Well, we have here a classic example--that's been repeated over and over--

of an "expert" from a cricket playing culture who simply doesn't understand

or appreciate American sports culture and what has to be done to integrate

cricket into this culture.

1) Well, its been well known for years how politics, in-fighting, and favoritisim

has poisoned American cricket but at least there seems to be some progress

here, at least in the objective and unbiased identification of talent.  But the

biggest bias--the willingness for the ex-pat community to reach out to

mainstream Americans--remains as strong as ever.

1) Here we have the classic fallacy of American cricket, repeated over and

over:  we can only work with the cricket talent we have (which means the

ex-pats) build them up, and, hopefully, this will somehow attract broader

interest from mainstream Americans.   But success alone does not at all

guarantee popularity.  The USA rugby team routinely gets into the rugby

World Cup but it hasn't translated into greater popularity with mainstream

Americans with that sport.  Just ask yourself this:  how many countries have EVER reached

the top competitive level of ANY sport when that sport did not have broad

grassroots popularity?  I can't think of a single one.  No, you must first establish

broad based popularity, intense grass roots interest.  Only then do you have

the talent pool and dedication for competitive success.

3. If good coaching was all that was needed the USA would be world beaters

by now.   There's been plenty of good coaching available.  The USACA could

probably pick up the phone right now, call the ICC, and get plenty of good

coaches.  It doesn't change the fact:  if you don't have the talent the best

coaching in the world won't help.

4.  Putting the cart before the horse.  There are no grass pitches in the USA

because there's no demand.  Believe me, if cricket caught on with mainstream

Americans they'd be overturning heaven and hell to get the best facilities. Just

look at soccer.  In my area soccer parents and clubs are spending money

head over heels for good grounds, arm-twisting government officials, getting

sponsors, etc. etc.  All because soccer's big with American kids.  The same

would happen if cricket caught on. Will never happen if it doesn't.

5. Canada's a mirage and is the best proof for what I've all been saying.  They've

made the World Cup three straight times.  Got plenty of money.  Got good

facilities. Got good coaching. But if you go to Canada what do you find?  It's still almost entirely an ex-pat sport, with hardly any more mainstream interest than in the states (avergage Canuck doesn't even know they have a national cricket team). And what's come from all this?  Canada's got to the WC but there's absolutely no indication it will ever go any further. So we're back to what I said:

a country can't reach the highest competitive level of any sport unless there's

broad mainstream interest and support.  That's what the cricket world should

be doing everything to bring about.  Forget the coaches, forget the tournaments,

forget the pitches. You have to get mainstream America excited enough about cricket that they'll stick with it.  That's the mission, pure and simple.

On point 4 (grass pitches), I assumed that Ian was saying there must be at least 2 grass pitches per region. That makes about 14 grass pitches as a minimum. He is not saying every league should play on them, but players who reach the top levels of cricket in the USA must be comfortable playing on them.

How can USA send teams like the under 19 team to New Zealand for the current world cup and expect them to compete on surfaces that are totally different to what they are used to? It is little wonder they struggle against teams from the top countries where the majority of their players play most of their cricket on grass pitches.

I just wonder how much it actually costs to develop and maintain these pitches. Is it the problem of cricket getting sole use of an oval of grass? Or is it the cost of maintaining the surface? Some investment must be made, but the cost will determine how many grass pitches are developed and maintained.

timmyj51 is right about Canada.  We Canadians have a bit more money since we have been qualifying for the World Cup but there is nothing to show cricket is growing outside the South Asian immigrant community.

The ICC clearly wants to cash in on the USA's large and relatively wealthy population to grow cricket commercially.  However, they have not a clue how to reach the general American population or indeed any large population not residing on the Indian subcontinent.  Here's a hint for them: get your T20 games on free TV so people can actually see it!.

Timmyj51... the USA is NEVER going to make cricket part of the fabric of it's society. In all Associate countries, it is not the indigenous community playing the sport but ex-pats driving it. The only top associate country that has been able to have the vast majority of 'locals' is Holland. And I speak from this base of knowledge.

