Cricket match prediction discussions

[Sithara007]

Not going into other political stuff like (Ketaki Chitale and misuse of state machinery) as it'll open can of worms.

Mumbai lobby in cricket is way too strong because of Pawar nexus, they call all the shots. There is a reason Mumbai got to host the IPL even during covid peak and same story continued in this edition, in contrast when Calcutta and Gujrat hosted the last 4 games then Ganguly-Jay Shah faced a fair amount of sarcastic criticism that they are favoring their states. 

Maharashtra has three first class teams (Mumbai, Maharashtra and Vidarbha) and if I am not wrong that gives them a lot of importance when voting is conducted within the BCCI. On top of that, Mumbai is considered as the financial capital of India and those who control the cricket boards there will have access to huge monetary reserves. Jay Shah has faced a barrage of criticism ever since he became the BCCI Secretary. But I haven't seen anyone criticizing the guys on the opposite camp - Pawar, Rupa Gurunath, Rajeev Shukla.etc.

[S A KHAIR]

That's very much true. The way IPL matches were played at later part clearly tells the story but no one can dare to investigate that since its a win win situation for icc, bcci and rest of the cricket boards. The only way to recover so much money invested in IPL is through fixing.

You are one among many who make these claims on a regular basis in literally every IPL season. These claims are baseless since you cannot prove them which is why I don't agree with you at all.

Fixing has drastically dropped in recent years which is why it isn't as easy as you think anymore. Logically, fixing isn't really that lucrative anymore for the players if you think about it.

Why would they want to shoot themselves in the foot and possibly lose out on legit and high salaries by engaging in fixing? Think shill!

I agree because I don't see a way, why players will take a certain amount of money just to throw away their career! So, I think match-fixing is not an option for any cricketer right now who is playing in the IPL. I believe the only way fixing can happen in IPL is only if fixing is accepted by everyone and that is certainly not the case for sure. I also think that fixing has dropped in recent years. And when someone thinks that there might be fixing going on they cannot be biased.

[JSRAW]

Not going into other political stuff like (Ketaki Chitale and misuse of state machinery) as it'll open can of worms.

Mumbai lobby in cricket is way too strong because of Pawar nexus, they call all the shots. There is a reason Mumbai got to host the IPL even during covid peak and same story continued in this edition, in contrast when Calcutta and Gujrat hosted the last 4 games then Ganguly-Jay Shah faced a fair amount of sarcastic criticism that they are favoring their states. 

Maharashtra has three first class teams (Mumbai, Maharashtra and Vidarbha) and if I am not wrong that gives them a lot of importance when voting is conducted within the BCCI. On top of that, Mumbai is considered as the financial capital of India and those who control the cricket boards there will have access to huge monetary reserves. Jay Shah has faced a barrage of criticism ever since he became the BCCI Secretary. But I haven't seen anyone criticizing the guys on the opposite camp - Pawar, Rupa Gurunath, Rajeev Shukla.etc.

Yeah it happens (including in South zone/states), Lodha committee tried to counter this by recommending 1 state and 1 vote idea but it didn't sit well with everyone due to nuances like North eastern states hardly contribute anything to revenue etc. This is valid point from them but again no one took Lodha committee that seriously, otherwise Ganguly should have stepped down long back (his tenure was for only 2 years only i guess) or existing problem of nepotism.

They don't criticize anything because everyone is in bed all together and need favors, it's give n take for them, doesn't matter who's in power. Having said that everyone has their own dogs outside the camps (media) for hitjob like Boria (he's floater), Rajdeep etc.

[minairia3]

Not going into other political stuff like (Ketaki Chitale and misuse of state machinery) as it'll open can of worms.

Mumbai lobby in cricket is way too strong because of Pawar nexus, they call all the shots. There is a reason Mumbai got to host the IPL even during covid peak and same story continued in this edition, in contrast when Calcutta and Gujrat hosted the last 4 games then Ganguly-Jay Shah faced a fair amount of sarcastic criticism that they are favoring their states. 

Maharashtra has three first class teams (Mumbai, Maharashtra and Vidarbha) and if I am not wrong that gives them a lot of importance when voting is conducted within the BCCI. On top of that, Mumbai is considered as the financial capital of India and those who control the cricket boards there will have access to huge monetary reserves. Jay Shah has faced a barrage of criticism ever since he became the BCCI Secretary. But I haven't seen anyone criticizing the guys on the opposite camp - Pawar, Rupa Gurunath, Rajeev Shukla.etc.

