Why are local one-day cricket crowds so low?

Another reason for supposed dwindling crowds is CA's treating the cricket supporter with contempt - "we're preparing for the World Cup" . So they're more or less telling us that our home summer ODI's aren't important but still want to charge us good dollars. To me, I only get the chance once a year to see a home ODI so I'm going to go anyway even if it is a glorified training run. They're really pushing T20 because they can sell the fan 40% of the product for 80% of the price which I'm afraid looks like strangling cricket as we know it - It's glorified baseball and that's just not cricket!

I put it down to too much cricket. If they cut back on pointless t20's and pointlessly long odi series (really can't this one be a 3 match series?) more people might attend?. Could also boost the attendance of domestic cricket it more international players were available to play.

Well there's our problem then ;)

This is very true Sheek. The prices for the Twenty 20s at the MCG this season are more expensive for the other formats, at both state an international level. That is it costs more to attend a T20 match than even a day at the test. I brought this up with the M.C.C. because I felt pretty strongly about the T20 my visitors tickets costing so much for 3 hours of cricket, they let me know that of course C.A. set the prices and that they claim it's strong demand that sets the prices. Funny, I'd have thought that almost 90,000 people on Boxing Day would have suggested higher demand, especially given that general admin tickets were sold out but no, not in C.A.'s fantasy land. Twenty 20 was designed as a means to bring people back to cricket by making it cheap and accessible. Instead, they go about fleecing everyone because they know people will show up anyway. They'll show up this year anyway.

I'm not convinced (yet anways) that ODI's aren't making as much money at the international level. Twenty 20's sure make more, when considering the IPL, but most countries other than Australia tend to support 50 overs asbout as much as twenty 20s...at that all import international level, and this should remain so as the moment twenty 20's start undermining 50 overs cricket is the moment the IPLwill be seen as the peak of the game

yep, sorry BDs, I did mean Sunday obviously...

The Live on TV against the gate is a major factor. Perhaps not so obvious in other Australian cities where sell outs were achieved far more readily at grounds with capacity of 30-40,000. However, in Melbourne, the MCG would often draw 60,000 fans and yet the game was not broadcast live into Melbourne, whereas in Sydney the SCG could draw just 40,000 and the game ran live. So, in Melbourne, we get the situation such as on the weekend just gone - with a T20 on Friday night that drew a tad under 60,000 (after rain all morning), and a ODI on Sunday night (a worknight!!) that 'only' drew 30,000 and was live against the gate. Perhaps, just perhaps, with matches running live against the gate, the ticket prices really need to be reviewed, especially the cost to enter for the evening session only.

I tend to reflect more so on what we are doing with most sports nowadays everything is virtualy live on T.V. , convenient for bookmakers / betting shops for us to bet live on in the run so to speak. . Whatever happened to if we don't sell out we dont go live into that major city/ state. And the reassurance's T.V. companies give us nowadays I.E. ( stick with us we have all you need) no need for you to leave you're lounge room. It's a good issue raised but where are most sports going to be in 10-15 years time with T.V. so dominant in our lives now.

CA has already acted, they will actually slash the long format of the game next season. The plan is, the BIG BASH, and only 8 Shield matches per side. Mercifully the 45 over concept will be killed off.

As it stands right now. I would be more than happy to just go back to old school tours and get rid of all short forms of cricket. But the cash is in the 20 over lark, so that is our fate. Funny thing is, by trying to attract the new brigade you repluse your old audience. Is it worth it?

