The technology is only available in televised games, so most cricket isn't spoiled by Sky Sports. There was one game recently when (shock, horror!) the technology failed and the game had to revert to the decisions made by the on field umpires. It was quite nice to see the game played as it should be.
I have a friend who is convinced that the winners are set by the owners at the start of the season and the rest is just pro wrestling in pyjamas. Part of the reason is inconsistent umpiring. When an ump appears to call the balls and strikes in a biased way (they don't even need to, just look like it), it undermines faith that the sport is being played in a clean, fair manner.
It was a better game when the average player made 7 times the average american’s salary instead now where they make 50 times more. You could take your whole family to a game for a inexpensive day. Now it’s like Les Pauls with AAAA tops.
The fans are as much to blame as the players - if they're willing to pay hundreds of dollars for good seats, why shouldn't the players get a cut of the money? If everyone refused to pay more than $10 a seat, that's what seats would cost. (Of course, your team would suck and get outplayed by the teams whose fans will drop hundreds of dollars a seat to get top tier talent.)
Lots of blame to go around. I've been going to more minor league games this year rather than paying big money for MLB.
