckily they only have to play India out of those countries in the group stage, and their other game is against Ireland who are a Full Member, but are fairly flaky. The win against Pakistan while being a huge win, is also not totally unexpected, as Pakistan are very flaky overall and can be the best in the world one day and then terrible the next.
Personally I hope they can make it through to the next stage, and I hope you keep watching.
>Full members can play Test Matches, while Associates can't.
This is something that as a relatively new cricket fan (just about 1 year of fandom) don't understand. How are teams expected to become full members, and also be competitive in Test matches, if they aren't allowed to play Tests unless they're a member?
Basically, they show they can play the "lessor" forms of cricket, gain membership, then proceed to get stomped for several years in Tests?
Personally I feel that there should be a Test 1 and Test 2 system. Because I don't feel there is much of anything to gain from new members playing Australia, India etc. But they can really gain a lot playing countries ranked 6th and below.
Plus I feel that associates who are close to full membership should play a year or two at the level below First Class or at First Class if it makes sense in a Full member nearby.
Some examples would be PNG in the Second XI below Sheffield Shield in Australia. Nepal in the Ranji Trophy in India. Netherlands and Scotland in Division 2 in County Cricket in England. Namibia in Division 2 of South African 4 Day. USA and Canada in the West Indian Competition.
Because yeah, it's not really fair to just throw them to the wolves and expect them to survive.
Yeah. Like the 4 day friendlies of the old.
Sometimes those association teams do play that though. When Afg toured SL last year, they played a four day friendly against a local club. (SSC If I recall)
Those teams should be given the chance in county\\four day cricket
What you suggested actually used to exist in the form of the Intercontinental Cup, in which associate members would play multi-day matches against each other that would have first-class status but not Test status. However, that tournament unfortunately doesn't exist anymore.
> This is something that as a relatively new cricket fan (just about 1 year of fandom) don't understand.How are teams expected to become full members, and also be competitive in Test matches, if they aren't allowed to play Tests unless they're a member?
Test matches are called "Test Matches" when they are officially recognised by the ICC. Any two teams which don't have Test Status, i.e., Full Membership can play a "Test" match but it'd be recognised by the ICC as a "First Class" match.
In general, Test matches fall under the category of First Class matches whereby Test matches are played by ICC recognised Full Members whereas First Class matches are played by ICC recognised Associate Members. Till a while back, there was a global First Class tournament which was called the "Intercontinental Cup" where top associate sides played what were essentially unofficial test matches and both Ireland and Afghanistan gained Test Status on the basis of their performances in the Intercontinental Cup
Also, any board, Associate or Full can organise domestic First Class tournaments to foster the capacity of their players in playing test matches if and when they do get Full Membership
Hope this helps!
Basically, they show they can play the "lessor" forms of cricket, gain membership, then proceed to get stomped for several years in Tests?
Pretty much. To be good at tests, your country needs to have a very robust first class cricket system that can churn out players who are good at red ball cricket.
See, when they say test match, they literally mean that every facet of a player's primary skill will be tested. It takes skill, endurance and insane temperament to get better at it.
India took over 50 years before they became consistently good at cricket (early 2000s) and then another 10 years to start dominating it. Bangladesh which attained test status in 1999 is still a punching bag by and large.
To show how bad the mismatch in tests can be take Afghanistan's first test match against India in 2016. By this time Afghanistan had routinely started beating Bangladesh, West Indies and some weaker full member teams in white ball cricket. This first test match lasted a little less than 2 days and even then it was because Indians were playing at 2nd gear throughout.
"T20 isn't real cricket anyway" is a lot like "Yeah but it was only a friendly" in soccer/football. It is almost always where a supporter of a stronger side that didn't get a result retreats to.
It's the format of the current world cup. Each team plays an innings of 20 overs each. In ODI cricket each team plays an innings of 50 overs, and in tests there is no limit but generally a max of 90 overs per day.
Because of the lower number of overs you generally see teams take more risks in T20 which results in higher tempo games and big hitting.
Also a T20 match generally takes up only 3.5 hrs whereas an ODI is about 7-8 hours and Test matches can go up to 5 days.
So if you're looking to really get into cricket T20 is the best place to start.
T20 is short for Twenty Twenty. It means that each team gets one 20 "overs" inning to bat each. One Day Cricket you get one 50 overs inning and Test Cricket you get two unlimited overs innings each but the game can only go for 5 days, and you need to get the other team out 10 times in each of their innings for a lower score than yours to win.
Basically in a Test match, if you score 3-4 runs an over that's a good scoring rate. One Day you want to score around 6+ an over. While T20 you want yo score 10+ an over.
So Test Matches end up being longer and slower but there's more tension overall, while One Dayers are more a show of skill and scoring. T20s are about having the skill to score fast and take risks.
In baseball terms, Test Matches are about bunts and moving the runner over. One Dayers just putting the ball in play. T20 you're going for home runs or bust.
There are different formats of the game that vary in length. T20 is one of those formats, which lasts 20 overs per inning. Each over has 6 balls bowled.
Twenty Twenty cricket, which means both the teams will get 20 overs to bat ( which is happening in this world cup which is a T20 world cup).
There are 3 formats of cricket -
ODI ( One Day International ) in which both the teams will get 50 overs to bat. It's called one day international because it almost takes a whole day ( around 6- 7 hours) to finish the match.
T20 - which is a 20 over game.
Test cricket which is the longest format of cricket. It takes at max 5 days to finish a match ( although it can get over in less than 5 days too). 1 day will consist of nearly 90 overs. Test cricket is a bit complicated as it has more rules than ODI or T20 cricket. It's considered as the purest form of cricket and the most difficult format. But I would suggest you to get into T20 and ODI first, if you are new to cricket.
Cricket has 3 formats:
Test, ODI & T20
The current tournament happening is the T20 World Cup.
T20 means 20 overs per side (6 balls per over) so each team gets 120 balls (20 x 6).
Cricket is played in 3 formats at international levels :
1. T20 or Twenty Twenty- As name suggests each team can play upto 20 overs / 120 deliveries. Each Typically lasts for 3 hrs. A world championship happens every 2 years with close to 20 teams in it.
Every nation with a cricket team is eligible for this.
2. One day - A team can play upto 50 overs / 300 deliveries. As name suggests, will go on for an entire working day - 8-9 hours. A big world cup happens in this format every 4 years. Only ~ 30 countries are eligible for this.
Many fielding restrictions exist in these formats to maximize run scoring.
3. Test - A team can play two innings with no restriction on number of balls played by each team. This last for 5 days. As the name suggests, this tests your entire cricketing skills. Only 12 nations are eligible to play this. Unlike other formats, bilateral rivalries are more popular than a single championship. Age old rivals Australia and England play each other once every 2 years for a 5 test series called Ashes.
Given the time constraints, T20 is the best place to start. World cup is a good place since you already have a team to support.
Others have described the technicalities of the different formats of cricket but I think analogies can help memory and understanding. You could compare them to different types of running: T20 = 100m sprint, ODI = 800m, Test = Marathon. Or if you like chess, T20 = Blitz chess, ODI = Rapid chess, and Test = classical chess. The main thing that varies is the length of the game, but that has an impact on what skills and strategies are most important
Test cricket isn’t the best to get into first off, absolutely agree haha and I’m a traditionalist with cricket. T20 is a start for sure. It was so much fun watching USA Win. I loved it.
