Your experience, as an American, with cricket in this country is pretty

typical: discovered the game abroad and now trying to play it in the USA.  You're

also pretty much going down the same old paths when it comes to getting more

Americans involved.

I don't see ANY way American television is just going to up and show cricket. Just not the way TV works.  ESPN360 did run

a delayed broadcast of the Stanford championship game in the Fall--opposite

Sunday NFL--but I didn't hear it did anything to excite the viewing public and

my guess is Stanford may have even paid them to run it.  

The key is certainly getting Americans to play cricket but, as someone who's playing

in a predominantly ex-pat league, you must also be well aware of the obstacles.

Most of the cricket  clubs in this country are competitive, they want people

who can walk in and immediately make a contribution. Few want to take time

with a beginner. Add to that desi politics, old-world customs, etc., and its easy to see few Americans are going to have the dedication to take this route.  What we need are clubs made up of only Americans, even if they're just beginners clubs, which will give them an opportunity to get experience in the game and attract their peers to the game.  The USACA should be taking the initiative here but have done nothing.

I've said this many times and will say it again: money IS NOT the main stumbling

block for promoting cricket to Americans.  There's absolutely nothing stopping

anyone from going out and playing cricket. The main obstacle is that no one's hit on

a way to get a broad groundswell of Americans excited about cricket. Once you've

got interest and a public that follows the game the money will come, television will come, etc.   Not before.

Your experience, as an American, with cricket in this country is pretty

typical: discovered the game abroad and now trying to play it in the USA.  You're

also pretty much going down the same old paths when it comes to getting more

Americans involved.

I don't see ANY way American television is just going to up and show cricket. Just not the way TV works.  ESPN360 did run

a delayed broadcast of the Stanford championship game in the Fall--opposite

Sunday NFL--but I didn't hear it did anything to excite the viewing public and

my guess is Stanford may have even paid them to run it.  

The key is certainly getting Americans to play cricket but, as someone who's playing

in a predominantly ex-pat league, you must also be well aware of the obstacles.

Most of the cricket  clubs in this country are competitive, they want people

who can walk in and immediately make a contribution. Few want to take time

with a beginner. Add to that desi politics, old-world customs, etc., and its easy to see few Americans are going to have the dedication to take this route.  What we need are clubs made up of only Americans, even if they're just beginners clubs, which will give them an opportunity to get experience in the game and attract their peers to the game.  The USACA should be taking the initiative here but have done nothing.

I've said this many times and will say it again: money IS NOT the main stumbling

block for promoting cricket to Americans.  There's absolutely nothing stopping

anyone from going out and playing cricket. The main obstacle is that no one's hit on

a way to get a broad groundswell of Americans excited about cricket. Once you've

got interest and a public that follows the game the money will come, television will come, etc.   Not before.

Good contribution from Ben.

I especially agree with #2 on his list. The effort put in by current clubs to recruit and integrate white/mainstream Americans into clubs is absolutely pathetic. Even more lamentable is the fact that when such a person goes to reach out to clubs, he is often completely ignored.

Before last season, I wrote to numerous club presidents and contacts listed in the CLNJ and MCL web site directories for New Jersey amateur cricket, making very sure to inform them about my unique background. I got exactly two responses.

The first club had me drive down an hour and a half to a tennis court for 8 am on a Saturday morning to have a tryout. The man in charge said I was definitely good enough for his CLNJ Division 1 club, who was (allegedly) desperate for members and that he would give me a call to join. I never got one. I later found out from one of the players who I had met at the tryout that day and ran into a few months later, that on more than one occasion last season, this club played matches with less than 11 players because they couldn't find anyone to play.

The second club also invited me to have a tryout. This club, whose own web site touts itself as (nonprofit) "a 501 (c)(3) organization" whose mission is "to promote the game of cricket within the central New Jersey area and to provide a competitive environment for individuals to develop and improve their game" sent me an email after I had my tryout with them informing me that... "After having looked at your game, the club is satisfied about your cricketing skills and attitude shown on the field. However since the number of members in our club is where we need it to be, in order to support 2 teams, we feel that at this point we may not be able to guarantee you a position in the playing eleven on a regular basis."

Earlier, I had written an email to a VERY WELL KNOWN club president in the CLNJ, informing him of my background and asked about joining his club because geographically they were the closest to where I lived and I was interested in joining them. He never responded. When I then called him up a few days later, he told me that I could not join his club because he "had too many members." I have later found out that this VERY WELL KNOWN club president spends a fair amount of time trying to recruit players for his team, regardless of how many are currently on the roster.

