Cricket match prediction discussions

[JSRAW]

PCB is the only board that tries to get some answers. The distribution is fair, and most have got good increase in the allocation. This could help with the improvement. However the difference between what India received against the other teams is really big. PCB had delayed its PSL, maybe if they've started it earlier they could've got good revenue by now. Because in terms of cricket supporters we were able to see a good number in Pakistan.

Sethi not particularly opposing the bigger share of BCCI. He and many raised an eyebrow at the distribution formula and rightly so.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/bcci-projected-to-earn-us-230-million-per-year-in-icc-s-new-finance-model-1374623

Those criteria - "component weightings", the model calls them - are:

-Cricket history
-Performance in both men's and women's ICC events over the last 16 years
-Contribution to the ICC's commercial revenue
-And, an equal weightage for the status of being a Full Member

IMO, the revenue allocation should have been purely based on performance in ICC tournaments (this is what other sports bodies such as the FIFA does). This would have given a higher share to teams such as Australia and lower share for the BCCI. The logic of allocating 39% of all the funds to one country doesn't make sense. In the long term, this will ensure the death of cricket in most of the countries outside South Asia. Already we are witnessing the signs in South Africa, West Indies and associate nations such as Netherlands.

Yeah, it would look okay if there is only 1 WC after every 3-4 years but we have ICC tournaments every year. We already know why ICC love this new setup, including boards (except BCCI).

[1714733138]

1714733138

[1714733138]

1714733138

[MusaPk]

PCB is the only board that tries to get some answers. The distribution is fair, and most have got good increase in the allocation. This could help with the improvement. However the difference between what India received against the other teams is really big. PCB had delayed its PSL, maybe if they've started it earlier they could've got good revenue by now. Because in terms of cricket supporters we were able to see a good number in Pakistan.

PSL is giving good revenue to PCB with every passing year. I don't think there is any comparison of IPL with any other league in the world. PCB claims that every PSL is giving them more profit compared to the last one but still it wont go anyway near to IPL. India is getting major portion of ICC funds because BCCI is the where funds for ICC comes from. I support PCB stance that ICC must clarify how these funds are distributed.

[DanWalker]

PCB is the only board that tries to get some answers. The distribution is fair, and most have got good increase in the allocation. This could help with the improvement. However the difference between what India received against the other teams is really big. PCB had delayed its PSL, maybe if they've started it earlier they could've got good revenue by now. Because in terms of cricket supporters we were able to see a good number in Pakistan.

IMO, the revenue allocation should have been purely based on performance in ICC tournaments (this is what other sports bodies such as the FIFA does). This would have given a higher share to teams such as Australia and lower share for the BCCI. The logic of allocating 39% of all the funds to one country doesn't make sense. In the long term, this will ensure the death of cricket in most of the countries outside South Asia. Already we are witnessing the signs in South Africa, West Indies and associate nations such as Netherlands.

Cricket is certainly not as big as football. So the ICC cannot take the same steps as FIFA to allocate the money. If they just give the money based on performance of course the smaller teams are not going to survive. They just cannot charge the team which has been playing cricket for a long time and the team which has just started on the same pedestal.

I think there should be a bare minimum amount that has to be given to a country. I think the problem is going to be fixed if they just stop giving so much money to the teams which are made out of foreign players and give them to the teams with native players.

[Webetcoins]

PCB is the only board that tries to get some answers. The distribution is fair, and most have got good increase in the allocation. This could help with the improvement. However the difference between what India received against the other teams is really big. PCB had delayed its PSL, maybe if they've started it earlier they could've got good revenue by now. Because in terms of cricket supporters we were able to see a good number in Pakistan.

IMO, the revenue allocation should have been purely based on performance in ICC tournaments (this is what other sports bodies such as the FIFA does). This would have given a higher share to teams such as Australia and lower share for the BCCI. The logic of allocating 39% of all the funds to one country doesn't make sense. In the long term, this will ensure the death of cricket in most of the countries outside South Asia. Already we are witnessing the signs in South Africa, West Indies and associate nations such as Netherlands.