Probably that's because they have a lot of power. Everyone is obviously afraid of talking anything smack about pawar. Because we all know about the Tamil Actress who did and she is now probably still in jail.
Jay Shah has faced a lot of criticism and I really don't know why the same thing does not happen to these guys. I think a reason might be that they have certain controls over the media.

[Haunebu]

Logically no one would ruin their career of earning big money but the players who are the end of their career are always a target and all they need to share is local room strategy.

Makes sense, but the ones who are actually targeted are usually players who haven't been performing well for a long period of time and aren't popular at all. I cannot remember the last time a popular player participated in match-fixing.

It's easy to find such players in less popular leagues, but very difficult to find them in the IPL these days(Was possible during the initial seasons though).

[Sithara007]

Yeah it happens (including in South zone/states), Lodha committee tried to counter this by recommending 1 state and 1 vote idea but it didn't sit well with everyone due to nuances like North eastern states hardly contribute anything to revenue etc. This is valid point from them but again no one took Lodha committee that seriously, otherwise Ganguly should have stepped down long back (his tenure was for only 2 years only i guess) or existing problem of nepotism.

One state, one vote idea is not fair, because in India the states and union territories and not similar in size. On one hand we have Uttar Pradesh with a (growing) population of 250 million, and on the other hand we have Sikkim with a (declining) population of 600,000. And there are Union Territories with a population in five digits. So how can it be justified, if Sikkim is given the same voting rights as Uttar Pradesh? The existing system of giving multiple votes to some of the states is wrong, but Lodha's stupid recommendation is even worse.

[S A KHAIR]

Logically no one would ruin their career of earning big money but the players who are the end of their career are always a target and all they need to share is local room strategy.

Makes sense, but the ones who are actually targeted are usually players who haven't been performing well for a long period of time and aren't popular at all. I cannot remember the last time a popular player participated in match-fixing.

It's easy to find such players in less popular leagues, but very difficult to find them in the IPL these days(Was possible during the initial seasons though).

Well, I don't agree with the whole idea that only less popular players are targeted for match-fixing. We have seen a lot of popular players also targeted by a lot of people but obviously, they haven't actually agreed to those people. And these people often target the players who are down bad. Generally, those are the players who are in need of money, which makes them easy targets for bookies.

[LittleBitFunny]

Yeah it happens (including in South zone/states), Lodha committee tried to counter this by recommending 1 state and 1 vote idea but it didn't sit well with everyone due to nuances like North eastern states hardly contribute anything to revenue etc. This is valid point from them but again no one took Lodha committee that seriously, otherwise Ganguly should have stepped down long back (his tenure was for only 2 years only i guess) or existing problem of nepotism.

One state, one vote idea is not fair, because in India the states and union territories and not similar in size. On one hand we have Uttar Pradesh with a (growing) population of 250 million, and on the other hand we have Sikkim with a (declining) population of 600,000. And there are Union Territories with a population in five digits. So how can it be justified, if Sikkim is given the same voting rights as Uttar Pradesh? The existing system of giving multiple votes to some of the states is wrong, but Lodha's stupid recommendation is even worse.

So what is the solution?

The existing system obviously has its flows. And that is criticized by a lot of people. The new recommendation from Lodha actually does not also look good.

So, how can this problem be solved? And I will agree with you because none of this system looks really good, to be honest. The population is obviously going to have a big effect on whatever the decision is.

[JSRAW]

Yeah it happens (including in South zone/states), Lodha committee tried to counter this by recommending 1 state and 1 vote idea but it didn't sit well with everyone due to nuances like North eastern states hardly contribute anything to revenue etc. This is valid point from them but again no one took Lodha committee that seriously, otherwise Ganguly should have stepped down long back (his tenure was for only 2 years only i guess) or existing problem of nepotism.

One state, one vote idea is not fair, because in India the states and union territories and not similar in size. On one hand we have Uttar Pradesh with a (growing) population of 250 million, and on the other hand we have Sikkim with a (declining) population of 600,000. And there are Union Territories with a population in five digits. So how can it be justified, if Sikkim is given the same voting rights as Uttar Pradesh? The existing system of giving multiple votes to some of the states is wrong, but Lodha's stupid recommendation is even worse.

