Cricket match prediction discussions

[DanWalker]

If there is a competition where 3 out of the 6 teams are provided with Olympic medals, then it will degrade the importance of Olympics as such. Take the case of football. Close to 200 countries take part in the Olympic qualifiers and the main tournament consists of 16 teams. So 200 countries are participating for a total of 3 medals. Now how can you justify 6 countries competing for 3 medals (given that there is no qualifying tournament)?. The ICC has made a mockery of the IOC application process and we can rule out cricket being part of the Olympic Games at least for the next two decades.

Actually, it is very true. Three out of six teams getting medals is absolutely going to mean that the teams are not going to even try so hard. Because they basically know that in one way or another, they are going to get medals. It is going to fact for the bigger teams like India, Australia, and England to win the gold because obviously, it is going to be something to remember which team won the first gold medal in the Olympics in cricket.

But other than them, I do not think the other teams will actually try the hardest. If we look at it from another angle, we can also say that the top 3 teams are going to find it very easy to win medals in this competition. And that's what ICC wants as well.

[1715584240]

1715584240

[1715584240]

1715584240

[1715584240]

1715584240

[1715584240]

1715584240

[1715584240]

1715584240

[YinShuiSiYuan]

Now, I have no better words from @JSRAW because he already gives them proper 100% right feedback about their qualities and abilities which are they doing for the progress of this game from current update as you also mention we will have only 5 teams which will participate in this Olympics game and these will join this event without any qualifying round so look like things are going into negative way from the start and with this all we have no chance for the cricket to have spot in these games it's just for the paper work with they are not serious about this all.

Squash and Baseball having better chance for the qualification in these games because these both games having better system and things which are required for the participant countries with these associations are also doing better effort, hopefully we will be out with some respect and enjoy these defer without any better effort in next few years.

I spent some time comparing with other Olympic team sports. I don't want to compare football, since it is immensely popular, and therefore went with field hockey and handball.

In case of field hockey, the main tournament had participation from 12 countries. Japan qualified as hosts in 2020, and one team each qualified as the winners from Asian Games, Pan American Games, African Olympic Qualifier, EuroHockey Championship and Oceania Cup. The remaining 7 teams came from the FIH Olympic Qualifiers. Teams participating in FIH Olympic Qualifiers were further selected from FIH Pro League and FIH Series Finals. So in total more than 40 teams took part in the qualifying tournament. In case of handball also, it was similar. Apart from regional tournaments, other teams qualified through IHF Men's Olympic Qualification Tournaments, and there were 12 participants.

I am not sure how the ICC's proposal will gat accepted, given it has no qualifying tournament.

I guess ICC is going to show that they are trying to give the best teams chances to play in the Olympics. But I still think that not having a qualifying round or system is acceptable. And I still do not understand how someone can accept only six teams going into the Olympics to represent cricket. Especially when cricket is one of the most popular sports in the whole world.

Honestly, what can you expect? Cricket is mostly played regularly by only 10- 12 teams in the whole world. If we look at that only six teams going to the Olympics to represent cricket is certainly not absolutely unbelievable.

In cricket 10 to 12 teams play regularly where few teams who are perform well. If you think from that point of view, there is no way to say that the participation of 6 teams according to the ranking is unreasonable. But as the matter is still pending nothing can be said till the final decision is taken. If there is cricket, it is likely to be in this format, but the IOC meeting will be held in Mumbai next October. It will be decided whether there will be cricket or not.

In this way ICC is going to send only best and strong teams in Olympics like India,  Australia,  Newzealand,  Pakistan,  South Africa and England which are top 6 in ICC rankings.
That might be unfair to remaining teams but this would be the first time icc is going to participate in Olympics and you never know how things will be.

[Sithara007]

Actually, it is very true. Three out of six teams getting medals is absolutely going to mean that the teams are not going to even try so hard. Because they basically know that in one way or another, they are going to get medals. It is going to fact for the bigger teams like India, Australia, and England to win the gold because obviously, it is going to be something to remember which team won the first gold medal in the Olympics in cricket.

But other than them, I do not think the other teams will actually try the hardest. If we look at it from another angle, we can also say that the top 3 teams are going to find it very easy to win medals in this competition. And that's what ICC wants as well.

