He does so here where he states and asks…
“Cricket is unique among sports in the amount of time it demands from its followers. In no other sport is a match played over five days. Even one-day cricket requires up to six times the investment a game of football needs. Given the amount of cricket played these days, to follow India’s international matches could take up the productive hours of up to three months of your year. Over a lifetime, if you live till 88, that could be 22 years of watching 22 men run around in flannels or pajamas. Are we crazy?”
Why to state “no other sport” and then compare only with football? Why can’t the comparison be done against golf or tour cycling? If time is the factor for lessening popularity for cricket, why do we watch more of F1 nowadays?
Why do we tend to watch more if the Wimbledon finals goes for 5 sets? Why do we watch more when Federer beats someone by straight sets(3) with 6-0 scores and Why don’t we watch more when Venus or Serena destroys someone in straight sets(2) with 6-0 scores? Why don’t we rejoice when rain reduces a one-day match to 25 overs a side match?
The problem is, some people believe everything in this world is explainable and predictable by economics (I am not saying such a belief is wrong. I just say that most of such people don’t seem to know enough to cultivate such a belief and they don’t seem to just shut up). They take an issue and throw traditional economics in and call that as an explanation – and some of such explanations are purely stupid.
Amit, coming back to your question (“are we crazy?”), I don’t know the answer. All I know is that the article(??) is crazy and lame.