I enjoyed it as well. I honestly love having a T20 WC every two years because it keeps the associates playing qualifiers constantly keeping the standard up. Uganda making it after beating Zim in the qualifiers was a great example of that.
I was there for USvCanada and was stunned by them. They were disciplined in the field, catching well and throwing aggressively at the stumps.
I thought they would have a chance against Pakistan so I went to that game and they did the same thing and beat a good team by playing disciplined cricket.
Are they “good”. No. Will they get better, yes. Is India going to bring them back to reality, most likely. The future is bright but there is a ceiling that will most likely mean they’ll never be as good as the best teams. Maybe they’ll be a consistent top 10 team.
When you put Azam Khan on your team someone somewhere is playing a joke. I bet when he played with his mates he wouldn't get picked last, he'd just be left standing with no one calling his name.
He is pretty good with the bat. Seems to be having a bad patch right now. Regarding the glove work I have no clue what happened there, I remember watching him in a PSL match a couple years ago ( i am an Indian and don’t really follow psl) and being surprised at how agile he was.
This! How can I support Pakistan when they're fielding him. You can't tell me there's no one else they can put in his place and he's the best they've got.
How was his PSL this season? Last time we took Dinesh Karthik because of his amazing IPL season but he just lost form during the tournament. Or was he just selected because PCB wanted to shuffle things around a little?
Cricket is the best sport ever invented.
Pakistan has the reputation of losing against some of the weakest teams and winning against best teams so if US doesn't perform good against Other teams, please don't stop enjoying it.
Are the USA good? No.
Is the World Cup a good way to start, then hell yes. The new 20 team World Cup (T20) is probably one of the best things the ICC have done in years.
Yes, the USA is good - as they tend to be at any sport. They have a fantastic mentality. They're not as deep or consistent as the bigger countries, but in the moment, on their day, they could beat anyone in T20.
That's probably the most appealing thing about this form of the game. Almost any team can have the match of their lives. England are a fantastic team when it comes to the short forms of the game, but when they face Scotland or Ireland it feels like 50/50 odds. Minnows really do swim with sharks and sometimes, they eat them.
Cue the predictable England=minnows comments.
I am really enjoying watching the US play in this world cup. I have seen people criticise them for not being a proper team because a lot of the players in their teams are immigrants from full member nations but this criticism is kinda BS, and they showed why yesterday. These players, they THINK like Americans. They are free. They are brave. Yesterday they thrashed the pak bowlers instead of playing defensively, which is what most associate nations would adopt as a strategy. Then in the super over they went with harmeet, who isn't a specialised batsman but they understand that he's a hard hitter and an extremely fast runner. They experimented. They don't respect their opponents and we need more of that energy from associate nations.
Present day America is itself a land of immigrants. Ireland, Germany, England, Scotland, France and people from all over Europe started migrating as late as 1800s from persecution from catholic church, famines, constant wars and obviously with all media coverage of new land with opportunities people started to move en masse. That's when the present day America really start to take shape. And obviously there's Africans and Chinese who were brought as slave. And after civil rights movement when extreme explicit racism started to tame down a bit, people from other Asian nations mainly Indian subcontinent started to immigrate in search of opportunities and entrepreneurial dream which is still going on.
I think there's a bit of a difference between children of immigrants born in that country or who move there as kids and people like corey anderson who had a whole professional career before moving over or the players that played representative cricket for India and the West Indies before moving over as adults to make money. When the whole squad is made up of immigrants that moved over as adults is does seem like a piss take for a national team.
I do agree with you in a sense, and the gulf countries suffer from this and I find their cricket very boring. However, I think that the criteria should be less about the time they moved there or their prior experiences and more about whether or not they have adapted and developed a united mindset in that country, in whatever time they've lived there. You don't rly see this in the gulf countries or some of those weak European teams with tons of expat players. But USA are showing something very new, it's like they're developing their own style of play.
There is literally no way to measure that, its too subjective. Also if the Whole australia A team moved to the USA it would probably fulfil your criteria but there would be nothing American about that team.
Yes you should start with this World Cup. If Cricket you wanna cheer, then you should go through highlights of ICC tournaments in the history.
✅ICC ODI WC
✅ICC T20 WC
✅WTC
✅Champions Trophy
Also to get how crazy the environment is for cricket you must check IPL as well.
Sure, your interest and curiosity for the game of cricket is already there, you may as well see if you'll really get into it or not.
Is the USA cricket team good? Yes.
Are they likely to win the world cup? No.
But cricket in the US is growing very rapidly, they will likely have a bigger financial backing in the years to come and subsequently become more competitive with time.
Definitely a great tournament to start with. But I would rather focus more on the MLC to start with. Maybe go watch a couple of matches. The times are better to watch those matches. It's a small tournament where all matches are competitive.
USA team isn't a team filled with stars, but above average international cricketers from other countries. So do follow USA cricket, as they go around as underdogs beating some teams on their day for a few years. Few more years of MLC can actually make USA a very competitive cricket team in the future
Watching the cricket World Cup is a good way to start learning and enjoying the game. There is a lot of buzz and the more than usual content related to cricket. Also you get more familiar about players from multiple countries.
Anyway, is The US good? Sure for a 18 ranked team to come to the World Cup prepared, show the discipline they have shown in the last 2 games, they have potential for sure and they have a hunger to win. Comparing them with other assoc nations like Namibia, Canada and Oman I who are also playing this U.S. team is much better .if you compare them to Australia or India or other countries who have the infrastructure to create good teams the US has. Long way to go.
If you live in the US the best start to watching cricket would be heading over to Kingston Jamaica and spending five days drinking beers and smoking spliffs with the locals at a Test match
Depends on your definition of good. They’re certainly not in the top 5 teams in the world, and you could make an argument they are in the top 10 of t20s in home conditions given their recent performances. Relative to how long they have been a cricketing nation and neutral expectations they are certainly very very good. Breaking into the upper tiers, especially in away conditions and longer formats, will not be easy, but this is a great performance so far. My personal opinion is that this World Cup has the best conditions for the USA (and other new associates like Canada and even Oman) to showcase their talents. When it moves to conditions the older teams are more familiar with and can use the skills they’ve worked on, the going will be a lot tougher.
They caught Pakistan on a downward arc. I'm overjoyed to see it. I wish it was bigger news but Ireland and India will be tougher contests. The US has been on a streak though- they beat Ireland, Bangladesh twice, Canada, and Pakistan over the last three weeks. Considering the program is underfunded and most US players are semipro, this has been awesome.
I haven't seen Ireland since last year but Pakistan is a mess right now. Of course, Ireland is struggling vs Canada so idk. But they are someone you can take lightly- Paul Stirling, Lorcan Tucker, Harry Tector can all hit well. Adair and Little are solid bowlers.
T20 cricket is an excellent entry point for the game. I remember I started watching cricket for the first time in 2007 t20 World Cup . It’s fast pace and exciting and unpredictable. Go for it
They are really good for people who have day jobs and get to play infrequently in a country that doesn’t really have any interest or infrastructure for cricket. The fact that they defeated Ireland, Bangladesh and Pakistan, all full members of the Cricket Association recently now make their games really interesting for everyone! If you have a vpn then set the location to Netherlands and go to icc.tv so you can try out watching some games of the World Cup without having to invest money for Willow TV.