Cricket is never been treated as normal sport due to strong hold of Britain colonist mindset with this now power is already shifted from England and Australia to India which is taking good advantage of this all, and we have no answer of this all because right now all finances are under Indian control or due to Indian market which is surely not comparable so if India is taking advantage then surely it's their right due to long control of England and Australia with their power.

But if we want better changes then surely we need to have some fair policies which are not coming because no one interested in this all, and they are trying to have their own share which is good enough for them, so they are enjoying but if we have more countries involved, and then we also have just two world cups with one is T20i and second is WTC after every four years and other events need to be ended hopefully things have good change.

[darewaller]

PCB is the only board that tries to get some answers. The distribution is fair, and most have got good increase in the allocation. This could help with the improvement. However the difference between what India received against the other teams is really big. PCB had delayed its PSL, maybe if they've started it earlier they could've got good revenue by now. Because in terms of cricket supporters we were able to see a good number in Pakistan.

PSL is giving good revenue to PCB with every passing year. I don't think there is any comparison of IPL with any other league in the world. PCB claims that every PSL is giving them more profit compared to the last one but still it wont go anyway near to IPL. India is getting major portion of ICC funds because BCCI is the where funds for ICC comes from. I support PCB stance that ICC must clarify how these funds are distributed.

PSL is not good in terms of sustainability in long run because of current situation in Pakistan things can go in wrong way anytime which could be not ideal as well so just because of this Sethi is giving statements like these if Pakistan have better situation then surely they never need any series or any things like this which involved India as well.

Recently we have too much criticism against Sethi about his statement as he wants to play against India because right now things are not favorable for this all so just because of this many are against him and his statement, but due to current political instability things are not going to on normal with this all most chances we will not have Asia Cup in this year even on neutral venue.

[DanWalker]

PSL is giving good revenue to PCB with every passing year. I don't think there is any comparison of IPL with any other league in the world. PCB claims that every PSL is giving them more profit compared to the last one but still it wont go anyway near to IPL. India is getting major portion of ICC funds because BCCI is the where funds for ICC comes from. I support PCB stance that ICC must clarify how these funds are distributed.

PSL is not good in terms of sustainability in long run because of current situation in Pakistan things can go in wrong way anytime which could be not ideal as well so just because of this Sethi is giving statements like these if Pakistan have better situation then surely they never need any series or any things like this which involved India as well.
Recently we have too much criticism against Sethi about his statement as he wants to play against India because right now things are not favorable for this all so just because of this many are against him and his statement, but due to current political instability things are not going to on normal with this all most chances we will not have Asia Cup in this year even on neutral venue.

Probably it is actually not going to be a bad idea if the Asia Cup is actually postponed. After all India and Pakistan are the best two teams in the Asia Cup. If these two cannot come to a solution together I don't think it is going to be a good idea to get into the Asia Cup.

I fear that Pakistan might actually want to not play the Asia Cup if it is not held in Pakistan. That is certainly going to cost the ICC a lot of money. Because India versus Pakistan is a very big revenue generator for them. So, I believe they should postpone the Asia Cup and once there is stability again they should arrange the Asia Cup.

[jaberwock]

Probably it is actually not going to be a bad idea if the Asia Cup is actually postponed. After all India and Pakistan are the best two teams in the Asia Cup. If these two cannot come to a solution together I don't think it is going to be a good idea to get into the Asia Cup.

I fear that Pakistan might actually want to not play the Asia Cup if it is not held in Pakistan. That is certainly going to cost the ICC a lot of money. Because India versus Pakistan is a very big revenue generator for them. So, I believe they should postpone the Asia Cup and once there is stability again they should arrange the Asia Cup.

Right now, as things are going I am feeling now it's time for taking bold decisions if ICC and ACC wants to do something positive for the cricket because due to these two countries tensions we are losing something from Asian Cricket and overall in this game as well if these are not agreed about few things then surely ACC or ICC needs to work on ban this event from these two countries, and they will be never eligible for holding this just Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and UAE these three venues are OK because no one have problem and these two teams can also participate in these countries as well and if this is not going to work then surely they need to ban Pakistan from Asian cricket because they are creating mess-up which is not good for the game in this region here I am going with India just because of their market and influence in this game, so all could be OK, and they are also able to have good funding from this event without any problem as well.