That's why I covered the points I mentioned as this is the only way it can work.

I think the onus is on cricket clubs to to reach out and involve non ex-pats but it's a massively long process.

And on another point about coaching, it is VITAL the US players get the best available and it's part of a co-ordinated plan. I DO NOT see that - even though you claim this part is easy?

Those of us who have helped build and develop successful national teams and below at associates level realise that initially the game has to be healthy, strong and successful to attract sponsors, money and new players. After England won the Ashes in 2005, cricket playing jumped almost 10% nationally. And sponsors were falling over themselves to back the team. If the ex-pats are the lifeblood of cricket, we need to ensure they compete, perform and are really good to carry the cricket torch for others.

Just seeing T20 cricket on TV doesn't magically bring in new players to a sport that is disorganised, full of politics and not an attractive option of your time on a Saturday or Sunday.

Well, if you're convinced--and there are many in this country and elsewhere who are-- that "the USA is NEVER going to make cricket part of the fabric of

its society" that's fine.  Just understand

what you're saying, namely,  that cricket is FOREVER DOOMED to be (as Lockerbie calls it) an "underground sport",  that it will NEVER reach a high

competitive level, will NEVER attract sponsors, no matter how much, or how long,

you work to build the game up in the ex-pat community.  If you're willing to live with

this scenario, fine, but I'm not.

The idea that the ex-pat clubs should be in the vanguard for bringing mainstream

Americas into cricket just has been tried and failed.  Just read the experiences Americans have

had with these clubs in the other "Five Ways..." blogs. Some other way has to be

found.

Of course the national teams in this country should get the best coaching. All

for it.  I'm just saying with such a small talent pool, and a pool that is unstable

(here today gone back to India/Windies tomorrow), the USA (and Canada) will

NEVER reach anything like a high competitive level.  They may reach the WC,

and they may, now and then, even upset a full member, but that's it.  If

the ex-pat community and the cricket world is content with that, fine. I'm not.

Your example of England proves exactly what I'm saying. England's a

"cricket culture", so when the national team succeeds you get a huge popular

bounce.  Same thing happens here with those sports that are part of

USA culture.  But this won't work when the sport is not part of the culture.

USA national rugby team routinely gets into the rugby world cup but it

hasn't helped them at all.  It's not at all improbable the USA team may one day make it to the WC but it won't give the game a bounce with mainstream Americans.

Well, you're correct (as Standord himself found out) that just dangling

20T cricket out to Americans isn't by itself going to jump start mainstream American

interest in cricket. Going to take a much more comprehensive push, something the ICC and all those who are dreaming of holding 20T matches in the USA would

do well to ponder.

timmyj51... my article points out that to make a success of cricket (the article is how to make cricket attractive to americans), it has to come from the EXISTING people and they can start to put that right with the 5 points I make.

The ONLY way cricket becomes big is to perfect the current system.

My point about an uplift in interest is when National teams do well. The US is not doing well. People want to be associated with success, not failure. The current Under 19's have found out the hard way in NZ.

There is no obvious answer here except you simply have to be professional in sport to stand a chance.

The Dutch for example, beat England in the T20 World Cup at Lord's to cause the biggest upset of all time on June 5th. The best moment in their cricket life.

The Dutch have two Level 4 coaches, several Level 3 coaches, an overseas head coach, specialist consultancy coaches, full pro Premier club league and divisions beneath in a pyramid structure, 3 ODI venues approved by the ICC, a men's team ranked 11 in world cricket and a ladies team ranked at 7. They also have three current Dutch first-class players playing in English county cricket, 2 others of the team who have done so, and 2 further players with overseas first-class experience.

And this with just 27,000 players to choose from.

The USA has almost 300,000 players (11 times larger playing pool).

So it's ALWAYS about the coaching and the organization. Because you can make something out of what looks like nothing with a will and desire for excellence.

