Cricket match prediction discussions

[Party24*7]

But even now the ICC funds ($16 million per year) represent more than half of their budget. For countries such as England and Australia, the ICC funds (roughly the same amount as PCB receives), represent a tiny fraction of the overall revenue.

When you compare PCB's revenue with boards like England and Australia, you should not forget that Pakistan was unable to host any series in thier home grounds for a long time. While thats wasn't the case with these two boards.

In comparison to Pakistan's Cricket Board, England or Australia's cricket boards generate a lot more revenue than Pakistan's Cricket Board. Due to the fact that Pakistan has not hosted for a very long time. Without that, it would be very difficult for the PCB to generate revenue. There is a possibility that the Pakistan Cricket Board will be able to generate more revenue in the future if PCL becomes more popular. But we all know that PCL is nowhere near built in terms of popularity.

[savetheFORUM]

After Rameez Raja took over as the president of the PCB, their financial situation has improved. But even now the ICC funds ($16 million per year) represent more than half of their budget. For countries such as England and Australia, the ICC funds (roughly the same amount as PCB receives), represent a tiny fraction of the overall revenue. The main reason for this lower revenue is the complex TV broadcasting rules in Pakistan, which mandates the content to be shared with national television (PTV). Lack of tours from India is another reason.

In Pakistan most of the things are never been done on professional basis because mostly we have political influence or personal relationships which are hurting this all badly even in PCB we have too many peoples those are having not experience, but they are sitting on high profile seats and taking good salaries for nothing because there is no check and balance system with all is having personal interests with few lobbies are also having their influence line long time competition Lahore and Karachi based lobbies mostly try to have their own peoples in better place just because of this we have weak financial system and many other problems which are creating things which are never been ideal for progress of the game and for increase of income and profit.

[doomloop]

India Pakistan politics and tension always comes in their cricket and that's why their matches are more like a cricket war . Why can't cricket be separated from politics and other tensions ?   How much players get affected by these extra tensions?
Now ICC should strictly deal this matter of Asia Cup and world cup and shouldnot come under pressure of any cricket board.

These all tension between these two countries is nothing new because it's all happening from the first day of Independence and in last three decades it's all having the biggest impact on cricket because in India recently we have big hype about cricket specially after introduction of IPL they are rich and having strong influence in ICC which is giving them good advantage and this is surely not favourable for the game of cricket because here if ICC use their power like we have in FIFA, FIH and other spots organizations, and they can ban these two countries from hosting these big events until they settle their problem and start playing like normal countries.

But ICC is really a crap, and they are not doing any positive thing for the game which is now creating more mess up which could be ended in negative for the game in near future.

[Smack That Ace]

India Pakistan politics and tension always comes in their cricket and that's why their matches are more like a cricket war . Why can't cricket be separated from politics and other tensions ?   How much players get affected by these extra tensions?
Now ICC should strictly deal this matter of Asia Cup and world cup and shouldnot come under pressure of any cricket board.

These all tension between these two countries is nothing new because it's all happening from the first day of Independence and in last three decades it's all having the biggest impact on cricket because in India recently we have big hype about cricket specially after introduction of IPL they are rich and having strong influence in ICC which is giving them good advantage and this is surely not favourable for the game of cricket because here if ICC use their power like we have in FIFA, FIH and other spots organizations, and they can ban these two countries from hosting these big events until they settle their problem and start playing like normal countries.

But ICC is really a crap, and they are not doing any positive thing for the game which is now creating more mess up which could be ended in negative for the game in near future.

As far as I am concerned, I believe the ICC is not doing a good job handling things as they should. They are obviously not interested in interfering in this matter between India and Pakistan. And another thing is that it almost always feels like ICC is in favour of India.

However, even if ICC does not intend that to happen, people will feel that way. Because ICC is obviously not doing anything to fix any problem for Pakistan. And India also makes the most money for the ICC as well.

