40 countries where soccer isn't number one

[Swima]

Well we won't soon see a World Cup of cricket without the Windies (I hope). But to answer your question, I would think that bringing the Real/Manu factor into the argument speaks to the 'novelty' appeal of football, which strengthens my point. Look at the football matches that have been sold out down here. They had very little to do with appreciation for the sport as much as they had to do with the whole "I in dat" mus-be-part-of-the-lime syndrome down here. The same is to be said for when we have a one-day match in the oval. It is more lime than anything else. That being said, the oval does sell out every year. We could count on one hand how many times the stadium sellout. Maybe if we keep playing England every year until 2018 the stadium will sellout once a year too.

We hadda remember too that our team is World Class by cricketing standards (yeah i had to re-read it too). Our football team isn't. One world cup finals appearance does not make us a world power. I guess we are the Uruguay of cricket right now.

Swims..by WC without West Indies, I really mean what is the viewership/interest like when West Indies is out of the competition?

But yuh bringing it back to West Indies vs. T&T national football team...when that is not the same as cricket v. football. My whole point was to expand the discussion beyond those two aspects of the game. I don't doubt for a second that West Indies means more to the overall population than the men's senior national team. But if you put football teams of the same calibre as say West Indies vs. Pakistan..the fans will more than fill de oval - novelty factor notwithstanding. Besides, a full strengtyh T&T against decent opposition will tired fill ah oval normal normal.

I do think that if you scan the nation on any given day, more people are playing football..recreational and organized. Not because more people love the sport. The sport just easier to organize and it shorter. a 30 minute sweat and yuh good. crisket not as easy. Some aspects of the game have greater following. I am going to go out on a limb and say SSFL is more popular than seconday schools cricket. Possibly Under 17 and Under 20 national football and maybe even the PFL gets more media coverage than its cricket counterparts (I guessing..a local could set me straight if I wrong).  

Anyway..I saying the same thing now over and over. I figure by now nothing I say could appear particularly insightful.

As much as I love this thread I resisting the temptation to write anymore unless someone ask me something directly.

Still doh know why anyone would care. Cricket seems to inspire more passion..move the masses more. Football seems more ever present. If someone saw people's reactions to the West Indies playing, an the effect it has on the country, they more than likely to say this is the biggest sport here. If you give them the sports schedule, number of events and the pure volume of media coverage, they will probably come away with the impression that more people play and follow football. My guess.

Respeck

Yeah dawg I hear yuh on dat. And yes it is easier to organize a football game, after all, all of us played with a juice box football at least once in our lives. So yeah, measure of popularity transcends viewership and participation. It's funny though, that survey stated baseball was most popular in the US. Is that true? Do more kids play basketball and do more people watch american football?

Makes you wonder.

[Filho]

Yeah dawg I hear yuh on dat. And yes it is easier to organize a football game, after all, all of us played with a juice box football at least once in our lives. So yeah, measure of popularity transcends viewership and participation. It's funny though, that survey stated baseball was most popular in the US. Is that true? Do more kids play basketball and do more people watch american football?

Makes you wonder.

Dunno about that baseball scene. Dunno about that article period. But I read that more kids play soccer than any sport in the US and it is the 2nd most played sport up to college/university level in large part due to the popularity of the women's game. So for example in most colleges you have a men's hockey team, a men's football team and a men's baseball team. But you have mne's and women's soccer. Of the major sports only basketball has men and women's prgrams but fewer players per squad. But in terms of fan base and media coverage at all levels soccer still lags the major US sports by a bit.

[Bakes]

Dunno about that baseball scene. Dunno about that article period. But I read that more kids play soccer than any sport in the US and it is the 2nd most played sport up to college/university level in large part due to the popularity of the women's game. So for example in most colleges you have a men's hockey team, a men's football team and a men's baseball team. But you have mne's and women's soccer. Of the major sports only basketball has men and women's prgrams but fewer players per squad. But in terms of fan base and media coverage at all levels soccer still lags the major US sports by a bit.

There's softball for women... the equivalent of mens' baseball.

