Cricket would be a bad fit for post-London 2012 Olympic stadium

It is just under a thousand days until London's Olympic 80,000-seat stadium becomes filled for purpose, but what of the many thousands after that? So far, there has been talk of rugby, football and cricket teams using the venue, though in cricket's case any future relationship should be given short shrift.

Cricket is an awkward sport not easily fitted into time or space, two of modern life's most precious resources. Yet, part of the blurb surrounding use of the Olympic stadium after the 2012 Games is that its oval shape is perfect for cricket, as if everything were simply a case of geometry.

Unless cricket is to become a game made quirkier by its playing area, like Eton fives, with its buttress and step, size is an issue even for an Olympic stadium. So, before the feasibility of producing a decent pitch and outfield in the Lea Valley is even considered, there needs to be at least 30 yards of spare ground between the long straights of the track and the front seats. If there isn't, there simply won't be space for the 70-yard boundaries a grown-up game of cricket deserves.

I've twice played against the West Indies inside an athletics track on Randall's Island in New York. With the pitch a worn rubber mat, most treated it as an exhibition match. Yet, the spectacle was compromised far more by the shape, size and condition of the outfield, with only a 40-yard chip needed to clear those boundaries square of the wicket.

Cricket's attempts to woo new or exiled audiences, such as North America's South Asian and Caribbean communities, has seen the game played in football, rugby and even baseball stadiums like Toronto's Skydome. Most were botched experiences; fun to tick off but not really worth persevering with for commercial consideration.

Some, like New Zealand, still try to fit the square game into the round hole by persisting with cricket matches at Auckland's Eden Park. But, it is a poor fit and one that arguably cost them a place in the 1992 World Cup final after Pakistan's Inzamam-ul-Haq, cleverly exploiting the angles and shorter boundaries, saw his team home in a semi-final they would probably have lost on a bigger ground.

Football has had its dalliances too. Stamford Bridge, the old Wembley, and the National Stadium of Kuwait (where difficulties with grass growth saw bowlers forbidden from marking their run-ups), have all been graced by some of the world's finest cricketers. Not that their skills could overcome the confines of those venues, used mostly as an early experience of floodlit cricket after Kerry Packer introduced it during the late 1970s.

Cricket is not readily relocated and, as yet, only Kent have made positive noises about playing in Stratford, despite north-east London traditionally being Essex territory. The lack of interest is hardly surprising and apart from the odd Twenty20 match, most counties rattle around their grounds as it is. Unless incentives were attached, playing somewhere bigger would be nonsensical.

There is an argument, however, for cricket having a Wembley-sized venue for big international matches, if only for the extra seating to drive down ticket prices. The trouble is, to cheapen maintenance costs, the Stratford stadium will be reduced to 25,000 seats once the Olympics is over. That would put its capacity behind Lord's and only marginally in front of the Oval's.

Unless 50,000 spectators can be accommodated, the only reason for international cricket to be played elsewhere in the capital would be for the novelty. If you want that, far better to build a stadium with a roof to make the game weatherproof.