So at this point, the intention of the ICC or BCCI does not matter. Because people are always seeking to implement weird theories and try to make it look like the ICC is favouring India in a lot of cases. I am neither agreeing nor denying that the ICC helps India. I am just saying that the ICC should try to keep that field event for everyone.


regards

duke

[teosanru]

India Pakistan politics and tension always comes in their cricket and that's why their matches are more like a cricket war . Why can't cricket be separated from politics and other tensions ?   How much players get affected by these extra tensions?
Now ICC should strictly deal this matter of Asia Cup and world cup and shouldnot come under pressure of any cricket board.

These all tension between these two countries is nothing new because it's all happening from the first day of Independence and in last three decades it's all having the biggest impact on cricket because in India recently we have big hype about cricket specially after introduction of IPL they are rich and having strong influence in ICC which is giving them good advantage and this is surely not favourable for the game of cricket because here if ICC use their power like we have in FIFA, FIH and other spots organizations, and they can ban these two countries from hosting these big events until they settle their problem and start playing like normal countries.

But ICC is really a crap, and they are not doing any positive thing for the game which is now creating more mess up which could be ended in negative for the game in near future.

As far as I am concerned, I believe the ICC is not doing a good job handling things as they should. They are obviously not interested in interfering in this matter between India and Pakistan. And another thing is that it almost always feels like ICC is in favour of India.

However, even if ICC does not intend that to happen, people will feel that way. Because ICC is obviously not doing anything to fix any problem for Pakistan. And India also makes the most money for the ICC as well.

So at this point, the intention of the ICC or BCCI does not matter. Because people are always seeking to implement weird theories and try to make it look like the ICC is favouring India in a lot of cases. I am neither agreeing nor denying that the ICC helps India. I am just saying that the ICC should try to keep that field event for everyone.


regards

duke

I think it's obvious that ICC is favouring India by being silent on the issue. But I would rather say that the problem between both countries isn't just limited to cricket boards, these directions are coming directly from the top government officials and have sovereign backing. It's not that BCCI woke up one day and decided on this. So I think even if ICC steps in, i don't see a lot of chances that this issue might get resolved.

[Vaskiy]

India Pakistan politics and tension always comes in their cricket and that's why their matches are more like a cricket war . Why can't cricket be separated from politics and other tensions ?   How much players get affected by these extra tensions?
Now ICC should strictly deal this matter of Asia Cup and world cup and shouldnot come under pressure of any cricket board.

These all tension between these two countries is nothing new because it's all happening from the first day of Independence and in last three decades it's all having the biggest impact on cricket because in India recently we have big hype about cricket specially after introduction of IPL they are rich and having strong influence in ICC which is giving them good advantage and this is surely not favourable for the game of cricket because here if ICC use their power like we have in FIFA, FIH and other spots organizations, and they can ban these two countries from hosting these big events until they settle their problem and start playing like normal countries.

But ICC is really a crap, and they are not doing any positive thing for the game which is now creating more mess up which could be ended in negative for the game in near future.

As far as I am concerned, I believe the ICC is not doing a good job handling things as they should. They are obviously not interested in interfering in this matter between India and Pakistan. And another thing is that it almost always feels like ICC is in favour of India.

However, even if ICC does not intend that to happen, people will feel that way. Because ICC is obviously not doing anything to fix any problem for Pakistan. And India also makes the most money for the ICC as well.

So at this point, the intention of the ICC or BCCI does not matter. Because people are always seeking to implement weird theories and try to make it look like the ICC is favouring India in a lot of cases. I am neither agreeing nor denying that the ICC helps India. I am just saying that the ICC should try to keep that field event for everyone.


regards

duke

I think it's obvious that ICC is favouring India by being silent on the issue. But I would rather say that the problem between both countries isn't just limited to cricket boards, these directions are coming directly from the top government officials and have sovereign backing. It's not that BCCI woke up one day and decided on this. So I think even if ICC steps in, i don't see a lot of chances that this issue might get resolved.

ICC always favours India, which is a known truth. ICC is under the political influence from the ruling government. Everytime there arises some controversy, the government does politics out of it and convert the people into votes. ICC needs to be allowed to function without the political pressure. If that happens surely we don't see such problems arising.

[Sithara007]

ICC always favours India, which is a known truth. ICC is under the political influence from the ruling government. Everytime there arises some controversy, the government does politics out of it and convert the people into votes. ICC needs to be allowed to function without the political pressure. If that happens surely we don't see such problems arising.