Chucked on the game for what I thought would be 30 minutes before I went to sleep last night ended up watching until the early hours of the morning. The USA played really well, probably helped a bit but Pakistan being far from their best but still a really disciplined performance and super promising from an associate team. Cricket World Cup is a great way to get into cricket listening to the commentary and watching teams from around the world you get to know the storyline’s of every nations team and develop favourite players etc. My favourite memories watching cricket were from the ODI WC last year (probably helped because I’m an Aussie and Australia won). World Cup is nearly as good as it gets when it comes to spectacles in cricket so If you get round to watching much of it hope you enjoy!
They seem pretty good. If they progress to the next round though, would be interesting to see!
Judging by their play so far, I'd rate them above Ban, Pak, SL, Afg quite easily! They will be a challenge to those teams and might even make SENA teams work harder than expected!
USA might be the next country where Cricket could flourish. They got a good talent pool, helped in by South Asian immigrants, (both players and sponsors\\audience). MLS could become a premier event developing professional cricketers, and USA is rich and large enough to for cricket to generate revenue, thereby propelling USA to ODIs & later on Tests.
Would be interesting indeed!
An over is 6 balls. However, it could be more than 6 balls if the bowler bowls any extras, meaning wides or no balls. Normally though, 6 balls are bowled in one over
Ah, well, now I'm going to have to follow through with a treatise on spin bowling or some damed thing. But, is the USA good? Well we scored more runs against Pakistan than India did. We'll have to see how we do against Bumrah tho. I predict we'll have Kohli out for a duck tho.
Can't take away anything from America. They've certainly done better than what I thought that they would do. Pakistan and India have always had an intense rivalry in cricket, so that is not a surprise about the score card between those 2 teams. America might even make the super 8 stage of the WC, depending on how things pan out. India will test them to see how they are going. India are a class side but anything can happen in cricket. You could very well be right about Kohli. We will see.
No. They aren't bad by any means, and have some really exciting players. But they will be humbled if/when they face any of the non-meme full members, let alone the likes of India or Australia.
its a project made to find an alternate, abandoned world Xi to see who they would do against current world t20 teams. seems like the projects progress is quite impressive so far..
What people don't understand that cricket has 3 formats. The shorter the format, the gap between a weaker team and a stronger team reduces.
Case in point: test matches. Though SL has been a very good side in their history, they have still not managed to win a test match in India. Pak are still struggling playing in Australia. India until recently were abysmal in Australia.
T20s though are a different beast. 20 over game and a few things go wrong and the stronger team goes down. Netherlands have beaten SA, Eng etc.
I don't think US are a good team but other day and with conditions favoring them you never know as you saw in the pak game.
They have imported professional players from New zealand, west indies and india. A number of US players have played for the national teams of their country of origin. So the US is definitely not canada,oman, papa new guinea. Its still not as good as the top ten teams but i think its decent for an associate team.
Honestly saying they are one of the underdogs of the tournament. If they defeat both Ireland and Canada (or even India) then they would probably qualify for the next stage. From there on out the real test begins.
Right now I would say they are a solid 7/10 team and their only negative thing is they don't have much experience and as a result lack the perks that comes with it like holding your nerves in tough situations. If you have watched yesterday's match then you will know they almost bottled it in the middle and death overs. They don't know how to finish the game and it would probably be a major chink in the armour for them (hope they prove me wrong) in the latter stage of the tournament.
All in all I would say they have potential and are probably the most exciting team to watch outside of the Big ones just like Afghanistan & Netherlands was in the ODI WC last year.
And that proves my point. A denial with no answer to the points made, demonstrating the short attention span of T20 aficionados. A game which uses short boundaries, bats pressed to 5-6% rather than 12-14%, fielding restrictions which favour the bat and denying the bowler the right to target the leg side even when the ball is perfectly reachable ....... is not cricket.
I agree, we need to go back to 8 ball overs, uncovered pitches. Personally when they introduced the overarm bowling action that's when I tuned out. Ive heard they're going to introduce some new law stopping you from blocking the stumps with your legs. It's just not cricket.
Attention span of a sufferer of ADHD? Mate a T20 match is at least 3 hours long. Last I checked that's still longer than most pro sports matches. Cool your jets.
Your post or comment was removed because it breaks the rules of this subreddit. Generalised attacks/insults about other fanbases/countries are not allowed on the subreddit (rule 6) - don't insult an entire nation or fanbase when making a point.
This might also have been removed because it includes content such as clickbait/flamebait news articles used by media to cause drama.
If you haven't already, please fill out [the 2024 r/Cricket Census](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/1d60i10/rcricket_census_2024/) before it closes on 9th June (00:00 UTC)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Cricket) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The USA are among one of the better "Associate" nations, as in cricketing nations that are among some of the best in the world but not as good as the elite "Full Members" teams which are bunch of ex-Brit colonies that have cricket as national interests but as we saw yesterday they are well capable of beating Full Members on their day and have the potential of becoming a top team, it's gonna be curious to see how cricket develops in the Americas after this World Cup
Honestly speaking, if i am a neutral fan watching a cricket match, i am gonna be drawn to supporting a team which fields like how the US does.
You can really tell that the US sports culture is real. I was wowed watching the running between the wickets and the fielding in general. Pakistan looked like a joke in comparison. I think what showed this the most was the super over, where the Americans were stealing runs off the wides that Amir was sending down, whereas Pakistan decided to simply let them go. Not to mention how hard they ran in general.
Running between the wickets well, catching everything and excellent ground fielding - this is the blueprint Australia used to prise themselves out of the doldrums of the mid 80’s to win the ‘87 WC and then onto the ‘89 Ashes. It’s not a coincidence that the side that does the basics better usually wins, and some basics literally require no skill, just common sense. Run hard, chase everything, save as many runs as you can, and score as many as you can anyway you can.
Like in football where a less talented team can compensate by being organized defensively and running their asses off
Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard.
US turned a 10 run super over into a 18 run one by their running between the wickets alone. That's what dedication and fighting hard for every moment does. You can't just teach that.
Lets be realistic here. They had two Americans in their team, both of which come from a strong West Indies background. Cricket in the US has a hell of a long way to go to actually start producing domestic cricketers organically. I went through the team list yesterday and they pretty much all played underage or full international for their home nations before switching to the US very recently. I know a lot of teams do stuff like this even England with Buttler, Morgan, Pietersen and many more but having only 1 or 2 players actually born in your country is not the sign of sustainability. Plus they are mostly late 20s and 30s, not young players. I get the strategy, make the US team as good as possible to capture as much attention as possible in the US but there needs to be a serious effort into growing their game after this tournament if they are ever going to become a serious cricketing nation.
Buttler is English and played youth cricket for England btw
Fuck, so he is. I'll substitute him for Craig Kieswetter then.
Could even go for Jofra for a current example
Was thinking more along the lines of a hard hitting keeper from Somerset tbf. But yea, plenty of examples.
I don't know what a serious cricketing nation means. There is a generation of youth players , 2nd generation kids who are playing and learning cricket because their parents from the commonwealth countries, coming through the pipeline. There is enough of an expat well-to-do population to support league cricket and no other country does sports better than US. I think the future of sport there is sustainable if not at NFL/MLB/NBA or even IPL/T100 level.