That was my point in the article if you re-read it. The non ex-pats may well come in time, but you don't have to rely on them to be good. The excuse culture has to stop. And even if they do come, what do you do with them if you don't have development structures?

It's not the big picture, grand ideas and impressive announcements that needs the focus here. It's the attention to detail with what you already have.

Good serious, but respectful discussion. Let me put my thoughts across. Let us concentrate on much disdained cricket playing expat community in USA.

Mostly comprised of Indians, Pakistanis, Bangaladeshis, Carribeans and minor contributions from other major cricket playing nations (UK, SA, AUS, NZ). At the last count this there were about 2.5 million South Asians and about half that for the rest combined = 4 million.

Population of NZ = 4 million

Population of Aus= 17 mil

These countries are more than competetive with countries as large as India (1.1 bil+)

So even if half of that number tune into a TV broadcast the TV ratings would be around 8.0, same number as that for the latest BCS bowl game (source SI.com). So there is a solid business and financial potential in this community. Lalit Modi is not dumb, to think of USA as next destination for IPL.

Now we do not have any trouble in our communities to raise money to build and run cultural and religious institiutions, to impart and maintain culture of our motherlands to the next generation. Some of these organizations have raised, more than $10 million. So it is not impossible to raise the money and build the facilities which will help transfer our passion (cricket) to our kids. Whether the native born white americans will take up the sport or not, our kids (white,black, asians or south asians) are also americans, and I will be very proud to give them the best opportunity, to succeed in anything they do and enjoy and be proud of their endeavours.

If the cricket has to seep into local communities and schools, first it has to have financial strength to support the induction of sport in schools and colleges. So there are many things that have to happen. May be it is a long road, but one has to start somewhere.

Good serious, but respectful discussion. Let me put my thoughts across. Let us concentrate on much disdained cricket playing expat community in USA.

Mostly comprised of Indians, Pakistanis, Bangaladeshis, Carribeans and minor contributions from other major cricket playing nations (UK, SA, AUS, NZ). At the last count this there were about 2.5 million South Asians and about half that for the rest combined = 4 million.

Population of NZ = 4 million

Population of Aus= 17 mil

These countries are more than competetive with countries as large as India (1.1 bil+)

So even if half of that number tune into a TV broadcast the TV ratings would be around 8.0, same number as that for the latest BCS bowl game (source SI.com). So there is a solid business and financial potential in this community. Lalit Modi is not dumb, to think of USA as next destination for IPL.

Now we do not have any trouble in our communities to raise money to build and run cultural and religious institiutions, to impart and maintain culture of our motherlands to the next generation. Some of these organizations have raised, more than $10 million. So it is not impossible to raise the money and build the facilities which will help transfer our passion (cricket) to our kids. Whether the native born white americans will take up the sport or not, our kids (white,black, asians or south asians) are also americans, and I will be very proud to give them the best opportunity, to succeed in anything they do and enjoy and be proud of their endeavours.

If the cricket has to seep into local communities and schools, first it has to have financial strength to support the induction of sport in schools and colleges. So there are many things that have to happen. May be it is a long road, but one has to start somewhere.

The reason Dutch cricket has achieved what it has is because almost all of

those 27,000 are mainstream Dutch who are dedicated to cricket.  Believe

me, if you could get just 27,000 mainstream Americans dedicated to cricket

they'd take the cricket world by storm.  Just look at rugby in this country. The

USA rugby association only has about 30,000 members, almost all mainstream

Amerifcans. And with just that small number they

have a highly professional organization, well financed, with full time staff, and offices. The

USA mens team routinely gets into the WC,  the women's team is also decent   They have  national

mens, womens, collegiate, and high school rugby championships.  Now look

at the USACA.  With 300,000 ex-pats they have no offices, one paid employee

(whose salary is paid by the ICC), depend on ICC welfare handouts,

a "national" championship contested by about 100 players, no womens, no

collegiate, no high school championships, and the national team has never made

it to the WC. No, the ex-pats have had their

chance.  They've controlled cricket in this country for decades and have

virtually nothing to show for it.  Its time to take USA cricket in a new direction.

