Cricket match prediction discussions

[rugrats]

Yes, I guess that's true because if a lot more countries start playing cricket,  people will eventually give less importance to the bigger teams that have a good amount of authority over the ICC. We can see that in other sports there are a lot of countries taking participation but I have not seen in any of those Sports any kind of domination by the bigger teams like this. I think ICC needs to think with a straight mind and start thinking about making the game a lot more acceptable to the whole world.

ICC cant think on its own as it is managed and controlled by Big 3. India who is king in cricket world, have you seen influence of India in any other game? If countries like USA, China, Russia or other such big powers join the cricket then who will listen to these big 3? As long as ICC is in the hands of big 3 forget about Olympics or more countries inclusion in cricket eco-system.   

There is no type of influence like this in any other sports by the better performing or any teams with better money in the sports body.

Yes there can be certain cases made like in football there are some Russian persons in very important positions in football and that's why the 2018 World Cup was held in Russia,  but other than that the problem is not that major like cricket,  where it seems like the sports body is almost controlled by a certain group of cricket boards.

[S A KHAIR]

~
ICC is really not interested to make cricket a bigger spot around the world but I think the T20 cricket is really going to attract more and more countries towards cricket because it is obviously not that time-consuming. so I believe cricket can have a global acceptance through T20 cricket.

I responded to these earlier as well. If you are the president of ICC, what you will do to make the sports bigger. How many billions you will be spending to create interest in a country that is not a viable business place for them. The basic thing to create interest is the incentives you get in a sport and how much do you think an associate team member gets annually. Average is $15k annually and the top players might get around $60k and with that kind of financial instability you cannot expect the best athletes from a non playing nation to start playing cricket.

Yes, that is true and that's why more time and resources need to be spent the on the smaller Nations who are showing even a little interest in cricket and even though they are not in a good position in cricket right now,  those countries which certainly has the potential should be helped by the ICC. otherwise, they are obviously not going to be interested to take cricket as their occupation when the pay is so little.

[blatchcorn]

There is no type of influence like this in any other sports by the better performing or any teams with better money in the sports body.

Yes there can be certain cases made like in football there are some Russian persons in very important positions in football and that's why the 2018 World Cup was held in Russia,  but other than that the problem is not that major like cricket,  where it seems like the sports body is almost controlled by a certain group of cricket boards.

Giving host rights of WC to Russia is fine as long as they fulfill requirements of the football WC. Cricket is totally a different thing, here only 3 countries have full control. Before 2000, icc was very much neutral but after 2010 it went totally in control of big3. I don't think this is good for cricket in the long run.

[Sithara007]

@Sithara007 is it even possible to have test cricket in the Olympics in a hypothetical scenario, because won’t it increase the length of the Olympics too much?.

Furthermore does cricket really needs Olympics? because it’s already popular, and even if it never gets added to the Olympics then too it’ll do just fine in my personal opinion.

Lastly instead of getting cricket into Olympics ICC should focus primarily on making test cricket more interesting via night tests, and use of pink balls as I had suggested previously.

OK.. let me answer it point by point

1. We are talking about the inclusion of T20 cricket in Olympics (not test or ODI). Thanks to JSRAW, for already clarifying this. There are suggestions that T10 should be the format for Olympics, but I don't agree. T10 is more like baseball and hardly has anything to do with cricket.

2. Yes. Cricket needs Olympics. That would make sure that associate nations receive funds from their respective governments. If the ICC doesn't want this, then they should increase the associate funding by 50x or 100x. And a popular sport is not something that is restricted to 4-5 countries.

3. Test cricket is dead, whether you want to admit it or not. Soon ODI will be dead as well. Night test will give it a temporary boost, but in the end you can't beat a dead horse hoping that it will wake up.

[blatchcorn]

2. Yes. Cricket needs Olympics. That would make sure that associate nations receive funds from their respective governments. If the ICC doesn't want this, then they should increase the associate funding by 50x or 100x. And a popular sport is not something that is restricted to 4-5 countries.

There are many countries who don't take cricket seriously otherwise but there are fair chances that if cricket goes to Olympics then many countries will start taking cricket seriously. Also going to Olympics means more people will get to know about this sports and that will inturn increase number of countries participating in cricket. Real thing is, when we will see cricket in Olympics.

[Minecache]

@Sithara007 is it even possible to have test cricket in the Olympics in a hypothetical scenario, because won’t it increase the length of the Olympics too much?.

