Immigration Fueled America's Stunning Cricket Upset Over Pakistan
There's an obvious lesson here.

An upset that reverberated around the cricket-watching world was made possible by America's most potent superpower: immigration.
In case you haven't heard by now, the United States upset Pakistan at the T20 Cricket World Cup this past Thursday. The history of the two countries' national cricket teams suggests that the win deserves a place in the annals of incredible American upsets on the international stage, alongside those pulled off by the 2018 Olympic curling team, the 1980 Olympic hockey team, and the 1950 World Cup soccer team. Pakistan finished second in this tournament when it was last held (in 2022), and it currently ranks 6th in the world. Meanwhile, the United States was making its first ever appearance in the competition—and qualified only because it was a co-host.
After beating Canada in the tournament's first match, the U.S. team is now in a good position to advance to the second round by finishing in one of the top two spots in its group—though a difficult match with India comes next, on June 12.
The New York Times called Thursday's win "a humiliation in Pakistan, where cricket is the most popular sport and part of the national identity"; it added that "many Americans were oblivious" to the result.
But we shouldn't be oblivious about why the result was possible. It's because of immigration. As The Indian Express points out, at least six players on the American team are of Indian descent, including several who are in the U.S. on work visas and who play on the national team essentially as a hobby.
That includes Saurabh Netravalkar, who bowled (the equivalent of pitching) the final over (inning) for the American team. He moved from Mumbia to San Francisco when he was a student. Now he's an engineer at Oracle. Monank Patel, who scored 50 runs in the game, moved to New Jersey from India in 2016 to start a restaurant. Nosthush Kenjige, who recorded three wickets (the equivalent of strikeouts), had been born in Alabama before moving to India and then returning to the U.S. to work as a biologist. Other players on the team were born in Canada, while some others (such as Kenjige) were native-born American children of Indian immigrants.
The rest of the Express article is worth your time to read, if only to appreciate the depth of the cross-cultural story behind the Americans' incredible upset. Saurabh, for example, had not even brought his cricket cleats to America when he moved here from India, believing that his cricket-playing days were behind him. Now he's the star and cricket is growing in U.S. popularity—particularly, and not surprisingly, in places with large numbers of South Asian immigrants.
There may not be a deep well of historical cricketing talent in the United States. But one of the greatest things about America is that if we don't have something, we can import it. And one of the lessons of the upset win over Pakistan is that greater immigration can have positive knock-on effects that go well beyond the initial reasons why someone might choose to move to the United States. After all, we're not handing out cricket visas. Saurabh didn't move to the United States to play the sport at all. He came for an opportunity to study, stayed because he got a job, and ended up helping author an all-time American sporting moment.
Immigration is America's superpower. Being one of the world's freest and most prosperous places means talented people from all over the world want to live and work here. When they do, it's not just their workplaces and immediate families that benefit. The country does too.
But what about all the immigrants who aren't world-class cricketers or scientists, some might ask. No problem! Can you cook or clean or code or care for someone? Can you do road work or construction? There are 8.1 million unfilled jobs in this country right now—and there will only be more economic opportunities as the country grows—so we should welcome all the help we can get. And when the kids of those immigrants grow up to be world-class scientists or athletes or entrepreneurs, America wins some more!
Some folks on social media seem grumpy about the victory because it was a bunch of immigrants and children of immigrants who made it happen. Those people should just say what they mean: that they'd prefer to see America be less successful—and not just at silly things like cricket matches, but at stuff that matters too. Be honest about it: You want America to lose more.
Personally, I prefer winning. And I don't care whether your parents were born in India or Indiana. Come here or stay here. Be an American. Go kick some ass.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Lesson: for 150B a year you can win a competition no American cares about?
Worse return than the WNBA.
Fucker. That was my angle!
$150B/year payroll is making Steinbrenner turn in his grave
You're two minutes too slow to-day. Tooteloo!
I was cashing in all those rubles that Putin sends me. 50 kopeks per post.
50! I'm only getting half a yuan. Fuckers.
I'm hearing crickets.
Crickets to E Boehm for this completely insignificant piece of barrier shattering, hard hitting “journalism”. Is he bucking for Majorkas’ job (which he clearly has no interest in fulling)?
Can still use:
"Immigrants playing the sports Americans don't want to play"
Americans were taught not to play with their food.
Nice.
Happy this was #1 comment, spot on.
What a stupid fucking rationale
Crickets to E Boehm for this completely insignificant piece of barrier shattering, hard hitting “journalism”. Is he bucking for Majorkas’ job (which he clearly has no interest in fulling)?
we won at cricket. LET THEM ALL IN!
