Cricket match prediction discussions

[fuguebtc]

-.-

When Srinivasan was the chairman of the ICC, he infamously proposed to reduce associate funding to zero. Finally a compromise was reached, and it was reduced from $56.25 million per year to just $20 million per year. If that was not enough, the changes to eligibility criteria made it more difficult for teams such as Thailand to receive ICC funding. Now majority of the funding goes to teams such as Oman, which are fully comprised of non-citizens. I am curious about the next funding cycle for 2024-31. Not expecting much, though.

I am really not expecting any improvement in the funding for the associate countries. If anything I am actually expecting it to reduce. And that's because the ICC absolutely does not care about the funding of the associate countries. I heard that ICC was trying to decide whether they will give the money according to the success of the team. That is not bad because it will convince the team to perform better. But the problem is if that happens a lot of associate teams with native players are going to be ignored. And that really should not happen as it will destroy the improvement of the popularity of cricket. ICC should soon realize that cricket cannot be restricted to 10 or 12 teams from now on. To save cricket the number of teams has to increase and so does the funding of associate teams.

[1715355454]

1715355454

[1715355454]

1715355454

[1715355454]

1715355454

[1715355454]

1715355454

[n0ne]

Right now there is actually no certainty. The way things are going right now I think it will certainly be restricted to some countries in the world. And a lot of big countries are not interested in cricket at all. And a lot of people think that cricket being time-consuming is one of the biggest reasons for that. I agree with that but I also think another reason why cricket is not popular is that ICC does not push the game to be popular. And the funding always seems to be unfair to the associate Nations. This is going to be funny to hear but ICC is racist the way they are found in the associate Nations. I am not saying that the associate Nations should be funded like India or Australia I am just saying that they should be funded well enough to improve.

When Srinivasan was the chairman of the ICC, he infamously proposed to reduce associate funding to zero. Finally a compromise was reached, and it was reduced from $56.25 million per year to just $20 million per year. If that was not enough, the changes to eligibility criteria made it more difficult for teams such as Thailand to receive ICC funding. Now majority of the funding goes to teams such as Oman, which are fully comprised of non-citizens. I am curious about the next funding cycle for 2024-31. Not expecting much, though.

Seems to better not to provide such fund in the country where the cricket team is organized with non-citizens. Especially in several countries like UAE or Oman. This trend has started which is a big threat for cricket in some cases for the future. I think if ICC bans this kind of practice completely then something good can be expected from them.

I don't know how far this has affected cricket. Just think of yourself getting immigrated into another country. After spending specific number of years, you'll be given support from the government in all needs same as the country's native citizen. Here also the players have got support and playing for those countries. I don't find anything wrong and degrading cricket.

[Sithara007]

I don't know how far this has affected cricket. Just think of yourself getting immigrated into another country. After spending specific number of years, you'll be given support from the government in all needs same as the country's native citizen. Here also the players have got support and playing for those countries. I don't find anything wrong and degrading cricket.

The key word in your post is "after spending specific number of years".

In cricket anyone will become eligible to play for a country if they reside there for 6 months. Most of the sports allow naturalized citizens to represent a country (some, like FIBA are exceptions). But in cricket, citizenship is not needed and there comes the problem. If you look at the UAE team, you can find that almost everyone has some first-class experience in India or Pakistan. They migrated to UAE after getting assurances about getting a central contract. These people can't be compared to someone like Usman Khawaja, who migrated to Australia when he was just five years old.

[Juggy777]

I don't know how far this has affected cricket. Just think of yourself getting immigrated into another country. After spending specific number of years, you'll be given support from the government in all needs same as the country's native citizen. Here also the players have got support and playing for those countries. I don't find anything wrong and degrading cricket.

The key word in your post is "after spending specific number of years".

In cricket anyone will become eligible to play for a country if they reside there for 6 months. Most of the sports allow naturalized citizens to represent a country (some, like FIBA are exceptions). But in cricket, citizenship is not needed and there comes the problem. If you look at the UAE team, you can find that almost everyone has some first-class experience in India or Pakistan. They migrated to UAE after getting assurances about getting a central contract. These people can't be compared to someone like Usman Khawaja, who migrated to Australia when he was just five years old.