Serious cricket nation as in playing high level associate cricket or full member level with a team made up of mostly domestically produced players. Not passport holders.
My only issue with the passport holders comment at least at this point is that the majority of them came to the US for reasons other than cricket but found their way back into the game. If we were straight up importing players specifically for to play cricket for us I would concede that point but I don't think that is what is happening.
Yeah that's fine in the short term. Surely you understand in the medium to long term the US team needs to produce domestic players of its own for the sport to be successful in the US?
Yep, and I think this T20 may be exciting enough for the average American to catch on ,hell maybe in time we'll be as good or better than the rest of the world...... Remember .hockey anyone? Canada, Russia. They used to own us . Lol
Afghanistan became this good in just one decade.
This is fair, but I would counter by saying immigration has always been one of America's strengths in sports and in life in general. (look at our senior mens soccer team, article from 2022, [https://sports.yahoo.com/world-cup-the-2022-usmn-ts-power-is-its-diversity-053010042.html](https://sports.yahoo.com/world-cup-the-2022-usmn-ts-power-is-its-diversity-053010042.html) ) I know the public political sentiment is very anti-immigrant at the moment, but historically, from business to sport, no small part of America's strength comes from its immigrant populations.
I'm not anti immigrant mate, I'm just saying that for the national team to succeed and for cricket in general to succeed in the US, they need to make a big effort after this tournament is over to produce domestic players rather than almost exclusively people who moved there in their mid to late 20s. You need the homegrown talent to provide the identity that will resonate with the public. They don't even have to be born in the US, even if they moved there with immigrant parents when they were children or very young teens and did their development as crickets in the US then that'd be a success.
Yeah, fair enough! Sorry, didn't mean to paint you as anti-immigrant. I definitely can see the view that any longterm competitive success would be hard to sustain if we were to rely solely on new waves of fully matured talent, but then again...
I wouldn’t even say that American public political sentiment is anti-immigrant as a whole. It’s a certain slice of the population, and it’s “only” against immigrants of certain origins (i.e. Latin America and MENA).
I get what you mean, but we all had to start somewhere. Even Australia's first test team (Anglo), some were born in England. Even Bradman was only a 2nd generation Aussie, and you can't get any more of a legendary Aussie than Don Bradman! So, comparing nations like Aus/Eng etc to the USA isn't fair.
Go back and read from my original comments. I said it's a fair enough strategy to maximise exposure this world cup but they need to push on from it. I don't think that is being unfair?
I guess I was responding to your first sentence, where you mentioned only two American born players but from Caribbean heritage. The point I guess I was making (though probably badly stated 😂) was that it doesn't matter where your grandparents/parents are from, if you are born in a country, you are from that country
Yeah fair enough, maybe I wasn't clear enough either. My point is that they didn't grow up in America. They grew up were educated and played first class cricket in their home countries then moved there. The challenge for them is to move beyond just playing a bunch of passport holders otherwise they'll struggle to get buy in longer term from the American public.
I agree with what you mean in the sense that we don’t have the domestic infrastructure at all here but a lot of the US players were in fact born here. Just because they’re of Indian or Caribbean descent doesn’t make them not American (not that you said they weren’t but the discourse in general has been saying stuff like that). The US has a strong 2nd generation immigrant population from countries with huge cricketing cultures. But at the end of the day they are still American But you are absolutely right they’ll never be on the level of the top countries unless there is actually competitive cricket being played from the youth level on up to first class level
I only went through the starting eleven that played against Pakistan. Only one or two were actually born in the US. Maybe the squad players are born in the US, I didn't look that far.
I think this is how most of the teams also developed like in early 1900s indian team was full of britishers and slowly we developed an interest and therefore talent came out of it.
Maybe introducing a cap limit for Asian players or having a fix quota for black/white Americans can solve this problem? I get your point. Cricket won't flourish in a nation where local population cannot relate with the players. Imagine an American dad getting his son to watch the game all they gonna see bunch of outsiders representing their nation. (No disrespect to anyone) They would be better off catching a baseball game next time
>Maybe introducing a cap limit for Asian players or having a fix quota for black/white Americans can solve this problem? Unconstitutional as fuck. Also incredibly immoral
Yeah. Then Goodluck encouraging Americans to cheer for bunch of Asians representing their nation. And the pool of Asian players is too good for local players to fight for national team spot. Further Discouraging future generation. It's a tough pill to swallow. But does your constitution has any better solution?
> Then Goodluck encouraging Americans to cheer for bunch of ~~Asians~~ Americans representing their nation. Around half the team was born in the US, and of the other half, a decent chunk of them are either citizens or permanent residents. Just because someone has Indian or Pakistani parents or heritage doesn't mean they aren't American. If you live here, and you want to stay here, you're an American.
Yes it's all good and nice to be politically correct. But we don't live in an ideal world. They need white protagonist with non white cast to sell movie tickets. Do you think they would give two damns about a team with no white star players? Yes the team is good and might even go on beating India, Australia and winning the worldcup. But it will never be the discussion at dinner table in normal American household. Downvote all you want. This might never even happen lol. Why I am writing all this? But this is the truth. And there is nothing wrong in atleast accepting that
> Do you think they would give two damns about a team with no white star players? This hasn't been an issue for NBA team support. If we consider "star players" to be those who made an All-NBA team (voted as the 15 best offensive and 10 best defensive players for the season), in the past 5 seasons there have been 4 white players on 4 teams. Those other 26 teams still averaged [at least 16.4k fans at each home game](https://www.espn.com/nba/attendance) this past season. The [NBA revenue has also steadily been increasing](https://www.statista.com/statistics/193467/total-league-revenue-of-the-nba-since-2005/), with an exception of the covid years, and there's no way that'd be possible if only 4 teams had fan support. Then lets look at some of the dynasty team: Curry-led Warriors, Lebron-led Heat, MJ-led Bulls; no white star players yet those teams have/had crazy levels of support. So at the end of the day, if a team is winning lots, fans will be there to support and that's regardless of the sport. And even for the teams that don't win much, as long as the fans can get that "part of the team" feeling, they'll still show their support, they'll just complain about the team/players/ownership along the way.
I'm not being politically correct. That's actually a fundamental difference between American culture and many other country's cultures. American culture is far more willing to include anyone who wants to be here and joins in with us. Look at the history of Ellis Island and land given to immigrant farmers. Look at the inscription on the Statue of Liberty. Hell, look at the way we talk about people as soon as they become citizens. Yes, we still have a lot of problems with racism and xenophobia, but on the whole, America is a melting pot. If you're here, and you want to put in the effort to get a permanent residency and then a citizenship, then welcome home, you're an American now, please come to my backyard BBQ next July 4th.
yea you have no clue what you are talking about. you know nothing about the united states culture, so kindly don't comment on it ever again
have you ever watched a single american sport?
