Cricket match prediction discussions

[MusaPk]

Its still not finalized by IOC that whether or not cricket is included in 2028 LA Olympics (final decision expected in Oct this year). You are talking about 12 teams but ICC has proposed six-team T20 events for both men and women for 2028 LA Olympics. Its a great move by ICC to take cricket to biggest sporting event after giving a delay of many decades.
Cricket biggest problem is very limited number of test teams and new countries are not joining in. Reason is not clear that why new teams are not coming in this sports.

While cricket will be in Olympics 2028 or not this decision will become later but most chances we will not have because ICC is also not interested in this all as their few big players are not feeling comfortable with this all, so things are not going into favor of cricket and this all is management failure which is creating mess up about this all even inclusion of cricket in this global event is having many positive aspects with good funding as well, but we have no fair policy like in other sports like soccer, field hockey and volleyball so for me this is surely the biggest failure for them, but responsible peoples are not going to change their mindset about this all as they have own agenda for this failure.

If you talk about football then there are many limitations of football in Olympics and fifa Worldcup. One is player age limit, "Since 1992, male competitors have been required to be under 23 years old, and since 1996, a maximum of three over-23-year-old players have been allowed per squad." Wikipedia.
I don't know whether IOC make any such restriction on cricket or not. ICC must not fear that Olympics inclusion of cricket will reduce ICC supremacy, fifa WC still dominate despite inclusion of football in Olympics.

[1714535778]

1714535778

[1714535778]

1714535778

[noormcs5]

Most of the team sports in Olympics have either 12 or 16 participants. For football, it is 16 (with almost 200 countries participating in the qualifier tournament), while for other sports such as basketball, field hockey and volleyball it is 12. IMO, 12 should be a good number for cricket, for both the men's and women's tournaments. And the IOC has ruled out T10 format, because they want a format which is played regularly. But then, a normal T20 game takes at least 3 to 3.5 hours to get completed.
The main issue with the bid from ICC is that they don't have any qualifying tournament. They want teams to be selected on the basis of ICC ranking, which is biased towards the full members. IOC wants a fair pathway for all the competing nations and they will definitely shoot down this obscene proposal from the ICC. And perhaps this is exactly what the ICC want.

Its still not finalized by IOC that whether or not cricket is included in 2028 LA Olympics (final decision expected in Oct this year). You are talking about 12 teams but ICC has proposed six-team T20 events for both men and women for 2028 LA Olympics. Its a great move by ICC to take cricket to biggest sporting event after giving a delay of many decades.
Cricket biggest problem is very limited number of test teams and new countries are not joining in. Reason is not clear that why new teams are not coming in this sports.

ICC proposing 6 teams is a way to keep the Olympic matches not that interesting. More the teams more will be the interest in watching it. ICC might've felt of losing importance of different tournaments and leagues. Cricket is played on different countries, but they doesn't make themselves into the next levels. In recent years it is Netherlands, Ireland that have made good progress. Not much teams into test format cricket, because huge funding is required.

I think the biggest problem is that if ICC does decide to send 10 teams it is going to become something like a world cup. And if 10 teams are actually playing in the Olympics, what is the difference between the world cups and the Olympics?

I know that this is probably not the biggest reason, but I can think of any other reasons besides this. But that problem could have been fixed by having a qualifying round. But they did not have that as well. I really do not understand what's the point of this if they just do not want to have any competition.

We are trying to figure out reasons of why cricket can't be included in Olympics and we have no definite excuse for this.

I think that cricket just doesn't suits Olympics and hence it is not included. Some can argue that ODI matches take a full day and therefore it is not included in cricket but then what about T20 which takes about 4 hrs to complete the match. Maybe they compare it with hockey or football which takes only 1.5 hrs to complete the game.

[mm2543363580]

We are trying to figure out reasons of why cricket can't be included in Olympics and we have no definite excuse for this.

I think that cricket just doesn't suits Olympics and hence it is not included. Some can argue that ODI matches take a full day and therefore it is not included in cricket but then what about T20 which takes about 4 hrs to complete the match. Maybe they compare it with hockey or football which takes only 1.5 hrs to complete the game.