Also it begs the question of how to measure which sport is a country's "sport".  You admit that Trinis might love cricket more, but that more people play football.  The dubious nature of the latter part of that statement notwithstanding... if we love cricket more (or to be precise, we more "passionate" about it)... does that not make us a 'cricket country'?

[Filho]

Dunno about that baseball scene. Dunno about that article period. But I read that more kids play soccer than any sport in the US and it is the 2nd most played sport up to college/university level in large part due to the popularity of the women's game. So for example in most colleges you have a men's hockey team, a men's football team and a men's baseball team. But you have mne's and women's soccer. Of the major sports only basketball has men and women's prgrams but fewer players per squad. But in terms of fan base and media coverage at all levels soccer still lags the major US sports by a bit.

There's softball for women... the equivalent of mens' baseball.

Also it begs the question of how to measure which sport is a country's "sport".  You admit that Trinis might love cricket more, but that more people play football.  The dubious nature of the latter part of that statement notwithstanding... if we love cricket more (or to be precise, we more "passionate" about it)... does that not make us a 'cricket country'?

yeah..but depending on your agenda, women's softball can technically be considered a different sport. Some schools have women's ice hockey, but women's field hockey is still widely considered the female version of the game in the US college system. But they probably won't be considered the same sport by some as well. Softball and baseball are much closer in similarity but a couple small technicalities, and a different name and you have the basis for distinction, again, depending on your agenda.

Yeah..I doh really have an answer to you second paragraph but I am not really saying more people play football. I think more football is being played and watched at any given time on average. There is just more coverage, local plus international, the game is easier to organize, its shorter, and therefore there is a more voluminous schedule of 'organized' games annually. But just because more football is being played, doesn't mean more people play football. Sorry if I couldn't make that distinction clearly before. I also think that football fans are more likely to follow the sport when there is no local product on view. So I kinda somewhere in the middle..perhaps cricket has more fans in T&T. Perhaps it moves poeple more. That's one way to measure it. But football seems to dominate the 'organized' sports calendar in terms of sheer volume of games, gets more media coverage (again from sheer volume) and is easier to organize on a recreational level. So from that measure..football could appear like the dominant sport. At all depends on how you looking to measure it.

[kicker]

The IT guy at my client's office is a Trini from South and this morning I told him about this discussion and he said that football is the no. 1 sport in the country, so that settles it.  How is that for some reasoning....

But seriously, based on consensus on this thread it would seem that cricket is still the no. 1 sport in the T&T.  The deciding factor to me is not the overly repeated "W.I cricket does sell out and local football cyah get a consistent crowd" too many holes that logic and flaws in that metric...all that metric is saying is that WI cricket is a bigger franchise than T&T football- that's so obvious it's not even debate worthy, but it doesn't really conclude on our nation's love for the two sports, nor the breadth and depth of our people's following of the two different games in totality....  Most other metrics thrown out here are based on guess work, personal experience and emotion...Brian Lara shut dong T&T, Strike Squad unify T&T like never before, blah blah....and even if they are valid (which I believe most are), it's impossible to measure it with any kinda accuracy in a casual discussion such as this- so until we can.....inconclusive....The whole passion argument is kinda weak- If Trini is on the brink of glory in either cricket or football, passion would over-flow from all angles...and we have the evidence of that in both sports. When local football is at it's peak, yuh can't find a park close to the stadium, every car have a flag on it, radio station blastin' football tunes, man wearin' red tuh work yadda yadda...when we in the doldrums and the end product leaves alot to be desired, yuh could walk in a nat'l game in the C.O.E and find a seat normal normal.....Cricket is the same thing- as yuh widdle cricket down to the lesser celebrated competitions and the stakes decrease (local club cricket and colleges league) yuh see the same apathy and indifference...I watch nuff local cricket highlights on sports news and yuh could see all around the boundary with barely a spectator in sight and yuh could hear every individual hand clap when a man hit a four....and yes a sellout crowd at guaracara park is a buss crowd in the stadium... So from this argument I can only conclude that passion directed to the sports is commensurate with and positively correlated to the level at which either nat'l team is representing the us and the amount that is at stake.......but as much as I disregard the notion of passion itself as a metric, in some indirect manner it is there where cricket still has the edge....and of all the places it can be reflected it, it's reflected right here in this thread....Assuming that this msg board is fair reputation of some of the most avid local football fans who spend most of their sport following days following football, and posting on this football site (I think it's fair assumption)- if the consensus in spite of that, leans toward cricket being our No.1 sport (regardless of the basis), in this imperfect democracy we live in where people don't necessarily vote based on the issues & facts.....we hadda go with that, and until T&T consistently starts playing football at a high enough level to rival the relative competitiveness of the W.I. cricket team so as to sway the attention and more importantly the perception of the masses....so be it.  It's kinda like George Bush being the president for 8 years- didn't really make sense, nor would it really ever add up perfectly...but the (electoral) majority for whatever reason thought he was the right man for the job 

