Cricket match prediction discussions

[Sithara007]

I am obviously not that hopeful that this will be successful but even if you see Hockey there are just 4--5 teams in the top league rest really don't stand a chance for the race in medals. So less competition shouldn't be the criteria for a game not being part of Olympics. Moreover it's a game which can get some viewership and revenues and well for Olympics, but yes I have always felt Olympics as a place where less popular sports get the attention. I don't want cricket to steal their thunder.

So you believe that including cricket in Olympics will be unfair to the other sports? In that case why we have football, basketball and field hockey in Olympics? In terms of popularity, these sports are played in far more countries when compared to cricket. I want cricket to be included in Olympics because in most of the countries government grants are only provided to Olympic sports. And given the bias from ICC (where associate nations usually receive less than 1% of the funds that the full members receive), these grants from the government can be a game changer for countries such as Namibia and Kenya.

Olympics is a place where the best athletes around the world meet once every 4 years. Despite football being the most popular sport in the planet, many of the star players have participated in the Games. Cristiano Ronaldo represented Portugal in 2004, and Lionel Messi took part in the 2008 edition. If we take the case of basketball, NBA legends such as Shaquille O'Neal and LeBron James have been part of Olympic squads. Cricket is being the odd one, having refused to take part in this competition till now.

[Haunebu]

The general consensus among Cricket fans is that if they include Cricket in the Olympics more countries will be taking a keen interest in the sport and allocating budget for the sport which will help the sport in the longer run and with the T20 format it is the best time to introduce Cricket for the global audience.

I understand what you're trying to say here, but it isn't guaranteed that inclusion of the sport in the Olympics will help it in the long run since it could actually have the reverse effect and cause a drop in its popularity.

Frankly, the main reason that cricket was dropped from the Olympics a long time ago was because it didn't attract many viewers.

[DanWalker]

I am obviously not that hopeful that this will be successful but even if you see Hockey there are just 4--5 teams in the top league rest really don't stand a chance for the race in medals. So less competition shouldn't be the criteria for a game not being part of Olympics. Moreover it's a game which can get some viewership and revenues and well for Olympics, but yes I have always felt Olympics as a place where less popular sports get the attention. I don't want cricket to steal their thunder.

So you believe that including cricket in Olympics will be unfair to the other sports? In that case why we have football, basketball and field hockey in Olympics? In terms of popularity, these sports are played in far more countries when compared to cricket. I want cricket to be included in Olympics because in most of the countries government grants are only provided to Olympic sports. And given the bias from ICC (where associate nations usually receive less than 1% of the funds that the full members receive), these grants from the government can be a game changer for countries such as Namibia and Kenya.
Olympics is a place where the best athletes around the world meet once every 4 years. Despite football being the most popular sport in the planet, many of the star players have participated in the Games. Cristiano Ronaldo represented Portugal in 2004, and Lionel Messi took part in the 2008 edition. If we take the case of basketball, NBA legends such as Shaquille O'Neal and LeBron James have been part of Olympic squads. Cricket is being the odd one, having refused to take part in this competition till now.

It is supposed to be a great honor for any player to take part in the Olympics as well. But the problem is, as you said, "cricket has been the odd one". And it is not because the players do not want to play in the Olympics. It is because the cricket authority, the ICC does not want cricket to be included in the Olympics.

I also think that some cricket boards also do not want cricket to be included in the Olympics to some extent. As a sports body, the ICC should want which is the absolute best for the game. But they just want to think about money. That's why cricket took so long to be included in the Olympics. And even when it is being included in the Olympics it is only six teams play in the Olympics. Which is not a great sign. This means the sports body and certain cricket boards still do not want cricket to be included in the Olympics. They are just doing it because they have to.

[BobK71]

I am obviously not that hopeful that this will be successful but even if you see Hockey there are just 4--5 teams in the top league rest really don't stand a chance for the race in medals. So less competition shouldn't be the criteria for a game not being part of Olympics. Moreover it's a game which can get some viewership and revenues and well for Olympics, but yes I have always felt Olympics as a place where less popular sports get the attention. I don't want cricket to steal their thunder.