ICC goes with the majority opinion. Out of the 10 test nations apart from India and Pakistan, how any would actually side openly with Pakistan? So we can't really blame the ICC. Even last month, the BCCI got their proxy (Greg Barclay) elected as the chairman of the ICC. Boards such as the PCB couldn't even put up a candidate against the BCCI proxy. The way to move forward is to include more teams with test status. But if they give test status to teams such as UAE and Oman, then once again it will give more power to the BCCI.

[JSRAW]

The way to move forward is to include more teams with test status. But if they give test status to teams such as UAE and Oman, then once again it will give more power to the BCCI.

Lol that's funny. Ireland and Afghanistan are now full members and how many tests these guys have played? Just 9 in last 5 years.

What's the benefit of giving full test nation status to everyone when they are not even playing, Unless you are looking for funding.

Funding is important but if anyone wants to support new teams then ICC funding should be diverted toward LOIs (white ball), not Test format.

[Tony116]

As far as I am concerned, I believe the ICC is not doing a good job handling things as they should. They are obviously not interested in interfering in this matter between India and Pakistan. And another thing is that it almost always feels like ICC is in favour of India.
However, even if ICC does not intend that to happen, people will feel that way. Because ICC is obviously not doing anything to fix any problem for Pakistan. And India also makes the most money for the ICC as well.

So at this point, the intention of the ICC or BCCI does not matter. Because people are always seeking to implement weird theories and try to make it look like the ICC is favouring India in a lot of cases. I am neither agreeing nor denying that the ICC helps India. I am just saying that the ICC should try to keep that field event for everyone.

I think it's obvious that ICC is favouring India by being silent on the issue. But I would rather say that the problem between both countries isn't just limited to cricket boards, these directions are coming directly from the top government officials and have sovereign backing. It's not that BCCI woke up one day and decided on this. So I think even if ICC steps in, i don't see a lot of chances that this issue might get resolved.

ICC is not going to interfere in this matter. Because obviously, this goes way deeper than we eventually think. Both countries have a sense of hatred towards each other, which was created by the media and the politicians. And now citizens of both countries know that this problem is not going to be solved soon. So, if ICC started interfering in this matter, it might be problematic for them. It might actually start new problems between both countries that they probably do not want right now. No need to start issues between countries that already have issues, over cricket.

[Sithara007]

Lol that's funny. Ireland and Afghanistan are now full members and how many tests these guys have played? Just 9 in last 5 years.

What's the benefit of giving full test nation status to everyone when they are not even playing, Unless you are looking for funding.

Funding is important but if anyone wants to support new teams then ICC funding should be diverted toward LOIs (white ball), not Test format.

After they became test nations, the ICC funding for Afghanistan and Ireland went up by 10x or so. And that is why I am saying that promising associate nations should be provided with test status, although the tier-1 test nations may refuse to play against them. IMO, the following associate nations can be considered for promotion to tier-2 tests: Netherlands, Scotland, Nepal, Namibia, Papua New Guinea and Uganda. I would rather ignore teams such as United Arab Emirates, Oman and the United States, since they don't have any natives.

[laurenB7742]

Lol that's funny. Ireland and Afghanistan are now full members and how many tests these guys have played? Just 9 in last 5 years.

What's the benefit of giving full test nation status to everyone when they are not even playing, Unless you are looking for funding.

Funding is important but if anyone wants to support new teams then ICC funding should be diverted toward LOIs (white ball), not Test format.

After they became test nations, the ICC funding for Afghanistan and Ireland went up by 10x or so. And that is why I am saying that promising associate nations should be provided with test status, although the tier-1 test nations may refuse to play against them. IMO, the following associate nations can be considered for promotion to tier-2 tests: Netherlands, Scotland, Nepal, Namibia, Papua New Guinea and Uganda. I would rather ignore teams such as United Arab Emirates, Oman and the United States, since they don't have any natives.

