Cricket match prediction discussions

[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.

[laurenB7742]

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.

In India, there is a problem in the sense that politicians have a lot of power. A lot of times those politicians are not someone who are well-educated. When it comes to money, they can do almost anything for it. It is a fact that the Indian cricketers are very well aware of. I think that is a big reason why a lot of Indian players do not want to get into any kind of administrative role for the BCCI.

The players are generally well-behaved individuals. And they know that if they are going to be in the administrative role of BCCI it is obvious that they are not going to have the same thought process as a lot of other people/politicians are going to have. That is going to be very problematic for them, to say the least, and their lives may even be at risk as a result. This is due to the fact that Ganguly played his cards well, which is why he is the current President of the BCCI.

[Naficopa]

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.
[/quote]

I think head of any board is purely an administrative role and you don't need former cricketers to fill this role. We see icc select businessmen to be ICC head. BCCI has so far done quite a good job and the credit definitely goes to all of there chairman's.

[kro55]

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.

I think I will not even worry about having 5 foreign players on the team. I can let that slide. In spite of that, having 11 out of 11 players be from another country is absolutely unbelievable. It is quite surprising that ICC is not doing anything about this. Why are they not doing anything about this? Is it just money?

There are two things at play here. In the first place, the ICC wants money only. Cricket is not important to them. In addition, the big four do not want too much competition in cricket. To some extent, they control the ICC.

These are the reasons why associate teams are always neglected in cricket, regardless of how much improvement they show in their performance. In the world of cricket, Kenya, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, and a number of other countries are quite neglected and underachieved.

[Sithara007]

I think I will not even worry about having 5 foreign players on the team. I can let that slide. In spite of that, having 11 out of 11 players be from another country is absolutely unbelievable. It is quite surprising that ICC is not doing anything about this. Why are they not doing anything about this? Is it just money?

There are two things at play here. In the first place, the ICC wants money only. Cricket is not important to them. In addition, the big four do not want too much competition in cricket. To some extent, they control the ICC.

These are the reasons why associate teams are always neglected in cricket, regardless of how much improvement they show in their performance. In the world of cricket, Kenya, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, and a number of other countries are quite neglected and underachieved.

Ideally there should not be any foreigners in a national team. If there are foreigners, then we can no longer call that team as "national". The ICC just want to show that more countries are playing cricket. They are just trying to fool others, as in 80% of the cases these new teams are comprised of players from India or Pakistan. The ICC claims to have 100 plus countries playing cricket. In reality, the number maybe less than three dozen. All the other teams are completely comprised of foreigners and can't be considered as "national" teams.

[|MINER|]

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.

I think I will not even worry about having 5 foreign players on the team. I can let that slide. In spite of that, having 11 out of 11 players be from another country is absolutely unbelievable. It is quite surprising that ICC is not doing anything about this. Why are they not doing anything about this? Is it just money?

There are two things at play here. In the first place, the ICC wants money only. Cricket is not important to them. In addition, the big four do not want too much competition in cricket. To some extent, they control the ICC.

These are the reasons why associate teams are always neglected in cricket, regardless of how much improvement they show in their performance. In the world of cricket, Kenya, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, and a number of other countries are quite neglected and underachieved.

Because of this, the attitude of ICC become questionable. But according to the name of ICC it was established in 1987. But even after all these years, the limit of corruption here has not decreased but has increased more than before.
A country should have a limit on external players. If all the players are taken from outside then what is the need of that country to play? And it is surprising to think that there is no ICC regulation in this matter.

[justdimin]

Ideally there should not be any foreigners in a national team. If there are foreigners, then we can no longer call that team as "national". The ICC just want to show that more countries are playing cricket. They are just trying to fool others, as in 80% of the cases these new teams are comprised of players from India or Pakistan. The ICC claims to have 100 plus countries playing cricket. In reality, the number maybe less than three dozen. All the other teams are completely comprised of foreigners and can't be considered as "national" teams.

Realities are completely different from ICC claims because they are having no fairness and positive things in this sport which is surely going to be the worst thing which is happening around the world under ICC because I was reading on different sports and their rules which are applying mostly needs a player only can represent adopted country if he plays or stay for around 5 to 10 years or in few cases they have few soft stances but still these are not as we have in ICC.
 
First this was controlled by Australia and England, so they were doing all things which were beneficial for them now it's all under control of Indian influence, so they are using this platform for their own benefit which is surely not favourable for cricket we need a powerful board where all have equal rights and can do positive things for the game.

[Sithara007]

~~~
First this was controlled by Australia and England, so they were doing all things which were beneficial for them now it's all under control of Indian influence, so they are using this platform for their own benefit which is surely not favourable for cricket we need a powerful board where all have equal rights and can do positive things for the game.

The ICC was never fully under the control of BCCI. For a limited period, the mafia cabal led by Srinivasan and Pawar dominated the ICC, but even in this case they were somewhat dependent on support from CA and ECB. And since two-thirds majority was required for important decisions, they had to appease at least some of the tier-2 test nations (especially Zimbabwe and West Indies). On multiple occasions, the BCCI had to bribe some of the smaller boards with offer of tours from the Indian national team.

[kro55]

-snip

Ideally there should not be any foreigners in a national team. If there are foreigners, then we can no longer call that team as "national". The ICC just want to show that more countries are playing cricket. They are just trying to fool others, as in 80% of the cases these new teams are comprised of players from India or Pakistan. The ICC claims to have 100 plus countries playing cricket. In reality, the number maybe less than three dozen. All the other teams are completely comprised of foreigners and can't be considered as "national" teams.

I also agree with @Sithara007 that there should not be any players from another country. That defeats the purpose of a national team. But this problem is not likely to be solved quickly. That's why I think ICC will have to take things slow.

Suddenly decide not to have any foreign players on the team will make the teams which are made up of foreign players lose interest in cricket.

So, I think the ICC can take some action by restricting the number of foreign players to 4-5 players in every team. And that's if ICC actually wants that to happen.

Realities are completely different from ICC claims because they are having no fairness and positive things in this sport which is surely going to be the worst thing which is happening around the world under ICC because I was reading on different sports and their rules which are applying mostly needs a player only can represent adopted country if he plays or stay for around 5 to 10 years or in few cases they have few soft stances but still these are not as we have in ICC.
 
First this was controlled by Australia and England, so they were doing all things which were beneficial for them now it's all under control of Indian influence, so they are using this platform for their own benefit which is surely not favourable for cricket we need a powerful board where all have equal rights and can do positive things for the game.

I think this conversation about having foreign players on the team has been dragged on for quite a long time. Honestly, nothing is going to happen unless the ICC actually wants something to change. I doubt that the ICC will take any action regarding this matter soon. It will obviously be better if they just somehow manage to not have any foreign players in a national team. This would be great for the future of cricket.

[Sithara007]

I think this conversation about having foreign players on the team has been dragged on for quite a long time. Honestly, nothing is going to happen unless the ICC actually wants something to change. I doubt that the ICC will take any action regarding this matter soon. It will obviously be better if they just somehow manage to not have any foreign players in a national team. This would be great for the future of cricket.

ICC is moving in the opposite direction. They were even considering giving test status to teams such as UAE and Oman. Imagine this, UAE and Oman receiving $16 million per year from the ICC, while Nepal and Kenya receiving just $200,000 per year. And they will use these millions to purchase even more players from India and Pakistan, which will force teams with native players such as Nepal to stop competing in international competitions. Rather than any other rule, the eligibility criteria has negatively impacted the associate nations and destroyed the game in their territories.