There is also the story of an Atlantic Region USACA administrator who readily admitted to booting a college age, white/mainstream American from his club who had come looking to learn the game and get a chance to play but was told to go elsewhere (which presumably means he will never set foot on a cricket field again) because he was new, hadn't really played before and predictably wasn't yet as good as the other players.

Let us keep in mind that these are all instances taking place in AMATEUR cricket. This is more or less the equivalent of beer league slow pitch softball. Look around your local league and chances are you will see a sizable amount of 40-year-old guys who are 50 pounds overweight and smoking cigarettes while fielding at fine leg yet have no problem saying with a straight face that they take their cricket very seriously and are ultra competitive. Meanwhile, people who should be worth their weight in gold as new members (white/mainstream Americans) and welcomed with open arms and given every opportunity possible to learn and adjust to the game are being turned away when the chance comes.

What kind of message does that send? Cricket will not be able to grow in this country unless this kind of attitude, mindset, and approach to recruiting new members changes.

Re:timmyj51's comment.

Stanford's match was actually shown live on ESPN360, the $20 million match vs. England, on Saturday afternoon/evening. The problem was that it was going up against a slew of big college football matchups: Florida vs. Georgia, who were both in the top 10; Notre Dame football in a game which went to 3 or 4 OTs vs. Pittsburgh; and the start of the Texas vs. Texas Tech game, who were #1 vs. #7, and wound up being the game of the year when Michael Crabtree scored the game-winning TD for Tech with 1 second to go. The following day the Stanford match was re-aired on ESPN2, but was on tape delay at 2 pm vs. live NFL football on network tv on the east coast, including the end of the Jets game and the start of the Giants game (vs. the Eagles) in the NY market. In this era of 24/7 access to news and info, no one in their right mind would watch a tape delayed broadcast of any sport on tv instead of a live NFL game so that was always going to be doomed to fail in terms of viewership.

Cricket's best chance of being successful in terms of television ratings in America, at least at the start, will be showing matches or playing matches on US soil in February. This is traditionally the dullest month of the sports calendar. Football season has just ended after the Super Bowl. March Madness is still a month away in the college basketball season. Baseball is still two months away and the NBA & NHL are meandering along in their regular seasons. The competition for viewership will be significantly less in this period.

The next best option is in June when baseball is still drifting along in mid-season before the all-star game and the NBA Finals and NHL Stanley Cup Playoffs have concluded and obviously football season hasn't yet begun. Getting viewers for cricket is not the greatest challenge and there are a few windows such as these available. ESPN360 is showing the current tri-series between India/Sri Lanka/Bangladesh live for free. The other problem though is that if your cable/internet provider doesn't have an agreement with ESPN360 (like Cablevision, which is mine), then you can't watch it.

Your experience with the ex-pat clubs is pretty typical.  Over the years

I've heard the same sort of story from other Americans.  It's led me to conclude,

years ago, that Americans have to set up their own clubs, own

programs, maybe even their own association if the game has any hope of

becoming mainstream.  Whatever they may tell you to the contrary the ex-pats just aren't going to make any serious effort to bring Americans

into the game and, from my experience, I don't really want them to be

the ones to do it.  So that's the impass:  Americans have not easy access to

the game in this country while the ex-pats keep the game "underground"

(as Lockerbie terms it).

Very good discussion. Are those in authority are following?

I believe we must lead from the trenches.

Title 9 did wonders for women's sports in the USA and it will take an Act like this to change cricket from the social ethnic dance to become one choice of sports in America.

Here is a suggestion for the de-Balkanization of US Cricket:

- leagues mandate, over a period of 5-7 years, that each club,  

  recruit, train & include on their rosters, persons unfamiliar with cricket (PUC) or persons with limited cricket history - (PLCH)- these PUCs or PLCHes should play in a designated number of matches per season

- the mandate should increase over the term, to a minimum of 2 per match at the term

- design the mandate so teams are not adversely affected in early years and can be in the form of rewards, ie extra points for including x number of PUCs. Leagues would develop their own plan.