Cricket is king!!!

Let's move on.

[Dutty]

I done see we will need some popcorn for this thread, let me sit back and enjoy the ride 

Big Up!

You is a prophet...I woulda never guess this topic woulda go for so much pages

[Deeks]

Kicker,
          You say TT football has to play a high standard as WI cricket. How do you measure standards between football and cricket. WI don't have to qualify for cricket WC or any international tournament because they one of the 10 test playing nations. And for the past 18 yrs the WI team has been plenty plenty tata, especially test cricket. The only reason people (especially in TT ) follow the team on this incredible downward slide was because of Lara's genius. One man carrying a team on his shoulders. The first TT international cricket super star. Football on the other hand has to qualify for all international. The reality is TT has to compete with over a 100 countries for a spot. On the other hand, WI cricket has to compete against just 10. Just like look at the football record as compare to other football countries. We are the smallest country to ever make it to the big dance. And if we had proper organization we could have been there 3 times.

I am a real cricket fan. Shell shield cricket was the best for me when I was lil boy. It really don't matter who is number one. I know each has it own space and we can love both. All that matters is that Jack must go!!!!! Then you will see the real golden age of football.

[100% Barataria]

Cricket is king!!!
Let's move on.

Awrite, ah reluctantly chimin in here, football is king and I in IT too  

[E-man]

Here is one more measure, just to add to the discussion. Web searches from T&T on the two subjects. Football is blue, Cricket red. You can see the spikes from Nov 2005 and June 2006, and the big spike for cricket world cup in 2007.

http://www.google.com/trends?q=football%2C+cricket&ctab=0&geo=TT&date=all&sort=0



The news reference volume is worldwide, not T&T alone so ignore that.

[sinned]

Here is one more measure, just to add to the discussion. Web searches from T&T on the two subjects. Football is blue, Cricket red. You can see the spikes from Nov 2005 and June 2006, and the big spike for cricket world cup in 2007.

http://www.google.com/trends?q=football%2C+cricket&ctab=0&geo=TT&date=all&sort=0



The news reference volume is worldwide, not T&T alone so ignore that.

Creative E-man. I like it. Just as a slight modification I compared the terms "football" OR "soccer" to "cricket"

Link

[kicker]

Here is one more measure, just to add to the discussion. Web searches from T&T on the two subjects. Football is blue, Cricket red. You can see the spikes from Nov 2005 and June 2006, and the big spike for cricket world cup in 2007.

http://www.google.com/trends?q=football%2C+cricket&ctab=0&geo=TT&date=all&sort=0



The news reference volume is worldwide, not T&T alone so ignore that.

Interesting...says alot.... except that for football related searches, Trinis eh goin' tuh google, they goin' directly to socawarriors.net/forum 

[WestCoast]

Here is one more measure, just to add to the discussion. Web searches from T&T on the two subjects. Football is blue, Cricket red. You can see the spikes from Nov 2005 and June 2006, and the big spike for cricket world cup in 2007.
http://www.google.com/trends?q=football%2C+cricket&ctab=0&geo=TT&date=all&sort=0

The news reference volume is worldwide, not T&T alone so ignore that.

Interesting...says alot.... except that for football related searches, Trinis eh goin' tuh google, they goin' directly to socawarriors.net/forum 

Touché Kicker
yeah dem stats cyar be right.....