T20 Format was introduced in 2005 before that only ODI and Test format were available which are unfit for Olympics. Even after 15 years of introduction of T20 format, ICC wasnt able to include cricket in Olympics because of reason still not clear. I dont think ICC is still serious in inclusion of cricket in Olympcs

[SirLancelot]

If you talk about football then there are many limitations of football in Olympics and fifa Worldcup. One is player age limit, "Since 1992, male competitors have been required to be under 23 years old, and since 1996, a maximum of three over-23-year-old players have been allowed per squad." Wikipedia.
I don't know whether IOC make any such restriction on cricket or not. ICC must not fear that Olympics inclusion of cricket will reduce ICC supremacy, fifa WC still dominate despite inclusion of football in Olympics.

If ICC is serious about their application for entry in IOC then all changes and things can happen immediately but sadly nothing positive happening, so we have no chance for the cricket to be included in Olympics in future IOC wants some positive changes but here in ICC we have mostly dafar peoples, and they never accept things like this which ends power of pig-3 as well which is also main problem they don't want to do things like these as this current system is corrupt and it's benefiting few boards and peoples as well in ICC.

If ICC can arrange U-19 Men's and Women's World cup for the T20i format then surely they can go ahead with U-23 Men's and Women's qualifiers as well which are required for the entry into Olympics and then second problem is encouraging native players which is also manageable, but few peoples are not interested as this is not favorable for the UAE and other Gulf countries its simple problems.

[noormcs5]

We are trying to figure out reasons of why cricket can't be included in Olympics and we have no definite excuse for this.

I think that cricket just doesn't suits Olympics and hence it is not included. Some can argue that ODI matches take a full day and therefore it is not included in cricket but then what about T20 which takes about 4 hrs to complete the match. Maybe they compare it with hockey or football which takes only 1.5 hrs to complete the game.

T20 Format was introduced in 2005 before that only ODI and Test format were available which are unfit for Olympics. Even after 15 years of introduction of T20 format, ICC wasnt able to include cricket in Olympics because of reason still not clear. I dont think ICC is still serious in inclusion of cricket in Olympcs

Just for my clarity , How do Olympics committee add any sports in the Olympics ? Do the sporting body contact the Olympics committee to include the sports in Olympics (in this case ICC contacts the Olympics) or the Olympics committee themselves contact the sporting body (Olympics team contact the ICC) and ask them if they may include cricket in Olympics.

If we know this, we would be understanding, we would know the fault is at which side. Whether ICC have not contacted or Olympics have declined their request ?

[Sithara007]

It comes after 4 years and it's less than a 3-week event at best so technically there shouldn't be any complaint about a busy schedule.

Having said that there is no doubt that ICC's fantasy of organizing ICC events every year + Money making T-20 leagues all around the world (mainly IPL) + Bilaterals + 3 formats do create a jam-packed schedule but at the same time only PIG-3 play ridiculously amount of cricket every year.

Just for starters, I wonder if it's possible that all stakeholders can allow u-19 or u-21 teams to participate in the Olympics instead of senior teams. This will solve the schedule issue and more teams can participate.

Yes.. I agree.

It is laughable that people don't have a problem with a 3-month IPL every year, but then Olympics, which last for 3 weeks, and occur every 4 years is being blamed for increased workload. In football, they have U-23 (+ 3 senior players) format. I don't care if cricket goes for U-19 format. If that helps to "reduce" the workload, then I am all in. But then, these complaints about workload is just an excuse. Players who refuse to play in Olympics will not have any problem if they are contracted by SA20 or BPL, if the salaries are right.

If you talk about football then there are many limitations of football in Olympics and fifa Worldcup. One is player age limit, "Since 1992, male competitors have been required to be under 23 years old, and since 1996, a maximum of three over-23-year-old players have been allowed per squad." Wikipedia.
I don't know whether IOC make any such restriction on cricket or not. ICC must not fear that Olympics inclusion of cricket will reduce ICC supremacy, fifa WC still dominate despite inclusion of football in Olympics.

This has been my proposal as well. Boards such as FIFA doesn't worry abut their supremacy because they are fairly run and it is mostly the former players who are in powerful positions. On the other hand, ICC is being run by a bunch of criminals, including Greg Barclay and Geoff Allardice and they are always afraid of their powers getting reduced.