As a general viewer, I don't want to see any test series tier 1 teams vs. tier 2 teams. Because these Test matches are completely one-sided. England, New Zealand, Australia and India, Pakistan, and South Africa, these 6 teams should host Test series against each other. When they play test matches against teams outside these 6 teams, most of the matches are completely one-sided. ICC should be more conscious of organizing test series. Because if the matches are organized unilaterally, the spectators are not interested in the matches. India vs Bangladesh ODI series is shaping up to be very competitive. But India will easily win the test match between these two teams.

[Sithara007]

After they became test nations, the ICC funding for Afghanistan and Ireland went up by 10x or so. And that is why I am saying that promising associate nations should be provided with test status, although the tier-1 test nations may refuse to play against them. IMO, the following associate nations can be considered for promotion to tier-2 tests: Netherlands, Scotland, Nepal, Namibia, Papua New Guinea and Uganda. I would rather ignore teams such as United Arab Emirates, Oman and the United States, since they don't have any natives.

As a general viewer, I don't want to see any test series tier 1 teams vs. tier 2 teams. Because these Test matches are completely one-sided. England, New Zealand, Australia and India, Pakistan, and South Africa, these 6 teams should host Test series against each other. When they play test matches against teams outside these 6 teams, most of the matches are completely one-sided. ICC should be more conscious of organizing test series. Because if the matches are organized unilaterally, the spectators are not interested in the matches. India vs Bangladesh ODI series is shaping up to be very competitive. But India will easily win the test match between these two teams.

Sometime back, I had posted one of my suggestions. The biggest problem right now is that test status is permanent and incompetent teams such as Zimbabwe remain as a test nation despite associate nations such as Scotland performing much better than them. I would suggest three divisions of test cricket:

Tier 1 (top 6 teams from 2019–2021 ICC World Test Championship): India, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Pakistan and England
Tier 2 (bottom 3 teams from WTC, other teams with test status): Sri Lanka, West Indies, Bangladesh, Ireland, Zimbabwe and Afghanistan
Tier 3 (new teams): Netherlands, Scotland, Nepal, Namibia, Papua New Guinea and Uganda

More importantly, there should be a promotion-relegation system. It will ensure that only the most competent teams remain in these divisions.

[SirLancelot]

Sometime back, I had posted one of my suggestions. The biggest problem right now is that test status is permanent and incompetent teams such as Zimbabwe remain as a test nation despite associate nations such as Scotland performing much better than them. I would suggest three divisions of test cricket:

Tier 1 (top 6 teams from 2019–2021 ICC World Test Championship): India, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Pakistan and England
Tier 2 (bottom 3 teams from WTC, other teams with test status): Sri Lanka, West Indies, Bangladesh, Ireland, Zimbabwe and Afghanistan
Tier 3 (new teams): Netherlands, Scotland, Nepal, Namibia, Papua New Guinea and Uganda

More importantly, there should be a promotion-relegation system. It will ensure that only the most competent teams remain in these divisions.

Even I believe in this Tier system but not for the test formation because now it's not need anything for development or better future we have to do these Tier systems for the ODI and Twenty/20 because these two formats can bring good marketing strategy and better results here in test format I believe we will lose few more teams in near future like Ireland and Afghanistan having not good future with Zimbabwe, West Indies and Bangladesh are next teams which will never have any positive future with their domestic problems and talent which is not coming and mostly youths are interested into shorter formats.

For these two formats they can do good things with top 10 teams into Tier 1 and then 6 teams into Tier 2 and then again 6 teams into Tier 3 with in these both formats they need to encourage native players and funds could be distributed with the positive results because these things will bring good change and all countries will be able to bring good results for the better funds quota.

[Sithara007]

Even I believe in this Tier system but not for the test formation because now it's not need anything for development or better future we have to do these Tier systems for the ODI and Twenty/20 because these two formats can bring good marketing strategy and better results here in test format I believe we will lose few more teams in near future like Ireland and Afghanistan having not good future with Zimbabwe, West Indies and Bangladesh are next teams which will never have any positive future with their domestic problems and talent which is not coming and mostly youths are interested into shorter formats.

For these two formats they can do good things with top 10 teams into Tier 1 and then 6 teams into Tier 2 and then again 6 teams into Tier 3 with in these both formats they need to encourage native players and funds could be distributed with the positive results because these things will bring good change and all countries will be able to bring good results for the better funds quota.