[E-man]

U.S. (searches for soccer actually trump baseball in some states) but it shows American football way ahead:

 football    soccer    baseball    hockey    basketball

[Bakes]

yeah..but depending on your agenda, women's softball can technically be considered a different sport. Some schools have women's ice hockey, but women's field hockey is still widely considered the female version of the game in the US college system. But they probably won't be considered the same sport by some as well. Softball and baseball are much closer in similarity but a couple small technicalities, and a different name and you have the basis for distinction, again, depending on your agenda.

What??  Where you get that from dred?  Nah, I would seriously question whether ANYBODY considers women's field hockey the equivalent of men's ice hockey.  The way NCAA sports are set up isn't so that there are analogues on both side of the the gender line... so you don't need a female counterpart to the male sport.  Instead the NCAA mandates that both men and women have identical scholastic opportunities, so colleges (because there's no shortage of men's programs) are often left scrambling to field enough women's teams to balance out the scholarship opportunities.  This is particularly true for schools that have a D-1 football program, since football by itself is 85 scholarships for men on avg.  That means these schools must then find 3-4 sports for women in order to achieve the balance and people can get creative in the process.  By no means does this mean that they offer field hockey scholarships for women as the equivalent of the men's ice game.  Two different sports altogether.

Conversely, while baseball and softball are indeed different sports, they are in fact seen as analogues by many athletic departments, since softball is one women's sport which is played on a very competitive level and where there are many colleges from which to schedule actual games to justify the expense.  From a rules standpoint the two are not as dissimilar as you may think... not any more different from little league baseball from conventional baseball.  I'm not sure where the 'agenda' angle would factor.

Yeah..I doh really have an answer to you second paragraph but I am not really saying more people play football. I think more football is being played and watched at any given time on average. There is just more coverage, local plus international, the game is easier to organize, its shorter, and therefore there is a more voluminous schedule of 'organized' games annually. But just because more football is being played, doesn't mean more people play football. Sorry if I couldn't make that distinction clearly before. I also think that football fans are more likely to follow the sport when there is no local product on view. So I kinda somewhere in the middle..perhaps cricket has more fans in T&T. Perhaps it moves poeple more. That's one way to measure it. But football seems to dominate the 'organized' sports calendar in terms of sheer volume of games, gets more media coverage (again from sheer volume) and is easier to organize on a recreational level. So from that measure..football could appear like the dominant sport. At all depends on how you looking to measure it.

I could agree on that... more organized football competitions.  But... that's only because I don't know how much organized cricket is being played in Trinidad, whereas we know about the various professional/semi-professional levels in Trinidad, plus the scholastic levels.

[Bakes]

U.S. (searches for soccer actually trump baseball in some states) but it shows American football way ahead:

 football    soccer    baseball    hockey    basketball

Dat thing look like ah carnival mas band...lol

[Jah Gol]

I guess E-man's post is the only thing resembling sound evidence in the thread. It is appears that cricket garners the most interest.

[kicker]

I agree Bakes, no where else in the world would ice hockey & field hockey be considered male & female counterparts, but in the U.S. I've definitely heard on numerous occasions the refrain "men play hockey, women play field hockey"...I think alot of Americans loosely see field hockey as the female version of ice hockey....probably not because of any similarities between the games (because they are very different)....but probably simply because men don't really play FH in this country, and vice versa for women.

[Bakes]

I agree Bakes, no where else in the world would ice hockey & field hockey be considered male & female counterparts, but in the U.S. I've definitely heard on numerous occasions the refrain "men play hockey, women play field hockey"...I think alot of Americans loosely see field hockey as the female version of ice hockey....probably not because of any similarities between the games (because they are very different)....but probably simply because men don't really play FH in this country, and vice versa for women.

Kicker that's because many Americans look at field hockey as some sort of weirdo niche sport along the lines of cricket and badminton... the 'hockey' part of the name makes it a suitable fit in their mind.  Just as they disparage soccer as a wimp sport they similarly disparage hockey as a wimp sport in comparison to ice hockey.  The reality is that there are women's ice hockey programs that receive much press, and mens field hockey programs (which receive almost no press) so people are aware that there's a difference.  I don't live in their head but I hardly think that anyone seriously thinks that field hockey is the female counterpart to ice hockey.