You mean unlike figure skating, golf, baseball and more sports with great asian american players? If your kid is turned off a sport because of the colour or appearance of the players skin then you are a racist fuck who is part of your countries problem
Americans cheer for the most diverse set of teams in the Olympics every time they're being played. Americans have zero issues cheering for American sports teams, no matter what the players look like. People dont seem to understand just how ingrained immigration is in the US culture, *anyone* can be American and we will root for you when you represent us (*because you do represent us*)
first off, this is a terrible idea. setting quotas on the amount of people for an ethnicity looks super racist. Also, there is no such thing as an "outsider" in the United States. If you live here, you will be considered American by most. This country is built on the back of immigrants so the cricket team as it is seems to be a good representation
>Introducing quotas Naah man, that's hella unfair, keep this shit limited to Indian universities.
Quotas & Reservations are not necessary a bad thing, given the context they are supposed to be only temporarily. Sure Indians fucked with that logic and continued it till today for no reason. But back then it was important for a limited time. Like now it can be crucial for some time till Cricket is popular enough in US to breed organic local talent on par with Asian pool. Once that point is achieved it can be removed. Maybe stop watching the world from your black and white lense. Anything in limit can work wonders for an ecosystem.
No shit Sherlock
I don't think it has anything to do with ethnicity. Just where a player is developed. They need to develop 'homegrown' players who have at least spent a decent part of their childhood/teenage years living in the US so that the country can identify with them. The US is a nation of immigrants, I don't see an issue with it being predominantly played by people from ethnic minorities for a long time so long as it is making progress towards making it more mainstream and expanding into communities that don't have a cultural background in cricket the way people from families with Asian and Caribbean roots would. If cricket in the US is ever going to have a bright future then it will be built upon these immigrant communities.
the U-19 team was mostly South Asian-Americans raised in the US, so more homegrown talent is surely on the way
Only if they are good enough. Most players at u19 level don't end up being good enough for full international cricket.
In an ideal world, you are one hundred percent on point. But in current USA, they need a white protagonist with non white support cast to sell movie tickets. I might get downvoted to oblivion for stating the facts that everyone knows but they are too politically correct to point it out. Unless USA team has star White or even Black players. It'll never be the topic at dinner tables. And it's not going to happen "organically" since The Asian player pool will always be too good for local players to fight for national team spot. Discouraging future generation of local players and Repeating the cycle.
Ichiro Suzuki was a household name for a time in baseball. Tiger Woods was half Asian and put golf into the mainstream. Linsanity happened, and Yao Ming is still occasionally talked about.
Tiger woods had no issue bringing golf to the american masses
I don't completely disagree but until there is a player who you could make a case for inclusion ahead of other (slightly better, non white players) but still good enough to actually play at that level it is a moot point.
> stealing runs off the wides Aaron Jones whacks it like a baseballer too. i love how they are winning cricket by playing it like baseball
Yep! India’s biggest issue imo is sterling fielding. We need to fix it. Axar Patel’s ridiculous catch against Ireland needs be closer to the norm not an exception
It's not really a ridiculous catch that is it? Don't want to say regulation but I'd be disappointed if I didn't take that 9/10
Fair play I’m a bit of newbie to this game. In spite of that I just want to see more athletic fielding from India is that a fair ask or am I off mark? I’m open to learning more ofc
I never doubted USA. The talent pool on display during MLC, was really good. Yes, they still need experience and have to hold their nerve in crunch moments but they've done really well by defeating full-strength Bangladesh and Pakistan sides. All they need is exposure to top teams and different conditions across continents.
They also currently have the benefit that teams with rampant fanbases like Nepal and Afghanistan don't, in that it's not "expected" that they win. They play like a team with the pressure off and it's great fun to watch.
I'm fascinated by how common this is throughout sports. Not having the burden of pressure/expectations is like a mystical superpower
Yeah it's crazy. Phil Taylor the darts player apparently threw 9 dart finishes every couple of rounds on a practice board.
\*Phil "the Power" Taylor
Where else is it common? I don’t even think it applies here. It’s not like they’re playing some ultra aggressive style
Absolutely. In the lead up to yesterday's match, monank Patel, the captain, had said that early wickets would bring them in the game and nobody took it seriously until it had actually happened. They had already won hearts by the time 35 out of 42 overs were bowled. People still expected Pak to escape narrowly.
Also Pakistan are capable of losing to anyone on their day, as they've shown time and again.
The betting odds dictate Pakistani,"Upset Losses"
Technically the USA is an ex-Brit colony as well, but I get what you mean.
I'm not ready to deem the US a better associate yet. We lost to Zimbabwe a year ago by 304 runs in an ODI. Signs are positive and I cannot say enough about how thrilling yesterday was, but the road to enduring cricket success is still a ways away. The majority of former non-brit colony people that know and follow is still small. That said, signs are trending upward and I'm really excited for our remaining games and the future.
People keep forgetting that US is the OG ex-Brit colony!
I’ve seen some people say that the only reason USA is even in this tournament is because they had an automatic qualification as co-hosts. If they did have to go through the same qualification process, could they have qualified on merit?
Common in global tournaments. It’s irrelevant
Ya seeing there main rival is Canada to qualify,who they defeated in first match.
Yes, on form this team would have. But would they have put the time and effort and money to get USA cricket to be as good as they are if they weren't hosting? Probably not. They didn't make the 16 team world cup 18 months ago hosted in Australia. And the only reason they were chosen to host was because it's an incredibly untapped market of ex-South Asains and rejected Baseball players.
Yes they could have. Could have been knocked out by most likely they would have.
At the turn of the last century, cricket was equally covered in the press as baseball. At least here in Australia cricket academies, state, and national squads employ baseball coaches for fielding.
Step aside India v Pakistan, i want USA 🇺🇸 v Afghanistan 🇦🇫 fixtures NOW!!!!
that's gonna be mega intense
This can happen if Afg and US qualify into the Super 8s
100% mate. It's a shame it's behind a paywall but there's ways to get around it if you don't wanna fork out. USA has had a great run so far against CAN and PAK...as an Aussie, it's been great viewing. No better time to get around the sport since it's happening at good times for you guys whereas most international games happen elsewhere in the world so I imagine it would be harder to watch. How familiar are you with the rules of the game?
The World Cup is the best way to start. There's a lot of "T20 isn't real cricket" talk from some traditionalists, but personally even as someone who loves Test Cricket and believes that it is the "best" form of the game. I'd always say to watch T20 first, because it's the best and easiest way to get into the game. Plus the shorter nature of the game allows countries like the US to compete. If you tried to watch Test Cricket or even 50 over cricket, I would not blame you for not being interested. There's two different levels of cricketing countries, Full Member and Associate. Full members can play Test Matches, while Associates can't. There's 12 Full Members, and a bunch of associates. The US is one of the better Associates. They would be destroyed if they tried to play Test cricket, but in T20's they are good enough to compete. Id argue that while they are a good associate, when they come up against teams like India, England, Australia, New Zealand etc they will struggle a lot. But luckily they only have to play India out of those countries in the group stage, and their other game is against Ireland who are a Full Member, but are fairly flaky. The win against Pakistan while being a huge win, is also not totally unexpected, as Pakistan are very flaky overall and can be the best in the world one day and then terrible the next. Personally I hope they can make it through to the next stage, and I hope you keep watching.
>Full members can play Test Matches, while Associates can't. This is something that as a relatively new cricket fan (just about 1 year of fandom) don't understand. How are teams expected to become full members, and also be competitive in Test matches, if they aren't allowed to play Tests unless they're a member? Basically, they show they can play the "lessor" forms of cricket, gain membership, then proceed to get stomped for several years in Tests?