@Sithara007 I don’t really blame those player’s because it’s probably very difficult to get into their country’s playing 11, and when they get an opportunity to show their talent they’re right in taking that opportunity. Lastly I understand you feel that country’s who have their own citizens participating should get more funding, but I feel that countries who outsource should also get some funds if not equal funds otherwise it’s quiet possible that we may never get to see those player’s talents.

[Minecache]

I don't know how far this has affected cricket. Just think of yourself getting immigrated into another country. After spending specific number of years, you'll be given support from the government in all needs same as the country's native citizen. Here also the players have got support and playing for those countries. I don't find anything wrong and degrading cricket.

The key word in your post is "after spending specific number of years".
In cricket anyone will become eligible to play for a country if they reside there for 6 months. Most of the sports allow naturalized citizens to represent a country (some, like FIBA are exceptions). But in cricket, citizenship is not needed and there comes the problem. If you look at the UAE team, you can find that almost everyone has some first-class experience in India or Pakistan. They migrated to UAE after getting assurances about getting a central contract. These people can't be compared to someone like Usman Khawaja, who migrated to Australia when he was just five years old.

@Sithara007 I don’t really blame those player’s because it’s probably very difficult to get into their country’s playing 11, and when they get an opportunity to show their talent they’re right in taking that opportunity. Lastly I understand you feel that country’s who have their own citizens participating should get more funding, but I feel that countries who outsource should also get some funds if not equal funds otherwise it’s quiet possible that we may never get to see those player’s talents.

I think that ICC is the only one to blame here. Because if there was no option like this those players wouldn't be able to play for other countries. The countries are also going to use this as a way to make some money. As a cricket fan, it hurts to see that cricket is just being used as a way of doing business and that also by some people who probably don't even care about the improvement of cricket.

Well, to be honest I think there are a lot of teams that do not care about the improvement of cricket (big-4) but that's another story. I think cricket can only be played by a person for a certain team if he is a resident of that country for at least 6 years. Or if he has citizenship from that country. I still don't think that is the best solution but I think they can implement this one first and make improvements going into the future.

[Sithara007]

@Sithara007 I don’t really blame those player’s because it’s probably very difficult to get into their country’s playing 11, and when they get an opportunity to show their talent they’re right in taking that opportunity. Lastly I understand you feel that country’s who have their own citizens participating should get more funding, but I feel that countries who outsource should also get some funds if not equal funds otherwise it’s quiet possible that we may never get to see those player’s talents.

Why should a country such as UAE get equal funds as someone like Scotland? UAE just imports players from India and Pakistan, and refuse to include any native players in their squad. And there is no logic in saying that players from sub-continent are moving to these countries because they don't get opportunity. Most of the players don't have the quality to get selected even to the domestic sides. And if these teams are provided with more funds, then rather than using them to popularize cricket among the natives, they will just use it to purchase more players.

[BobK71]

It was a very easy matter for Thailand women's team to win the match of Bangladesh women's team. I have been noticing that Thailand women's team has not always performed well. I think that the qualification of Thailand women's team to go to the World Cup is on the way to disappear.  Bangladesh women won this match very easily which is really positive for Bangladesh

Although there is not much progress in world women's cricket, major changes are being noticed in some teams. India women are performing extremely well at the moment. Besides, Australia and England are also in fairly good position. Some of the women's cricket teams are in a very weak position but the ICC is still giving a lot of importance to women's cricket. I think women's cricket teams will do better in the future. If we look at the last match result of the Asia Cup, Thailand women's team beat to Pakistan women's team.

[Sithara007]

Although there is not much progress in world women's cricket, major changes are being noticed in some teams. India women are performing extremely well at the moment. Besides, Australia and England are also in fairly good position. Some of the women's cricket teams are in a very weak position but the ICC is still giving a lot of importance to women's cricket. I think women's cricket teams will do better in the future. If we look at the last match result of the Asia Cup, Thailand women's team beat to Pakistan women's team.

