by Tim Wigmore
The other issue is that sport, and cricket especially, is not a viable career path for many in China. Parents don’t encourage children to play sport for sport’s sake. If at all, sport can be tolerated if it aids career development. For Newton there is a clear opportunity for cricket here. If China’s affluent classes saw in cricket a way to connect with the culture of universities in the Commonwealth then there is more chance of them supporting it. ‘Cricket allows you to become a global citizen,’ said Newton. ‘That’s how you market it.’
The authorities are failing in this respect. The ICC’s model is to hook cricket to schools and universities with the hope that the state sport apparatus will do the rest from there. Aside from the one-off $5m grant arranged by Speed in 2006 the ICC spends £30,000 a year arranging equipment and training teachers. The idea is for development officers like Aminul Islam to hold one-off group sessions training teachers in the basics of the game in the hope that they go back to their schools and introduce children to the sport.
The ACC and CCA insist that 30,000 school, college and university students have learned the game this way. But the model spreads resources too thinly to make any real impact. At the most generous estimate there are 7,000 people who still play the game once a year or so but the number of teams competing in the annual national cricket championships has not really changed since 2007. Even the ICC now concedes that China is a ‘50-year proposition’. As it is cricket’s chances of growing in China depend on the national team, most likely the women’s team, suddenly finding enough international success to unlock state resources.
The Guangdong International Stadium in Guangzhou is a state-of-the-art, modern cricket ground. ‘Incredible,’ Zhang Tian described it. It is still the only turf pitch in China, it has an electronic scoreboard, media facilities and a capacity for 6,000 spectators. Though it was the first ground in China, it wasn’t the first time Chinese money and labour power had been mobilised for cricket grounds. China’s government spent $132m – and employed thousands of Chinese workers – constructing stadiums in Antigua, St Lucia and Dominica in time for the 2007 World Cup in the West Indies.
The sum is remarkable. By comparison the best associate country, Ireland, receives only around $2m a year from the ICC. China’s interest was, as Zhang put it, more a case of foreign policy than anything to do with sport. China was keen on developing regional links, ahead of rival Taiwan who were doing the same, and cash-strapped Caribbean governments were only too happy to accept. It may be that the Sir Vivian Richards Stadium in Antigua becomes China’s only significant cricketing legacy.
The Guangdong International Stadium was constructed at a typically Chinese pace. Work started on the stadium in May 2008, in August 2009 the ground was ‘little more than a flattened patch of mud’ and by November 2010 it was hosting the opening match of the Asian Games. Since then, however, there has only been one more tournament played on the ground, the 2012 Women’s Asia Cup. The ground has stood unused thereafter. Occasionally the national squads would train there, but that was rare. Eventually the ground was leased by NForce who used the ground to host an expat league along the lines of that in Shanghai. It features no native Chinese players.
The fortunes of the International Cricket Stadium since it hosted the 2010 Asian Games captures the stilted progress of cricket in China. Four years on, Jiang Shuyao was captain of the men’s team. ‘My hope is that we can win one game,’ he told me a week before heading off to the 2014 Asian Games. ‘Malaysia are a good side but South Korea we can beat.’
The tournament didn’t work out for him or his team as China lost both games and Jiang failed twice. Though there were bright moments – leg-spinner Zhong Wenyi took four wickets in four balls against South Korea – China finished bottom of their group.
China’s women were better, again proving that they were among the best associate nations in Asia. They easily beat the hosts, before a more significant victory over Hong Kong and Japan en route to the semi-finals. But at the first sight of strong opposition, they were thrashed. Bundled out for 37 against reigning champions Pakistan, they did not give a chance for their stronger suit, fielding and bowling, to shine.
It spoke of the limits facing the Chinese game. They need more opportunities to play against better teams, they need more resources to experience different conditions and most of all they need a domestic set-up that allows them regular cricket. None of that looked any closer in 2014 than it did in 2010.
USA by Peter Miller
IT is October 2012 and word spreads among the cricketing blogosphere that something remarkable is happening on Facebook. Normally the site is full of photos of your friends’ children and people telling you about having a really nice cup of tea. This was different.
The official page of the United States of America Cricket Association (USACA) was the focus. In a thread that included over 2,000 comments spread over seven days, the then-executive secretary, Kenwyn Williams, set about making his organisation a laughing stock. Some would argue that USACA had long been sniggered at by the people who knew it well, but suddenly everyone was talking about it.
Cricket in the USA is the very definition of a niche sport. While there are cricket fans among the expats and immigrants from cricket-playing countries, those that are interested in American cricket are not easy to find. This social media meltdown brought it to the attention of many across the world.
The post that caused so much interest was Williams accusing Peter Della Penna, a journalist who has covered USA cricket for a number of publications, of being biased. This accusation seemed to stem from the fact that Della Penna was attempting to hold the organisation to account for its failure to deliver on its ‘100-day plan’, which had already been extended to be 196 days long. Della Penna had obtained some leaked e-mails from a source within the USACA and Williams seemed to feel this was breaching some sort of ethical code. A sporting governing body taking to social media to deride a journalist for reporting on them was remarkable in itself. The way Williams went about it was even more so.