I am against the tier system for ODI and T2OI formats. I support that only for the test format. T20 is a format where even the smaller teams have a chance of defeating the top-3 teams. Therefore I don't understand the requirement for a tier system for limited overs. On the other hand, test matches are getting increasingly one-sided, especially when played between the pig-4 nations (India, Australia, England and New Zealand) and the other teams (Sri Lanka, West Indies.etc). In order to avoid the incidence of such one-sided matches in tests, we need the tier system.

[JSRAW]

Lol that's funny. Ireland and Afghanistan are now full members and how many tests these guys have played? Just 9 in last 5 years.

What's the benefit of giving full test nation status to everyone when they are not even playing, Unless you are looking for funding.

Funding is important but if anyone wants to support new teams then ICC funding should be diverted toward LOIs (white ball), not Test format.

After they became test nations, the ICC funding for Afghanistan and Ireland went up by 10x or so. And that is why I am saying that promising associate nations should be provided with test status, although the tier-1 test nations may refuse to play against them. IMO, the following associate nations can be considered for promotion to tier-2 tests: Netherlands, Scotland, Nepal, Namibia, Papua New Guinea and Uganda. I would rather ignore teams such as United Arab Emirates, Oman and the United States, since they don't have any natives.

Plz, explain to me how additional fund for Afghanistan and Ireland helped in their Test setup when they are not even playing enough test matches.

And it brings me to another topic, when existing test nations are not able to play test matches, then do you think the "Test nation" tag is going to help associate members? Please remember Getting a Test nation status and increased funding goes together. We already have Afg +Ire example and it's counterproductive IMO.

I am in favor of more funding for associates but for white ball cricket.

[Sithara007]

Plz, explain to me how additional fund for Afghanistan and Ireland helped in their Test setup when they are not even playing enough test matches.

And it brings me to another topic, when existing test nations are not able to play test matches, then do you think the "Test nation" tag is going to help associate members? Please remember Getting a Test nation status and increased funding goes together. We already have Afg +Ire example and it's counterproductive IMO.

I am in favor of more funding for associates but for white ball cricket.

You misunderstood me. Even after receiving the test status and additional funds, the test capabilities haven't seen much improvement for Ireland (not sure about Afghanistan). But the most important point here is that Cricket Ireland received additional funds, that were diverted to create a fully professional national squad and for grass-roots development. The improvement was visible during the recently concluded T20 World Cup, and during the Irish women's tour of Pakistan. Their T20 and ODI capabilities have improved, which would have been impossible without the additional fund infusion from the ICC.

[Juggy777]

Even I believe in this Tier system but not for the test formation because now it's not need anything for development or better future we have to do these Tier systems for the ODI and Twenty/20 because these two formats can bring good marketing strategy and better results here in test format I believe we will lose few more teams in near future like Ireland and Afghanistan having not good future with Zimbabwe, West Indies and Bangladesh are next teams which will never have any positive future with their domestic problems and talent which is not coming and mostly youths are interested into shorter formats.

For these two formats they can do good things with top 10 teams into Tier 1 and then 6 teams into Tier 2 and then again 6 teams into Tier 3 with in these both formats they need to encourage native players and funds could be distributed with the positive results because these things will bring good change and all countries will be able to bring good results for the better funds quota.

I am against the tier system for ODI and T2OI formats. I support that only for the test format. T20 is a format where even the smaller teams have a chance of defeating the top-3 teams. Therefore I don't understand the requirement for a tier system for limited overs. On the other hand, test matches are getting increasingly one-sided, especially when played between the pig-4 nations (India, Australia, England and New Zealand) and the other teams (Sri Lanka, West Indies.etc). In order to avoid the incidence of such one-sided matches in tests, we need the tier system.

@Sithara007 maybe the tier system is needed for ODI where we usually don’t see that many upsets, but when it comes to T20 you’re right there’s no need for it as both team’s have an equal chance of winning the match. Furthermore I feel that the big 4 play against the smaller team’s only for creating and breaking new record’s, and that’s why I no longer enjoy watching these one sided test matches.