Actually it is not even 6 teams. Since the United States will qualify as being the hosts, there will be a total of 5 quality teams. Out of the 5 teams, 3 will win medals. I believe that the ICC has underestimated IOC. They are probably thinking that IOC will agree to whatever unreasonable demand that they make. In order for cricket to be just considered for Olympic participation, it took almost two decades of lobbying. All that hard work is wasted because Greg Barclay and the other businessmen doesn't want cricket to be in Olympics.

[DanWalker]

Actually it is not even 6 teams. Since the United States will qualify as being the hosts, there will be a total of 5 quality teams. Out of the 5 teams, 3 will win medals. I believe that the ICC has underestimated IOC. They are probably thinking that IOC will agree to whatever unreasonable demand that they make. In order for cricket to be just considered for Olympic participation, it took almost two decades of lobbying. All that hard work is wasted because Greg Barclay and the other businessmen doesn't want cricket to be in Olympics.

Actually, it is very easy to understand why that happened. If there is a qualification system, the bigger teams will face trouble. And even if there are 10 teams playing directly in the Olympics, there is a high chance that to make the groups interesting there will have to be bigger teams put against each other in the early stages.

So, they did not want to take that risk as well. They wanted to do everything by keeping the big teams as safe as they can. But obviously, they are facing a lot of backlash from fans. The problem is they are not going to change anything. It was just dumb.

[Haunebu]

I don't really understand this whole craze surrounding inclusion of cricket in olympics. The Olympics is usually known for their track, swimming etc events(Not soccer, basketball etc).

I suggest redirecting all the focus towards more important things like domestic and international league development, better salaries etc instead.

[BobK71]

I don't really understand this whole craze surrounding inclusion of cricket in olympics. The Olympics is usually known for their track, swimming etc events(Not soccer, basketball etc).

I suggest redirecting all the focus towards more important things like domestic and international league development, better salaries etc instead.

Although cricket is still not certain in Olympics but many things can be changed after passing long time so Olympics can also allow cricket. The International Cricket Council is making maximum efforts in the globalization of cricket. For that purpose, the head organization of the sport is trying to include cricket in the biggest event of the sports world, the Olympic Games. Each country as host has the opportunity to add some new games. The list of all the games including the added games will be submitted to the International Olympic Committee by March. In addition to cricket, the IOC meeting in October will finalize the inclusion several sports in the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, including baseball, flag football, lacrosse, break dancing, kickboxing, squash and motorsports.

[mm2543363580]

Actually it is not even 6 teams. Since the United States will qualify as being the hosts, there will be a total of 5 quality teams. Out of the 5 teams, 3 will win medals. I believe that the ICC has underestimated IOC. They are probably thinking that IOC will agree to whatever unreasonable demand that they make. In order for cricket to be just considered for Olympic participation, it took almost two decades of lobbying. All that hard work is wasted because Greg Barclay and the other businessmen doesn't want cricket to be in Olympics.

Actually, it is very easy to understand why that happened. If there is a qualification system, the bigger teams will face trouble. And even if there are 10 teams playing directly in the Olympics, there is a high chance that to make the groups interesting there will have to be bigger teams put against each other in the early stages.

So, they did not want to take that risk as well. They wanted to do everything by keeping the big teams as safe as they can. But obviously, they are facing a lot of backlash from fans. The problem is they are not going to change anything. It was just dumb.

Lol so only 5 teams are going to compete in Olympics,  this is height of stupidity form ICC what erre they thinking before giving this proposal.  And Jay Shah is so much involved in this matter too obviously directing ICC what to do and what no to do.
Let's see what  lOC comes up with? 

[teosanru]

Actually it is not even 6 teams. Since the United States will qualify as being the hosts, there will be a total of 5 quality teams. Out of the 5 teams, 3 will win medals. I believe that the ICC has underestimated IOC. They are probably thinking that IOC will agree to whatever unreasonable demand that they make. In order for cricket to be just considered for Olympic participation, it took almost two decades of lobbying. All that hard work is wasted because Greg Barclay and the other businessmen doesn't want cricket to be in Olympics.