So you believe that including cricket in Olympics will be unfair to the other sports? In that case why we have football, basketball and field hockey in Olympics? In terms of popularity, these sports are played in far more countries when compared to cricket. I want cricket to be included in Olympics because in most of the countries government grants are only provided to Olympic sports. And given the bias from ICC (where associate nations usually receive less than 1% of the funds that the full members receive), these grants from the government can be a game changer for countries such as Namibia and Kenya.
Olympics is a place where the best athletes around the world meet once every 4 years. Despite football being the most popular sport in the planet, many of the star players have participated in the Games. Cristiano Ronaldo represented Portugal in 2004, and Lionel Messi took part in the 2008 edition. If we take the case of basketball, NBA legends such as Shaquille O'Neal and LeBron James have been part of Olympic squads. Cricket is being the odd one, having refused to take part in this competition till now.

It is supposed to be a great honor for any player to take part in the Olympics as well. But the problem is, as you said, "cricket has been the odd one". And it is not because the players do not want to play in the Olympics. It is because the cricket authority, the ICC does not want cricket to be included in the Olympics.

I also think that some cricket boards also do not want cricket to be included in the Olympics to some extent. As a sports body, the ICC should want which is the absolute best for the game. But they just want to think about money. That's why cricket took so long to be included in the Olympics. And even when it is being included in the Olympics it is only six teams play in the Olympics. Which is not a great sign. This means the sports body and certain cricket boards still do not want cricket to be included in the Olympics. They are just doing it because they have to.

The organizers of the 2028 Olympic games are discouraged from keeping cricket, while the ICC has proposed to the organizers to keep cricket in T20 format with six teams each for men and women. There are many criticisms about it. Various media channel have reported that cricket will not feature in the 2028 Olympic Games. But ESPN revealed in a report that no decision has been taken yet. We will finally know or confirm it next October. It appears that the ICC wants to include cricket but many may be skeptical about what the real picture looks like.

[mm2543363580]

I am obviously not that hopeful that this will be successful but even if you see Hockey there are just 4--5 teams in the top league rest really don't stand a chance for the race in medals. So less competition shouldn't be the criteria for a game not being part of Olympics. Moreover it's a game which can get some viewership and revenues and well for Olympics, but yes I have always felt Olympics as a place where less popular sports get the attention. I don't want cricket to steal their thunder.

So you believe that including cricket in Olympics will be unfair to the other sports? In that case why we have football, basketball and field hockey in Olympics? In terms of popularity, these sports are played in far more countries when compared to cricket. I want cricket to be included in Olympics because in most of the countries government grants are only provided to Olympic sports. And given the bias from ICC (where associate nations usually receive less than 1% of the funds that the full members receive), these grants from the government can be a game changer for countries such as Namibia and Kenya.
Olympics is a place where the best athletes around the world meet once every 4 years. Despite football being the most popular sport in the planet, many of the star players have participated in the Games. Cristiano Ronaldo represented Portugal in 2004, and Lionel Messi took part in the 2008 edition. If we take the case of basketball, NBA legends such as Shaquille O'Neal and LeBron James have been part of Olympic squads. Cricket is being the odd one, having refused to take part in this competition till now.

It is supposed to be a great honor for any player to take part in the Olympics as well. But the problem is, as you said, "cricket has been the odd one". And it is not because the players do not want to play in the Olympics. It is because the cricket authority, the ICC does not want cricket to be included in the Olympics.

I also think that some cricket boards also do not want cricket to be included in the Olympics to some extent. As a sports body, the ICC should want which is the absolute best for the game. But they just want to think about money. That's why cricket took so long to be included in the Olympics. And even when it is being included in the Olympics it is only six teams play in the Olympics. Which is not a great sign. This means the sports body and certain cricket boards still do not want cricket to be included in the Olympics. They are just doing it because they have to.

The organizers of the 2028 Olympic games are discouraged from keeping cricket, while the ICC has proposed to the organizers to keep cricket in T20 format with six teams each for men and women. There are many criticisms about it. Various media channel have reported that cricket will not feature in the 2028 Olympic Games. But ESPN revealed in a report that no decision has been taken yet. We will finally know or confirm it next October. It appears that the ICC wants to include cricket but many may be skeptical about what the real picture looks like.