Incidentally, ice hockey itself is a 'niche' sport that isn't widely played on the collegiate level, which many disparage as a Canadian import rather than a mainstream American sport.

[kicker]

I agree Bakes, no where else in the world would ice hockey & field hockey be considered male & female counterparts, but in the U.S. I've definitely heard on numerous occasions the refrain "men play hockey, women play field hockey"...I think alot of Americans loosely see field hockey as the female version of ice hockey....probably not because of any similarities between the games (because they are very different)....but probably simply because men don't really play FH in this country, and vice versa for women.

Kicker that's because many Americans look at field hockey as some sort of weirdo niche sport along the lines of cricket and badminton... the 'hockey' part of the name makes it a suitable fit in their mind.  Just as they disparage soccer as a wimp sport they similarly disparage hockey as a wimp sport in comparison to ice hockey.  The reality is that there are women's ice hockey programs that receive much press, and mens field hockey programs (which receive almost no press) so people are aware that there's a difference.  I don't live in their head but I hardly think that anyone seriously thinks that field hockey is the female counterpart to ice hockey.

Incidentally, ice hockey itself is a 'niche' sport that isn't widely played on the collegiate level, which many disparage as a Canadian import rather than a mainstream American sport.

Whatever the reasons maybe, I've definitely heard the association been made- don't know (and actually don't care) how common the association is...was just chiming in.

[Filho]

What??  Where you get that from dred?  Nah, I would seriously question whether ANYBODY considers women's field hockey the equivalent of men's ice hockey.  The way NCAA sports are set up isn't so that there are analogues on both side of the the gender line... so you don't need a female counterpart to the male sport.  Instead the NCAA mandates that both men and women have identical scholastic opportunities, so colleges (because there's no shortage of men's programs) are often left scrambling to field enough women's teams to balance out the scholarship opportunities.  This is particularly true for schools that have a D-1 football program, since football by itself is 85 scholarships for men on avg.  That means these schools must then find 3-4 sports for women in order to achieve the balance and people can get creative in the process.  By no means does this mean that they offer field hockey scholarships for women as the equivalent of the men's ice game.  Two different sports altogether.

Bakes..yuh preaching to the choir. I holding my hands up cuz I not sure what i write dey at all  Lemme try and fix dat...

yeah..but depending on your agenda,[/s] women's softball can is technically be considered a different sport. Some schools have women's ice hockey, but women's field hockey is still widely considered the female version of the game in the US college system from a campus/student life perspective. In the US, many speak as if 'hockey' consists of ice hockey for boys and field hockey for girls. But they probably won't be considered the are not the same sport. Softball and baseball are much closer in similarity but a couple small technicalities, and a different name and you have the basis for distinction, again, depending on your agenda.

[Bakes]

yeah..but women's softball is a different sport. Some schools have women's ice hockey, but women's field hockey is still widely considered the female version of the game from a campus/student life perspective. In the US, many speak as if 'hockey' consists of ice hockey for boys and field hockey for girls. But they are not the same sport. Softball and baseball are much closer in similarity but a couple small technicalities, and a different name and you have the basis for distinction, again, depending on your agenda.

Okay... I think we can agree on at least this much 

[elan]

U.S. (searches for soccer actually trump baseball in some states) but it shows American football way ahead:

 football    soccer    baseball    hockey    basketball

The good thing in the States is that soccer is the number 1 growing youth sport.

[acb]

ok, so let's fast forward to present day and pit both sports against each other for arguements sake.


Most recent activity in both sports involving the TT National teams are:
Football - Digicel Cup
Cricket - Stanford 20/20

Support/ Attendance:

• The football matches were played in TT. From all accounts, the turn out was poor.
• The cricket matches were played in Antigua. It drew the attention of many fans who were not able to attend, but who had the opportunity to watch live on tv.

nb. Even more remarkable in this comparison is that both games were played concurrently.

However, one can also argue that in hard economic times such as these, that staying home and watching cricket for free while listening to a free radio broadcast, could have been the explanation for the poor turnout.

We may never know the actual results of attendance IF both games were played in TT. I do surmise that cricket would have won out for attendance numbers on that occassion.

