Cricket match prediction discussions

[Sithara007]

As a sports body, I don't think ICC should have any favorites. But ICC is doing the absolute opposite. As a sports body ICC should have favored the countries that are really struggling and not those countries which have better money. To be honest I think India knows very well how to please the ICC. But it should not be anything like that. And we all know that ICC is also corrupted and they just want money. If they actually care about cricket itself I think they would have increased the number of teams that are playing cricket regularly by now. At least there have been 20 teams playing in the world cup.

They tried with a 16-team competition in 2007. In terms of competitiveness, that tournament was a grand success. There were a lot of upsets and the matches were very interesting. But the problem was that in financial terms the tournament was a failure. That was the main reason why they went back to the 10-team setup. Now it is a difficult choice. Sports bodies such as FIFA can afford teams such as Italy and Brazil not playing in their world cup, or getting kicked out in the group stage. But ICC can't afford to lose the Indian team in the group phase of the world cup. If that happens, the TV broadcasters will be up in arms and will refuse to bid for the next tournament. 

[1715229170]

1715229170

[1715229170]

1715229170

[1715229170]

1715229170

[Minecache]

If they actually care about cricket itself I think they would have increased the number of teams that are playing cricket regularly by now. At least there have been 20 teams playing in the world cup.

They already tried this once in past and burned their hands badly (Big teams got knocked out early). It was epic financial disaster for the ICC that they dropped this idea for good. I am in favour of 16-20 teams WC competition. It has many challenges as well which we already discussed many time in every cricketing thread.

Well, then why just ICC don't take any steps about making cricket popular in smaller countries?

If they are interested in cricket the revenue is not going to be a problem. I think if ICC thinks that playing a small number of teams in the world cup is going to be the solution to their """"revenue"""" problem I am going to say they are delusional and they are not thinking straight.

If they think that the smaller teams are not going to be interested in cricket because the people of those countries watching cricket for a long time will hamper productivity in those countries? then why don't ICC just takes some states about making cricket popular to economically rich countries?

They tried with a 16-team competition in 2007. In terms of competitiveness, that tournament was a grand success. There were a lot of upsets and the matches were very interesting. But the problem was that in financial terms the tournament was a failure. That was the main reason why they went back to the 10-team setup. Now it is a difficult choice. Sports bodies such as FIFA can afford teams such as Italy and Brazil not playing in their world cup, or getting kicked out in the group stage. But ICC can't afford to lose the Indian team in the group phase of the world cup. If that happens, the TV broadcasters will be up in arms and will refuse to bid for the next tournament. 

Well, I guess then the teams have to just play better and prepare better, right? If they arranged the world cup as they did in 2007 a lot more teams would have been playing cricket regularly and competitively. Eventually, by now the revenue would have been better.

[Sithara007]

They tried with a 16-team competition in 2007. In terms of competitiveness, that tournament was a grand success. There were a lot of upsets and the matches were very interesting. But the problem was that in financial terms the tournament was a failure. That was the main reason why they went back to the 10-team setup. Now it is a difficult choice. Sports bodies such as FIFA can afford teams such as Italy and Brazil not playing in their world cup, or getting kicked out in the group stage. But ICC can't afford to lose the Indian team in the group phase of the world cup. If that happens, the TV broadcasters will be up in arms and will refuse to bid for the next tournament. 

Well, I guess then the teams have to just play better and prepare better, right? If they arranged the world cup as they did in 2007 a lot more teams would have been playing cricket regularly and competitively. Eventually, by now the revenue would have been better.

IMO, although their decision of expanding the 2007 world cup to 16 teams was right, the tournament format was not proper. In the group phase, each team played a total of 3 matches and this increased the possibility of some of the big teams getting kicked out of the tournament as a result of just one bad match. Ideally they should have had 2 groups of 8 teams each, or 3 groups of 6 teams each (expanding the total number of participants to 18). But in the end, we just need to agree that teams such as Ireland played exceptionally well to kick out some of the top ranking teams.

[JSRAW]

If they actually care about cricket itself I think they would have increased the number of teams that are playing cricket regularly by now. At least there have been 20 teams playing in the world cup.

They already tried this once in past and burned their hands badly (Big teams got knocked out early). It was epic financial disaster for the ICC that they dropped this idea for good. I am in favour of 16-20 teams WC competition. It has many challenges as well which we already discussed many time in every cricketing thread.

Well, then why just ICC don't take any steps about making cricket popular in smaller countries?

If they are interested in cricket the revenue is not going to be a problem. I think if ICC thinks that playing a small number of teams in the world cup is going to be the solution to their """"revenue"""" problem I am going to say they are delusional and they are not thinking straight.

If they think that the smaller teams are not going to be interested in cricket because the people of those countries watching cricket for a long time will hamper productivity in those countries? then why don't ICC just takes some states about making cricket popular to economically rich countries?