Maybe we have a shot at dominos now?
If we let in several million Russians we can dominate at chess!
or Cubans.
He said chess not sandwich making.
Capablanca is neither a sandwich nor a city in Morocco.
Let them eat crickets!
As opposed to the writer's most potent superpower: hyperbole.
Yes. The obvious lesson here is that Boehm will write anything to support his Master's views on immigration.
No shit. I can almost comprehend the rules of cricket but I cannot fathom anybody in the USA giving the slightest sliver of a shit.
Hell, they can't even get soccer to catch on.
There's an obvious lesson here.
Yep. America should have lost. Because immigration bad.
America didn’t win, immigrants won.
Or: Hubris is a fucking bitch.
The lesson is just fuck off and die.
The lesson here is that I still don't give a shit about cricket.
They asked a thousand Americans what they thought of cricket. The response?
*crickets*
In 20 years the answer will be "not bad, especially deep fried with BBQ sauce".
Really, to make it pop, you need to turn your BBQ sauce into a glaze by reducing a Mexican Coke or similar into a syrup and then adding your favorite BBQ sauce to that concoction and giving it a good stir.
You end up with a sweet, tangy sauce that is easy to caramelize on the grill, and it pairs well with the natural crispiness of the exoskeleton. MMmh, delicious!
They asked 1000 people in the rest of the world what they thought about baseball and got the same result. 🙂
Now he's the star and cricket is growing in U.S. popularity... When they do, it's not just their workplaces and immediate families that benefit. The country does too.
Bet you'll change your tune when some city tries to fund a cricket ground with public money.
and cricket is growing in U.S. popularity…
Oh, among native-born US citizens? Or because of increased immigration?
Probably both, but mostly the latter. There's a whole cable channel for Cricket now and the ads are mostly targeted at Indian and Caribbean people.
Some how I missed the long and detailed explanation of the distinctions between legal immigration, and criminal border crossing.
So Boehm thinks the best way to increase US Olympic medals in every sport by recruiting, educating, housing and paying foreign athletes (as well as tens of millions of the poorest and least educated/skilled foreigners) to move to America.
I know it sounds silly but when you include the incredibly diverse food trucks it all makes sense.
There's an obvious lesson here.
Yes there is. Immigration is intended to destroy baseball. Next step - replacing apple pie with durian pie.
Can they replace you instead?
^ seconded.
In fact, I am all for a 1:1 exchange of marxist AWFL scum for immigrants (legal) from countries torn apart by marxist scum
Baseball is already dead. It's been increasingly boring since the 60s. The mathematicization of the sport killed it, it's just been a long slow death as the people who remember exciting games slowly die off and don't get replaced by new fans.
USA, USA, USA!
We have a cricket team?
We apparently have a Women’s National Team for soccer as well but they lost to a group of under-15 boys.
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/former-uswnt-star-carli-lloyd-admits-losing-to-under-15-boys-team-yes-its-true
Men are just better at sports. There's some dude in his 40s on the US Olympic synchronized swimming team and he's the best one. He's not a tranny or anything and made the team because the Olympic committee changed the rules and no longer require an athlete have a snatch to compete in gymnastic water dancing.
Bad News
Bitches won't let him compete
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/08/us/synchronized-swimming-bill-may.html?unlocked_article_code=1.yk0.xNIZ.fJRyI50Bh_eA&smid=url-share
Just Title IX those bitches.
Pretty sure the lesson is that cricket is wildly unpopular in America.
Who gives a fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuq? Do food trucks next.
A story about crickets is about food.
American and Canadian cricket's heyday was in the 19th Century. Many of the same players in clubs played both baseball and cricket. However, baseball was gradually reformed to become more attractive to both participants and spectators. and cricket declined in popularity. Meanwhile in England the main line of "base ball" slowly sank to the status of a game like slow-pitch softball called rounders, i.e. an activity unattractive to serious athletes.
Strangely enough, professional soccer had a later heyday in North America, in the 1920s and early '30s. Professional American football wasn't a big deal yet, and since the course the NCAA was then set on was to squeeze intercollegiate football down to nothing, many thought soccer was going to be the pro sport in the role now taken by the NFL.
Fortunately, that darkest of timelines was avoided.
Cricket is unpopular?
Maybe they need a pitch clock, so the games finish on the same day they start....
I think they have one.