In a series of personal attacks, Williams accused Della Penna and Martin Williamson, ESPN’s managing director of digital content in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, of being bloggers and of not understanding journalistic ethics. Both Della Penna and Williamson are well thought of in journalistic circles and both have many years of experience. That did not stop Williams posting the following:
‘Unfortunatelly [sic] your obsession and lack of journalistic credentials do not support you [sic] overly obsessive cult like reporting on USA Cricket. You are a blogger and no portection [sic] is afforded to you under the law. As you will soon find out.’
This comment was quickly followed by a legal threat from Williams, who claimed he was a lawyer. It later emerged he was a paralegal for a New York law firm. Despite condemnation from almost every corner, Williams would not be deterred. He accused several posters of being alter-egos of Peter Della Penna and continued his rants without the aid of spell check or logic. It also seemed that Williams was unaware of how important journalists and bloggers are in promoting any sport. The word needs to be spread or the game dies through lack of the oxygen that is publicity.
Those commenting on the post included the editor of The Cricketer magazine, Andrew Miller, and former New Zealand bowler Iain O’Brien. O’Brien even offered to come out to America to do some coaching. This offer drew a rather enigmatic response from Williams; in a private message to O’Brien on Facebook, he said ‘I am a marketing and brand expert as you can well see. It looks bad but its [sic] intended. USACA needs a wakeup call. I think they got it. When we normalise we will discuss. I am only interested in youth and women cricket.’
The USACA wagons took a while to start circling on Williams (five days to be precise) but the response was unequivocal when it came. Williams was suspended and told to cease all activities that related to his role within the USACA. A message was posted on the organisation’s website which stated that the comments made on Face
book did not reflect the views of the board and that the matter was under investigation. We learnt of Williams’s suspension from his one ally on Facebook throughout all of this, a ‘Rozay Chardonnay’, who agreed with everything that Williams had to say. The identity of Rozay was never confirmed but some suggested that it was Williams’s wife, Pauline. She too was subject to some controversy. She was a member of the USA women’s side when she walked out on her team-mates.
It was this incident involving his wife that first saw Kenwyn Williams enter the murky world of American cricket politics. He leapt to Pauline’s defence after she fell out with team management at an ICC qualifying event against Canada in July 2010. The argument stemmed from Mrs Williams’s insistence that she should keep wicket. The coaches at the tournament decided that she was not best suited to this role, not least because she was not standing up to the stumps for the spinners. Mrs Williams told DreamCricket about her displeasure at her treatment, ‘Actually, they put me to field in a position that I’m not used to fielding. They were actually punishing me.’
The sanction that Mrs Williams received for her behaviour was a 12-month suspension from the USA team. Not long after the suspension had been handed out, Mrs Williams received a letter from the president of the USACA, Gladstone Dainty, lifting the ban. There was only one problem: Dainty said he never wrote any such letter. Enter Kenwyn Williams, stage right. He jumped up and down, claimed this letter was genuine and commenting on a blog post on ondriveupdate he stated, ‘It’s amazing that so many people are trying so hard to keep one HIGHLY qualified woman from playing cricket.’
Williams put his name in the ring for the role of USACA president, but eventually stood for election as executive secretary instead. His campaign was a successful one. At one point during his campaign he offered iPads to the first ten league presidents who voted for him. It is unclear if anyone ever got one of these Apple devices. Those at the USACA seemed to decide it was better having Williams in the tent pissing out than getting their shoes wet from the outside.
So there he was, executive secretary of the USACA and causing a storm. He was suspended from his role, but not before both he and the mysterious Rozay had leaked all sorts of private correspondence from within the USACA. One of the problems he had with the Della Penna article that began his Facebook fiasco was that it contained leaked e-mails. That he then went on to leak e-mails himself meant that the irony was even more obvious than Williams’s foolishness.
So how did cricket in the USA get to that point? We need to go back a long way to find cricket’s beginnings in the USA.
The USA had all the ingredients needed for the creation of a Test-playing nation; a history of the game dating back to the early 18th century, ties to the United Kingdom through Empire, trade links and immigration. Cricket was played by the ‘common folk’ on holidays such as Whitsuntide, Boxing Day and New Year’s.
Dr Tim Lockley of Warwick University told me, ‘The cricket field was a place where all men were welcome.’ It was played all over the colonial United States in Virginia, Georgia, Maryland and New York. By the 19th century, tours to the USA from visiting teams were not common, but profitable and well attended. Why then is baseball the ‘American pastime’ when it could have been cricket? Why has cricket never taken hold of the public imagination?
In an alternative world the New York Yankees are a Twenty20 phenomenon, the World Series fixing scandal of 1919 was about no-balls bowled to order. Babe Ruth scored the record number of sixes and was a world-class all-rounder. The present-day money-making power of the BCCI is dwarfed by the economic powerhouse that is the United States of America Cricket Association.
