al Furqaan
November 15, 2009, 12:41 PM
http://www.cricinfo.com/india/content/current/story/434629.html
interesting article, and welcome one from my opinion. the recent 7 match ODI series between India and Australia did well both in terms of TV ratings and crowd attendance. it did better than the world t20, the champions league t20, and the champions trophy. even in the champions trophy, the indian matches earned huge revenues and were well attended. i have always argued that while test cricket is the pinnacle of the game, ODIs bring the perfect balance of classicism as well as innovation into cricket; 20 over cricket is just pure innovation. ODIs have the big hitting with the batting powerplay and the slog overs, and also offers opportunities to build an innings.
it appears that close contests and a home team are the ingredients needed to maintain the health of ODI cricket. it must also be noted that certain countries offer lively fan support more so than others. in my opinion, India, Bangladesh, Australia, South Africa, and England offer good to healthy attendance/TV ratings for cricket. Pakistan may or may not be on that list, but for ODI cricket they probably are. New Zealand, West Indies, and Sri Lanka languish towards the bottom for whatever reason.
of course this means that hosting such teams as bangladesh, sri lanka, and new zealand will probably remain commercially unviable, regardless of the strength of their cricket. but at least, bangladesh can earn large revenues even in a series against zimbabwe.
interesting article, and welcome one from my opinion. the recent 7 match ODI series between India and Australia did well both in terms of TV ratings and crowd attendance. it did better than the world t20, the champions league t20, and the champions trophy. even in the champions trophy, the indian matches earned huge revenues and were well attended. i have always argued that while test cricket is the pinnacle of the game, ODIs bring the perfect balance of classicism as well as innovation into cricket; 20 over cricket is just pure innovation. ODIs have the big hitting with the batting powerplay and the slog overs, and also offers opportunities to build an innings.
it appears that close contests and a home team are the ingredients needed to maintain the health of ODI cricket. it must also be noted that certain countries offer lively fan support more so than others. in my opinion, India, Bangladesh, Australia, South Africa, and England offer good to healthy attendance/TV ratings for cricket. Pakistan may or may not be on that list, but for ODI cricket they probably are. New Zealand, West Indies, and Sri Lanka languish towards the bottom for whatever reason.
of course this means that hosting such teams as bangladesh, sri lanka, and new zealand will probably remain commercially unviable, regardless of the strength of their cricket. but at least, bangladesh can earn large revenues even in a series against zimbabwe.