They have come up with various forms of Cricket that are much faster for exactly those reasons. Some are as fast or faster than baseball. Test Cricket is the one that lasts for days and it's super popular in India and some other places. But maybe they have fewer entertainment options there.
I guess maybe I'm weird, but the slow pace is one of the things I like about baseball. I don't like the addition of the pitch clock.
The pitch clock only makes visible what's been the rule for a long time. Bill Veeck had the Pitch-o-Meter doing the same thing unofficially.
Many people probably think American and Canadian football deliberately slowed down rugby, but they're wrong. The Rugby Football Union made the requirement to release the ball immediately after a tackle after rugby was already established in North America; we just kept the older, slower way to play.
Test match cricket - that is, the five-day game between top cricket nations - can be incredibly gripping for all five days. True, it can also be boring the entire time as well, but in recent years it tends to be tense rather than dull
sounds like you are describing the crux of this article i.e. an activity unattractive to serious athletes.
Crimewaves from foreign gang members, rising housing costs, wage depression, unpaid medical bills, enormous funding issues in public schools, unvetted, potentially dangerous people in our country, intentions unknown, vast amounts of money remitted back tot he home country instead of helping the economy here, but we can win at cricket if we let them in.
Hard pass for me!
One guy scored 50 runs in one game? Is this like wiffleball? Do they use ghost runners?
You can get more than one run on a single play. And the rough equivalent of a home run in baseball counts for 6 runs, if I remember correctly.
Only thing I know about cricket is that an alien spaceship can land in the middle of a game and if it has a somebody else's problem field generator no one will notice.
I was totally mystified by Cricket until a few years ago when I watched some games with my cousin's Indian husband and finally figured out what they hell they were talking about.
There's been an alien spaceship parked at Lord's Cricket Ground in London for a couple of decades and no-one has noticed.
https://www.cig-architecture.com/projects/media-centre-lords-cricket-ground
One of the big deals in cricket is to score a "century" or a hundred runs or more.
"West Indies batting legend Brian Lara holds the record for most runs in a Test innings, scoring 400* off 582 balls against England in 2004."
Imagine that each base reached counts as one run. Also, you don't have to run if you don't want to. And if the ball crosses the boundary - like hitting the fence, it's four runs if it hit the ground first, and the equivalent of a home run is six runs. Also, as front of thhe bat is flattish and wide, it's much easier to hit the ball.
As I understand it, after hitting the ball, the batsman (the batter with a flat bat) runs back and forth between the two "stumps" (22 yards) until the fielders throw the ball back, and each trip counts as 1 run. There must be some limit to how many runs you can rack up when they can't get the ball back, but it's common to score several runs on one hit.
Then the batsman gets to go again immediately, rather than going to the back of the rotation, and it's likely he'll get several more pitches ("bowls"?) before his time at bat is over. There's no tagging him out, unlike American baseball where the runner has to stay aware of the outfielders' progress and stop safe on a base before the ball is thrown to the guy at the next base, or be put out. There's no need on a weak hit to beat the ball to first base or be put out - you can even knock the ball down at your feet and just stand right where you are without being put out. There's no outs for a foul ball, a popup that is caught before it hits the ground, or three strikes.
The way a bowler puts a batsman out and ends his time at bat is to get the ball past him, hit the stump (with 3 thin posts and 2 loose crossbars on top) and knock one of the crossbars down. Or to rattle the batsman so he messes up and puts himself out. A batsman who uses too much backswing and knocks down the stump himself is out, of course. Any foul will put the batsman out - one unique to cricket is "leg before wicket", when the referee judges that you used your leg or other part of your body (except your hands on the bat) to defend the wicket instead of your bat. But you don't have to actually swing the bat - just getting the bat in front of the ball to stop or deflect it is enough to keep you in the game.
More research - I was wrong about "no tagging him out". The runner can be put out by throwing the ball to the opposing player at the stump he is running towards, but only if he crosses a certain line. It doesn't seem nearly as common as in baseball.
Any ball that is hit by a batsman and caught by a fielder is an out in cricket.
That is caught by a fielder before it hits the ground.
Why are we celebrating victory in a game based on some of the darkest times in galactic history, the Krikkit Wars? Only the English would be so lacking in taste to invent such a sport!
Here's another way to look at it:
Immigration fuels Charles Koch's inherited fortune.
Charles Koch's inherited fortune fuels Reason.com.
#CheapLaborAboveAll
Reason fuels reluctant, strategic, and queasy votes for Biden.
There's an obvious lesson here.
And yet, you clearly missed it.
JFC. Seriously?