Has to be a concerted initiative to bring cricket to mainstream Americans, an

initiative entirely outside of and apart from the ex-pats.  If you still believe

"the ONLY way cricket becomes big is to perfect the current [failed] system"

go ahead.  Just keep in mind Einstein's definition of insanity: doing the same

think over and over while expecting different results.

timmy... just refer to my original post about the ANSWERS... organization, coaching, politics, pitches, success... this is at the heart of a successful cricket nation.

The existing people have to step up. The Dutch started with many non-dutch and have now managed a foot hold with local players. But that's been done through the points above.

Your argument is going round in circles and is ostensibly big picture stuff...

You simply have to get things right with what you have first.  

If the USA had 4 million people from cricket playing countries, do you think it is too much for them to raise $4 million each year? If USACA could do this, it would go a long way to turning cricket into a professionally run and played sport in the USA.

I outright reject the strategy that by just working "through the system" (i.e.,

building up cricket in the ex-pat community) cricket will progress in this

country.  Only time will tell who's right, you or me, but past history, so far, has overwhelmngly proved me right.  Ian, do me a favor.  Will you promise to report back on this forum each year to see if cricket in this country has in any way

progressed by "working through the present system" as you claim it will?

timmy..history has NOT proved you right, I am sorry. History has shown there has been no proper organization, no depth of coaching, too much self-serving politics, no decent facilities and no national success...

I repeat - THESE are the factors that have to be corrected irrespective of ex-pats or non-ex-pats. Your argument purely about what TYPE of people play, which is completely missing the point.

I personally don't care whether it's non-us, ex-pat, Asian, white, green, blue or Martians who play the game and run it. My point is they have to RUN it correctly as pointed out above and in my blog originally.

You cannot grow a sport that is inherently flawed at it's roots or with it's development.

So unless someone comes in with a new plan, new structure, new organization, new money and a new will to get things right, the answers can only lie in what is already in place. It is up those involved NOW to start the processes of change that make a successful sport.

I am happy to come on here to see whether cricket has progressed. And it will have done if those points are put in place. And it will not if they haven't. Simple.

It's not about proving who is right timmy. It's about DOING what is right.

And again, I repeat, progress will only come about when there's enthusiasm, dedication, and committment to cricket from a sizeable

portion of mainstream Americans.   Coaching, facilities, money, organization, will not generate American interest in cricket.  Only when Americans have an interest in

cricket will there be coaching, money, facilities, organization.

timmy....Wrong way round (again)... as there has to be a REASON for the interest, which is SUCCESS. Just listen to Head Coach, Sew Shivnarine's interview from NZ as to why the Under 19s flopped.

He never said ''we don't have 'Americans' here''. He never said, ''if only there were non-ex pats playing would we have won''.

He said, ''the players were not used to grass, He said, ''they did not play good cricket''. He said, ''the other teams were better''. He said, ''Their technique and skill was not up to standard''.... And of course he is right.

If your entire argument is based on WHO is playing rather than HOW GOOD they are (which it is) then you will spend a great deal of money on headline grabbing cricket, razzamatazz and false tinsel dressing that has no depth to it. And businesses are only interested in things that work, teams that win and success.

It's my last word on it (so you can respond and have the last word yourself) but it really isn't about the ex-pats vs indigenous population. It is about success versus failure. Who wants to play in Division FIVE of the ICC intercontinental league, or get thrashed by every other country at Under 19 level?

Those who currently PLAY in the US have a passion for the game. There are 300,000 who want to play every week - desire isn't the issue. Disappointment is. The system lets them down. Correct that and the US has a chance.

You cannot teach Americans how to play cricket properly if there is no one teaching those currently playing how to play cricket properly.