There is a saying in the Hindi belt " Dhud ka jala, chanch bhi phuk phuk kar pita hai"

Their previous experiment with the 16 teams WC didn't end well for them so they are clearly scared off implementing same idea.

To do something meaningful they have to take to take approach of -Start up culture- Take a risk for at least 3-4 WC (t-20, 50 overs) in next 8 years cycle and include more teams. Also qualification process should be same for everyone, except host nation. For financial safety they could keep  India and Pakistan in same group, same with England and Australia.

[Rigon]

These are the two teams that participated in today's match Rajasthan Royals vs Royal Challengers Bangalore. Royal Challengers Bangalore scored 157 runs for the loss of 8 wickets in 20 overs.At the moment Rajasthan Rajasthan Royals scored 73 runs and lost 1 wicket.In order to win, they must perform well in today's field.

RCB - 157/8 (20)

RR - 73/1 (6.5)

Continue........

[Sithara007]

There is a saying in the Hindi belt " Dhud ka jala, chanch bhi phuk phuk kar pita hai"

Their previous experiment with the 16 teams WC didn't end well for them so they are clearly scared off implementing same idea.

To do something meaningful they have to take to take approach of -Start up culture- Take a risk for at least 3-4 WC (t-20, 50 overs) in next 8 years cycle and include more teams. Also qualification process should be same for everyone, except host nation. For financial safety they could keep  India and Pakistan in same group, same with England and Australia.

I am not very comfortable with the idea of giving automatic qualification for 80% of the teams. Well, the ICC will argue that top 8 teams will qualify based on ODI ranking, but it is not that simple because the associate nations (not even new test nations such as Afghanistan and Ireland) get to pay any ODIs against the full members. IMO, apart from the hosts, all other countries must go through a qualifier tournament, similar to the case with any other sports. If someone refuses to play qualifiers, then that team must be kicked out of the world cup.

[JSRAW]

There is a saying in the Hindi belt " Dhud ka jala, chanch bhi phuk phuk kar pita hai"

Their previous experiment with the 16 teams WC didn't end well for them so they are clearly scared off implementing same idea.

To do something meaningful they have to take to take approach of -Start up culture- Take a risk for at least 3-4 WC (t-20, 50 overs) in next 8 years cycle and include more teams. Also qualification process should be same for everyone, except host nation. For financial safety they could keep  India and Pakistan in same group, same with England and Australia.

I am not very comfortable with the idea of giving automatic qualification for 80% of the teams. Well, the ICC will argue that top 8 teams will qualify based on ODI ranking, but it is not that simple because the associate nations (not even new test nations such as Afghanistan and Ireland) get to pay any ODIs against the full members. IMO, apart from the hosts, all other countries must go through a qualifier tournament, similar to the case with any other sports. If someone refuses to play qualifiers, then that team must be kicked out of the world cup.

I wasn't implying automatic qualifications for anyone (automatic entry is for host nation only). I was proposing same criteria for all the teams for the qualifications, this include everything which you mentioned. No ICC ranking or Full members BS, this is one regressive rule in ICC playbook (We saw what happened with Thailand Women's team in the WC)

[YinShuiSiYuan]

I am not very comfortable with the idea of giving automatic qualification for 80% of the teams. Well, the ICC will argue that top 8 teams will qualify based on ODI ranking, but it is not that simple because the associate nations (not even new test nations such as Afghanistan and Ireland) get to pay any ODIs against the full members. IMO, apart from the hosts, all other countries must go through a qualifier tournament, similar to the case with any other sports. If someone refuses to play qualifiers, then that team must be kicked out of the world cup.

Other sports like football have qualifiers for every temp since the whole world is participating in fifa WC. While cricket is just a game of 6 to 8 counties. The associate teams haven't taken this game seriously, so there is no point of having qualifier for 8 teams. Increase number of countries first

[S A KHAIR]

I am not very comfortable with the idea of giving automatic qualification for 80% of the teams. Well, the ICC will argue that top 8 teams will qualify based on ODI ranking, but it is not that simple because the associate nations (not even new test nations such as Afghanistan and Ireland) get to pay any ODIs against the full members. IMO, apart from the hosts, all other countries must go through a qualifier tournament, similar to the case with any other sports. If someone refuses to play qualifiers, then that team must be kicked out of the world cup.

I wasn't implying automatic qualifications for anyone (automatic entry is for host nation only). I was proposing same criteria for all the teams for the qualifications, this include everything which you mentioned. No ICC ranking or Full members BS, this is one regressive rule in ICC playbook (We saw what happened with Thailand Women's team in the WC)

Yes, I also agree that automatic qualification should not happen except for the hosting country.
Because of the rule of automatic qualification, a lot of smaller teams will be disheartened to even try to play in the world cup.
They will obviously feel that they are being left out and not being regarded as the same as other teams.
Because of this bullshit, We did not see Thailand's women's team in the women's World Cup.