Actually, it is very easy to understand why that happened. If there is a qualification system, the bigger teams will face trouble. And even if there are 10 teams playing directly in the Olympics, there is a high chance that to make the groups interesting there will have to be bigger teams put against each other in the early stages.

So, they did not want to take that risk as well. They wanted to do everything by keeping the big teams as safe as they can. But obviously, they are facing a lot of backlash from fans. The problem is they are not going to change anything. It was just dumb.

Lol so only 5 teams are going to compete in Olympics,  this is height of stupidity form ICC what erre they thinking before giving this proposal.  And Jay Shah is so much involved in this matter too obviously directing ICC what to do and what no to do.
Let's see what  lOC comes up with? 

I am obviously not that hopeful that this will be successful but even if you see Hockey there are just 4--5 teams in the top league rest really don't stand a chance for the race in medals. So less competition shouldn't be the criteria for a game not being part of Olympics. Moreover it's a game which can get some viewership and revenues and well for Olympics, but yes I have always felt Olympics as a place where less popular sports get the attention. I don't want cricket to steal their thunder.

[eaLiTy]

I don't really understand this whole craze surrounding inclusion of cricket in olympics. The Olympics is usually known for their track, swimming etc events(Not soccer, basketball etc).

Olympics is meant to be the best competing against the best, but team sporting events like Football does have some restrictions as there is an age limit and it is implemented by FIFA and usually professional basketball players does not participate in these events even though there is not such restrictions, the only restriction i know that is in place in professional boxers are not allowed to compete but the rest of the events are the best participating against the best.

The general consensus among Cricket fans is that if they include Cricket in the Olympics more countries will be taking a keen interest in the sport and allocating budget for the sport which will help the sport in the longer run and with the T20 format it is the best time to introduce Cricket for the global audience.

[Sithara007]

I am obviously not that hopeful that this will be successful but even if you see Hockey there are just 4--5 teams in the top league rest really don't stand a chance for the race in medals. So less competition shouldn't be the criteria for a game not being part of Olympics. Moreover it's a game which can get some viewership and revenues and well for Olympics, but yes I have always felt Olympics as a place where less popular sports get the attention. I don't want cricket to steal their thunder.

So you believe that including cricket in Olympics will be unfair to the other sports? In that case why we have football, basketball and field hockey in Olympics? In terms of popularity, these sports are played in far more countries when compared to cricket. I want cricket to be included in Olympics because in most of the countries government grants are only provided to Olympic sports. And given the bias from ICC (where associate nations usually receive less than 1% of the funds that the full members receive), these grants from the government can be a game changer for countries such as Namibia and Kenya.

Olympics is a place where the best athletes around the world meet once every 4 years. Despite football being the most popular sport in the planet, many of the star players have participated in the Games. Cristiano Ronaldo represented Portugal in 2004, and Lionel Messi took part in the 2008 edition. If we take the case of basketball, NBA legends such as Shaquille O'Neal and LeBron James have been part of Olympic squads. Cricket is being the odd one, having refused to take part in this competition till now.

[Haunebu]

The general consensus among Cricket fans is that if they include Cricket in the Olympics more countries will be taking a keen interest in the sport and allocating budget for the sport which will help the sport in the longer run and with the T20 format it is the best time to introduce Cricket for the global audience.

I understand what you're trying to say here, but it isn't guaranteed that inclusion of the sport in the Olympics will help it in the long run since it could actually have the reverse effect and cause a drop in its popularity.

Frankly, the main reason that cricket was dropped from the Olympics a long time ago was because it didn't attract many viewers.

[DanWalker]

I am obviously not that hopeful that this will be successful but even if you see Hockey there are just 4--5 teams in the top league rest really don't stand a chance for the race in medals. So less competition shouldn't be the criteria for a game not being part of Olympics. Moreover it's a game which can get some viewership and revenues and well for Olympics, but yes I have always felt Olympics as a place where less popular sports get the attention. I don't want cricket to steal their thunder.