Yes, there has to be a reason for having an interest in cricket, and for Americans,

like all the sports they play, it has to be FUN and EXCITEMENT, fun and excitement the way Americans know it.  Of course the ex-pats aren't gonna say "we lost because we don't have

mainstream Americans", they've never said that and never will.  They want to

keep the game to themselves or believe Americans can't play cricket.  What they

said was "the other teams were better," and that's exactly the problem.  The

ex-pat community just aren't going to produce top-class players not matter how

much coaching/facilities you give them. Look at the other associates. The ones that have done well, Ireland and Afghanistan, are "cricket cultures", where the game's

part of the social fabric.  The USA and Canada are not "cricket cultures" and so

they've never done well. Comes down to the age-old, iron-clad, law of supply and demand.  If you can get Americans excited about cricket, believe me, you'll have the best coaches, best facilities, best players. As long as Americans view cricket as

a dumb, boring game (a perception the USACA/ICC has done absolutely

NOTHING to correct) you'll only have third rate facilities, third rate teams and

no money.

Timmy,

How many mainstream Americans do you really think will show a serious interest in Cricket?  Why do mainstream Americans pursue other sports such as Baseball, Basketball, Football, etc..  We all know that mainstream Americans are exposed to these sports in schools, televisons, colleges, etc..  Furthermore, multi-million dollar contracts are given to players that can excel at the highest level.  There's nothing wrong with that, but ask a "mainstream American" Cricket or Baseball??  What does he say?  M ___ ____ ____ ____

Sports in this county is treated as a "business".  Offcourse, many other cricket playing countries can generate revenues from the sport, but the amount of money spent can't be compared.  Look at how many International cricketers are attracted to the IPL cricket league in India.  Why do so many players show a keen interest in the IPL cricket League??  Offcourse many are passionate about the sport, and the MONEY as well.

The NYC PSAL program is a great "success" story for all of us, but how many mainstream Americans have played or will play on a NYC school team??  Even if they do play for their respective schools, how many will pursue cricket after high school?  

Cricket in the USA is modeled as a "social activity"  Who do you blame??  

Cricket is a "culture" in the top cricket playing countries, but can cricket emerge as a "culture" for mainstream Americans??  Offcourse the first cricket match was played in America between USA and Canada, but that was centuries ago... and we all forgot who used to live in America centuries ago.

Well, of course, mainstream Americans aren't going to just take up cricket out of the

blue.  It has to be promoted, has to be sold to them, in a way they can

understand and a way they find exciting.  Who in the ex-pat community has ever done that? Certainly not the USACA, not the PSAL.  Everyone assumes cricket in this country's just for ex-pats and leaves it at that (that's why it was started in the PSAL,

as a game specifically for the ex-pat kids).  And speaking of history, it'll tell you

that Americans, in fact, did play cricket, enthusiastically, in the past.  What happened

in the past can happen today.

So Timmy, how are we going to sell cricket to mainstream Americans??  For example, the Twenty/20 format was introduced to attract everyone, how many mainstream Americans bought into T/20 cricket?  Offcourse, a T/20 match can last up to 3.5 Hrs. but adjusting the "time-frame" is not the problem.  Should we convert cricket into baseball?  For example, give all the fielders gloves to field with, create bases, chew gum, etc...

Can you get mainstream Americans who are interested in making a commitment to cricket for at least two years??  I would assist my time and commitment ...

Since you seem to be someone who's involved with this PSAL cricket

program in NY let me give you a few ideas to get more American kids

involved with that program:

1) Introduce cricket to the PE programs at those schools that have

cricket teams.  Run the program just as its laid out in Tom Melville's book

Cricket For Americans.  Do that for a couple of semesters and I bet you'll have

plenty of American  kids interested in playing on the school cricket team.

2) Have a two tier league format.  Need to avoid mismatches so the

teams with experienced ex-pats should play each other, the teams with

novices play each other, at least for a while.