[Sithara007]

I wasn't implying automatic qualifications for anyone (automatic entry is for host nation only). I was proposing same criteria for all the teams for the qualifications, this include everything which you mentioned. No ICC ranking or Full members BS, this is one regressive rule in ICC playbook (We saw what happened with Thailand Women's team in the WC)

Hmm.. agreed. If I am not wrong, this was also one of the reasons why the ICC and the BCCI opposed cricket's inclusion in Olympics. For any Olympic sport, automatic qualification is provided only to the host. Remaining teams need to go through qualifying tournaments. The ICC wanted direct entry for the tier-1 test nations (10 in total). I don't think that teams such as Scotland and Namibia are inferior to Sri Lanka or West Indies, given their recent performances. But since they almost never play against each other, we don't know for sure.

[Smack That Ace]

I wasn't implying automatic qualifications for anyone (automatic entry is for host nation only). I was proposing same criteria for all the teams for the qualifications, this include everything which you mentioned. No ICC ranking or Full members BS, this is one regressive rule in ICC playbook (We saw what happened with Thailand Women's team in the WC)

Hmm.. agreed. If I am not wrong, this was also one of the reasons why the ICC and the BCCI opposed cricket's inclusion in Olympics. For any Olympic sport, automatic qualification is provided only to the host. Remaining teams need to go through qualifying tournaments. The ICC wanted direct entry for the tier-1 test nations (10 in total). I don't think that teams such as Scotland and Namibia are inferior to Sri Lanka or West Indies, given their recent performances. But since they almost never play against each other, we don't know for sure.

Honestly, there are reasons for BCCI to say that because the last time ICC tried a cricket world cup with 16 teams, if I remember correctly India was knocked out of the world cup by Bangladesh and it was a really bad situation in India because of that.
People started burning Tyres and Dummies in front of the Indian cricketer's house. That's why I don't think they will want to take any chances.

As far as the ICC world cup is concerned I don't think they are going to exclude automatic qualification. Because that brings a negative result in the revenue.


Thanks

Duke

[YinShuiSiYuan]

Honestly, there are reasons for BCCI to say that because the last time ICC tried a cricket world cup with 16 teams, if I remember correctly India was knocked out of the world cup by Bangladesh and it was a really bad situation in India because of that.
People started burning Tyres and Dummies in front of the Indian cricketer's house. That's why I don't think they will want to take any chances.

As far as the ICC world cup is concerned I don't think they are going to exclude automatic qualification. Because that brings a negative result in the revenue.

Indian are crazy for cricket and they hate seeing there country losing a match. Remember 1996 semi final between Indian and Srilanka. The spectators started throwing bottles and other rubbish in the stadium after seeing that there country will lose the match. Match referee had to intervene and he declared Srilanka victorious based on score.

[Sithara007]

Indian are crazy for cricket and they hate seeing there country losing a match. Remember 1996 semi final between Indian and Srilanka. The spectators started throwing bottles and other rubbish in the stadium after seeing that there country will lose the match. Match referee had to intervene and he declared Srilanka victorious based on score.

Those were old times.. people were too emotional back then, and the law enforcement was not that strict. Even pitch invasions used to happen back then. Two things have changed since then - the cricket fans became a bit more civilized, and strict enforcement of the rules mean that anyone who resorts to vandalism will spend at least a few days in one of the infamous prisons in India. And another thing is that India vs Pakistan matches have become very infrequent. And almost every time when such a match occurs, it is played in a third country.

[ilovealtcoins]

Honestly, there are reasons for BCCI to say that because the last time ICC tried a cricket world cup with 16 teams, if I remember correctly India was knocked out of the world cup by Bangladesh and it was a really bad situation in India because of that.
People started burning Tyres and Dummies in front of the Indian cricketer's house. That's why I don't think they will want to take any chances.
As far as the ICC world cup is concerned I don't think they are going to exclude automatic qualification. Because that brings a negative result in the revenue.

Indian are crazy for cricket and they hate seeing there country losing a match. Remember 1996 semi final between Indian and Srilanka. The spectators started throwing bottles and other rubbish in the stadium after seeing that there country will lose the match. Match referee had to intervene and he declared Srilanka victorious based on score.

But that is obviously not the right act.

Well, obviously all the people will not act as rationally as people will want them to. One thing I don't understand about the fans is that they should know the players who are playing on the field are a lot more determined to win compared to the fans. Fans should be with the players when the time is hard, not against them. Obviously, people will think that they are getting paid for just playing cricket which is a luxury, to be honest, but they also have to understand that this is the best that the country has got.