This might not look good on argument because of economics but in a longer run if one wants to break monopoly of few states in the BCCI then 1 state, 1 vote seems viable solution and it's BCCI job to empower weaken states. 

We've discussed UP once, Personally i'm big supporter of UP fielding at least 3 teams (4 if you count Bundelkhand, basic formation according to district distribution) but in doing so we're are creating another Maharashtra type of model as far as voting is concern. Ideally any states should be allowed to have multiple teams according to population and financial situation but must get only 1 vote. 

[Sithara007]

So what is the solution?

The existing system obviously has its flows. And that is criticized by a lot of people. The new recommendation from Lodha actually does not also look good.

So, how can this problem be solved? And I will agree with you because none of this system looks really good, to be honest. The population is obviously going to have a big effect on whatever the decision is.

The best possible solution would be somewhere in between. But definitely I don't want the states of Maharashtra and Gujarat to have 3 votes each, when Uttar Pradesh is allotted with only one. And I am a bit confused about the smaller states. My suggestion would be to give 2 full votes to each state with a population of more than 100 million, 1 vote for those with population of 25 to 100 million, 0.5 votes for those with 5 to 25 million population, 0.25 votes for states with population of 1 to 5 million and 0.1 votes each for the remaining states. How does this sound?

[LittleBitFunny]

The best possible solution would be somewhere in between. But definitely I don't want the states of Maharashtra and Gujarat to have 3 votes each, when Uttar Pradesh is allotted with only one. And I am a bit confused about the smaller states. My suggestion would be to give 2 full votes to each state with a population of more than 100 million, 1 vote for those with population of 25 to 100 million, 0.5 votes for those with 5 to 25 million population, 0.25 votes for states with population of 1 to 5 million and 0.1 votes each for the remaining states. How does this sound?

That does sound good. But I don't know how it is going to be in action. Because the states which will be allotted fewer votes are not going to be happy because they will obviously feel inferior to others and the bigger states will feel superior.

In this era when everyone is talking about equality and thinking of getting the same treatment from everyone I think it might be hard to do. But we have to remember equality and justice are different. People won't realize that and I think if this happens, the states having more votes are going to probably abuse their power also.

[ilovealtcoins]

One state, one vote idea is not fair, because in India the states and union territories and not similar in size. On one hand we have Uttar Pradesh with a (growing) population of 250 million, and on the other hand we have Sikkim with a (declining) population of 600,000. And there are Union Territories with a population in five digits. So how can it be justified, if Sikkim is given the same voting rights as Uttar Pradesh? The existing system of giving multiple votes to some of the states is wrong, but Lodha's stupid recommendation is even worse.

This might not look good on argument because of economics but in a longer run if one wants to break monopoly of few states in the BCCI then 1 state, 1 vote seems viable solution and it's BCCI job to empower weaken states. 

We've discussed UP once, Personally i'm big supporter of UP fielding at least 3 teams (4 if you count Bundelkhand, basic formation according to district distribution) but in doing so we're are creating another Maharashtra type of model as far as voting is concern. Ideally any states should be allowed to have multiple teams according to population and financial situation but must get only 1 vote. 

Exactly. If the bigger States have more power they will obviously try to abuse their power. And the smaller States will obviously feel inferior compared to the biggest States. It is obviously not going to be a solution for now. and it might also cause a lot of problems regarding the power position but it is a good solution for the long run.

But let me be clear I don't support equality. I support justice and I think this will be a justifiable option so that no state feels inferior or superior compared to others.

[Sithara007]

This might not look good on argument because of economics but in a longer run if one wants to break monopoly of few states in the BCCI then 1 state, 1 vote seems viable solution and it's BCCI job to empower weaken states. 

We've discussed UP once, Personally i'm big supporter of UP fielding at least 3 teams (4 if you count Bundelkhand, basic formation according to district distribution) but in doing so we're are creating another Maharashtra type of model as far as voting is concern. Ideally any states should be allowed to have multiple teams according to population and financial situation but must get only 1 vote. 

Agreed. As of now, Maharashtra and Gujarat has 6 first class teams combined, while Uttar Pradesh fields just one team despite the fact that it's population is larger than the combined population of both Maharashtra and Gujarat. And as per the Lodha recommendation, all of the Northeast states were allowed to field their own first class teams. But their performance has remained below par. And in almost all the cases, more than half of the players are not native, and are sourced from the larger states such as Uttar Pradesh.