3) No one should bat for more than 30/40 deliveries.  If you're not out at

that point you have to come out (except for the last wicket).  This avoids those 150-3 type of games where only three or four batters get a chance to bat.  If you want to interest Americans have to give them a chance to play.

4) Each team should be guarnteed at least 12 overs.  So if a team is

bowled out for, say, 8 overs they will have a second innnigs of another four

overs.  Nothing more discouraging than mismatches in cricket.

So, take these ideas to the people who run the PSAL and see what they say.

If they reject them and say "this isn't cricket"  then forget about getting

Americans involved, and it won't be their fault.

Timmyj, It is so refreshing to read your comments here. For a while, it seemed as if all you could do was write negative comments, saying things were destined to fail. Here you have provided some positive, constructive criticism.

I would agree with you that you need to modify the rules when teaching cricket to newcomers. This is regardless of where they come from. In Australia, we don't expect children to play test matches. We don't even expect them to play T20 or any other official version of the game. When they start out, they play kids rules, whatever that may be. When I was at school, I never touched a real cricket ball.

We played continuous cricket which was designed to have maximum involvement by all players. There were 4 bowlers bowling at 1 wicket (a garbage bin). If you picture a baseball diamond, the bowlers would bowl from the 4 bases, and the batsman would stand on the pitcher's mound. The batsman needed to run whenever he or she hit the ball, running to one of the bases and back again. The ball would be thrown to any one of the 4 bases for the next ball to be bowled, whether the batsman was ready or not. The batsman would be out if caught or bowled.  As you could imagine, you never lasted very long while batting. There was lots of running, throwing and shouting, and lots of fun.

Nowadays, I think kids in Australia play different games but the fun is still there. The important thing is not the technical rules of international cricket. The important thing is to get the kids having fun. From there, they can move on to playing the proper game as skills improve.

Anyone notice that only an Aussie has bothered to comment on these suggestions?

Why haven't the PSAL people chimed in?  The USACA people?  Get my point.

There are obviously several issues on hand but I were to run USACA I would probably follow this path.

1.  Work with Philanthofists (misspelled) who are already donating monies to Universities and ask them to give the money for CRICKET SCHOLARSHIPS.  This will help Universities recruit players.  The first batch may come from overseas but when parents see cricket as a potential chance to save 250,000 for their childs education they will push their kids into it.  

2.  This information after trickling down to schools have a great way of getting kids started by the PE teachers and the school itself.  The number of scholarships must be atleast 100 and spread over 10 to 15 universities .  The High schools just need to get wind of it and you will find them coming to us as opposed to us going to them.  All we would have to do is to announce the scholorships in all the schools across the country and it would take off lot quicker than you would give it credit.  

3.  The rules would have to be changed a bit at the elementry level but can change closer to the regular rules.  There are a lot of people that are on the sidelines as they do not get to playing in the sport of their choice.  We can pull them in provided we can show a future for them.  SCHOLORSHIPS is the answer.

Is your figure of $250,000 correct? Wow, I had no idea it could cost anything like that!

If so, you want 100 x $250,000 every 3 to 5 years? So that would take about $100,000,000 to set up? If I had $100 million to spend on cricket in the USA, I'm pretty sure I could buy a fair bit of interest from mainstream USA...

Roger:

It is about 40,000 to 50,000 per year now in a non state school.  so even if went the state school route, it would be 20,000 to 30,000 per year.  What I was proposing was that there are a lot of companies and individuals that donate to universities already, it is a matter of getting with them and asking them to donate some of it in the name of CRICKET.  By doing so we will find the long term advantages and will see grass root development.  

I do not know of other innovative ways of getting it started without getting new money.  What we need is long term growth without a huge influx of capital.  There are already a lot of immigrant students in lots of universities.  I see that as the route to take.  

I know that parents would love to get their kids if they see a future in any sport.  La Crosse has taken off because it is a college sport, ESPN covers their games and there are sponsors and college scholorships.  