So you believe that including cricket in Olympics will be unfair to the other sports? In that case why we have football, basketball and field hockey in Olympics? In terms of popularity, these sports are played in far more countries when compared to cricket. I want cricket to be included in Olympics because in most of the countries government grants are only provided to Olympic sports. And given the bias from ICC (where associate nations usually receive less than 1% of the funds that the full members receive), these grants from the government can be a game changer for countries such as Namibia and Kenya.
Olympics is a place where the best athletes around the world meet once every 4 years. Despite football being the most popular sport in the planet, many of the star players have participated in the Games. Cristiano Ronaldo represented Portugal in 2004, and Lionel Messi took part in the 2008 edition. If we take the case of basketball, NBA legends such as Shaquille O'Neal and LeBron James have been part of Olympic squads. Cricket is being the odd one, having refused to take part in this competition till now.

It is supposed to be a great honor for any player to take part in the Olympics as well. But the problem is, as you said, "cricket has been the odd one". And it is not because the players do not want to play in the Olympics. It is because the cricket authority, the ICC does not want cricket to be included in the Olympics.

I also think that some cricket boards also do not want cricket to be included in the Olympics to some extent. As a sports body, the ICC should want which is the absolute best for the game. But they just want to think about money. That's why cricket took so long to be included in the Olympics. And even when it is being included in the Olympics it is only six teams play in the Olympics. Which is not a great sign. This means the sports body and certain cricket boards still do not want cricket to be included in the Olympics. They are just doing it because they have to.

[BobK71]

I am obviously not that hopeful that this will be successful but even if you see Hockey there are just 4--5 teams in the top league rest really don't stand a chance for the race in medals. So less competition shouldn't be the criteria for a game not being part of Olympics. Moreover it's a game which can get some viewership and revenues and well for Olympics, but yes I have always felt Olympics as a place where less popular sports get the attention. I don't want cricket to steal their thunder.

So you believe that including cricket in Olympics will be unfair to the other sports? In that case why we have football, basketball and field hockey in Olympics? In terms of popularity, these sports are played in far more countries when compared to cricket. I want cricket to be included in Olympics because in most of the countries government grants are only provided to Olympic sports. And given the bias from ICC (where associate nations usually receive less than 1% of the funds that the full members receive), these grants from the government can be a game changer for countries such as Namibia and Kenya.
Olympics is a place where the best athletes around the world meet once every 4 years. Despite football being the most popular sport in the planet, many of the star players have participated in the Games. Cristiano Ronaldo represented Portugal in 2004, and Lionel Messi took part in the 2008 edition. If we take the case of basketball, NBA legends such as Shaquille O'Neal and LeBron James have been part of Olympic squads. Cricket is being the odd one, having refused to take part in this competition till now.

It is supposed to be a great honor for any player to take part in the Olympics as well. But the problem is, as you said, "cricket has been the odd one". And it is not because the players do not want to play in the Olympics. It is because the cricket authority, the ICC does not want cricket to be included in the Olympics.

I also think that some cricket boards also do not want cricket to be included in the Olympics to some extent. As a sports body, the ICC should want which is the absolute best for the game. But they just want to think about money. That's why cricket took so long to be included in the Olympics. And even when it is being included in the Olympics it is only six teams play in the Olympics. Which is not a great sign. This means the sports body and certain cricket boards still do not want cricket to be included in the Olympics. They are just doing it because they have to.

The organizers of the 2028 Olympic games are discouraged from keeping cricket, while the ICC has proposed to the organizers to keep cricket in T20 format with six teams each for men and women. There are many criticisms about it. Various media channel have reported that cricket will not feature in the 2028 Olympic Games. But ESPN revealed in a report that no decision has been taken yet. We will finally know or confirm it next October. It appears that the ICC wants to include cricket but many may be skeptical about what the real picture looks like.

[mm2543363580]

I am obviously not that hopeful that this will be successful but even if you see Hockey there are just 4--5 teams in the top league rest really don't stand a chance for the race in medals. So less competition shouldn't be the criteria for a game not being part of Olympics. Moreover it's a game which can get some viewership and revenues and well for Olympics, but yes I have always felt Olympics as a place where less popular sports get the attention. I don't want cricket to steal their thunder.