[JSRAW]

One state, one vote idea is not fair, because in India the states and union territories and not similar in size. On one hand we have Uttar Pradesh with a (growing) population of 250 million, and on the other hand we have Sikkim with a (declining) population of 600,000. And there are Union Territories with a population in five digits. So how can it be justified, if Sikkim is given the same voting rights as Uttar Pradesh? The existing system of giving multiple votes to some of the states is wrong, but Lodha's stupid recommendation is even worse.

This might not look good on argument because of economics but in a longer run if one wants to break monopoly of few states in the BCCI then 1 state, 1 vote seems viable solution and it's BCCI job to empower weaken states. 

We've discussed UP once, Personally i'm big supporter of UP fielding at least 3 teams (4 if you count Bundelkhand, basic formation according to district distribution) but in doing so we're are creating another Maharashtra type of model as far as voting is concern. Ideally any states should be allowed to have multiple teams according to population and financial situation but must get only 1 vote. 

Exactly. If the bigger States have more power they will obviously try to abuse their power. And the smaller States will obviously feel inferior compared to the biggest States. It is obviously not going to be a solution for now. and it might also cause a lot of problems regarding the power position but it is a good solution for the long run.

But let me be clear I don't support equality. I support justice and I think this will be a justifiable option so that no state feels inferior or superior compared to others.

Absolute equality is not possible anyway.

Problem is cricket lobby in few states are very powerful and they're not ready to give up their power at any cost. Even SC appointed officials failed to bring any consensus, although their approach was quite self defeating on many instance, like dragging the matter for too long.

This might not look good on argument because of economics but in a longer run if one wants to break monopoly of few states in the BCCI then 1 state, 1 vote seems viable solution and it's BCCI job to empower weaken states. 

We've discussed UP once, Personally i'm big supporter of UP fielding at least 3 teams (4 if you count Bundelkhand, basic formation according to district distribution) but in doing so we're are creating another Maharashtra type of model as far as voting is concern. Ideally any states should be allowed to have multiple teams according to population and financial situation but must get only 1 vote. 

Agreed. As of now, Maharashtra and Gujarat has 6 first class teams combined, while Uttar Pradesh fields just one team despite the fact that it's population is larger than the combined population of both Maharashtra and Gujarat. And as per the Lodha recommendation, all of the Northeast states were allowed to field their own first class teams. But their performance has remained below par. And in almost all the cases, more than half of the players are not native, and are sourced from the larger states such as Uttar Pradesh.

IMO if BCCI starts pumping money in northeast then i believe we'll see some improvement on local representation.

[Sithara007]

IMO if BCCI starts pumping money in northeast then i believe we'll see some improvement on local representation.

I have watched a few matches of these teams. Manipur is almost 100% native, as they have a number of well known local cricket clubs. But most of the other teams rely on mainland players. Meghalaya is majority mainlander, with just around 25% native, while teams like Nagaland and Sikkim are around 50% native. I don't know whether the BCCI is interested in developing cricket in these states. Football is more popular than cricket there, and Manipur is famous for being a powerhouse for other sports such as field hockey and athletics.

[Marvell1]

IMO if BCCI starts pumping money in northeast then i believe we'll see some improvement on local representation.

I have watched a few matches of these teams. Manipur is almost 100% native, as they have a number of well known local cricket clubs. But most of the other teams rely on mainland players. Meghalaya is majority mainlander, with just around 25% native, while teams like Nagaland and Sikkim are around 50% native. I don't know whether the BCCI is interested in developing cricket in these states. Football is more popular than cricket there, and Manipur is famous for being a powerhouse for other sports such as field hockey and athletics.

But cricket is the most popular sport in India. It is really hard to see any other sport prosper like cricket in India. Football was also pretty popular before the pandemic situation. But that is gone right now. If these are places where cricket can be popularised because cricket is not very popular there, I think a lot more talent will come forward. But that will also mean the downgrade of the popularity of other sports.

[Sithara007]

IMO if BCCI starts pumping money in northeast then i believe we'll see some improvement on local representation.

I have watched a few matches of these teams. Manipur is almost 100% native, as they have a number of well known local cricket clubs. But most of the other teams rely on mainland players. Meghalaya is majority mainlander, with just around 25% native, while teams like Nagaland and Sikkim are around 50% native. I don't know whether the BCCI is interested in developing cricket in these states. Football is more popular than cricket there, and Manipur is famous for being a powerhouse for other sports such as field hockey and athletics.