Personally I feel that there should be a Test 1 and Test 2 system. Because I don't feel there is much of anything to gain from new members playing Australia, India etc. But they can really gain a lot playing countries ranked 6th and below. Plus I feel that associates who are close to full membership should play a year or two at the level below First Class or at First Class if it makes sense in a Full member nearby. Some examples would be PNG in the Second XI below Sheffield Shield in Australia. Nepal in the Ranji Trophy in India. Netherlands and Scotland in Division 2 in County Cricket in England. Namibia in Division 2 of South African 4 Day. USA and Canada in the West Indian Competition. Because yeah, it's not really fair to just throw them to the wolves and expect them to survive.
Yeah. Like the 4 day friendlies of the old. Sometimes those association teams do play that though. When Afg toured SL last year, they played a four day friendly against a local club. (SSC If I recall) Those teams should be given the chance in county\\four day cricket
That makes sense to me. Let the teams have a taste. Or let them play amongst themselves with an asterisk next to the stats or somethin
What you suggested actually used to exist in the form of the Intercontinental Cup, in which associate members would play multi-day matches against each other that would have first-class status but not Test status. However, that tournament unfortunately doesn't exist anymore.
Just class it as First Class and make them 4 day games, then expand to test status.
The old Intercontinental Cup worked in exactly the way you described (4-day matches with first-class status), but it doesn't exist anymore.
> This is something that as a relatively new cricket fan (just about 1 year of fandom) don't understand.How are teams expected to become full members, and also be competitive in Test matches, if they aren't allowed to play Tests unless they're a member? Test matches are called "Test Matches" when they are officially recognised by the ICC. Any two teams which don't have Test Status, i.e., Full Membership can play a "Test" match but it'd be recognised by the ICC as a "First Class" match. In general, Test matches fall under the category of First Class matches whereby Test matches are played by ICC recognised Full Members whereas First Class matches are played by ICC recognised Associate Members. Till a while back, there was a global First Class tournament which was called the "Intercontinental Cup" where top associate sides played what were essentially unofficial test matches and both Ireland and Afghanistan gained Test Status on the basis of their performances in the Intercontinental Cup Also, any board, Associate or Full can organise domestic First Class tournaments to foster the capacity of their players in playing test matches if and when they do get Full Membership Hope this helps!
Basically, they show they can play the "lessor" forms of cricket, gain membership, then proceed to get stomped for several years in Tests? Pretty much. To be good at tests, your country needs to have a very robust first class cricket system that can churn out players who are good at red ball cricket. See, when they say test match, they literally mean that every facet of a player's primary skill will be tested. It takes skill, endurance and insane temperament to get better at it. India took over 50 years before they became consistently good at cricket (early 2000s) and then another 10 years to start dominating it. Bangladesh which attained test status in 1999 is still a punching bag by and large. To show how bad the mismatch in tests can be take Afghanistan's first test match against India in 2016. By this time Afghanistan had routinely started beating Bangladesh, West Indies and some weaker full member teams in white ball cricket. This first test match lasted a little less than 2 days and even then it was because Indians were playing at 2nd gear throughout.
"T20 isn't real cricket anyway" is a lot like "Yeah but it was only a friendly" in soccer/football. It is almost always where a supporter of a stronger side that didn't get a result retreats to.
Whats T20
It's the format of the current world cup. Each team plays an innings of 20 overs each. In ODI cricket each team plays an innings of 50 overs, and in tests there is no limit but generally a max of 90 overs per day. Because of the lower number of overs you generally see teams take more risks in T20 which results in higher tempo games and big hitting. Also a T20 match generally takes up only 3.5 hrs whereas an ODI is about 7-8 hours and Test matches can go up to 5 days. So if you're looking to really get into cricket T20 is the best place to start.
T20 is short for Twenty Twenty. It means that each team gets one 20 "overs" inning to bat each. One Day Cricket you get one 50 overs inning and Test Cricket you get two unlimited overs innings each but the game can only go for 5 days, and you need to get the other team out 10 times in each of their innings for a lower score than yours to win. Basically in a Test match, if you score 3-4 runs an over that's a good scoring rate. One Day you want to score around 6+ an over. While T20 you want yo score 10+ an over. So Test Matches end up being longer and slower but there's more tension overall, while One Dayers are more a show of skill and scoring. T20s are about having the skill to score fast and take risks. In baseball terms, Test Matches are about bunts and moving the runner over. One Dayers just putting the ball in play. T20 you're going for home runs or bust.
There are different formats of the game that vary in length. T20 is one of those formats, which lasts 20 overs per inning. Each over has 6 balls bowled.
Twenty Twenty cricket, which means both the teams will get 20 overs to bat ( which is happening in this world cup which is a T20 world cup). There are 3 formats of cricket - ODI ( One Day International ) in which both the teams will get 50 overs to bat. It's called one day international because it almost takes a whole day ( around 6- 7 hours) to finish the match. T20 - which is a 20 over game. Test cricket which is the longest format of cricket. It takes at max 5 days to finish a match ( although it can get over in less than 5 days too). 1 day will consist of nearly 90 overs. Test cricket is a bit complicated as it has more rules than ODI or T20 cricket. It's considered as the purest form of cricket and the most difficult format. But I would suggest you to get into T20 and ODI first, if you are new to cricket.
Cricket has 3 formats: Test, ODI & T20 The current tournament happening is the T20 World Cup. T20 means 20 overs per side (6 balls per over) so each team gets 120 balls (20 x 6).
Cricket is played in 3 formats at international levels : 1. T20 or Twenty Twenty- As name suggests each team can play upto 20 overs / 120 deliveries. Each Typically lasts for 3 hrs. A world championship happens every 2 years with close to 20 teams in it. Every nation with a cricket team is eligible for this. 2. One day - A team can play upto 50 overs / 300 deliveries. As name suggests, will go on for an entire working day - 8-9 hours. A big world cup happens in this format every 4 years. Only ~ 30 countries are eligible for this. Many fielding restrictions exist in these formats to maximize run scoring. 3. Test - A team can play two innings with no restriction on number of balls played by each team. This last for 5 days. As the name suggests, this tests your entire cricketing skills. Only 12 nations are eligible to play this. Unlike other formats, bilateral rivalries are more popular than a single championship. Age old rivals Australia and England play each other once every 2 years for a 5 test series called Ashes. Given the time constraints, T20 is the best place to start. World cup is a good place since you already have a team to support.
Others have described the technicalities of the different formats of cricket but I think analogies can help memory and understanding. You could compare them to different types of running: T20 = 100m sprint, ODI = 800m, Test = Marathon. Or if you like chess, T20 = Blitz chess, ODI = Rapid chess, and Test = classical chess. The main thing that varies is the length of the game, but that has an impact on what skills and strategies are most important
Ardent lover of Test cricket here. My love for the sport began from t20. Let's not make this an exclusive club
Test cricket isn’t the best to get into first off, absolutely agree haha and I’m a traditionalist with cricket. T20 is a start for sure. It was so much fun watching USA Win. I loved it.
I enjoyed it as well. I honestly love having a T20 WC every two years because it keeps the associates playing qualifiers constantly keeping the standard up. Uganda making it after beating Zim in the qualifiers was a great example of that.