I'm told that a significant percentage of illegal border crossers are Chinese. Soon the US will excel at Uyghur kidney harvesting and fried pangolin.
We’ll have our own wet markets to unleash diseases from!
The lesson is that huge amounts of immigrants change your culture.
In this case, cricket, it might be a benign thing. But we also see the negatives in Biden's pandering to the pro-Hamas immigrants in Michigan and elsewhere.
Pickleball advocates hardest hit.
If anyone thinks baseball is boring, sit them front of a cricket match for ten minutes. When they wake up, ask them how it was.
I'm pretty sure Brits would say the same thing, but with "baseball" and "cricket" swapped. It's a matter of what you understand. Suburban American lads of my generation, at least, not only have most of the rules of baseball memorized, but played it themselves when young, mostly in informal games organized by the boys themselves wherever there was a vacant lot. So we understand what's happening in the game, and often can relate this to our own experience, while cricket is a mystery. But British lads played and learned the rules of cricket, while baseball is a mystery - and maybe not very clear even to girls that played rounders, which looks like American softball but with rules that evolved differently.
Good article. Now maybe we can finally dispel the myth that libertarians are just nerdy dorks that don't know anything about the sportsballs.
There’s an obvious lesson here.
Yes, the only way to win an almost entirely foreign sport is bring in the foreigners that play it, and then send them back.
Reason is becoming self parody.
This is almost as dumb… almost as putting a bunch of trans-women on the women’s team, then letting them compete with men and when they either do well or win, we claim immigration into the women’s locker room allowed this amazing result to occur.
If Denver gets a trans basketball team, it could be called the Death Nuggets.
Taxpayers paying for stadiums = bad.
Taxpayers paying for the players = good.
Interesting take.
Cricket. The lighters?
When do we lose the "temporary commenting privileges"?
I don't know but I'm looking forward to it.
Theory: It'll never happen.
Analysis: CNN Plus
I'm actually very pro open immigration. We don't have that. We have subsidized black market immigration. It's sort of the worst of both worlds.
We have this because one of the two major parties (and the one currently in power) views it as extremely advantageous electorally.
An over is not the same thing as an inning(s). “In cricket, an over consists of six legal deliveries bowled from one end of a cricket pitch to the player batting at the other end.”
Thus, in an over it is possible that a single bowler could possible get six batsman out. To complete an inning the bowlers on the fielding side must get ten batsman out. Any player can bowl an over then go back to his regular position while another player replaces him. This can be repeated again and again until the opposing side are all out.
In limited over games, however, each bowler is restricted in the number of overs they can bowl, usually a fifth of the total available overs. So in a 40-over match, no bowler can bowl more than 8 overs. In an unlimited game, like a county 4-day match or a Test 5-dat match, there is no such over restriction.
This means that a normal make-up of a team will include four specialist bowlers and one all-rounder who is both a more than competent bowler and more than competent batter and some all-rounders are as good, if not better, than specialist bowlers and batters. Typically, one or two other batters are competent bowlers.
Similar to blernsball.
Bite my shiny metal ass, blernsball is still closer to baseball.
Neither are wickets "the equivalent of strikeouts", they are the equivalent of "outs", period. In baseball there are many ways that a player can be "out" and the same is true in cricket. And many of the ways are similar. In both games a player can be caught out or tagged out. In cricket a player can be "bowled out" ie the ball can knock down the stumps (the wooden sticks at each end of the cricket pitch or he can be LBW, leg before wicket, the batsman's leg can be struck by the ball when it is front of the stumps.
One thing though is that there is absolutely no equivalent of a strikeout in cricket. Every out happens (or doesn't) with one single delivery of the ball.
It’s not just the leg. If any part of the body is in the way of the ball reaching the stumps, aside from a hand holding a bat, subject to one or two other technicalities, you can be given out and it is still called LBW. Batters have been correctly given out LBW when the ball hit their head as they ducked.
And there is also “stumped”, where the ball passes the stumps, the batter is out of his ground, and the wicket-keeper (like a catcher), collects the ball and knocks the bails off when a batter is out of his grounmd. Only a wicketkeeper can stump a batter.
(There is also "handled the ball", "obstructing the field", "hit the ball twice", and "timed out" - the new batter didn't make it to the wicket in time after the previous dismissal - usually two minutes.
Note, too, that because there’s no such thing as a foul tip, and the ball can bounce before reaching the batter, you have fielders next to the wicket-keeper, called the slips, who are there to catch these “foul tips”. In the long game, many if not most dismissals are from slip catches.
