Inside Sport

Ranking men's sports according to how good Australia is compared to the rest of the world


https://forum.insidesport.com.au/Topic2191339.aspx

By quickflick - 24 Jun 2015 7:07 PM

Pointless thread which will be ridiculed but with recent improvements in tennis and basketball, I thought it would be interesting to rank sports according to how good Australia is at them, compared to the rest of the world. This isn't a ranking according to the popularity of the sport in Australia or the number of kids playing them. Some of it will be unquantifiable but you can guesstimate. And the sport has to be played at international level. Obviously I'll forget heaps of sports, so just add them.

New criteria. The sport must be played at Summer/Winter Olympics or have a huge place in Commonwealth sporting tradition and be very popular (cricket and rugby).

1) Cricket
2) Hockey
3) Rugby Union
4) Basketball
5) Swimming
6) Golf
7) Tennis
8) Canoeing (otherwise known as Kayaking)
9) Water Polo
10) Rowing
11) Triathlon
12) Volleyball
13) Cycling (track and road)
14) Football
15) Aths
16) Equestrian
17) Snow sports
18) Ice hockey

Edited by quickflick: 24/6/2015 07:08:54 PM

Edited by quickflick: 24/6/2015 07:18:55 PM

Edited by quickflick: 24/6/2015 07:20:53 PM

Edited by quickflick: 24/6/2015 07:32:29 PM

Edited by quickflick: 24/6/2015 07:36:32 PM

Edited by quickflick: 24/6/2015 08:21:31 PM

Edited by quickflick: 24/6/2015 09:07:22 PM
By BA81 - 28 Jun 2015 7:53 PM

quickflick wrote:
Try telling the billion people in India that cricket doesn't matter. Cricket matters to Australians and the English, as well. We don't care if people in China haven't a clue what it is. In the context of the Ashes, only Australia and England matter. It has been that way for over 130 years. And for the 130 years for many people from Australia and England, both in the highest and lowest classes of society, it has been the most important sport in the world. In the context of cricket more generally, only the handful of nations that play it matter. Other countries are welcome to follow it and to try and get involved. But if they don't want to, it's their loss, that's all there is to it.

FWIW, I've felt for a long time that cricket has always had the potential to be *visibly* more global than what it is...but b/c the grubs @ the ICC (ie. the old Marylebone CC toffs and their Indian Subcontinent counterparts) couldn't care less about legitimately (20/20 is a gimmick that doesn't count for sh1t IMHO) growing the game outside of its strongholds, nothing changes.

It's funny; I'm originally from a football-mad country only a proverbial stone's throw away from the West Indies...but no-one there knows what cricket is. You'd think due to the geographical proximity someone would've heard of it in passing, but quite apparently not.