The first international cricket match took place in September 1844. Not only was this the first fixture of its kind, it was the first contest in any sport between two countries. While there were the Olympics of ancient times, this cricket match is considered to be the first time two modern countries competed. It wasn’t England playing Australia; it was billed as The United States of America versus The British Empire’s Canadian Province. Some 10,000 people attended the event and somewhere close to $2,000,000 in present-day terms was wagered on the match. Canada won by 23 runs.
When the first tour by an English side took place in 1859, it was a big deal. It caught the imagination of press and public alike. John Wisden was a member of a side that played the United States three times and Lower Canada twice. Despite the home teams fielding sides of 22 players, England won all five matches easily, two of them by an innings. Even with the lack of home team success there was strong local support with as many as 25,000 people watching the matches according to some reports. The England players were paid £90 each for the two-month trip – a considerable sum of money at the time.
In a paper for the International Journal of the History of Sport, Dr Lockley wrote that as the Industrial Revolution took hold, there was a move by moral reformers to promote sport as a distraction from the gambling dens and brothels that sprung up in the fast growing cities. Cricket was considered the most suitable for the purpose of moral reform.
‘Of all the sports then played in urban America, cricket lent itself particularly well to the intentions of moral reformers and the muscular Christianity movement. Players and spectators alike accepted cricket as a game which encouraged honourable behaviour, sportsmanlike conduct, and discipline – the ideal Christian game.’
Dr Lockley goes on to quote a letter to the sporting press of the time that said, ‘One of the noblest features of our great national game is that it draws together all classes and conditions, who take rank upon the cricket ground according to their talents in the game.’ Cricket was a way that those of the higher echelons of society might successfully spread their values among those lower down the social pecking order.
Of the sports that were available at the time, cricket was relatively cheap. In comparison to hunting with firearms, boating or horse racing the money you needed to take up cricket was affordable. While a boat would cost you several hundred dollars the cost of a bat and a ball was within the reach of the common man. This added to its appeal to those in the aspiring middle classes as a leisure pursuit.
Another advantage was that it allowed young men to show themselves off in a masculine way to the opposite sex, with Dr Lockley stating, ‘In part the attractiveness of cricket as a sport to young single men was that it would show them off in an ideal light to young female spectators.’
By the time that the American Civil War began, cricket started to take hold. It was increasing in popularity. According to some historians it was far and away the most popular sport in the USA, much more popular than the upstart baseball. After the war had ended cricket never again reached those heights.
The reasons for this are much discussed. Dr Lockley writes, ‘Those who have studied the post-war decline of cricket in favour of baseball in the North have highlighted a variety of causes. Some argue that cricket was simply too slow and uninteresting for spectators, in comparison to baseball; others point to the general desire of Americans to find an American sport, rather than an English one to claim as a national pastime.’
Dr Lockley believes that in the South the way that young men could appear ‘manly’ was fulfilled by military service for the Confederacy rather than on the sports field. By the time the war had finished wreaking havoc across America, the world had changed. Cricket had begun to decline. As the South came to terms with the new economic realities of the abolition of slavery there was little time for leisurely pursuits. Survival was the main aim. In the North, cricket retreated to its heartlands. Philadelphian anglophiles and wealthy New Yorkers still played the game, but they were not interested in expanding the sport.
Baseball began its rise to dominance. A continued tinkering with the rules made it much more of a spectator-friendly pursuit. It was billed as the American game, and as America’s sense of identity sharpened, this idea of a unique pastime had appeal to the public. This is despite baseball having its roots in the folk gam
es of England. Baseball was great at finding a way to market itself.
As the take-up of radio skyrocketed in the early 20th century, baseball grew with it. The games were broadcast live and this helped to spread the sport far and wide, rather than it being restricted to those in urban areas that could make it to the ballpark to watch it. Heroes were created. Charles ‘Old Hoss’ Radbourne, John Clarkson, Albert Spalding and George ‘Babe’ Ruth became celebrities. Baseball was a game for the common man and it knew how to sell itself. It wanted to expand, it wanted to be loved. It was as American as the First Amendment and the Stars and Stripes.
That is not to say that cricket disappeared overnight. There were a number of American cricketers in the late 19th and early 20th century of some renown. John Barton ‘Bart’ King was the greatest of those by some distance. A fast bowler who could get the ball to move late, he impressed all who saw him on his three tours to England in 1897, 1903 and 1908. On the last of those tours he topped the first-class bowling averages, taking 87 wickets at 11.01 in just ten matches.
He was a member of the Philadelphian side that in the period between the end of the 19th century and the outbreak of the Second World War were playing cricket of a very high standard. King played in the Gentlemen of Philadelphia side that beat the touring Australians in 1893, taking seven wickets in the match. The Philadelphians won by an innings.
Tours to America were a profitable business and the Australians were regular visitors on their way home from touring England. The last time that they visited the USA to play first-class cricket was in 1913, but they did visit the USA again for a two-month tour in 1932 where they played 33 exhibition matches. It was a strong Australian side with Don Bradman featuring for the tourists. England also toured fairly regularly, as MCC, the last of which to feature first-class cricket taking place in 1907.