[BobK71]

Most of the team sports in Olympics have either 12 or 16 participants. For football, it is 16 (with almost 200 countries participating in the qualifier tournament), while for other sports such as basketball, field hockey and volleyball it is 12. IMO, 12 should be a good number for cricket, for both the men's and women's tournaments. And the IOC has ruled out T10 format, because they want a format which is played regularly. But then, a normal T20 game takes at least 3 to 3.5 hours to get completed.
The main issue with the bid from ICC is that they don't have any qualifying tournament. They want teams to be selected on the basis of ICC ranking, which is biased towards the full members. IOC wants a fair pathway for all the competing nations and they will definitely shoot down this obscene proposal from the ICC. And perhaps this is exactly what the ICC want.

Its still not finalized by IOC that whether or not cricket is included in 2028 LA Olympics (final decision expected in Oct this year). You are talking about 12 teams but ICC has proposed six-team T20 events for both men and women for 2028 LA Olympics. Its a great move by ICC to take cricket to biggest sporting event after giving a delay of many decades.
Cricket biggest problem is very limited number of test teams and new countries are not joining in. Reason is not clear that why new teams are not coming in this sports.

ICC proposing 6 teams is a way to keep the Olympic matches not that interesting. More the teams more will be the interest in watching it. ICC might've felt of losing importance of different tournaments and leagues. Cricket is played on different countries, but they doesn't make themselves into the next levels. In recent years it is Netherlands, Ireland that have made good progress. Not much teams into test format cricket, because huge funding is required.

I think the biggest problem is that if ICC does decide to send 10 teams it is going to become something like a world cup. And if 10 teams are actually playing in the Olympics, what is the difference between the world cups and the Olympics?

I know that this is probably not the biggest reason, but I can think of any other reasons besides this. But that problem could have been fixed by having a qualifying round. But they did not have that as well. I really do not understand what's the point of this if they just do not want to have any competition.

We are trying to figure out reasons of why cricket can't be included in Olympics and we have no definite excuse for this.

I think that cricket just doesn't suits Olympics and hence it is not included. Some can argue that ODI matches take a full day and therefore it is not included in cricket but then what about T20 which takes about 4 hrs to complete the match. Maybe they compare it with hockey or football which takes only 1.5 hrs to complete the game.

Yes it is definitely a logical thing. The T20 format can be included even though other formats of cricket are longer time consuming so those games are not suitable there. Moreover, ICC has applied to include cricket in the Olympics with such guidelines and has suggested that a total of 6 top-ranking cricket teams should be placed there. If the Olympic Association agrees to consider these issues at its next meeting, cricket may be in a better position at Olympic.

[JSRAW]

It comes after 4 years and it's less than a 3-week event at best so technically there shouldn't be any complaint about a busy schedule.

Having said that there is no doubt that ICC's fantasy of organizing ICC events every year + Money making T-20 leagues all around the world (mainly IPL) + Bilaterals + 3 formats do create a jam-packed schedule but at the same time only PIG-3 play ridiculously amount of cricket every year.

Just for starters, I wonder if it's possible that all stakeholders can allow u-19 or u-21 teams to participate in the Olympics instead of senior teams. This will solve the schedule issue and more teams can participate.

Yes.. I agree.

It is laughable that people don't have a problem with a 3-month IPL every year, but then Olympics, which last for 3 weeks, and occur every 4 years is being blamed for increased workload. In football, they have U-23 (+ 3 senior players) format. I don't care if cricket goes for U-19 format. If that helps to "reduce" the workload, then I am all in. But then, these complaints about workload is just an excuse. Players who refuse to play in Olympics will not have any problem if they are contracted by SA20 or BPL, if the salaries are right.

It mostly comes from casual fans and a tiny section of ICC + PIG-3 administrators.

Even Football model of u-23 would work but i suppose it would be dumb from our end to think that ICC is interested as it reflects on their 6 teams comp draft.

[YinShuiSiYuan]

Yes it is definitely a logical thing. The T20 format can be included even though other formats of cricket are longer time consuming so those games are not suitable there. Moreover, ICC has applied to include cricket in the Olympics with such guidelines and has suggested that a total of 6 top-ranking cricket teams should be placed there. If the Olympic Association agrees to consider these issues at its next meeting, cricket may be in a better position at Olympic.

The only reason why cricket was not included in Olympics is because of its time consumption. Now since we have T20 format where a game can be completed in short span of time. Its ideal time for ICC to take cricket to Olympics this will help in spread of cricket because every country loves to take gold in olympics.