[Vaskiy]

PCB is the only board that tries to get some answers. The distribution is fair, and most have got good increase in the allocation. This could help with the improvement. However the difference between what India received against the other teams is really big. PCB had delayed its PSL, maybe if they've started it earlier they could've got good revenue by now. Because in terms of cricket supporters we were able to see a good number in Pakistan.

IMO, the revenue allocation should have been purely based on performance in ICC tournaments (this is what other sports bodies such as the FIFA does). This would have given a higher share to teams such as Australia and lower share for the BCCI. The logic of allocating 39% of all the funds to one country doesn't make sense. In the long term, this will ensure the death of cricket in most of the countries outside South Asia. Already we are witnessing the signs in South Africa, West Indies and associate nations such as Netherlands.

Cricket is certainly not as big as football. So the ICC cannot take the same steps as FIFA to allocate the money. If they just give the money based on performance of course the smaller teams are not going to survive. They just cannot charge the team which has been playing cricket for a long time and the team which has just started on the same pedestal.

I think there should be a bare minimum amount that has to be given to a country. I think the problem is going to be fixed if they just stop giving so much money to the teams which are made out of foreign players and give them to the teams with native players.

Every sport grows over time. Football reached the world earlier and it can be seen much on the European and American continents. Around the Asian circle we were able to see cricket much more than other sports. Now only it is getting widened around the world. Even football might've faced the same problem earlier. Its time for the board to try and correct itself.

It is common to have minimum amount. Even with cricket this is how distribution is done. Apart from the minimum amount will be the performance based funding. Foreign players controversy doesn't come to an end for some reason.

[Sithara007]

Cricket is certainly not as big as football. So the ICC cannot take the same steps as FIFA to allocate the money. If they just give the money based on performance of course the smaller teams are not going to survive. They just cannot charge the team which has been playing cricket for a long time and the team which has just started on the same pedestal.

I think there should be a bare minimum amount that has to be given to a country. I think the problem is going to be fixed if they just stop giving so much money to the teams which are made out of foreign players and give them to the teams with native players.

None of the other sports do have this lop sided revenue distribution model. In cricket, the top 12 teams receive 89% of all the revenue and the remaining 100 plus countries receive 11%. And then the new formula favors teams that don't have any native players in their squad, such as the United Arab Emirates and the United States of America. ICC's revenue distribution model ensures that poor teams remain poor, and the rich ones get even more richer. And another drawback is that there is no promotion-relegation system among the top-12.

[Rabata]

Cricket is certainly not as big as football. So the ICC cannot take the same steps as FIFA to allocate the money. If they just give the money based on performance of course the smaller teams are not going to survive. They just cannot charge the team which has been playing cricket for a long time and the team which has just started on the same pedestal.

I think there should be a bare minimum amount that has to be given to a country. I think the problem is going to be fixed if they just stop giving so much money to the teams which are made out of foreign players and give them to the teams with native players.

None of the other sports do have this lop sided revenue distribution model. In cricket, the top 12 teams receive 89% of all the revenue and the remaining 100 plus countries receive 11%. And then the new formula favors teams that don't have any native players in their squad, such as the United Arab Emirates and the United States of America. ICC's revenue distribution model ensures that poor teams remain poor, and the rich ones get even more richer. And another drawback is that there is no promotion-relegation system among the top-12.

I don't know on what basis they( ICC) chose such a distribution method. But if overall development of cricket is aimed then they must move away from this distributed system. One thing I find very annoying is that if a country is completely lead by foreign players how can they develop cricket in that country? and what is the goal of the ICC in this situation? Policies should be made where poor cricketing countries can be encouraged to play cricket. Another rule should be made that every country should have at least 5 native players mandatory in cricket. Then we can hope for good in that country even after a long time.