- the USACA can play a role

It's open

Interesting reading, although also disheartening. Just as a bit of background, I'm an Australian cricket follower (I watch it far better than I play it) and have never been to the USA. I would love to see cricket succeed in other countries around the world. It is sad to hear these stories of the current cricketers not welcoming people from non-cricketing backgrounds to their clubs.

I'm just wondering. Ben, you say you play every weekend. Have you been able to talk your friends who are unfamiliar with cricket to play as well? This is the real grass roots, as they are called. If you show your friends, and they show their friends, and so on, the game can grow. Of course, this would take many years and would need to be aided from the top down too.

And Peter, have you been able to find a regular club to play for? I would guess that if you have friends with a baseball background, they could pick up most of the game very quickly. The fielding is virtually the same. The batting just requires hand-eye coordination. The bowling would be the hardest element to develop.

Although my experience has not been the same as Peter's in looking to join a club, I can see exactly where he is coming from.  I have been very lucky and stumbled across two of the best cricket clubs in the state of Texas, but very well could have came across clubs very similar to what Peter talks about.  Both clubs took me in, and were willing for me to be part of the team, even if I wasn't the typical cricketer.  The Desi politics, and 40 year old overweight, but serious cricketers, are a fact of cricket in the US, and it is does cause a negative impact in attracting American cricketers.  However, I don't see having a separate club or league for Americans as a viable option.  That is no different than having the Nego Baseball League, rather than integrating Major League Baseball.  I do think it will take clubs that are willing to go out on a limb, and break the norm of keeping the game "underground".  Clubs must be willing to sacrifice a spot on the team, possibly to a player with lesser skill, but with the upside of the rewards gained from introducing someone to the sport they love.  And hopefully eventually developing that person into a bonafied, skilled, cricketer

I really like Charles's point about Title IX, and bringing in USACA to help encourage clubs to bringing in players unfamiliar with cricket.  But, I do think it is difficult to force clubs to include players with limited cricket history, especially in competitive leagues.  However, there has to be some sort of incentive for clubs to recruit these types of players.  

Finally, to answer Roger's questions, I have convinced some friends to try cricket, but without much interest.  I really think that you have to be genuinely interested in trying the sport, rather than having it forced on to you.  Some people are more interested than others, and those are the ones who need to be encouraged.  And although the skill set does translate very closely to baseball, it is not a game you can pick up overnight.  You are correct that bowling is the hardest to develop and fielding, obviously, is the easiest aspect to pick up.  Batting can be picked up rather quickly, but proper cricket batting does not come so easy.  Anyone can see the ball and go out and slog, but to be able to play a long innings, requires much more than hand eye coordination.  

Re: Charles' comment

Arun Vittala, who is in Ben's neck of the woods and has been involved with US youth cricket for many years, has advocated for USACA to mandate that every club/team in a USACA registered league field at least one American-born player under the age of 25 who does belong to a heritage/cultural background of one of the Test playing nations. As Charles said, there could be points awarded for teams following this, or even better, points deducted for teams who don't. This seems like a very simple task and an excellent rule to implement, but the fact that it hasn't happened shows the lethargic approach and attitude among clubs nationwide towards advancing cricket and integrating it on a broad scale to the mainstream. We are not talking a whole team or even half a team here. Teams and clubs are unwilling to go out and find even one player.

I agree with Ben and dispute Timmyj51's assertion that there needs to be a separate setup for American born players. We need to get help from people who are forward thinking within the South Asian and West Indian communities because they do exist. While I haven't had much luck in New Jersey, I did have a tremendous amount of success in Nebraska while I was still a student at Creighton University in Omaha. The president of Omaha Cricket Club, Bhaskar Krishna, was a very forward thinking person and welcomed me to the club with open arms four years ago, despite the fact that I had never played in an organized match, had next to no batting technique and couldn't bowl properly. However, I was a fielding demon having grown up playing baseball and used that foundation to build my overall game. He played me in just about every match my first season, overruling the protests of most of the other club members. I couldn't bowl properly until the end of my first season, but practiced non-stop throughout the offseason on all parts of my game. During my second season with the club, I became a highly valued member of the team so much so that I opened the batting on a few occasions and also was used regularly as a spin bowler. At the end of season Twenty20 tournament, I took 7 for 11 in the first match and at the end of year OCC banquet I was given the club's Most Improved Player Award. It inspired me to then go and play in England the following summer for an amateur club outside of London where I gained valuable experience and improved even more. I imagined that when I returned in 2009 to New Jersey, the place where I grew up, finding a place to play would be so easy, but it wound up being a complete nightmare and no I currently do not have a club yet for 2010. I think it's an embarrassment that someone can't get a proper opportunity to play an amateur level game in his own state, let alone his own country, while non-citizens have free reign over everything. If you read some of the posts on this site's message boards, some of them are quite interesting to observe. I read one recently that was advertising for a tennis ball team trying to recruit players. The post said the team had lost most of their roster from 2009 because they were all on L1 visas and returned back to their native country. Presumably the people running the club were hoping for a fresh wave of people on L1, H1 or H1B visas to replenish the roster, as opposed to going out and finding people who have been a part of the local community for most of their lives. Not only does this mean they are not reaching out to the community, but it also means that the players are just being ferried in and out, without any sense of forming a lasting legacy with any club or attempting to build a foundation that they will be club members for 5, 10, or 20 years and then have their own kids play at the club with them and after they have stopped.