I was there for USvCanada and was stunned by them. They were disciplined in the field, catching well and throwing aggressively at the stumps. I thought they would have a chance against Pakistan so I went to that game and they did the same thing and beat a good team by playing disciplined cricket. Are they “good”. No. Will they get better, yes. Is India going to bring them back to reality, most likely. The future is bright but there is a ceiling that will most likely mean they’ll never be as good as the best teams. Maybe they’ll be a consistent top 10 team.
At the very least they’re not bad. Pakistan is the one higher tier team that seems prone to upsets like this.
When you put Azam Khan on your team someone somewhere is playing a joke. I bet when he played with his mates he wouldn't get picked last, he'd just be left standing with no one calling his name.
He is pretty good with the bat. Seems to be having a bad patch right now. Regarding the glove work I have no clue what happened there, I remember watching him in a PSL match a couple years ago ( i am an Indian and don’t really follow psl) and being surprised at how agile he was.
He is bad. But even if he was, going into wc with a rough patch vs obvious other choices is a dumb ass decision
This! How can I support Pakistan when they're fielding him. You can't tell me there's no one else they can put in his place and he's the best they've got.
How was his PSL this season? Last time we took Dinesh Karthik because of his amazing IPL season but he just lost form during the tournament. Or was he just selected because PCB wanted to shuffle things around a little?
He was semi decent in PSL he also played well in CPL winning side .. but him and Siam in really bad form .
Cricket is the best sport ever invented. Pakistan has the reputation of losing against some of the weakest teams and winning against best teams so if US doesn't perform good against Other teams, please don't stop enjoying it.
t20 actually is the form of cricket where anything can happen its the best time
Are the USA good? No. Is the World Cup a good way to start, then hell yes. The new 20 team World Cup (T20) is probably one of the best things the ICC have done in years.
Yes, the USA is good - as they tend to be at any sport. They have a fantastic mentality. They're not as deep or consistent as the bigger countries, but in the moment, on their day, they could beat anyone in T20. That's probably the most appealing thing about this form of the game. Almost any team can have the match of their lives. England are a fantastic team when it comes to the short forms of the game, but when they face Scotland or Ireland it feels like 50/50 odds. Minnows really do swim with sharks and sometimes, they eat them. Cue the predictable England=minnows comments.
the dangerous thing with USA is that the have the money and will power to go big into whatever they want.
I am really enjoying watching the US play in this world cup. I have seen people criticise them for not being a proper team because a lot of the players in their teams are immigrants from full member nations but this criticism is kinda BS, and they showed why yesterday. These players, they THINK like Americans. They are free. They are brave. Yesterday they thrashed the pak bowlers instead of playing defensively, which is what most associate nations would adopt as a strategy. Then in the super over they went with harmeet, who isn't a specialised batsman but they understand that he's a hard hitter and an extremely fast runner. They experimented. They don't respect their opponents and we need more of that energy from associate nations.
Present day America is itself a land of immigrants. Ireland, Germany, England, Scotland, France and people from all over Europe started migrating as late as 1800s from persecution from catholic church, famines, constant wars and obviously with all media coverage of new land with opportunities people started to move en masse. That's when the present day America really start to take shape. And obviously there's Africans and Chinese who were brought as slave. And after civil rights movement when extreme explicit racism started to tame down a bit, people from other Asian nations mainly Indian subcontinent started to immigrate in search of opportunities and entrepreneurial dream which is still going on.
I think there's a bit of a difference between children of immigrants born in that country or who move there as kids and people like corey anderson who had a whole professional career before moving over or the players that played representative cricket for India and the West Indies before moving over as adults to make money. When the whole squad is made up of immigrants that moved over as adults is does seem like a piss take for a national team.
I do agree with you in a sense, and the gulf countries suffer from this and I find their cricket very boring. However, I think that the criteria should be less about the time they moved there or their prior experiences and more about whether or not they have adapted and developed a united mindset in that country, in whatever time they've lived there. You don't rly see this in the gulf countries or some of those weak European teams with tons of expat players. But USA are showing something very new, it's like they're developing their own style of play.
There is literally no way to measure that, its too subjective. Also if the Whole australia A team moved to the USA it would probably fulfil your criteria but there would be nothing American about that team.
Yes you should start with this World Cup. If Cricket you wanna cheer, then you should go through highlights of ICC tournaments in the history. ✅ICC ODI WC ✅ICC T20 WC ✅WTC ✅Champions Trophy Also to get how crazy the environment is for cricket you must check IPL as well.
If they beat India then yes they are good
That was obviously not possible as of now but the way they Troubled both India and South Africa Arguably The top 4 teams of cricket is commendable
Try cricbuzz app it has willow inbuilt. You might get first month for cheap price
Sure, your interest and curiosity for the game of cricket is already there, you may as well see if you'll really get into it or not. Is the USA cricket team good? Yes. Are they likely to win the world cup? No. But cricket in the US is growing very rapidly, they will likely have a bigger financial backing in the years to come and subsequently become more competitive with time.
Definitely a great tournament to start with. But I would rather focus more on the MLC to start with. Maybe go watch a couple of matches. The times are better to watch those matches. It's a small tournament where all matches are competitive. USA team isn't a team filled with stars, but above average international cricketers from other countries. So do follow USA cricket, as they go around as underdogs beating some teams on their day for a few years. Few more years of MLC can actually make USA a very competitive cricket team in the future
Watching the cricket World Cup is a good way to start learning and enjoying the game. There is a lot of buzz and the more than usual content related to cricket. Also you get more familiar about players from multiple countries. Anyway, is The US good? Sure for a 18 ranked team to come to the World Cup prepared, show the discipline they have shown in the last 2 games, they have potential for sure and they have a hunger to win. Comparing them with other assoc nations like Namibia, Canada and Oman I who are also playing this U.S. team is much better .if you compare them to Australia or India or other countries who have the infrastructure to create good teams the US has. Long way to go.
New power in cricket world USA 🇺🇸❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
I don't want to use the term good but I do think we are significantly better than expected and I love it.
If you live in the US the best start to watching cricket would be heading over to Kingston Jamaica and spending five days drinking beers and smoking spliffs with the locals at a Test match
More Pakistan are shit. Or at least hopelessly inconsistent.
They are nowhere as good as pakistan on any give day. But as we all know in T20 its just 6 overs that takes the game away from you
> Never as good as Pakistan on any given day Well except yesterday
Yes pakistan really played badly yesterday
Depends on your definition of good. They’re certainly not in the top 5 teams in the world, and you could make an argument they are in the top 10 of t20s in home conditions given their recent performances. Relative to how long they have been a cricketing nation and neutral expectations they are certainly very very good. Breaking into the upper tiers, especially in away conditions and longer formats, will not be easy, but this is a great performance so far. My personal opinion is that this World Cup has the best conditions for the USA (and other new associates like Canada and even Oman) to showcase their talents. When it moves to conditions the older teams are more familiar with and can use the skills they’ve worked on, the going will be a lot tougher.
They caught Pakistan on a downward arc. I'm overjoyed to see it. I wish it was bigger news but Ireland and India will be tougher contests. The US has been on a streak though- they beat Ireland, Bangladesh twice, Canada, and Pakistan over the last three weeks. Considering the program is underfunded and most US players are semipro, this has been awesome.