So you believe that including cricket in Olympics will be unfair to the other sports? In that case why we have football, basketball and field hockey in Olympics? In terms of popularity, these sports are played in far more countries when compared to cricket. I want cricket to be included in Olympics because in most of the countries government grants are only provided to Olympic sports. And given the bias from ICC (where associate nations usually receive less than 1% of the funds that the full members receive), these grants from the government can be a game changer for countries such as Namibia and Kenya.
Olympics is a place where the best athletes around the world meet once every 4 years. Despite football being the most popular sport in the planet, many of the star players have participated in the Games. Cristiano Ronaldo represented Portugal in 2004, and Lionel Messi took part in the 2008 edition. If we take the case of basketball, NBA legends such as Shaquille O'Neal and LeBron James have been part of Olympic squads. Cricket is being the odd one, having refused to take part in this competition till now.

It is supposed to be a great honor for any player to take part in the Olympics as well. But the problem is, as you said, "cricket has been the odd one". And it is not because the players do not want to play in the Olympics. It is because the cricket authority, the ICC does not want cricket to be included in the Olympics.

I also think that some cricket boards also do not want cricket to be included in the Olympics to some extent. As a sports body, the ICC should want which is the absolute best for the game. But they just want to think about money. That's why cricket took so long to be included in the Olympics. And even when it is being included in the Olympics it is only six teams play in the Olympics. Which is not a great sign. This means the sports body and certain cricket boards still do not want cricket to be included in the Olympics. They are just doing it because they have to.

The organizers of the 2028 Olympic games are discouraged from keeping cricket, while the ICC has proposed to the organizers to keep cricket in T20 format with six teams each for men and women. There are many criticisms about it. Various media channel have reported that cricket will not feature in the 2028 Olympic Games. But ESPN revealed in a report that no decision has been taken yet. We will finally know or confirm it next October. It appears that the ICC wants to include cricket but many may be skeptical about what the real picture looks like.

This is reality actually cricket has been limited to 8 teams and their series and tournaments, these 8 teams are winning and losing . Cricket is lacking diversity as same teams are dominating and leading,  even low ranking teams are not mentioned or shown anywhere which Is not good .
Olympics means lots of countries showing their sportsman and making names for thier Country.

[DanWalker]

In cricket 10 to 12 teams play regularly where few teams who are perform well. If you think from that point of view, there is no way to say that the participation of 6 teams according to the ranking is unreasonable. But as the matter is still pending nothing can be said till the final decision is taken. If there is cricket, it is likely to be in this format, but the IOC meeting will be held in Mumbai next October. It will be decided whether there will be cricket or not.

I am going to disagree with you, because first of all, I believe there should have been at least eight teams participating in the competition. And even if there was a reality where everyone accepted the participation of six teams in the Olympics for cricket, there should have been at least a qualification round for it. At least you could have proven that these six teams are the best.

The organizers of the 2028 Olympic games are discouraged from keeping cricket, while the ICC has proposed to the organizers to keep cricket in T20 format with six teams each for men and women. There are many criticisms about it. Various media channel have reported that cricket will not feature in the 2028 Olympic Games. But ESPN revealed in a report that no decision has been taken yet. We will finally know or confirm it next October. It appears that the ICC wants to include cricket but many may be skeptical about what the real picture looks like.

The organizers are obviously going to be discouraged from keeping cricket in the Olympics because ICC themselves are not interested in keeping cricket in the Olympics. So why would the Olympics organizer want cricket in the Olympics? And cricket should have been in the Olympics a long time ago. But because of all the bullshit that happened, cricket is still not a part of the Olympics. And still, no decision has been taken for sure. So we should not obviously have any high hopes about it.

[dezoel]

The organizers of the 2028 Olympic games are discouraged from keeping cricket, while the ICC has proposed to the organizers to keep cricket in T20 format with six teams each for men and women. There are many criticisms about it. Various media channel have reported that cricket will not feature in the 2028 Olympic Games. But ESPN revealed in a report that no decision has been taken yet. We will finally know or confirm it next October. It appears that the ICC wants to include cricket but many may be skeptical about what the real picture looks like.

This is reality actually cricket has been limited to 8 teams and their series and tournaments, these 8 teams are winning and losing . Cricket is lacking diversity as same teams are dominating and leading,  even low ranking teams are not mentioned or shown anywhere which Is not good .
Olympics means lots of countries showing their sportsman and making names for thier Country.

