AHC: Make Cricket become more popular USA

Basically, make Cricket the sport that is played in US rather than baseball, Seeing the similarities between the two sports, i am curious what it will take for Cricket to be popular
 
You probably need better relations between the USA and UK during the XIX century, when the two sports were codified. IOTL the Americans generally wanted to differentiate themselves from the British in this era. We can see this with American English adopting different spelling rules, for instance.

In sports, not only does baseball diverge OTL from cricket but American football diverges from rugby. Also, while football/soccer is slow to gain popularity in the US, basketball is invented and quickly spreads.

Maybe the American Revolution needs to fail so this sense of being a different nation does not develop. (OTOH, Canada adopted essentially the same sports as the US so maybe not.)
 
Last edited:
An earlier POD - their common ancestor stoolball spreading out of Sussex and in the rest of Great Britain and North America more or less unchanged - could be interesting as well, since stoolball seems to have been one of those rare sports that women could play without being labeled [insert gendered slur of your choice here]. You know, those madams in the Old West that accidentally led to the adoption of universal suffrage in the US frontier decades before the rest of the country? In such a TL, they could be some of the very first professional sports coaches and managers, too. :p
 
The first international Cricket match was between the US and Canada in the middle of the 1800s. It was in fact rather popular in Pennsylvania, particularly Philly following the civil war and really declined with the rise of baseball. Perhaps have it spread to other cities throughout the country and it might counter baseball's rise.

Though one of the blows to cricket was the Imperial Cricket Conference(the precursor to the modern day ICC). Because of its name being Imperial it excluded the US, which didn't help the growth of the sport. Perhaps it was founded as a more international organization?
 
As a mass spectator sport rather than as a sport played locally its hard to say.
As an answer involves speculation on what Americans dislike about the game particularly at its highest level the test match.

Can Americans ever take to a 3, 4 or 5 day game particularly one that ends in a draw? (yes a draw not a tie !)
possibly an earlier version of the pyjama game bright colours funky names and all over in a day ( or even a few hours in the 20 over format).
A format that favours the batsman and encourage big hitting. (this involves a change in the evolution of cricket)
Even in the U.K the tension and nervous excitement of nos 10 and 11 doggedly resisting for over after over, the clock ticking down men clustered round the bat until at last the final ball is bowled and a team out played for 5 days triumphs in a draw is an acquired taste.
From the U.K my (possibly highly ignorant) impression is that American sport likes a winner preferably on the day.
I suspect that the first American team to figure in the later stages of the World cup will be a T20 team.

These are largely post 1900 differences, pre 1900 no revolutionary war but rather a more amicable and gradual divorce, dominion status and then full independence. More English settlers with a love of the game I'm not sure just what percentage of America can boast English rather than Scottish Welsh or Irish lineage, off the top of my head only Glamorgan remains the only non English county to play first class cricket, When you consider other European settlers why would they adopt cricket?

I'm sorry if this doesn't meet the challenge but in order to find ways to make cricket more popular I would need to better understand what turns Americans off cricket.

Dave
 
Last edited:
As a mass spectator sport rather than as a sport played locally its hard to say.
As an answer involves speculation on what Americans dislike about the game particularly at its highest level the test match.

Can Americans ever take to a 3, 4 or 5 day game particularly one that ends in a draw? (yes a draw not a tie !)
possibly an earlier version of the pyjama game bright colours funky names and all over in a day rather( or even a few hours in the 20 over format).
pitches that favour the bats man and encourage big hitting.
Even in the U.K the tension and nervous excitement of nos 10 and 11 doggedly resisting for over after over, the clock ticking down men clustered round the bat until at last the final ball is bowled and a team out played for 5 days triumphs in a draw is an acquired taste.
From the U.K my (possibly highly ignorant) impression is that american sport likes a winner preferably on the day.
I suspect that the first American team to figure in the later stages of the World cup will be a T20 team.

These are largely post 1900 differences, pre 1900 no revolutionary war but rather a more amicable and gradual divorce, dominion status and then full independence. More English settlers with a love of the game I'm not sure just what percentage of America can boast English rather than Scottish Welsh or Irish lineage, off the top of my head only Glamorgan remains the only non English county to play first class cricket, When you consider other European settlers why would they adopt cricket?

I'm sorry if this doesn't meet the challenge but in order to find ways to make cricket more popular I would need to better understand what turns Americans off cricket.

Dave
I mean, unless we think American tastes are genetic, we can change the history. Why do American prefer 'big hitting' and are apparently impatient sports fans? Not saying we aren't, but tackling that is the main job here.
 
I mean, unless we think American tastes are genetic, we can change the history. Why do American prefer 'big hitting' and are apparently impatient sports fans? Not saying we aren't, but tackling that is the main job here.
I perhaps phrased that poorly and is based of a limited understanding of American sports. Test cricket with its 5 day draw, lunch break, tea break etc is somewhat of a freak sport and I can't think of any other sport where the distinction between a Draw and a Tie matters
If an American can list reasons why they don't like cricket it might be easier to find a way to spread its popularity. But the rise of cricket in other former colony's can be tied to longer British control, crucially beyond the codification of first class status in 1895. Also the rise of some of the Greats Hobbs, Trumper, Barnes and beyond to Hammond, Bradman etc.
America had been forging its own path for over a 100 years before cricket as we know it today really got going. Any P.O.D would need a shift in the development of the game not just in its spread in America. The first class game needed good transport links and mass circulation newspapers to help boost the game.

N.B a draw is a game where at the end of the allotted playing time 3-5 days neither side has produced a positive result.
A tie the rarest of results is when the scores are level when the side batting second has lost all their wickets.

As for big hitting and the game has developed increasingly shorter formats with rules, balls and pitches designed to favour the batsman and allow more big hitting so its a common and modern phenomenon. The last world cup final was ultimately decided because England had scored more boundaries ( crudely the equivalent of a home run, although depending on whether the ball leaves the field on the full or after bouncing a boundary scores 6 or 4)

Perhaps a companion question is why rounders (the nearest precursor of base ball) fell behind cricket in England.

thanks Dave ( I apologise to all Americans for my generalisation no criticism was implied or offence intended)
 
Top