The point is that there are definitely people within the South Asian and West Indian communities that more or less run the amateur cricket scene in America who are forward thinking and very willing to welcome Americans into their clubs and give them opportunities, such as Ben's club in Texas or my former club in Nebraska. It is just that they are few and far between. However, these are the kind of leaders that need to be identified, step forward and take charge to help cricket grow in terms of the playing side of things. They are willing to reach out and we need to reach back to them.

On a side note though, there seems to be some people taking the opposite side of timmyj51's argument, that instead of getting Americans to run the show, some people are very determined to make sure that someone from a traditional cricket background is always in charge and that Americans are never able to get involved. While traveling across the country this year to cover tournaments, I have met a few people who have questioned why Don Lockerbie is the CEO of USACA. The only reason these people can come up with though is that they don't feel he is qualified to be CEO because he "didn't grow up playing cricket" and "doesn't come from a country where cricket is played at a high level." Apparently, the fact that the man has been involved with organizing the 1994 Soccer World Cup and multiple Olympic Games, not to mention the 2007 Cricket World Cup, holds no weight for them. This kind of resistance is disturbing and shows why cricket has not shown much progress in this country for so long. They feel like he is some sort of outsider who doesn't belong, rather than someone who has unique experience and fresh perspective to help put the administration and organization of USACA on the right path, and US amateur cricket as a whole. Again, these people are in the minority. The majority of people believe that Lockerbie has been doing a very good job to help turn around USACA's image and start the ball rolling to raise the profile of the game in this country in addition to several other positive things. But the fact that there are people out there who hold this view that he doesn't belong because he is "American" is indicative of why things have been stagnant for so long at the amateur level.

Ben's and Roger's observations and comments are spot on though. It can be a challenge to convince people to play, but those with an open mind can definitely be receptive to picking up the game. Fielding was obviously the easiest part to me and I had no trouble whatsoever fielding with my bare hands as opposed to using a glove. Batting was a little hard to pick up. I actually started off right handed as that is how I batted in baseball growing up, but after discovering that many of the shots such as the drives more closely resembled ice hockey, which I had played left handed growing up, I became a left hand bat and found everything very simple from there on out. There are several other sports, including tennis, where batting skills in cricket can be picked up from other sports not named baseball. Learning to defend was the hardest thing about batting, as the natural instinct is to attack. Bowling was by far the hardest to learn and took anywhere from 4-6 months for me. It is difficult to learn how to relax your elbow to bowl a proper motion when someone has grown up their whole life flexing and bending their elbow to throw a football and baseball. But it can be done.  

Correction on the Arun Vittala theory/proposal - He advocates for a mandatory American-born U-25 player who does NOT belong to a heritage/cultural background of one of the Test playing nations to be in every playing XI of a USACA registered league club.

All of these testimonies just lend support to what I've been saying:

Americans have to form their own clubs, teams, and maybe even an association for

the game to ever have a chance of going mainstream.  Sure, there are

clubs out there that welcome Americans (I played for one), but you still have

the situation of an "underground" club that happens to have one or two

Americans.  With everyone here the situation's the same: Americans who are

enthusiastic about cricket but can't get any other Americans interested.  Unless you can find a way to do this (and I think I know how) there's no hope for the game, and just "mandating" that clubs have one or two Americans on their team

won't change this.  The ex-pat attitude towards Lockerbie comes as no

surprise to me and just confirms my belief that the immigrant community is

not serious about bringing cricket to Americans.  Though I have to say I

don't see what they're griping about.  Lockerbie's pretty much galvanized

himself as an ex-pat; so far as I know he's only been moving in ex-pat

circles (has he contacted anyone on this forum or, for that matter, any other

mainstream Americans involved with cricket?) and catering to ex-pat interests.  I was hoping we'd hear from him by now some initiatives/programs

to take the game mainstream, but so far nothing.