[romero121]

Cricket is certainly not as big as football. So the ICC cannot take the same steps as FIFA to allocate the money. If they just give the money based on performance of course the smaller teams are not going to survive. They just cannot charge the team which has been playing cricket for a long time and the team which has just started on the same pedestal.

I think there should be a bare minimum amount that has to be given to a country. I think the problem is going to be fixed if they just stop giving so much money to the teams which are made out of foreign players and give them to the teams with native players.

None of the other sports do have this lop sided revenue distribution model. In cricket, the top 12 teams receive 89% of all the revenue and the remaining 100 plus countries receive 11%. And then the new formula favors teams that don't have any native players in their squad, such as the United Arab Emirates and the United States of America. ICC's revenue distribution model ensures that poor teams remain poor, and the rich ones get even more richer. And another drawback is that there is no promotion-relegation system among the top-12.

I don't know on what basis they( ICC) chose such a distribution method. But if overall development of cricket is aimed then they must move away from this distributed system. One thing I find very annoying is that if a country is completely lead by foreign players how can they develop cricket in that country? and what is the goal of the ICC in this situation? Policies should be made where poor cricketing countries can be encouraged to play cricket. Another rule should be made that every country should have at least 5 native players mandatory in cricket. Then we can hope for good in that country even after a long time.

When a country is ready to spend on its players. The native players aren't interested in playing cricket, and the country wants a cricket team. By the time foreign players are ready to play for the country. In such situation what should be done. Because no country intentionally add foreign players leaving the natives. The natives always have the priority, just because they aren't interested the opportunity is being used by the foreign players.

[Blitzboy]

Cricket is certainly not as big as football. So the ICC cannot take the same steps as FIFA to allocate the money. If they just give the money based on performance of course the smaller teams are not going to survive. They just cannot charge the team which has been playing cricket for a long time and the team which has just started on the same pedestal.

I think there should be a bare minimum amount that has to be given to a country. I think the problem is going to be fixed if they just stop giving so much money to the teams which are made out of foreign players and give them to the teams with native players.

None of the other sports do have this lop sided revenue distribution model. In cricket, the top 12 teams receive 89% of all the revenue and the remaining 100 plus countries receive 11%. And then the new formula favors teams that don't have any native players in their squad, such as the United Arab Emirates and the United States of America. ICC's revenue distribution model ensures that poor teams remain poor, and the rich ones get even more richer. And another drawback is that there is no promotion-relegation system among the top-12.

I don't know on what basis they( ICC) chose such a distribution method. But if overall development of cricket is aimed then they must move away from this distributed system. One thing I find very annoying is that if a country is completely lead by foreign players how can they develop cricket in that country? and what is the goal of the ICC in this situation? Policies should be made where poor cricketing countries can be encouraged to play cricket. Another rule should be made that every country should have at least 5 native players mandatory in cricket. Then we can hope for good in that country even after a long time.

First off, I totally get your frustration, mate. I mean, how can a country develop its own cricket when the team is stuffed with foreign players? Isn't it like cooking spaghetti bolognese with soy sauce? Doesn't quite sit right, does it? Here's the pickle though. What if the native players aren't quite interested in cricket? Do we force them to play? Or do we let the foreign players take the field because they're ready and willing? And who's going to break the news to them - "Sorry, you can't play because you're not from around here"? The ICC should indeed do something about this, perhaps some sort of incentive for the locals to step up their game? Now wouldn't that be a sight for sore eyes?

[MusaPk]

None of the other sports do have this lop sided revenue distribution model. In cricket, the top 12 teams receive 89% of all the revenue and the remaining 100 plus countries receive 11%. And then the new formula favors teams that don't have any native players in their squad, such as the United Arab Emirates and the United States of America. ICC's revenue distribution model ensures that poor teams remain poor, and the rich ones get even more richer. And another drawback is that there is no promotion-relegation system among the top-12.

This is one reason why new teams are not joining this game. The irony is that no board is asking ICC how this distribution model is made less Pakistan. This is question every board must ask ICC that how new finance model has been  made. Rather all are busy making fun of PCB for raising this question. This will not benefit cricket in the long run as money is circling big 3.