[MusaPk]

If you talk about football then there are many limitations of football in Olympics and fifa Worldcup. One is player age limit, "Since 1992, male competitors have been required to be under 23 years old, and since 1996, a maximum of three over-23-year-old players have been allowed per squad." Wikipedia.
I don't know whether IOC make any such restriction on cricket or not. ICC must not fear that Olympics inclusion of cricket will reduce ICC supremacy, fifa WC still dominate despite inclusion of football in Olympics.

This has been my proposal as well. Boards such as FIFA doesn't worry abut their supremacy because they are fairly run and it is mostly the former players who are in powerful positions. On the other hand, ICC is being run by a bunch of criminals, including Greg Barclay and Geoff Allardice and they are always afraid of their powers getting reduced.

I think its not fair to compare FIFA with ICC as FIFA is very much fair in its policies and governance. I don't have any hope in current model of ICC that they will do anything for the betterment of the game (like participating in Olympics or including more team in ICC world cup) as that will surely compromise the powers of Big boards.

[savetheFORUM]

We are trying to figure out reasons of why cricket can't be included in Olympics and we have no definite excuse for this.

I think that cricket just doesn't suits Olympics and hence it is not included. Some can argue that ODI matches take a full day and therefore it is not included in cricket but then what about T20 which takes about 4 hrs to complete the match. Maybe they compare it with hockey or football which takes only 1.5 hrs to complete the game.

Yes it is definitely a logical thing. The T20 format can be included even though other formats of cricket are longer time consuming so those games are not suitable there. Moreover, ICC has applied to include cricket in the Olympics with such guidelines and has suggested that a total of 6 top-ranking cricket teams should be placed there. If the Olympic Association agrees to consider these issues at its next meeting, cricket may be in a better position at Olympic.

We have too many pages and posts about this all but one thing is sure no one care about this but still we are doing here this all because we feel we are better than ICC officials which are handling things for the game by own just keep one thing in mind most chances we are not going to be part of Olympics in 2028 because Pig-3 never like this all, and they also never want to end their supremacy in this game which is giving them good profit for their deep pockets and their control on the game.

IOC and FIFA all having no monopolies like we have in ICC so most chances until 2031 nothing is going to change all will be stayed as right now going through even T20i is surely best format for having place into Olympics but no one care about this all.

[Vaskiy]

If you talk about football then there are many limitations of football in Olympics and fifa Worldcup. One is player age limit, "Since 1992, male competitors have been required to be under 23 years old, and since 1996, a maximum of three over-23-year-old players have been allowed per squad." Wikipedia.
I don't know whether IOC make any such restriction on cricket or not. ICC must not fear that Olympics inclusion of cricket will reduce ICC supremacy, fifa WC still dominate despite inclusion of football in Olympics.

This has been my proposal as well. Boards such as FIFA doesn't worry abut their supremacy because they are fairly run and it is mostly the former players who are in powerful positions. On the other hand, ICC is being run by a bunch of criminals, including Greg Barclay and Geoff Allardice and they are always afraid of their powers getting reduced.

I think its not fair to compare FIFA with ICC as FIFA is very much fair in its policies and governance. I don't have any hope in current model of ICC that they will do anything for the betterment of the game (like participating in Olympics or including more team in ICC world cup) as that will surely compromise the powers of Big boards.

Agreed, FIFA and ICC can't be compared. FIFA functions for the betterment of the football around the world. There is also controversy that FIFA gives importance to the Western nations. We don't know what is the truth, but in someway they keep things organised in a much better way than ICC. Another thing there is also fight for power, but things won't be much political. Here everything is happening out of political influence.

[Theones]

If you talk about football then there are many limitations of football in Olympics and fifa Worldcup. One is player age limit, "Since 1992, male competitors have been required to be under 23 years old, and since 1996, a maximum of three over-23-year-old players have been allowed per squad." Wikipedia.
I don't know whether IOC make any such restriction on cricket or not. ICC must not fear that Olympics inclusion of cricket will reduce ICC supremacy, fifa WC still dominate despite inclusion of football in Olympics.