One other amusing feature of dismissals - a batter can only be given out if someone on the fielding team appeals to the umpire for a decision. But it is considered unsportsmanlike to appeal too much when the batter isn't out, and penalties can be imposed. Much of the time there's no need formally to appeal - if a batter is caught in the outfield or bowled, it's obvious. But in the case of, say, an LBW, or a possible foul tip where there may or may not have been a faint edge, a formal decision will be required. Sometimes with a faint edge, a batter will leave the field - he walks, as the expression has it - without waiting for the umpire's decision. It's considered sporting by some authorities and silly by others.
"Much of the time there’s no need formally to appeal"
No, a batter can - or should - never be given out without a formal appeal. There was an amusing incident a couple of days ago - I forget which match, maybe England-Australia - where the batter clearly nicked the ball and the wicket-keeper caught it, the fielding side all cheered, but didn't appeal properly, and the umpire clearly said something inaudible that must have been 'is that an appeal', so one of the fielders did appeal, and the umpire gave the decision.
the fielding side all cheered, but didn’t appeal
Odd - you'd think the bowler would appeal by instinct!
Bowlers are notorious for making 'wahey' noises and shouting 'yeaaah' and so-on in a celebratory way rather than actually asking a question of the umpire.
"Every out happens (or doesn’t) with one single delivery of the ball."
Being pedantic, there are some dismissals that are possible without a delivery of the ball. A batter who doesn't take his position in time can be timed out by the umpires, and there is also the somewhat complicated 'mankad'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_out#Non-striker_leaving_his/her_ground_early
Also, a batter can 'retire' their innings, which if it's done for non-medical reasons counts as being out.
Mankading is still generally regarded as unsporting in a long-form match if there’s no prior warning. I don’t know whether it still is in limited overs matches where single runs here or there can make such a difference.
Following on with my comment about fielders being required to appeal, it occasionally happens that the non-striking batter is Mankaded, the bowler appeals, the umpire gives him out, but the fielding captain, not wishing to benefit from the unsporting action of the bowler (only a bowler can Mankad a batter) will withdraw the appeal, and the dismissal is rescinded.
Yes. I have strong views on Mankading - I think it's perfectly legitimate and it's actually unsporting, and often borderline racist, to treat Mankaders the way they are sometimes treated. There does seem to be a large element of 'not what our kind of chap would do; not one of us' in the reaction of many of the objectors. You can't mankad a batter who isn't trying to unfairly gain an advantage, but traditionally batters were mostly of higher social status than bowlers, and there was a lot of prejudice, so you could also argue it's a class thing more than a race thing.
Really, it's pretty bizarre to object in the modern era. It might have made more sense in the era when batters routinely gave themselves out if they'd nicked the ball, and fielders would admit that they'd grassed a catch, but now everyone says 'leave it to the umpires'.
https://x.com/balajis/status/1800171234036154452?t=EwmLtLkLUzrSr_vOQ2twdg&s=19
This is San Francisco.
It’s not a bad part of town.
It’s the Embarcadero where families walk.
And now?
It’s where howling mobs light cars on fire.
Not even as a protest.
Or for some fake cause.
But for fun.
[Videos]
So, how many illegal aliens were on the US cricket team?
All of them?
Grasshopper, you have much to learn.
"Immigration Fueled America's Stunning Cricket Upset Over Pakistan"
Well, that changes everything, right?!
There's an obvious lesson: Immigrants today, unlike in previous times, continue to practice the cultures of their home countries rather than assimilating as Americans.
Right, Italians, Germans, Norweigians, Poles, etc. never carried on any of their own cultural traditions in the US.
Not saying everything is equivalent necessarily. But it's just not the case that earlier immigrants from Europe just assimilated and joined the dominant culture without bringing their own cultural stuff with them.
The absence of tepees was something of a giveaway.
But it’s just not the case that earlier immigrants from Europe just assimilated and joined the dominant culture without bringing their own cultural stuff with them.
Yes, that pretty much was the case. They might have continued with things like favorite recipes or the way they celebrated Christmas for a generation or two, but for the most part, they did just assimilate. Second-generation Italians played baseball and football, not soccer and bocce.
Totally aside here, but back in the 1850s and 1860s, cricket was a BIG sport in the US, much bigger than baseball. I don't know why it faded, but if you read mid-19th-century sources like the New York Clipper, cricket was front-page news, with much more space devoted than many other sports.
... Mumbia? Does no one proofread anymore? (Pretty sure that should be Mumbai).