Furthermore does cricket really needs Olympics? because it’s already popular, and even if it never gets added to the Olympics then too it’ll do just fine in my personal opinion.

Lastly instead of getting cricket into Olympics ICC should focus primarily on making test cricket more interesting via night tests, and use of pink balls as I had suggested previously.

OK.. let me answer it point by point

1. We are talking about the inclusion of T20 cricket in Olympics (not test or ODI). Thanks to JSRAW, for already clarifying this. There are suggestions that T10 should be the format for Olympics, but I don't agree. T10 is more like baseball and hardly has anything to do with cricket.

2. Yes. Cricket needs Olympics. That would make sure that associate nations receive funds from their respective governments. If the ICC doesn't want this, then they should increase the associate funding by 50x or 100x. And a popular sport is not something that is restricted to 4-5 countries.

3. Test cricket is dead, whether you want to admit it or not. Soon ODI will be dead as well. Night test will give it a temporary boost, but in the end you can't beat a dead horse hoping that it will wake up.

Yes, I agree with most of the points here. T10 really looks like something that should be done way into the future. Cricket is not in a good position right now even though a lot of people are going to say otherwise. I believe the addition of T20 cricket in the Olympics is surely going to be a great step taken for the best.

The only thing that I don't agree entirely with is that ODI is going to be dead soon. I believe ODI still has a lot of time to its popularity but it is true that as T20 is becoming more popular the longer formats of cricket will surely become a lot less popular around the whole world. If ICC wants to actually improve the situation of cricket it needs to concentrate on gaining popularity with the T20 format.

[blatchcorn]

Yes, I agree with most of the points here. T10 really looks like something that should be done way into the future. Cricket is not in a good position right now even though a lot of people are going to say otherwise. I believe the addition of T20 cricket in the Olympics is surely going to be a great step taken for the best.

The only thing that I don't agree entirely with is that ODI is going to be dead soon. I believe ODI still has a lot of time to its popularity but it is true that as T20 is becoming more popular the longer formats of cricket will surely become a lot less popular around the whole world. If ICC wants to actually improve the situation of cricket it needs to concentrate on gaining popularity with the T20 format.

I think T20 is good enough, reducing T20 further down to T10 wont make game interesting rather make it unappealing. We have seen T10 league in Dubai and I dont like it. Cricket remain unpopular just because for decades we only have Test and ODI but now with introduction of T20 format more countries are taking interest in cricket.

[JSRAW]

@Sithara007 is it even possible to have test cricket in the Olympics in a hypothetical scenario, because won’t it increase the length of the Olympics too much?.

Furthermore does cricket really needs Olympics? because it’s already popular, and even if it never gets added to the Olympics then too it’ll do just fine in my personal opinion.

Lastly instead of getting cricket into Olympics ICC should focus primarily on making test cricket more interesting via night tests, and use of pink balls as I had suggested previously.

OK.. let me answer it point by point

1. We are talking about the inclusion of T20 cricket in Olympics (not test or ODI). Thanks to JSRAW, for already clarifying this. There are suggestions that T10 should be the format for Olympics, but I don't agree. T10 is more like baseball and hardly has anything to do with cricket.

2. Yes. Cricket needs Olympics. That would make sure that associate nations receive funds from their respective governments. If the ICC doesn't want this, then they should increase the associate funding by 50x or 100x. And a popular sport is not something that is restricted to 4-5 countries.

3. Test cricket is dead, whether you want to admit it or not. Soon ODI will be dead as well. Night test will give it a temporary boost, but in the end you can't beat a dead horse hoping that it will wake up.

In all this debate IOC and ICC also need to find some common ground.

I stopped following their discussion but back then one main roadblock was that IOC wanted or putting pressure on ICC about sending senior national teams and BCCI along with others (BIG-3 + ICC) were against it due to bilateral series and ofc some assumption that what would happen if ICC tournaments are clashing with the Olympics.

Not sure if it's resolved or not.

[blatchcorn]

In all this debate IOC and ICC also need to find some common ground.

I stopped following their discussion but back then one main roadblock was that IOC wanted or putting pressure on ICC about sending senior national teams and BCCI along with others (BIG-3 + ICC) were against it due to bilateral series and ofc some assumption that what would happen if ICC tournaments are clashing with the Olympics.

Not sure if it's resolved or not.

