Please don't take this as talking down to the stereotype of an American sports fan. This is as much for a regular cricket fan as it is for the newest cricketing outpost who might be wondering what this sport is all about. There are questions after the first-ever World Cup match in New York that need answering.
Were we not entertained?
Even for a traditional cricket fan, this match was a bit of a hard-sell. A diehard fan might have found some excitement during some tight overs when South Africa were chasing 78, but otherwise it was just too loaded in favour of the bowlers. There was just too much bounce, and unpredictable bounce, which made six-hitting next to impossible. It was going both up and down, left and right. And it was happening not in the air but after the ball bounced, which gives batters very little time to adjust. They can defend their wicket but can't possibly score quickly.
Why was the pitch so difficult? Surely they didn't do it on purpose?
It is hard to say. These drop-in pitches were prepared by an experienced groundsman from Adelaide who knows the assignment. Perhaps they haven't had enough time to settle down with enough cricket played on them. There are four pitches at the Nassau County International Cricket Stadium, and six for the nets at Cantiague Park. They were all prepared at the same time. India have done the most training at Cantiague Park, and they have seen them behave better day by day. Perhaps these will too.
Or perhaps the curator is leaving extra grass because the square of four pitches has to host eight matches in 10 days. He obviously doesn't want them to die down by the time the New York leg is nearing its end.
But aren't these expert batters? Why couldn't they adjust and score at least a run a ball through grounded shots?
The outfield wasn't great. There were quite a few shots that would have fetched fours in standard conditions, but this is a heavy sandy outfield. Even aerial shots that clear the infield were bouncing in it and plugging.
Can anything be done about the outfield? Perhaps shave some of the grass?
That could make it dangerous for the fielders. Already they are not too keen on diving. Perhaps they could consider bringing the boundaries in.
Hang on, why do we want standard conditions?
Because T20 is the shortest format of cricket. It is the vehicle to take it to newer outposts. There is just not enough time to adjust to such variable conditions. It creates competitive imbalance, giving the bowling side a huge advantage. As you saw, the side batting first didn't have the time to realise 120 was a good score and kept losing wickets trying to aim for a bigger total.
Especially in tournament play, cricket always aims for standard conditions because you want the players to shine and not the conditions. In the ODI World Cup in India last year, the governing body kept rating pitches "average" whenever they deviated a bit from the norm.
But didn't Sri Lanka win the toss? Why did they choose to bat first?
They possibly didn't know what to expect from these pitches.
And why is that?
They only just arrived two days ago after spending their entire night in the Miami airport because of a flight delay. Then the actual facility doesn't have practice pitches. Looking at how they would be practising elsewhere, they chose to rest rather than make the trek all the way from downtown Brooklyn to Long Island. Even on match day they woke up at 5.30am to make it in time. They were practically sleepwalking.
Why are they staying so far?
The other hotels in the vicinity are fully booked by the other teams who are here for longer.
That sounds like a nightmare. Why go through all this to come to New York when you can't get a cricket field in the city where there are enough hotels to house all the teams?
New York is arguably the best city in the world. Like any business, cricket wants to expand. It is aiming for the richest consumers of sport.
Then why play at 10.30am on a Monday?
In the biggest existing market for cricket, India, it was 8pm on a Monday. That's primetime. You can't completely ignore the existing audience in order to make an outreach to a newer one.
Were they entertained at least?
Going by the texts I received, no. They are generally traditionalists so most of them were laughing laughs of vindication. It was the loudest I told you so.
I can understand they must be feeling like that girl in the meme where the boy is walking with her but looking at someone else.
That's not a question but I will grant you this one. It is quite accurate.
So is this a total disaster?
No, there is a cheat code. India vs Pakistan, arch rivals with a shared bloodied history. It has already sold out two stadiums in and around New York. It will rescue everything.
Did it really need a World Cup for that particular game to be sold out? Because from what I understand it is a completely inconsequential match, which tells me these two teams can sell out anything.
Yes, it is inconsequential unless at least a couple of big upsets take place in other matches in this group. It is also correct that you don't even get easier opponents in the next rounds if you win this match.
But no, those two teams can't play each other outside multi-nation events because of the politics between the two countries. Between you and me, the governing body even rigs the draw to make sure they play each other at least once.
Hmm. But it's not like the 1800s when Canada and USA played international cricket for the first time. The conditions needn't have been such an unknown. Surely if the expat fans are selling out two stadiums, they must be wanting to play too? If they had stadiums here, you wouldn't need to bring in untested pitches from Australia.
Yeah, but you can't blame the ICC for that. Developing grounds and pitches is the job of the national board.
Why didn't they do it then?
USA Cricket? Now that's a whole can of worms even the ICC opens with a visor and gloves on.
How much did they spend on this makeshift stadium again?
Well, that really is the $30 million question.