[JSRAW]

Plz, explain to me how additional fund for Afghanistan and Ireland helped in their Test setup when they are not even playing enough test matches.

And it brings me to another topic, when existing test nations are not able to play test matches, then do you think the "Test nation" tag is going to help associate members? Please remember Getting a Test nation status and increased funding goes together. We already have Afg +Ire example and it's counterproductive IMO.

I am in favor of more funding for associates but for white ball cricket.

You misunderstood me. Even after receiving the test status and additional funds, the test capabilities haven't seen much improvement for Ireland (not sure about Afghanistan). But the most important point here is that Cricket Ireland received additional funds, that were diverted to create a fully professional national squad and for grass-roots development. The improvement was visible during the recently concluded T20 World Cup, and during the Irish women's tour of Pakistan. Their T20 and ODI capabilities have improved, which would have been impossible without the additional fund infusion from the ICC.

I get that point as it's related to the same equation.

I would rather prefer if Afg+Ire and all associate nations focus more on limited overs cricket and got entry into the WC instead of the so-called test nation club. This might sound cocky but we already have enough test-playing nations and standards are not great. International cricket would become much better if ICC and the elite stop fanaticizing with test cricket, saying this despite being a test cricket fan.

[Sithara007]

I get that point as it's related to the same equation.

I would rather prefer if Afg+Ire and all associate nations focus more on limited overs cricket and got entry into the WC instead of the so-called test nation club. This might sound cocky but we already have enough test-playing nations and standards are not great. International cricket would become much better if ICC and the elite stop fanaticizing with test cricket, saying this despite being a test cricket fan.

Not just Afg+Ire+Zim, but also teams such as West Indies, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh should also concentrate more on limited overs cricket. Test cricket should be limited to the top-6 teams, which can afford playing that format (even in this case the boards should have separate XIs for both test cricket and limited overs cricket). That said, the ICC should stop discriminating between test and non-test nations. Honestly I couldn't find much difference in quality between Scotland and Ireland. Why Ireland should receive 10x more funds when compared to Scotland?

[laurenB7742]

After they became test nations, the ICC funding for Afghanistan and Ireland went up by 10x or so. And that is why I am saying that promising associate nations should be provided with test status, although the tier-1 test nations may refuse to play against them. IMO, the following associate nations can be considered for promotion to tier-2 tests: Netherlands, Scotland, Nepal, Namibia, Papua New Guinea and Uganda. I would rather ignore teams such as United Arab Emirates, Oman and the United States, since they don't have any natives.

As a general viewer, I don't want to see any test series tier 1 teams vs. tier 2 teams. Because these Test matches are completely one-sided. England, New Zealand, Australia and India, Pakistan, and South Africa, these 6 teams should host Test series against each other. When they play test matches against teams outside these 6 teams, most of the matches are completely one-sided. ICC should be more conscious of organizing test series. Because if the matches are organized unilaterally, the spectators are not interested in the matches. India vs Bangladesh ODI series is shaping up to be very competitive. But India will easily win the test match between these two teams.

Sometime back, I had posted one of my suggestions. The biggest problem right now is that test status is permanent and incompetent teams such as Zimbabwe remain as a test nation despite associate nations such as Scotland performing much better than them. I would suggest three divisions of test cricket:
Tier 1 (top 6 teams from 2019–2021 ICC World Test Championship): India, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Pakistan and England
Tier 2 (bottom 3 teams from WTC, other teams with test status): Sri Lanka, West Indies, Bangladesh, Ireland, Zimbabwe and Afghanistan
Tier 3 (new teams): Netherlands, Scotland, Nepal, Namibia, Papua New Guinea and Uganda
More importantly, there should be a promotion-relegation system. It will ensure that only the most competent teams remain in these divisions.

I support with your suggestion. That's how it should be. The teams of the first tier are strong. They will perform well against each other. And the chances of a one-sided match are very low. The teams he selects for Tier 2 are all pretty much the same quality. But I would say Ireland team should be given in Tier 3. Because this team is not experienced enough for Test format.

However, the ICC is unlikely to take any such decision. They will host Bangladesh's Test series with teams like Australia in the coming days and we will have to enjoy a boring 5-day Test match.