Cricket match prediction discussions

[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.

[1714663262]

1714663262

[1714663262]

1714663262

[1714663262]

1714663262

[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.

[Sithara007]

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.

ICC will not support any such decision, because they will face stiff opposition from tier-2 teams such as West Indies, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. These teams will lose a lot of revenue in case they can't play tests against India and Australia. But I don't know whether continuing with the current system will be beneficial for test cricket in anyway. And you may be right about Ireland. They haven't performed that well in test matches. But then we will be having a 5-team group for tier-2 and 7 team setup for tier-3. I don't want such imbalance.

[posi]

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.

ICC will not support any such decision, because they will face stiff opposition from tier-2 teams such as West Indies, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. These teams will lose a lot of revenue in case they can't play tests against India and Australia. But I don't know whether continuing with the current system will be beneficial for test cricket in anyway. And you may be right about Ireland. They haven't performed that well in test matches. But then we will be having a 5-team group for tier-2 and 7 team setup for tier-3. I don't want such imbalance.

This tier system was talked about in this thread from quite a long time ago and also multiple times. But in the end, I think we all know that ICC is not going to do anything like that because that is not going to be what the cricket board would want. We all know that when bigger teams like India and Australia are on a losing Streak, they play against weaker opponents to gain confidence. But that will not be possible with the tier system being implemented. But I don’t think ICC would have had any problems with this.

[Hamza2424]

BAN vs IDN ODI series I am quite surprised by these matches BAN is dominating the series by 2-0. On the other side, Namibia won the match by a massive margin, I am not much surprised by this as Namibia was the favorite for this match as compared to Nepal, I am curious about the IND vs BAN as they won by just 5 runs.

[ZAINmalik75]

BAN vs IDN ODI series I am quite surprised by these matches BAN is dominating the series by 2-0.

Due to overconfident I think India lose the match because they underestimate the Bangladesh batting and bowling lineup and at they end they lose the match from 7th no ranking team in ODI ranking which is quite worry moment for strong team like India . And due to bad feilding and bad captaincy and lack of runs of virat they lose the matches. I think India will learn from his mistakes in ODI and will prepare himself better for upcoming matches because soon the ODI world cup is on the way

[eaLiTy]

~
Due to overconfident I think India lose the match because they underestimate the Bangladesh batting and bowling lineup and at they end they lose the match from 7th no ranking team in ODI ranking which is quite worry moment for strong team like India . And due to bad feilding and bad captaincy and lack of runs of virat they lose the matches. I think India will learn from his mistakes in ODI and will prepare himself better for upcoming matches because soon the ODI world cup is on the way

Bangladesh played really well and the entire series the one batsman that turned both the matches upside down is Mehidy Hasan Miraz and if not for his innings in this match and in the last match, India would have won the match and the series. So it is important to give credit to the player that changed the series for their side and it is not about the overconfidence of India that lost the match but it can be blamed on the captaincy of Rohit Sharma.

[n0ne]

BAN vs IDN ODI series I am quite surprised by these matches BAN is dominating the series by 2-0. On the other side, Namibia won the match by a massive margin, I am not much surprised by this as Namibia was the favorite for this match as compared to Nepal, I am curious about the IND vs BAN as they won by just 5 runs.

It is a surprising win, India almost lost the match and Rohit Sharma drove it to the loss at the last over. Losing by a small margin of 5 runs happened at the end which was supposed to be a big loss. Bangladesh have the advantage of home ground and in majority of the matches Bangladesh have marked it's winning. Once again this have been proven by the series win from Bangladesh.

[SirLancelot]

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.

This is point which I am also want to highlight because now we are living fast life, and we can't go with the test match as we have many teams in shorter format which are giving their best, and we can include more teams in this format as well which will be positive development for the game and ICC as well.
We need to have few improvements in these both formats because we will be able to have more teams we will have more competition better marketplace as well and better minds also in ICC because currently just few are here, but these are not productive and positive for the development of the cricket.