This has been my proposal as well. Boards such as FIFA doesn't worry abut their supremacy because they are fairly run and it is mostly the former players who are in powerful positions. On the other hand, ICC is being run by a bunch of criminals, including Greg Barclay and Geoff Allardice and they are always afraid of their powers getting reduced.

I think its not fair to compare FIFA with ICC as FIFA is very much fair in its policies and governance. I don't have any hope in current model of ICC that they will do anything for the betterment of the game (like participating in Olympics or including more team in ICC world cup) as that will surely compromise the powers of Big boards.

Agreed, FIFA and ICC can't be compared. FIFA functions for the betterment of the football around the world. There is also controversy that FIFA gives importance to the Western nations. We don't know what is the truth, but in someway they keep things organised in a much better way than ICC. Another thing there is also fight for power, but things won't be much political. Here everything is happening out of political influence.

Now there is another war going on between India and Pakistan and they both are not willing to go their neighbouring counties for the the matches.

[UmerIdrees]

So I would continue to tell you about the Aisa Cup which is going to be held in Pakistan, No matter if it is played in March 2023, it will be played in Pakistan.

So do the Indian cricket team have the courage to visit us in Pakistan   That's a question that is yet to be seen and answered.


https://twitter.com/TheRealPCB/status/1622204624462807040

Now there is another war going on between India and Pakistan and they both are not willing to go their neighbouring counties for the the matches.

Which war are you talking about?
I live in Pakistan and there is no war between India and Pakistan.

[BobK71]

If you talk about football then there are many limitations of football in Olympics and fifa Worldcup. One is player age limit, "Since 1992, male competitors have been required to be under 23 years old, and since 1996, a maximum of three over-23-year-old players have been allowed per squad." Wikipedia.
I don't know whether IOC make any such restriction on cricket or not. ICC must not fear that Olympics inclusion of cricket will reduce ICC supremacy, fifa WC still dominate despite inclusion of football in Olympics.

This has been my proposal as well. Boards such as FIFA doesn't worry abut their supremacy because they are fairly run and it is mostly the former players who are in powerful positions. On the other hand, ICC is being run by a bunch of criminals, including Greg Barclay and Geoff Allardice and they are always afraid of their powers getting reduced.

I think its not fair to compare FIFA with ICC as FIFA is very much fair in its policies and governance. I don't have any hope in current model of ICC that they will do anything for the betterment of the game (like participating in Olympics or including more team in ICC world cup) as that will surely compromise the powers of Big boards.

Agreed, FIFA and ICC can't be compared. FIFA functions for the betterment of the football around the world. There is also controversy that FIFA gives importance to the Western nations. We don't know what is the truth, but in someway they keep things organised in a much better way than ICC. Another thing there is also fight for power, but things won't be much political. Here everything is happening out of political influence.

FIFA rules are pretty clear. They have large number of teams as well as sufficient funds. Moreover, when the whole world is interested in playing football, the organization of football will grow naturally. But there is no doubt that FIFA wants to be free from the political situation. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wanted to give a short speech before the final match at the last World Cup but FIFA rejected his request. This suggests that FIFA generally tries to avoid political issues. There is a vast difference in between ICC and FIFA.

[justdimin]

FIFA rules are pretty clear. They have large number of teams as well as sufficient funds. Moreover, when the whole world is interested in playing football, the organization of football will grow naturally. But there is no doubt that FIFA wants to be free from the political situation. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wanted to give a short speech before the final match at the last World Cup but FIFA rejected his request. This suggests that FIFA generally tries to avoid political issues. There is a vast difference in between ICC and FIFA.

FIFA is one of the toughest sports organization which is having good system to implement their decision, and they never talk about which is the biggest market and how beneficial are things from any country when they decide about their policies these works for all countries and never favor any particular country just because of this FIFA is having amazing success just like we have in Qatar too many rumors and criticism, but they were stick with their decision and at the end we have one of the best event in Qatar2022.

Now if we talk about Cricket here we have biased monopoly which is working for their own sack, and they never respect their own decisions and mostly favoured by three countries which have nothing with cricket just doing their own business just because of this we are unable to have cricket in Olympics and now many other factors which I don't want to write, but this all is just based on personal issues which are not related to security and for the love of this game it's all simple.