But cricket is the most popular sport in India. It is really hard to see any other sport prosper like cricket in India. Football was also pretty popular before the pandemic situation. But that is gone right now. If these are places where cricket can be popularised because cricket is not very popular there, I think a lot more talent will come forward. But that will also mean the downgrade of the popularity of other sports.

In India, there are regions where cricket is not as popular as other sports. As I mentioned earlier, one example is that of North-eastern states such as Nagaland and Mizoram. Football is far more popular than cricket in these states. You can notice the same situation in Northern Kerala and Goa as well. And in states such as Punjab, field hockey is more popular than cricket. India is known as a cricket crazy nation, because in the larger states such as Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra, 90% of the residents would list cricket as their favorite sport.

[Juggy777]

IMO if BCCI starts pumping money in northeast then i believe we'll see some improvement on local representation.

I have watched a few matches of these teams. Manipur is almost 100% native, as they have a number of well known local cricket clubs. But most of the other teams rely on mainland players. Meghalaya is majority mainlander, with just around 25% native, while teams like Nagaland and Sikkim are around 50% native. I don't know whether the BCCI is interested in developing cricket in these states. Football is more popular than cricket there, and Manipur is famous for being a powerhouse for other sports such as field hockey and athletics.

But cricket is the most popular sport in India. It is really hard to see any other sport prosper like cricket in India. Football was also pretty popular before the pandemic situation. But that is gone right now. If these are places where cricket can be popularised because cricket is not very popular there, I think a lot more talent will come forward. But that will also mean the downgrade of the popularity of other sports.

In India, there are regions where cricket is not as popular as other sports. As I mentioned earlier, one example is that of North-eastern states such as Nagaland and Mizoram. Football is far more popular than cricket in these states. You can notice the same situation in Northern Kerala and Goa as well. And in states such as Punjab, field hockey is more popular than cricket. India is known as a cricket crazy nation, because in the larger states such as Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra, 90% of the residents would list cricket as their favorite sport.

@Sithara007 thanks for sharing these stats, because it was my basic understanding that Indian’s only preferred cricket before any other sport. Furthermore BCCI will only spend money on those states if fans demand them to nurture the talent out there, or some powerful people recommend them to spend on those states otherwise on their own I doubt that BCCI will spend any money developing those states player’s.

[crunck]

But cricket is the most popular sport in India. It is really hard to see any other sport prosper like cricket in India. Football was also pretty popular before the pandemic situation. But that is gone right now. If these are places where cricket can be popularised because cricket is not very popular there, I think a lot more talent will come forward. But that will also mean the downgrade of the popularity of other sports.

In India, there are regions where cricket is not as popular as other sports. As I mentioned earlier, one example is that of North-eastern states such as Nagaland and Mizoram. Football is far more popular than cricket in these states. You can notice the same situation in Northern Kerala and Goa as well. And in states such as Punjab, field hockey is more popular than cricket. India is known as a cricket crazy nation, because in the larger states such as Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra, 90% of the residents would list cricket as their favorite sport.

Yes, I agree that football has really good popularity in India, at least in certain states of India. And the same goes for field hockey.

But the most realistic situation for a person living in India will always be playing cricket as a profession because the other sports do not have enough patrons in India. So cricket is the only sport that can give future stability. If anyone plays other sports eventually they will have to leave that sport and look for another job. But that probably will change in the future but it is going to take at least 5 to 10 years. And India is also concentrating on cricket a lot more right now.

[Sithara007]

Yes, I agree that football has really good popularity in India, at least in certain states of India. And the same goes for field hockey.

But the most realistic situation for a person living in India will always be playing cricket as a profession because the other sports do not have enough patrons in India. So cricket is the only sport that can give future stability. If anyone plays other sports eventually they will have to leave that sport and look for another job. But that probably will change in the future but it is going to take at least 5 to 10 years. And India is also concentrating on cricket a lot more right now.

Cricket has definitely more "prestige" in India when compared to the other sports. IPL is one of the richest sports leagues in the world, while the other leagues in India have struggled to survive. ISL and PKL salaries are only a fraction of those in the IPL. Leagues such as Hockey India League (HIL), Indian Premier Handball League (IPHL) and Super Boxing League have become defunct. Corporates refuse to sponsor sports other than cricket. Even former football strongholds such as Goa are now getting dominated by cricket.