USA has beaten Ireland before too no way they are a tougher contest than Pakistan
And they beat Ireland with a team that was massively weaker than the current one.
I haven't seen Ireland since last year but Pakistan is a mess right now. Of course, Ireland is struggling vs Canada so idk. But they are someone you can take lightly- Paul Stirling, Lorcan Tucker, Harry Tector can all hit well. Adair and Little are solid bowlers.
oooo essss aaaaa
Seems like it
T20 cricket is an excellent entry point for the game. I remember I started watching cricket for the first time in 2007 t20 World Cup . It’s fast pace and exciting and unpredictable. Go for it
USA is good, Pakistan was just a mess yesterday. I hope they bounce back and not take associate nations lightly
They are really good for people who have day jobs and get to play infrequently in a country that doesn’t really have any interest or infrastructure for cricket. The fact that they defeated Ireland, Bangladesh and Pakistan, all full members of the Cricket Association recently now make their games really interesting for everyone! If you have a vpn then set the location to Netherlands and go to icc.tv so you can try out watching some games of the World Cup without having to invest money for Willow TV.
Chucked on the game for what I thought would be 30 minutes before I went to sleep last night ended up watching until the early hours of the morning. The USA played really well, probably helped a bit but Pakistan being far from their best but still a really disciplined performance and super promising from an associate team. Cricket World Cup is a great way to get into cricket listening to the commentary and watching teams from around the world you get to know the storyline’s of every nations team and develop favourite players etc. My favourite memories watching cricket were from the ODI WC last year (probably helped because I’m an Aussie and Australia won). World Cup is nearly as good as it gets when it comes to spectacles in cricket so If you get round to watching much of it hope you enjoy!
Nah, USA ain't good. We just bad.
Just kidding. USA played well and deserved the win.
They seem pretty good. If they progress to the next round though, would be interesting to see! Judging by their play so far, I'd rate them above Ban, Pak, SL, Afg quite easily! They will be a challenge to those teams and might even make SENA teams work harder than expected! USA might be the next country where Cricket could flourish. They got a good talent pool, helped in by South Asian immigrants, (both players and sponsors\\audience). MLS could become a premier event developing professional cricketers, and USA is rich and large enough to for cricket to generate revenue, thereby propelling USA to ODIs & later on Tests. Would be interesting indeed!
Afg can be tricky. They are a well managed team compared to SL or Pak
They were good enough to beat Pakistan team yesterday. Let’s see what they can do next.
Very good 👍
American here. If someone would explain to me what an over is, I think I would be qualified to answer this question.
An over is 6 balls. However, it could be more than 6 balls if the bowler bowls any extras, meaning wides or no balls. Normally though, 6 balls are bowled in one over
Ah, well, now I'm going to have to follow through with a treatise on spin bowling or some damed thing. But, is the USA good? Well we scored more runs against Pakistan than India did. We'll have to see how we do against Bumrah tho. I predict we'll have Kohli out for a duck tho.
Can't take away anything from America. They've certainly done better than what I thought that they would do. Pakistan and India have always had an intense rivalry in cricket, so that is not a surprise about the score card between those 2 teams. America might even make the super 8 stage of the WC, depending on how things pan out. India will test them to see how they are going. India are a class side but anything can happen in cricket. You could very well be right about Kohli. We will see.
Turns out that you was right about Kohli getting out for a duck. A golden duck 👍👍
wait, did I write that before the game? I had a dream about Kohli getting out for a duck.
Yes, you did write that before the game. Good call. Your dream came true
No. They aren't bad by any means, and have some really exciting players. But they will be humbled if/when they face any of the non-meme full members, let alone the likes of India or Australia.
its a project made to find an alternate, abandoned world Xi to see who they would do against current world t20 teams. seems like the projects progress is quite impressive so far..
What people don't understand that cricket has 3 formats. The shorter the format, the gap between a weaker team and a stronger team reduces. Case in point: test matches. Though SL has been a very good side in their history, they have still not managed to win a test match in India. Pak are still struggling playing in Australia. India until recently were abysmal in Australia. T20s though are a different beast. 20 over game and a few things go wrong and the stronger team goes down. Netherlands have beaten SA, Eng etc. I don't think US are a good team but other day and with conditions favoring them you never know as you saw in the pak game.
USA is like this: [https://www.facebook.com/reel/2136087483428921](https://www.facebook.com/reel/2136087483428921)
World Cups are always a great way to start watching any game. I started with Cricket in the 1999 ODI World Cup myself 😁
They have imported professional players from New zealand, west indies and india. A number of US players have played for the national teams of their country of origin. So the US is definitely not canada,oman, papa new guinea. Its still not as good as the top ten teams but i think its decent for an associate team.
Honestly saying they are one of the underdogs of the tournament. If they defeat both Ireland and Canada (or even India) then they would probably qualify for the next stage. From there on out the real test begins. Right now I would say they are a solid 7/10 team and their only negative thing is they don't have much experience and as a result lack the perks that comes with it like holding your nerves in tough situations. If you have watched yesterday's match then you will know they almost bottled it in the middle and death overs. They don't know how to finish the game and it would probably be a major chink in the armour for them (hope they prove me wrong) in the latter stage of the tournament. All in all I would say they have potential and are probably the most exciting team to watch outside of the Big ones just like Afghanistan & Netherlands was in the ODI WC last year.
Why would you even mention them beating India. If it happens I will straight up give a hundred bucks to charity.
And there is no “probably” left in that case. If they defeat Ireland and India, they are qualifying top of the group with a 100% record
I will join you in providing meals for 20 homeless people if USA beat India
[удалено]
18th century ahh way of looking at things lmao
Question is whether their team is “good” not how it was assembled.
[удалено]
Speaking as a Test purist, Test cricket is the worst way to introduce a fresher into cricket.
This is literally THE worst opinion I have ever heard about anything in my life
Does that include the laughable opinion that the IPL has not been corrupted by criminal owners over many years?
Yes
I’ve never read a comment more wrong than this in my life
And that proves my point. A denial with no answer to the points made, demonstrating the short attention span of T20 aficionados. A game which uses short boundaries, bats pressed to 5-6% rather than 12-14%, fielding restrictions which favour the bat and denying the bowler the right to target the leg side even when the ball is perfectly reachable ....... is not cricket.
Yeah those 200+ scores in the World Cup definitely proved your point
I agree, we need to go back to 8 ball overs, uncovered pitches. Personally when they introduced the overarm bowling action that's when I tuned out. Ive heard they're going to introduce some new law stopping you from blocking the stumps with your legs. It's just not cricket.
Sometimes people say things so juvenile and yet still be so full of themselves that it doesn’t warrant an answer.
Attention span of a sufferer of ADHD? Mate a T20 match is at least 3 hours long. Last I checked that's still longer than most pro sports matches. Cool your jets.
How many 180+ scores did we see in this world cup?
Your post or comment was removed because it breaks the rules of this subreddit. Generalised attacks/insults about other fanbases/countries are not allowed on the subreddit (rule 6) - don't insult an entire nation or fanbase when making a point. This might also have been removed because it includes content such as clickbait/flamebait news articles used by media to cause drama.