From now onward, it will get difficult for Thailand. Previously they were on a level paying field. Even teams from test nations such as Pakistan and Sri Lanka were facing a shortage of funds. But that is not the case now. PCB and SLCB are trying really hard to boost the women's game in their respective nations. Thailand women are at a disadvantage, due to lack of funds. And rather than helping them, the ICC is just hurting them in whatever way they can by adding strange clauses to the qualification criteria.

[kro55]

@Sithara007 I don’t really blame those player’s because it’s probably very difficult to get into their country’s playing 11, and when they get an opportunity to show their talent they’re right in taking that opportunity. Lastly I understand you feel that country’s who have their own citizens participating should get more funding, but I feel that countries who outsource should also get some funds if not equal funds otherwise it’s quiet possible that we may never get to see those player’s talents.

Why should a country such as UAE get equal funds as someone like Scotland? UAE just imports players from India and Pakistan, and refuse to include any native players in their squad. And there is no logic in saying that players from sub-continent are moving to these countries because they don't get opportunity. Most of the players don't have the quality to get selected even to the domestic sides. And if these teams are provided with more funds, then rather than using them to popularize cricket among the natives, they will just use it to purchase more players.

Actually, the rule of "A player can play for a certain country if he is living in the country for more than 6 months" does not make sense at all.

This rule should be fixed or changed. Otherwise, it will have a significant negative impact in the future. That impact is going to be much uglier compared to what it is now. In turn, this is going to always have the effect of making the poor teams who are trying to come forward with native players feel as if they don't even deserve a chance to play this game at all. The rule I think should be either play with native players in the team, and by playing with native players, I mean that all the 11 players must either be native players or citizens or don't have to play at all.

[Sithara007]

Actually, the rule of "A player can play for a certain country if he is living in the country for more than 6 months" does not make sense at all.

This rule should be fixed or changed. Otherwise, it will have a significant negative impact in the future. That impact is going to be much uglier compared to what it is now. In turn, this is going to always have the effect of making the poor teams who are trying to come forward with native players feel as if they don't even deserve a chance to play this game at all. The rule I think should be either play with native players in the team, and by playing with native players, I mean that all the 11 players must either be native players or citizens or don't have to play at all.

The eligibility rules were changed sometime ago. Before that only citizens were allowed to represent a national side in cricket. And both PCB and the BCCI were behind this move then, as they wanted to appease the Emirates Cricket Board. Now the Emiratis have gone one step ahead. They are demanding test status for the UAE cricket team. Do you really think that this makes any sense? A team that is entirely comprised of foreigners want the test status and $16 million in annual funds from the ICC. It is so unfair to the teams like Scotland and Namibia, who are entirely dependent on native players.

[TheGreatPython]

Actually, the rule of "A player can play for a certain country if he is living in the country for more than 6 months" does not make sense at all.

This rule should be fixed or changed. Otherwise, it will have a significant negative impact in the future. That impact is going to be much uglier compared to what it is now. In turn, this is going to always have the effect of making the poor teams who are trying to come forward with native players feel as if they don't even deserve a chance to play this game at all. The rule I think should be either play with native players in the team, and by playing with native players, I mean that all the 11 players must either be native players or citizens or don't have to play at all.

We need rules like we have in other sports organizations for fair play but sadly right now things are not working positively in ICC as Gulf region countries are hijacking all things with the help of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh as they dependent of them, so they are enjoying benefit just because of this support and many native countries are suffering badly which is never been fair but who cares because in current world money power is ruling.

Mostly if a player lives in country for 5 or 7 years with playing in domestic set up he can represent this country but in cricket case they are not following this and most of the players are enjoying just after 6 months with no permanent resident which is surely a blunder and need to fix.

[ibuddy122505]

It has been reported that Sourav Ganguly will no longer be a part of the BCCI. There may have been some better opportunities coming his way that prompted him to leave the position. However, the reports may be false and unfounded. He is loved more as a player than as a president, but there is a controversy about that. As a president, he was certainly not up to par. As an example of his leadership abilities, let's look at how he handled Virat's captaincy during the World Cup.