I've been saying this for a decade - apart from the World Cup, get rid of ODI only ours between full ICC members. Add to that a minimum Test series length of 3 matches. The mass of ODI matches that seem to clog the calendar would soon disappear, if boards had to play (sadly, often loss making) Test series in order to play a few ODIs. And no extension of international T20s. Some people would remove international T20 entirely, maybe I would keep one brief championship but not held every year. Maybe in place of where the Champions Trophy used to be, two years either side of the World Cup. Quite frankly, I couldn't care less if one of the forms of limited cricket (50 or 20 over) died out completely, but don't have any qualms with all three provided a balance can be met. I don't see any point playing with the full day format too much, let it die if that is what takes place - and many of the changes made recently have simply confused the game (the worst being the attempted 12 man teams). And, remember, its only in the last few seasons that Nine have been allowed to broadcast the match in full into the city of origin. That possibly makes a bigger difference for cricket than most other sports. Maybe a "best of" format is required for one day series as well. If seven games are scheduled, and a team takes a 4-0 lead, the series is over. This reduces meaningless games a little.

Jaredsbro, We'll have to agree to disagree. Two forms of truncated cricket underpinning multiple days cricket (test & SS) can't be sustained. Resources are spread too thin, there is no consolidation of skills & experience, which is a key consideration for the longer forms of cricket. A smart general who realises his front is spread too wide, will withdraw & consolidate his forces in depth. This is the stark reality confronting Cricket Australia. Another problem in war is re-supplying & maintaining a deep possession of territory. Might look good on the map, but logistically & strategically becomes a nightmare, as the Germans discovered in both Russia & North Africa, & the Japanese discovered trying to hold their territory from Manchuria to Burma to the middle & south Pacific. Same with CA, they can't continue to throw money at so many different projects. They will have to make some tough decisions. Two truncated forms of cricket is one too many, IMHO.....

There are two reasons the tri-series won't return soon. The first is that the neutral games never rated that well. The second is the future tours program rules, which state that if games hosted and toured must be even, or a payment made, so if two touring sides play 4 games in Australia, Australia needs to play 2 tour games each in return.

Maybe it's possbible to have longer Twenty 20 series (to avoid one brilliant innings from ruining what might otherwise have been a series with competitve results) and shorter 50 over series (keep it at 3 and no more). But the problem then is that 50 over cricket will eventually be victim of the 'who cares anyway' mentality as whose gonna pay real dollars for a match which lacks real competiveness as 50 over cricket does require prob more matches (if the current approach to the game is to prevail) to maintain the public's interest. That may well be acceptable...playing the same number of matches in both limited overs formats, ie less of one and more of another. But from there It's very easy from there to see a 50 over cricket-less landscape if numbers continue to drop. And of course at the same time the players will be eyeing up their chance to make a million in a month. It's a difficult balance, because meaning comes from the competitiveness of teams as much as from such things as novelty.

Not disagreeing with you, but is the problem really that people don't care about 50 over cricket anymore...fullstop? I respect your vast knowledge on many things Australian sport Sheek (particularly NSW/Waratahs's Rugby), don't get me wrong, but I don't believe three is too many formats...whereas I'm guessing you believe it is unlikely (as test cricket's the highest priority) is there any possibility of me convincing you otherwise?

OK so you're not wanting to kill off 50 over cricket...rather reduce the number of games played and of course increase the importance/value of playing (well) and winning said games. This could be the best compromise...but just don't kill off 50 over cricket damit ;)

High expectations that were for the most part met (and for me surpassed) in this latest Ashes test could have made everything else turn on its head, but too many people have already started writing obituaries to 50 over cricket (anyways) for it to be this summer's fault. I'll get back to y'all on how many people will attend Saturday's 1st ODI between NZ and Pakistan, but I suspect it won't be too disappointing a crowd.

Oh ok then I agree with you about 90% then :) Keeping a meaningful international element for 50 overs is key as otherwise people might start thinking (at least the causual fans) that only one form of limited overs cricket is good enough. Of course there aren't too many who want to get rid of Tests...some want to revolutionise them. Sheek's comments here about day/night tests are interesting and it's not something I'm totally against as Tests are so important that 'normal' people's schedules do need to be main point of appeal. But sacrificing ODIs say for a more competitive (in terms of playing depth) and less competition in terms of spectator interest is going far too far...

agreed, some long term vision is needed.