[Tony116]

FIFA rules are pretty clear. They have large number of teams as well as sufficient funds. Moreover, when the whole world is interested in playing football, the organization of football will grow naturally. But there is no doubt that FIFA wants to be free from the political situation. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wanted to give a short speech before the final match at the last World Cup but FIFA rejected his request. This suggests that FIFA generally tries to avoid political issues. There is a vast difference in between ICC and FIFA.

FIFA is one of the toughest sports organization which is having good system to implement their decision, and they never talk about which is the biggest market and how beneficial are things from any country when they decide about their policies these works for all countries and never favor any particular country just because of this FIFA is having amazing success just like we have in Qatar too many rumors and criticism, but they were stick with their decision and at the end we have one of the best event in Qatar2022.

Now if we talk about Cricket here we have biased monopoly which is working for their own sack, and they never respect their own decisions and mostly favoured by three countries which have nothing with cricket just doing their own business just because of this we are unable to have cricket in Olympics and now many other factors which I don't want to write, but this all is just based on personal issues which are not related to security and for the love of this game it's all simple.

In cricket, basically whatever the top three or four cricket boards decide, happens. The ICC does not have any balls to do something by their own. They basically have to ask permission from the big cricket boards. And that type of thing never happens in FIFA.

Yes, I am not saying that FIFA is not corrupt. FIFA is also corrupt. But that corruption is not so much like cricket. I think in the end it all comes down to which cricket board or boards are self-sufficient. Those who are self-sufficient can do a lot of things and has a lot of independence. But those who have to depend on the finance of the ICC are not so much.

[Sithara007]

In cricket, basically whatever the top three or four cricket boards decide, happens. The ICC does not have any balls to do something by their own. They basically have to ask permission from the big cricket boards. And that type of thing never happens in FIFA.
~~~

If the other boards want to take on the pig-4, then they can do that. But they are always disunited. Out of the 17 voting members of the ICC, the pig-4 controls only 7 votes (India, Australia, England, New Zealand, Oman and the two independent votes). In order to get to a majority, they need at least 9 votes. And they always reach this figure. When it comes to voting, smaller boards such as WICB and SLCB always side with the pig-4. And then they complain that their voices are not being heard.

When Tavengwa Mukuhlani of Zimbabwe Cricket was planning to contest against Greg Barclay a few month back, hardly any of the full members supported him. As a result, once again the pig-4 nominee (Barclay) was elected as the chairman of the ICC.

[doomloop]

If the other boards want to take on the pig-4, then they can do that. But they are always disunited. Out of the 17 voting members of the ICC, the pig-4 controls only 7 votes (India, Australia, England, New Zealand, Oman and the two independent votes). In order to get to a majority, they need at least 9 votes. And they always reach this figure. When it comes to voting, smaller boards such as WICB and SLCB always side with the pig-4. And then they complain that their voices are not being heard.

When Tavengwa Mukuhlani of Zimbabwe Cricket was planning to contest against Greg Barclay a few month back, hardly any of the full members supported him. As a result, once again the pig-4 nominee (Barclay) was elected as the chairman of the ICC.

With this all one thing is clear these pig-4 wants to control game of cricket as mafia and in their presence we never have any positive change or development in this game because they are controlling this all just for their own interests, and they have no mind to do things to spread this game around the globe and increase the fan base and other marketing things which help for rising funds and increase profit of the ICC.

Small boards can't go together as many having their interests related to pig-4 specially like we know WICB and CSA never go against them as with this all others have never any worth because mostly are never been work as unit they could be stayed like this until we have any revolutionary change from inside this all mafia which is strong and doing this all and nomination of person like Barclay is mostly happened just with the help of inside politics.

[Sithara007]

Small boards can't go together as many having their interests related to pig-4 specially like we know WICB and CSA never go against them as with this all others have never any worth because mostly are never been work as unit they could be stayed like this until we have any revolutionary change from inside this all mafia which is strong and doing this all and nomination of person like Barclay is mostly happened just with the help of inside politics.

This is what happens when short-term gains get a higher priority over long term benefits. Boards such as BCCI and CA doesn't intend to give special treatment to either WICB or CSA. Once they are able to achieve their motive, with respect to funding and other aspects they will refuse to co-operate with the West Indian and South African boards. Eventually the funding for weaker nations will be reduced further. The aim of the pig-4 is to make richer boards even more rich and keep the poorer boards poor. CSA and WICB allying with the pig-4 will backfire on them in the near future.