[DanWalker]

Cricket is certainly not as big as football. So the ICC cannot take the same steps as FIFA to allocate the money. If they just give the money based on performance of course the smaller teams are not going to survive. They just cannot charge the team which has been playing cricket for a long time and the team which has just started on the same pedestal.
I think there should be a bare minimum amount that has to be given to a country. I think the problem is going to be fixed if they just stop giving so much money to the teams which are made out of foreign players and give them to the teams with native players.

None of the other sports do have this lop sided revenue distribution model. In cricket, the top 12 teams receive 89% of all the revenue and the remaining 100 plus countries receive 11%. And then the new formula favors teams that don't have any native players in their squad, such as the United Arab Emirates and the United States of America. ICC's revenue distribution model ensures that poor teams remain poor, and the rich ones get even more richer. And another drawback is that there is no promotion-relegation system among the top-12.

I know why this is happening. This is happening because ICC is not in control of what goes on in cricket. Whatever the big 4 want to do they do it and ICC does not say anything about that. The ICC is being able to operate freely I don't think anything is going to change.

And of course, the big teams who are running things will try to keep things in their favor. As the top 4 is running things they are going to make sure that they get most of the revenue that is being generated. And they have also made sure that they put down a model which shows that they are making the most amount of money and that's why they also deserve the most amount of money. So, right now we cannot say that what is happening in cricket is right and at the same time will also cannot say that it is wrong.

[Sithara007]

This is one reason why new teams are not joining this game. The irony is that no board is asking ICC how this distribution model is made less Pakistan. This is question every board must ask ICC that how new finance model has been  made. Rather all are busy making fun of PCB for raising this question. This will not benefit cricket in the long run as money is circling big 3.

PCB's concerns are valid. ICC need to share the exact formula that was used for revenue distribution. Other cricket boards such as SLCB and WICB just want to impress the pig-4, for the sake of scraps that are thrown towards them. At least PCB has the courage to make their voice heard. But they alone can't do much. They have one vote out of 17 member board and unless they can convince the smaller boards to side with them, pig-4 will do whatever they want to do. The ICC revenue distribution model for 2024-27 is just a refurbished version of the pig-3 model proposed by N Srinivasan and Sharad Pawar back in 2015.

[Minecache]

This is one reason why new teams are not joining this game. The irony is that no board is asking ICC how this distribution model is made less Pakistan. This is question every board must ask ICC that how new finance model has been  made. Rather all are busy making fun of PCB for raising this question. This will not benefit cricket in the long run as money is circling big 3.

PCB's concerns are valid. ICC need to share the exact formula that was used for revenue distribution. Other cricket boards such as SLCB and WICB just want to impress the pig-4, for the sake of scraps that are thrown towards them. At least PCB has the courage to make their voice heard. But they alone can't do much. They have one vote out of 17 member board and unless they can convince the smaller boards to side with them, pig-4 will do whatever they want to do. The ICC revenue distribution model for 2024-27 is just a refurbished version of the pig-3 model proposed by N Srinivasan and Sharad Pawar back in 2015.

I actually think that the associate countries are fearful about asking the ICC about the money distribution model. Probably there is fear that if they cause too many problems they are not going to stay on the scene for a long period of time. And another reason is the associate nations are not united. Or not getting enough money as they should be.

But at the same time, some other associate nations are very happy with what they are getting. So they do not want to make any kind of scene. If all the associate nations actually come forward together I think the ICC will have to take necessary steps about it. But again some associate teams are promised one or two series against the big four. And the associate teams basically do not say anything because they are very happy with only one or two series that they are getting.

[Sithara007]

✂✂✂✂✂
But at the same time, some other associate nations are very happy with what they are getting. So they do not want to make any kind of scene. If all the associate nations actually come forward together I think the ICC will have to take necessary steps about it. But again some associate teams are promised one or two series against the big four. And the associate teams basically do not say anything because they are very happy with only one or two series that they are getting.

