hi - i'm new here . . .

[sostenurter]

RWS - that is a great cartoon! very apt.

Scott - I think your point about money in football is true to an extent, but football has only been super, super rich in the last ten years or so. Thus it may hold true for potential sportsmen coming along now, but for Paul Collingwood's generation, who were growing up in the early 80s, when football wasn't nearly as popular and rich as it is now, it doesnt really explain everything.
I think the answer is partly money, as you say, but also partly facilities. Cricket does really need more facilities and time than football - you can't play proper cricket on concrete, grass pitches require upkeep and growing health and safety legislation means schools are reluctant for kids to play with proper cricket balls. Then there is the perennial weather probem - this affects both cricket and tennis, as does the problem of nets and tennis pitches - in my experience there are less and less of these in public places. School playing fields are also, notoriously, being sold off.
This means that kids playing cricket in schools/streets are actually playing a slightly complicated version of baseball/rounders. This is fine for inspiring enthusiasm, but it's not good for establishing skills. Whereas, interestingly, the form of street football played most often amongst kids is actually very good for honing skills and technique. So young footballers are playing something very close to real football from a young age. Young cricketers in England don't have this. I get the feeling that in other Test playing nations, because of the weather and Cricket's greater prominence (and the lack of ridiculous heath and safety restrictons) young players will be playing with a cricket ball on grass pitches for a lot of the time.

This theory doesn't have much in the way of statistics backing it up. But it would be interesting to see what you all make of it.