If we are able to have around 20 to 25 teams in these both formats then surely this could be amazing stuff, and we will be able to have much better media rights and many strong sponsors as well because this will surely increase fans club and views on different sources which increase income of the ICC and many countries as well.

[Sithara007]

This is point which I am also want to highlight because now we are living fast life, and we can't go with the test match as we have many teams in shorter format which are giving their best, and we can include more teams in this format as well which will be positive development for the game and ICC as well.
We need to have few improvements in these both formats because we will be able to have more teams we will have more competition better marketplace as well and better minds also in ICC because currently just few are here, but these are not productive and positive for the development of the cricket.

If we are able to have around 20 to 25 teams in these both formats then surely this could be amazing stuff, and we will be able to have much better media rights and many strong sponsors as well because this will surely increase fans club and views on different sources which increase income of the ICC and many countries as well.

I don't know whether having 20-25 teams playing the longer format is a good idea. A decade or so ago, we had this ICC Intercontinental Cup. It was a 4-day competition involving stronger associate teams such as Afghanistan, Canada, Ireland and Kenya. But even this competition had only 8-10 teams. The quality of cricket was very good, but for some unknown reason the ICC decided to shelve this competition from 2017 onwards. But now I don't think that the associate teams are capable of playing 4-day cricket. A decade of negligence from the ICC has taken its toll.

[JSRAW]

This is point which I am also want to highlight because now we are living fast life, and we can't go with the test match as we have many teams in shorter format which are giving their best, and we can include more teams in this format as well which will be positive development for the game and ICC as well.
We need to have few improvements in these both formats because we will be able to have more teams we will have more competition better marketplace as well and better minds also in ICC because currently just few are here, but these are not productive and positive for the development of the cricket.

If we are able to have around 20 to 25 teams in these both formats then surely this could be amazing stuff, and we will be able to have much better media rights and many strong sponsors as well because this will surely increase fans club and views on different sources which increase income of the ICC and many countries as well.

I don't know whether having 20-25 teams playing the longer format is a good idea. A decade or so ago, we had this ICC Intercontinental Cup. It was a 4-day competition involving stronger associate teams such as Afghanistan, Canada, Ireland and Kenya. But even this competition had only 8-10 teams. The quality of cricket was very good, but for some unknown reason the ICC decided to shelve this competition from 2017 onwards. But now I don't think that the associate teams are capable of playing 4-day cricket. A decade of negligence from the ICC has taken its toll.

I believe SirLancelot is talking about including 20-25 teams in the limited overs cricket and ICC tournaments, not test setup. Including so many teams in tests would be a disaster and a waste of finance and all resources, unless ICC and these boards are willing to take a hit for the next 2-3 decades.

[ilovealtcoins]

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.

I don’t know about any government, but I am sure that ICC is certainly under the influence of the Indian cricket board. Because the Indian cricket board brings in the most amount of money for them. So, I believe that they are often quite scared to lose the most amount of revenue which is generated by the BCCI. So probably ICC has to favor India in some cases, even if they do not want to.

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.

I also think that ICC should concentrate on finding shorter formats of cricket. Because this cricket is already a lost cause. No one is going to be able to bring back the glory days of test cricket. T-20 is really popular right now. And before ODI loses its popularity, ICC should do something about it. But I think the main concentration should be in the T-20 format. Because that is the only format that will actually be able to bring in new teams.

[Sithara007]

I believe SirLancelot is talking about including 20-25 teams in the limited overs cricket and ICC tournaments, not test setup. Including so many teams in tests would be a disaster and a waste of finance and all resources, unless ICC and these boards are willing to take a hit for the next 2-3 decades.

In that case it is OK. And even for the top-6 teams, I would like to see a reduction in the number of test matches that are being played every year. Some of the teams such as England plays as many as 10-12 test matches in a calendar year. That equals to 50-60 days spent on the longer format. IMO, this is entirely unnecessary. Test series should comprise of no more than 2 test matches. 5-match series should be limited to Ashes, Border-Gavaskar and Trans-Tasman (and for any series involving India and Pakistan if the BCCI and PCB reach an agreement).