I agree with other readers that Ian is off about how to go about this process.  I can show you coaches if we have a sysem in place.  I agree that my line of thinking may not be right but it is just one line of thinking.  I am sure there will several other great views out there.

It is lot easier to get it going in UAE, AFGANISTAN, BERMUDA, NETHERLANDS, ARGENTINA and so on because they are very small countries to manager.  Afganistan is getting the same amout of money 100,000 from ICC.  It goes a long way in Afganistan cricket but means only hosting one national try out in USA.

Ian (you wrote)

You cannot teach Americans how to play cricket properly if there is no one teaching those currently playing how to play cricket properly.

I agree am sure we all agree, but how do you go about doing that in America.  We need coaches in Dallas, Houston, Austin, Denver, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Wichita Kansas, Atlanta, Miami and all over Florida, N. Carolina, LA, SF,  chicago, detroid, minnisota, new york, phili, DC, connectcut and several other cities other than university towns etc.  IAN  please help me understand how we go about doing that.  Baseball has DADS that coach little league as most all of those dads have played the game at some level.  What is going to cost to have so many coaches and a HEAD COACH.  By the way we have tried dad's coaching in DALLAS and we could not make it work as there was no real commitment from the parents and lack of knowledge did not help the cause.  

I would love to see concrete ideas that are practical and without spending money that we do not have.

What you need is to be like us Australians, we love the sport so we ban together for the better of the sport the tallent and the crowds. If money is the problem then make cricket the answer. My club has no funding and still we go no to play great cricket, the passion is what drives us to be better and to help others understand the sport. And last year my club won the nationals for under 19's and we have no additional funding only the fees we play to play.

You dont need grass pitches to play you just need to have 22 people ready to play and the rest will hapen, i play on a synthetic pitch with little bounce and is always an unaffected pitch.

so i dont know what you americans are cryin' about aas long as you get some interest in the sport then you have achived something, which is better then nothin.

Aussies are the best anyway all you guys suck.

There is one essential way to make cricket work in the USA.  Keep it to 20 over cricket.  If you ever thing 50 over or first class or test cricket will work here give it up now.  

20/20 allows for a time frame that is American.  All American sports are a 3 hours frame

20/20 is exciting.  If you ever try and have to explain the longer version of the game to the locals you are done.  If you ever attempt to play ANY longer version of the game you are done.

Big scores make it exciting to an American.

Use of a facility where a number of games can be played under lights and on the weekend or evenings is essential.

Multiple uses of a field allow for better facilities.  The money can be pooled and better facilities the result.

Branding of a 20/20 product needs to be done.  A name that can be associated with cricket in the US would be very helpful.  

Schools can play 20/20 on astroturf football fields.  I have done it and it works.  Most have floodlights as well.

I agree T20 is the right form of cricket to play in the US, its quick, fun, and a big hitting feast for all to enjoy. I love playin it and seeing it played. Its the form of crickrt which will prosper in the US.

Ian, it would be ideal if your five points would come to fruition. But my friend, we are living in "a real world" with the intervention of humans in our midst, With this comes greed, lust for power, envy, strife, favoritism, and much more, Then comes the biggest, crookery. Look at what is going on in the USACA organization. What are they doing for cricket? At least Don lockerbie is giving them some sort of credibility with his hard work.

You can't coach someone if you yourself do not know what to do. This is a fact of life. Saying this, i would definitely endorse the requirement for training of the coaches (especially those who take on the responsibility of the national sides)

Of course, good, solid coaching would not hurt at the club level.

Getting grass pitches will be an asset to our game. This however, is a problem.Finances are needed to attain and upkeep field (especially) for cricket. At present more that 90% of the fields around the country used for playing cricket are multi purpose( multi sport0 fields. different sports obtain permits for different time-slots to plays their sports. If our cricket leaders would work just a bit harder to get sponsors and to encourage the authorities ( govermental) to be more giving towards cricket, then we can at least try to emulate our northern neighbor (Canada)