ICC and BCCI have no objection in stopping the International cricket for two months for IPL (one match per day). Its very much clear that Big 3 dont want Cricket to be in olympics or adding more cricket since that will challenge the supremacy of big3 in cricket. I dont think crikcet is going to Olympics as long as its controlled by big3.

[hichamito37]

Giving host rights of WC to Russia is fine as long as they fulfill requirements of the football WC. Cricket is totally a different thing, here only 3 countries have full control. Before 2000, icc was very much neutral but after 2010 it went totally in control of big3. I don't think this is good for cricket in the long run.

This is obviously not good for cricket in the long run and the big 3 know very well that if there are a lot more countries playing cricket it is possible that they will lose the power that they have over the ICC and I think that's why they are the ones who probably pressurize ICC do not have more teams play cricket regularly.

[JSRAW]

In all this debate IOC and ICC also need to find some common ground.

I stopped following their discussion but back then one main roadblock was that IOC wanted or putting pressure on ICC about sending senior national teams and BCCI along with others (BIG-3 + ICC) were against it due to bilateral series and ofc some assumption that what would happen if ICC tournaments are clashing with the Olympics.

Not sure if it's resolved or not.

ICC and BCCI have no objection in stopping the International cricket for two months for IPL (one match per day). Its very much clear that Big 3 dont want Cricket to be in olympics or adding more cricket since that will challenge the supremacy of big3 in cricket. I dont think crikcet is going to Olympics as long as its controlled by big3.

I highly doubt that. In my understanding BCCI had a big problem due to this ruling that's why they were blocking the Olympic bidding. Indian players are cash cow for the BCCI and unfortunately they do think that they literally own them.

Giving host rights of WC to Russia is fine as long as they fulfill requirements of the football WC. Cricket is totally a different thing, here only 3 countries have full control. Before 2000, icc was very much neutral but after 2010 it went totally in control of big3. I don't think this is good for cricket in the long run.

Small correction... Before 2005-07 ICC was controlled by ECB and CA completely, they were never neutral.
 

[onecall123]

We have some exciting news! England's men's Test team is now led by new head coach Brendan McCullum. Following signing a four-year deal with KKR, he will step down from his role. As a T20 specialist, he will have a tough task ahead of him! Although I believe this is a good decision by England since McCullum is an aggressive batsman, who will help England play a more aggressive style during a test match!

[Sithara007]

ICC and BCCI have no objection in stopping the International cricket for two months for IPL (one match per day). Its very much clear that Big 3 dont want Cricket to be in olympics or adding more cricket since that will challenge the supremacy of big3 in cricket. I dont think crikcet is going to Olympics as long as its controlled by big3.

There are several reasons why the big 3 don't want cricket in Olympics. Some of them are:

1. Stringent drug tests in Olympics. Performance enhancement drugs are banned.
2. Foreigners can't represent national teams in Olympics
3. Each and every country need to play qualifying tournament in Olympics, unlike the case in ICC World Cup where 80% of the teams gain automatic entry
4. The revenues will be shared with the respective national Olympic body and not with the cricket board
5. No special treatment for any of the teams. All are treated equally.

[coinism]

There is an interesting news I came across on ESPNcricinfo.com, "Pakistan women team captain Bismah Bismah Maroof's daughter denied accreditation for Commonwealth Games. Her mother and daughter will now stay at a hotel outside the CWG village"

I remember she was with her daughter during women cricket world cup recently. "The PCB's maternity policy allows a mother "to travel with a support person of her choice to assist in caring for her infant child", with travel and accommodation costs shared equally between the board and the player."  ESPNcricinfo.com

Credit goes to Bismah who has kept balance between her family life and cricket.

[BALIK]

We have some exciting news! England's men's Test team is now led by new head coach Brendan McCullum. Following signing a four-year deal with KKR, he will step down from his role. As a T20 specialist, he will have a tough task ahead of him! Although I believe this is a good decision by England since McCullum is an aggressive batsman, who will help England play a more aggressive style during a test match!

We have seen England suffer from batting problems in test matches in the past. Especially when the ball is moving off the seam. And also when the ball is swinging.

So, I believe this is going to be great for England. I am sure he will be able to make the players be able to play fearlessly. Players in test matches often don't come forward because they fear a good-paced bouncer will be coming. So, I believe that fear will be a lot less if he coaches.

[blatchcorn]

We have some exciting news! England's men's Test team is now led by new head coach Brendan McCullum. Following signing a four-year deal with KKR, he will step down from his role. As a T20 specialist, he will have a tough task ahead of him! Although I believe this is a good decision by England since McCullum is an aggressive batsman, who will help England play a more aggressive style during a test match!