It's also an event of occurances that has happened in the past.
Back on a particular Sunday in 94 (was it?) .... we were drawn in by three separate moments in three different disciplines.

• Lara was 300+ not out in Antigua
• T&T was playing and hammering Martinique in the Caribbean Cup Finals at QPO
• Stephen Ames was playing the final round of his life to win his first PGA (or European??) title

We were truly in Sporting utopia .... all three fought for headlines the following morning, but it was fair to say that cricket won out in that battle as well.

acb. just a few questions

1) is it fair to compare a T&T B team (Digicel squad) to the national cricket team. If the cricket team was missing its best players, then fair point. More people probably watched intercol this week than the Digicel squad could muster.

2) Don't know what is 20/20. Is it on the same level of Digicel qualifiers? If so..it's a pretty poor tournament. The digicel matches and competition involved is not something that would excite local fans given the packed schedule of football and upcoming WC qualifier (hopefully qualifiers). Watching intercol, watching European football at home/bars, etc..Digicel squad can't compete with the other football T&T fans are interested in.

3) Is the cricket schedule as saturated as the football schedule. If the men's national team in cricket isn't playing that much, a chance to see/hear them play will have more value, then watching a football team that has played umpteen times this year. Not to mention..upcoming opportunities to watch a much better version of that side play more meaningful games is right around the corner.

Yuh second example doesn't really provide much for me to support or challenge your opinion. You make an educated guess as to what was more widely watched.

I don't think one-offs are the way to go. It's just not how people support sports in general. For example..suppose yuh went to watch yuh alma mater in Intercol  and, play in yuh local football team, then later that week watch 20/20 cricket instead of Digicel. Does that mean yh like cricket more than football. And the opposite argument could be made for any football example.

but i have to say, this is as good as any way to look at a very open discussion. Nice post

Filho,
sorry it took so long to respond, but here goes:

1. Also forgot to mention that TT Cricket Team was playing without some it's best players who were part of the Stanford Superstars Team (the unofficial West Indies Cricket Team of the tournament.) In essence, the handicap for both teams was their B Teams. My reasoning for choosing both teams were they are the most relevant teams to the discussion, and fortunately for the discussion - both games were played concurrently - which is a rarity for both sports.

2. I don't have the attendance numbers to back this up, but based on tradition 20/20 is relatively new. It doesn't have the lure of Shell Shield/ Carib Cup Regional Tournament, but the fast-paced "quick" cricket game that can be played at night is more appealing to those who can't dedicate an entire day/ 5 days to cricket. The fireworks and entertainment from the game offers an alternative to the sometimes slower scoring tactical battles that can occur in the longer versions of the game. To say that the new tournament surpasses the traditional tournament in attendance is something I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if numbers swung either way. One's a novelty the other is tradition.

The reason for comparing it to the Digicel Cup was to see if football was able to capitalise on the recent surge in local interest in the Mens NT due to their WC progress, since it seems that we are trying to guage local interest in either sport. Cricket is being argued to be the more obscure of sports at the moment, and with the both tournaments being played at the same time, it should be a good measure to see how both teams fared in terms of local turnout/ support.

3. With regards to who gets more airtime these days ... it definitely seems like football because they do seem to be playing more games. However, we are still in football season so I don't expect to see cricket hugging headlines until Januaryish. Maybe coming back to this discussion in March might give us more grounding to the weight the cricket factor holds in the discussion.

The one thing I think that takes away from cricket is that in cricket, the local teams do not have to fight/ struggle to make it to International Tournaments. When I say fight/ struggle, it means that we are not caught up in the qualifying process, so there's no need to fully get behind the team until we're in the heat of battle during the tournament. Our cricketing interest peaks during tours, the World Cup and few other tournaments. So in essence, the point you make is very relevant in quantifying how much more meaningful cricket can be when it is played. Football on the other hand can become diluted with the quality of the local team, the perceived low quality opposition that we play numerous times on a yearly (almost monthly) basis, and the relative ease of access to substitutes such as foreign leages, SSFL, etc.

However, come Feb/ March, it would be interesting to see what angle these arguments take.