That is understandable. There are certain associate teams that are happy, with whatever they are getting from the ICC. I am referring about teams such as Czech Republic and Romania, which are entirely consisted of Indian and Pakistani medical students who are temporarily residing in these countries. As per ICC's revenue distribution formula, these teams get the same share of funds as genuine teams such as Argentina or Israel. So they are happy, because they get all the money for themselves and don't need to spend any money for development or any other activity since no one else plays cricket in these countries. 

[Minecache]

That is understandable. There are certain associate teams that are happy, with whatever they are getting from the ICC. I am referring about teams such as Czech Republic and Romania, which are entirely consisted of Indian and Pakistani medical students who are temporarily residing in these countries. As per ICC's revenue distribution formula, these teams get the same share of funds as genuine teams such as Argentina or Israel. So they are happy, because they get all the money for themselves and don't need to spend any money for development or any other activity since no one else plays cricket in these countries. 

If that is the case and I know that ICC knows that is the case, they should be getting a lot less money compared to what the genuine teams are getting. But I do not believe that the ICC are actually going to do something about it. It's not that they don't know any better. It's just because they simply do not care. The world of the ICC revolves around the top 4 teams. Outside of the top 4, I don't think ICC actually gives a damn about anything. Otherwise, they certainly would have given the teams which are actually made out of native players at least double the money that they are giving to the deals which are made out of foreign players.

Is it just me or anyone else think that the money distribution from ICC doesn't make sense at all?

[dezoel]

That is understandable. There are certain associate teams that are happy, with whatever they are getting from the ICC. I am referring about teams such as Czech Republic and Romania, which are entirely consisted of Indian and Pakistani medical students who are temporarily residing in these countries. As per ICC's revenue distribution formula, these teams get the same share of funds as genuine teams such as Argentina or Israel. So they are happy, because they get all the money for themselves and don't need to spend any money for development or any other activity since no one else plays cricket in these countries. 

If that is the case and I know that ICC knows that is the case, they should be getting a lot less money compared to what the genuine teams are getting. But I do not believe that the ICC are actually going to do something about it. It's not that they don't know any better. It's just because they simply do not care. The world of the ICC revolves around the top 4 teams. Outside of the top 4, I don't think ICC actually gives a damn about anything. Otherwise, they certainly would have given the teams which are actually made out of native players at least double the money that they are giving to the deals which are made out of foreign players.

Is it just me or anyone else think that the money distribution from ICC doesn't make sense at all?

ICC can implement many rules and other things for checking merit, quality and other relative things, but sadly they are not interested with this all if they will do anything then surely they will face consequences as well which will be not good for them so just because of this all is well going here right now and mostly teams with native countries are suffering badly which is surely going to hurt this game as well but who cares.

Right now, most beneficiary from these rules are Gulf region countries and few boards in ICC not want to hurt them which is surely helping countries like Romania, Czech Republics and Denmark which having players from Pakistan and India which are staying there just on visit visa.

But, I was minimum from ICC they try to fix a rule with every team must have 4 or 6 native players, surely this will also help this game but most chances they will also not go with this as well.

[Minecache]

✂

ICC can implement many rules and other things for checking merit, quality and other relative things, but sadly they are not interested with this all if they will do anything then surely they will face consequences as well which will be not good for them so just because of this all is well going here right now and mostly teams with native countries are suffering badly which is surely going to hurt this game as well but who cares.

Right now, most beneficiary from these rules are Gulf region countries and few boards in ICC not want to hurt them which is surely helping countries like Romania, Czech Republics and Denmark which having players from Pakistan and India which are staying there just on visit visa.

But, I was minimum from ICC they try to fix a rule with every team must have 4 or 6 native players, surely this will also help this game but most chances they will also not go with this as well.

The other solution could be that any country will have to give the player acidity of that respective country. They can use players who come from another country but they will at least have to have citizenship. Without citizenship, a person cannot represent that country. That is actually going to fix most of the problems, to be honest.

Because we all know that the countries are not going to give away citizenship for free. And if the country does actually give citizenship to that player the country is going to be liable for the actions he takes and also the country will have to look after that person as a citizen.