[galambo]

Those were old times.. people were too emotional back then, and the law enforcement was not that strict. Even pitch invasions used to happen back then. Two things have changed since then - the cricket fans became a bit more civilized, and strict enforcement of the rules mean that anyone who resorts to vandalism will spend at least a few days in one of the infamous prisons in India. And another thing is that India vs Pakistan matches have become very infrequent. And almost every time when such a match occurs, it is played in a third country.

In Australia if any person jump on ground then he has to pay fine of 5000 Aus dollars, so authorises won't mind if anyone goes to ground. Since that means more revenue to CA. In India now authorities don't allow things inside stands that can be used to stop the play.

[Sithara007]

In Australia if any person jump on ground then he has to pay fine of 5000 Aus dollars, so authorises won't mind if anyone goes to ground. Since that means more revenue to CA. In India now authorities don't allow things inside stands that can be used to stop the play.

Monetary fines won't work in India (and I am sure that is the case in other South Asian countries as well). There is a class of uber-rich, who has got unlimited amounts of money thanks to corruption and nepotism. For them a fine of $5,000 will be like pocket change. What scares them is the prospect of spending a few days in prison. And Indian prisons are very infamous for extreme violence and brutality. But then again, the judiciary here is very corrupt and these guys will be let off with a fine of $10 (and a warning) rather than a prison term.

[laurenB7742]

In Australia if any person jump on ground then he has to pay fine of 5000 Aus dollars, so authorises won't mind if anyone goes to ground. Since that means more revenue to CA. In India now authorities don't allow things inside stands that can be used to stop the play.

Monetary fines won't work in India (and I am sure that is the case in other South Asian countries as well). There is a class of uber-rich, who has got unlimited amounts of money thanks to corruption and nepotism. For them a fine of $5,000 will be like pocket change. What scares them is the prospect of spending a few days in prison. And Indian prisons are very infamous for extreme violence and brutality. But then again, the judiciary here is very corrupt and these guys will be let off with a fine of $10 (and a warning) rather than a prison term.

Wow! I feel like you wrote down the exact things that might happen and it is actually very true. A proper punishment will be a bigger fine. But, then again I believe they will find a way to get away with this and I also believe that it is the case for almost all the South Asian countries. But if it is made sure that they do spend one week in prison I think no one will dare to do such things.

[Sithara007]

England has announced the 14-member squad for the ODI series against Netherlands later this month. Three uncapped players are included in the squad - Brydon Carse, David Payne and Luke Wood. Since the test series against New Zealand will be going on at the same time, members of the test squad are not included for the series against Netherlands. And these matches will form a part of the ICC Men's Cricket World Cup Super League. Right now England is in a very comfortable position, with 95 points from 15 matches. A clean sweep could take them to the top of the table. 

[ibuddy122505]

Saurav Ganguly leaves as BCCI president role? Prior he has shared a cryptic tweet, following his tweet he seeks supports as he will enters another part in his life. Pundits isolated since his tweet very spread in sensational manner. Anything you're doing that doesn't imply that you will be good or bad. Our due respect to you Dada. All the best on your best course of action.

[Juggy777]

In Australia if any person jump on ground then he has to pay fine of 5000 Aus dollars, so authorises won't mind if anyone goes to ground. Since that means more revenue to CA. In India now authorities don't allow things inside stands that can be used to stop the play.

Monetary fines won't work in India (and I am sure that is the case in other South Asian countries as well). There is a class of uber-rich, who has got unlimited amounts of money thanks to corruption and nepotism. For them a fine of $5,000 will be like pocket change. What scares them is the prospect of spending a few days in prison. And Indian prisons are very infamous for extreme violence and brutality. But then again, the judiciary here is very corrupt and these guys will be let off with a fine of $10 (and a warning) rather than a prison term.

Wow! I feel like you wrote down the exact things that might happen and it is actually very true. A proper punishment will be a bigger fine. But, then again I believe they will find a way to get away with this and I also believe that it is the case for almost all the South Asian countries. But if it is made sure that they do spend one week in prison I think no one will dare to do such things.

@Sithara007 you’re absolutely correct, and unless there’s an official rule which says that there’ll be instant jail time for those people who run on to the pitch these incidents won’t stop.

England has announced the 14-member squad for the ODI series against Netherlands later this month. Three uncapped players are included in the squad - Brydon Carse, David Payne and Luke Wood. Since the test series against New Zealand will be going on at the same time, members of the test squad are not included for the series against Netherlands. And these matches will form a part of the ICC Men's Cricket World Cup Super League. Right now England is in a very comfortable position, with 95 points from 15 matches. A clean sweep could take them to the top of the table. 

I believe that England very well know that they’ll win this series easily, and that’s why they’re keen to use this series to test their reserve player’s which isn’t a bad idea as those player’s will get invaluable experience of playing on the big stage.