[Sithara007]

It has been reported that Sourav Ganguly will no longer be a part of the BCCI. There may have been some better opportunities coming his way that prompted him to leave the position. However, the reports may be false and unfounded. He is loved more as a player than as a president, but there is a controversy about that. As a president, he was certainly not up to par. As an example of his leadership abilities, let's look at how he handled Virat's captaincy during the World Cup.

Sourav Ganguly should leave BCCI to Jay Shah or Anurag Thakur and take up the chairman post within the ICC. This time, the BCCI has already stated that they want the chairman post. Rather than nominating someone like Srinivasan or Supriya Sule, it will be a hundred times better to have someone like Ganguly in this post. But the chances are low. As per the supreme court ruling, Ganguly can continue as the BCCI president until 2025. I am not sure whether he will be ready to resign from that role.

[KennyR]

It has been reported that Sourav Ganguly will no longer be a part of the BCCI. There may have been some better opportunities coming his way that prompted him to leave the position. However, the reports may be false and unfounded. He is loved more as a player than as a president, but there is a controversy about that. As a president, he was certainly not up to par. As an example of his leadership abilities, let's look at how he handled Virat's captaincy during the World Cup.

Sourav Ganguly should leave BCCI to Jay Shah or Anurag Thakur and take up the chairman post within the ICC. This time, the BCCI has already stated that they want the chairman post. Rather than nominating someone like Srinivasan or Supriya Sule, it will be a hundred times better to have someone like Ganguly in this post. But the chances are low. As per the supreme court ruling, Ganguly can continue as the BCCI president until 2025. I am not sure whether he will be ready to resign from that role.

Sourav Ganguly is not fit to be the BCCI President as well as for the Chairman Post of ICC. There is big expectation over him to make cricket better, and he hasn't contributed anything big than just sitting as a puppet. Even on holding the chairman post he isn't gonna make any changes. These people have earned good and why can't they retire and keep their good names in history.

[Sithara007]

Sourav Ganguly is not fit to be the BCCI President as well as for the Chairman Post of ICC. There is big expectation over him to make cricket better, and he hasn't contributed anything big than just sitting as a puppet. Even on holding the chairman post he isn't gonna make any changes. These people have earned good and why can't they retire and keep their good names in history.

In my opinion, Saurav Ganguly is much better than Srinivasan and Barclay. I am OK with others such as Sangakkara as well. But I don't know whether these players will be able to garner enough support to topple Barclay. And I will not say that Saurav's stint as the BCCI president was that bad. At least he tried a few things, for the overall benefit of the domestic players. All that said, I would prefer a former player as the next chairman of the ICC. We had enough of these businessmen such as Barclay and Srinivasan.

[kro55]

Actually, the rule of "A player can play for a certain country if he is living in the country for more than 6 months" does not make sense at all.
This rule should be fixed or changed. Otherwise, it will have a significant negative impact in the future. That impact is going to be much uglier compared to what it is now. In turn, this is going to always have the effect of making the poor teams who are trying to come forward with native players feel as if they don't even deserve a chance to play this game at all. The rule I think should be either play with native players in the team, and by playing with native players, I mean that all the 11 players must either be native players or citizens or don't have to play at all.

The eligibility rules were changed sometime ago. Before that only citizens were allowed to represent a national side in cricket. And both PCB and the BCCI were behind this move then, as they wanted to appease the Emirates Cricket Board. Now the Emiratis have gone one step ahead. They are demanding test status for the UAE cricket team. Do you really think that this makes any sense? A team that is entirely comprised of foreigners want the test status and $16 million in annual funds from the ICC. It is so unfair to the teams like Scotland and Namibia, who are entirely dependent on native players.

This is really unbelievable. There is no way any foreign player should even be able to play for the country when he is not a citizen. It is obviously very unfair for any team which cannot afford to bring in foreign players to play for themselves. That's why right now we are watching a huge decline in performance for the teams which are trying to make a team out of native players.