The biggest problem in cricket is it's never been had professional peoples those can done good work for this game and having mind to spread this in few markets which never have any team because Big-3 never want to lose their power, and they have enough sources to control this all for their own sack which is surely hurting this badly.

Recently we have U-29 Women's Cricket world cup and I have feeling from this we can check how things are going with many issues and self-control policy we still have few countries which are giving solid reason for their presence in this event like Rwanda done good job after them Indonesia is also having good entry and few weeks back we have Thailand which is also doing good work and with these countries we can go into new market and then things can go in positive way but for this all we need good work from ICC which is not positive and having their own agenda which is never been ideal for this game.

[JSRAW]

The general consensus among Cricket fans is that if they include Cricket in the Olympics more countries will be taking a keen interest in the sport and allocating budget for the sport which will help the sport in the longer run and with the T20 format it is the best time to introduce Cricket for the global audience.

I understand what you're trying to say here, but it isn't guaranteed that inclusion of the sport in the Olympics will help it in the long run since it could actually have the reverse effect and cause a drop in its popularity.

Frankly, the main reason that cricket was dropped from the Olympics a long time ago was because it didn't attract many viewers.

It's actually quite the opposite and in the long run very beneficial for associate nations.

They get very little support from ICC and receiving additional funds from their sports ministry will help grassroots cricket. There are 90+ associate nations and even 10 countries show some sort of improvement, it'll only help cricket in general. Let's say in a decade or so, we might be able to see 20-25 or more teams participating in World cups.

[mm2543363580]

The general consensus among Cricket fans is that if they include Cricket in the Olympics more countries will be taking a keen interest in the sport and allocating budget for the sport which will help the sport in the longer run and with the T20 format it is the best time to introduce Cricket for the global audience.

I understand what you're trying to say here, but it isn't guaranteed that inclusion of the sport in the Olympics will help it in the long run since it could actually have the reverse effect and cause a drop in its popularity.

Frankly, the main reason that cricket was dropped from the Olympics a long time ago was because it didn't attract many viewers.

If viewership is the case then there are many games in Olympics that have much less viewership then cricket like field hockey. There is criteria like the game must be played in certain amount of countries before its included in Olympics. Beside that ICC is also not much interested in including cricket into Olympics.

[darewaller]

If viewership is the case then there are many games in Olympics that have much less viewership then cricket like field hockey. There is criteria like the game must be played in certain amount of countries before its included in Olympics. Beside that ICC is also not much interested in including cricket into Olympics.

In all cases, crickets entry in Olympics is beneficial for the member countries but sadly few big boards are not like this idea and try to disrupt which is surely not good idea from them because with these tactics they are not helping cricket they have to be realistic about this all and things could be also clear for be better future on other side if we have entry into Olympics then surely many more countries will also take interest because now with the t20 and franchise leagues things are going into positive way and players can earn good amount from these leagues and also can enjoy better life.

But ICC own policy is not favourable for this all, and they are trying to stay away from this all which is clearly indicating things are not going on merit it's all happening just for the few members hold on this all.

[Sithara007]

It's actually quite the opposite and in the long run very beneficial for associate nations.

They get very little support from ICC and receiving additional funds from their sports ministry will help grassroots cricket. There are 90+ associate nations and even 10 countries show some sort of improvement, it'll only help cricket in general. Let's say in a decade or so, we might be able to see 20-25 or more teams participating in World cups.

Agreed with this. The ICC allocation for associate member nations went down during the 2015-23 cycle and many of the countries (such as Nepal and Kenya) saw their annual funding reduced by as much as 80%. When Afghanistan and Ireland became test nations, the funds for associate nations got reduced much further (the additional funds for AFG and IRE came from the associate pot). Srinivasan, at the peak of his power proposed reducing funding for associate nations to 0 (you heard it right - zero). Shashank Manohar was only slightly better. He kept some amount for the associates, but they are receiving far less from what they were getting a decade ago.

I don't have much hope for the 2024-27 funding cycle as well. The BCCI is going to demand a far higher share, as 80% of the media rights income came from India. The so called "full members" don't want their share to be reduced. And in the end, there will be another reduction to the funding for associates. And this time, many of the associate countries are not going to survive. Those who are in emergency life-support, such as Kenya, Papua New Guinea and Nepal would fold up completely.