We have seen England suffer from batting problems in test matches in the past. Especially when the ball is moving off the seam. And also when the ball is swinging.

So, I believe this is going to be great for England. I am sure he will be able to make the players be able to play fearlessly. Players in test matches often don't come forward because they fear a good-paced bouncer will be coming. So, I believe that fear will be a lot less if he coaches.

So England after having new test captain are now getting new test coach as well. I think it will take sometime now before England will regain there lost form in test. At the moment, the only reliable batsmen in there test squad is Root. They have series coming up against Pakistan, so it will be exciting to see how they handle them.

[Minecache]

ICC and BCCI have no objection in stopping the International cricket for two months for IPL (one match per day). Its very much clear that Big 3 dont want Cricket to be in olympics or adding more cricket since that will challenge the supremacy of big3 in cricket. I dont think crikcet is going to Olympics as long as its controlled by big3.

There are several reasons why the big 3 don't want cricket in Olympics. Some of them are:

1. Stringent drug tests in Olympics. Performance enhancement drugs are banned.
2. Foreigners can't represent national teams in Olympics
3. Each and every country need to play qualifying tournament in Olympics, unlike the case in ICC World Cup where 80% of the teams gain automatic entry
4. The revenues will be shared with the respective national Olympic body and not with the cricket board
5. No special treatment for any of the teams. All are treated equally.

I am quite sure that all these reasons are the main cause why cricket is not going to be in the Olympics. The big 3 surely do not want to lose their control over the ICC and if cricket is inserted into the Olympics that will surely be a problem for them. they are a lot used to the special treatment by the ICC and if they are treated equally as all the other teams it will hurt their ego. So, even if ICC wants to add cricket to the Olympics I don't think the big 3 will let them.

[Sithara007]

I am quite sure that all these reasons are the main cause why cricket is not going to be in the Olympics. The big 3 surely do not want to lose their control over the ICC and if cricket is inserted into the Olympics that will surely be a problem for them. they are a lot used to the special treatment by the ICC and if they are treated equally as all the other teams it will hurt their ego. So, even if ICC wants to add cricket to the Olympics I don't think the big 3 will let them.

Maybe we should use big-4 instead of big-3. A lot of the times, boards such as ECB and NZC are the most vocal opponents of popularizing and globalizing cricket, but in the end the blame always fall on the BCCI. I am not saying that BCCI guys are all saints, but sometimes we ignore the negative influence of boards such as the NZC. And also, let's not forget the fact that the current head of ICC is a businessman from New Zealand. During the elections, he defeated a former player (Imran Khwaja) with support from the pig-4 grouping.

[JSRAW]

I am quite sure that all these reasons are the main cause why cricket is not going to be in the Olympics. The big 3 surely do not want to lose their control over the ICC and if cricket is inserted into the Olympics that will surely be a problem for them. they are a lot used to the special treatment by the ICC and if they are treated equally as all the other teams it will hurt their ego. So, even if ICC wants to add cricket to the Olympics I don't think the big 3 will let them.

Maybe we should use big-4 instead of big-3. A lot of the times, boards such as ECB and NZC are the most vocal opponents of popularizing and globalizing cricket, but in the end the blame always fall on the BCCI. I am not saying that BCCI guys are all saints, but sometimes we ignore the negative influence of boards such as the NZC. And also, let's not forget the fact that the current head of ICC is a businessman from New Zealand. During the elections, he defeated a former player (Imran Khwaja) with support from the pig-4 grouping.

That's how life pan out in wilderness or more precisely in socialist world in terms of thought process. Every entity is going to attract criticism if they are generating significant amount of wealth in comparison to their counterparts.

One of the reason NZC never attract any backlash and they have a good boy image in the cricketing world.

[og kush420]

It's not that hard to understand. Cricket is not an Olympic sports and that's why these nations are not interested. Other sports understand the value of Olympics and that is why they tried hard to get them included. FIFA is ten times richer when compared to the ICC, and the same can be said about FIBA as well. But these sports bodies have pushed really hard to include their respective sports in Olympics. Because they understand that in the long term, the popularity will increase and monetary rewards will follow. But in case of ICC, they are interested only in short term benefits.

well stated. And there is a game behind every game.
Our country has very good cricket team and in winter olympics one only athlete participated and there were two assistant with him and our PM was watching in China. How funny.