Looking back at Charles' suggestion of forcing clubs to take on people from non-cricket backgrounds, it seems there would be great reluctance from the clubs because they feel they are being punished.

There are two ways to motivate people - the carrot and the stick. If the stick doesn't work, maybe the carrot would be more appealling. Rather than mandates, how about some form of reward. I am against the reward of competition points, because that may be seen as being to heavyhanded.

Instead, I would propose some form of financial reward for taking on new players. Not necessarily cash, but how about gifts of new equipment, or discounts on registration fees? This may motivate some clubs since it affects their hip pocket. But it is still the clubs' decision whether they will make the effort. Where would this money come from? I guess USACA would need to put their money where their mouth is...

Now a bit more of my background. I grew up watching cricket and playing backyard cricket and a little bit of indoor cricket, but never played an organised game until I was 18. Of course, I was one of the weakest players going around. But I was welcomed. Why? Well, everyone was just playing for fun. I was playing in grade C churches cricket, which was probably the lowest grade of organised cricket for adults in Sydney. I went on to play for the next 8 seasons. I would never have dreamt of playing in a more competitive grade because I knew I would be a burden on the rest of the team.

And now another question about American leagues. Is there any sort of depth in the leagues to enable lower, less competitive leagues? Let the experienced players fight it out in the top grade(s), then have a lower grade for beginners or those who just play for fun. As Peter has shown, give someone a season or two of any cricket and they can be very valuable to the club as a whole. But there has to be a way for new players to get their foot in the door!

Actually, there's a better way to force the USCA and the ex-pats to bring Americans

into the game.  As I understand it, the ICC gives out money to the associates

on the basis of a complicated formula that factors in clubs, number of players,

women, international success, etc.  Like to see the ICC  factor into this

formula the number of participants from "non-cricketing

populations."  In other words, if the USACA (and, for that matter, other

associates) want more money from the ICC they have to show proof they're bringing more of the mainstream population into the game.  If not, they

get less $$$.  

Pingback from  Five ways to make cricket attractive to Americans – Ben Miron …

I have to give credit to the creator of this website - nice job.

By Ian Pont (Third in a series of opinion pieces. Click here for first and second . If you would like

Affiliate Marketing is a performance based sales technique used by companies to expand their reach into the internet at low costs. This commission based program allows affiliate marketers to place ads on their websites or other advertising efforts such as email distribution in exchange for payment of a small commission when a sale results.

www.onlineuniversalwork.com

There are some thin if the legitimate work as a line there. Most are sites and marketing study for the site owner rich, not you. The only thing is true legitimacy Ebay, selling things you already own

www.onlineuniversalwork.com

eee

Actually, there's a better way to force the USCA and the ex-pats to bring Americans

into the game.  As I understand it, the ICC gives out money to the associates

on the basis of a complicated formula that factors in clubs, number of players,

women, international success, etc.  Like to see the ICC  factor into this

formula the number of participants from "non-cricketing

populations."  In other words, if the USACA (and, for that matter, other

associates) want more money from the ICC they have to show proof they're bringing more of the mainstream population into the game.  If not, they

get less $$

www.onlineuniversalwork.com

Affiliate Marketing is a performance based sales technique used by companies to expand their reach into the internet at low costs. This commission based program allows affiliate marketers to place ads on their websites or other advertising efforts such as email distribution in exchange for payment of a small commission when a sale results.

www.onlineuniversalwork.com

Make Money With Affiliate Programs

How To Make money with affiliate programs Today. Affiliate marketing is the easier and probably the most effective method to make money from the internet. It is basically, a kind of selling technique where potential buyers from your website are directed to the websites of sellers. For every click, the website owner gets a small commission.

www.onlineuniversalwork.com

Affiliate Marketing is a performance based sales technique used by companies to expand their reach into the internet at low costs. This commission based program allows affiliate marketers to place ads on their websites or other advertising efforts such as email distribution in exchange for payment of a small commission when a sale results.

www.onlineuniversalwork