-snip

We need rules like we have in other sports organizations for fair play but sadly right now things are not working positively in ICC as Gulf region countries are hijacking all things with the help of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh as they dependent of them, so they are enjoying benefit just because of this support and many native countries are suffering badly which is never been fair but who cares because in current world money power is ruling.
Mostly if a player lives in country for 5 or 7 years with playing in domestic set up he can represent this country but in cricket case they are not following this and most of the players are enjoying just after 6 months with no permanent resident which is surely a blunder and need to fix.

I think a big reason why foreign players are allowed to play for a certain team is because the England team has a lot of foreign players playing for themselves. If this was not possible, I certainly believe that England probably could not even win the world cup. But at least the foreign players that play for England are actually citizens of England. However, that is not the case for other associate countries.

[Sithara007]

This is really unbelievable. There is no way any foreign player should even be able to play for the country when he is not a citizen. It is obviously very unfair for any team which cannot afford to bring in foreign players to play for themselves. That's why right now we are watching a huge decline in performance for the teams which are trying to make a team out of native players.

That is why teams such as Kenya and Denmark, which showed a lot of promise earlier died out completely. Including one or two foreigners is still OK (although that is not allowed in other sports). But building a team with 100% foreigners doesn't make any sense. Then how can this team be called as a "national team". I am more surprised that no one is complaining about it. The ICC doesn't care about countries such as Kenya and Nepal, and the test nations are not very supportive as well.

[coinerer]

I think a big reason why foreign players are allowed to play for a certain team is because the England team has a lot of foreign players playing for themselves. If this was not possible, I certainly believe that England probably could not even win the world cup. But at least the foreign players that play for England are actually citizens of England. However, that is not the case for other associate countries.

ICC should formulate a policy in this regard. They should restrict foreign cricketers to play on behalf of any national team if they are not got citizenship. What England has done is those who are playing there. All of them are citizens of England. There is no question here. But some countries are directly managing cricket with outside players. Which can destroy the acceptability of cricket.

[savetheFORUM]

Sourav Ganguly is not fit to be the BCCI President as well as for the Chairman Post of ICC. There is big expectation over him to make cricket better, and he hasn't contributed anything big than just sitting as a puppet. Even on holding the chairman post he isn't gonna make any changes. These people have earned good and why can't they retire and keep their good names in history.

In my opinion, Saurav Ganguly is much better than Srinivasan and Barclay. I am OK with others such as Sangakkara as well. But I don't know whether these players will be able to garner enough support to topple Barclay. And I will not say that Saurav's stint as the BCCI president was that bad. At least he tried a few things, for the overall benefit of the domestic players. All that said, I would prefer a former player as the next chairman of the ICC. We had enough of these businessmen such as Barclay and Srinivasan.

Even BCCI is claimed as one of the richest and well set organization but sadly too much political influence is having many troubles around them as well which is never been ideal for them because as they have resources and democracy system they need to bring few former players in front which work for them and have good positive changes in this all set up which is surely brought more success and money but rather than work on this here too much political influence and personal likes and dislikes creating every day new headache with the mostly we have big decisions from Supreme Court of India.

Right now they have too many good and potentially strong cricketers those can lead this organization and India can manage things quickly and development can go fast and better with this all just like things working in the USA.

[Sithara007]

Even BCCI is claimed as one of the richest and well set organization but sadly too much political influence is having many troubles around them as well which is never been ideal for them because as they have resources and democracy system they need to bring few former players in front which work for them and have good positive changes in this all set up which is surely brought more success and money but rather than work on this here too much political influence and personal likes and dislikes creating every day new headache with the mostly we have big decisions from Supreme Court of India.

Right now they have too many good and potentially strong cricketers those can lead this organization and India can manage things quickly and development can go fast and better with this all just like things working in the USA.

In India, one issue is that the former players themselves are not much interested in administration role. On the other hand, the politicians and businessmen are more than ready to fill that vacuum. And not everyone has the ability to combine sports with business sense. Sachin Tendulkar was a big failure, when he was given such a responsibility earlier. Players such as Rahul Dravid and Javagal Srinath don't want to get involved. Ganguly is one of the few who was willing to take this responsibility and that is why he is the president of the BCCI as of now.