This is reality actually cricket has been limited to 8 teams and their series and tournaments, these 8 teams are winning and losing . Cricket is lacking diversity as same teams are dominating and leading,  even low ranking teams are not mentioned or shown anywhere which Is not good .
Olympics means lots of countries showing their sportsman and making names for thier Country.

[DanWalker]

In cricket 10 to 12 teams play regularly where few teams who are perform well. If you think from that point of view, there is no way to say that the participation of 6 teams according to the ranking is unreasonable. But as the matter is still pending nothing can be said till the final decision is taken. If there is cricket, it is likely to be in this format, but the IOC meeting will be held in Mumbai next October. It will be decided whether there will be cricket or not.

I am going to disagree with you, because first of all, I believe there should have been at least eight teams participating in the competition. And even if there was a reality where everyone accepted the participation of six teams in the Olympics for cricket, there should have been at least a qualification round for it. At least you could have proven that these six teams are the best.

The organizers of the 2028 Olympic games are discouraged from keeping cricket, while the ICC has proposed to the organizers to keep cricket in T20 format with six teams each for men and women. There are many criticisms about it. Various media channel have reported that cricket will not feature in the 2028 Olympic Games. But ESPN revealed in a report that no decision has been taken yet. We will finally know or confirm it next October. It appears that the ICC wants to include cricket but many may be skeptical about what the real picture looks like.

The organizers are obviously going to be discouraged from keeping cricket in the Olympics because ICC themselves are not interested in keeping cricket in the Olympics. So why would the Olympics organizer want cricket in the Olympics? And cricket should have been in the Olympics a long time ago. But because of all the bullshit that happened, cricket is still not a part of the Olympics. And still, no decision has been taken for sure. So we should not obviously have any high hopes about it.

[dezoel]

The organizers of the 2028 Olympic games are discouraged from keeping cricket, while the ICC has proposed to the organizers to keep cricket in T20 format with six teams each for men and women. There are many criticisms about it. Various media channel have reported that cricket will not feature in the 2028 Olympic Games. But ESPN revealed in a report that no decision has been taken yet. We will finally know or confirm it next October. It appears that the ICC wants to include cricket but many may be skeptical about what the real picture looks like.

This is reality actually cricket has been limited to 8 teams and their series and tournaments, these 8 teams are winning and losing . Cricket is lacking diversity as same teams are dominating and leading,  even low ranking teams are not mentioned or shown anywhere which Is not good .
Olympics means lots of countries showing their sportsman and making names for thier Country.

The biggest problem in cricket is it's never been had professional peoples those can done good work for this game and having mind to spread this in few markets which never have any team because Big-3 never want to lose their power, and they have enough sources to control this all for their own sack which is surely hurting this badly.

Recently we have U-29 Women's Cricket world cup and I have feeling from this we can check how things are going with many issues and self-control policy we still have few countries which are giving solid reason for their presence in this event like Rwanda done good job after them Indonesia is also having good entry and few weeks back we have Thailand which is also doing good work and with these countries we can go into new market and then things can go in positive way but for this all we need good work from ICC which is not positive and having their own agenda which is never been ideal for this game.

[JSRAW]

The general consensus among Cricket fans is that if they include Cricket in the Olympics more countries will be taking a keen interest in the sport and allocating budget for the sport which will help the sport in the longer run and with the T20 format it is the best time to introduce Cricket for the global audience.

I understand what you're trying to say here, but it isn't guaranteed that inclusion of the sport in the Olympics will help it in the long run since it could actually have the reverse effect and cause a drop in its popularity.

Frankly, the main reason that cricket was dropped from the Olympics a long time ago was because it didn't attract many viewers.

It's actually quite the opposite and in the long run very beneficial for associate nations.

They get very little support from ICC and receiving additional funds from their sports ministry will help grassroots cricket. There are 90+ associate nations and even 10 countries show some sort of improvement, it'll only help cricket in general. Let's say in a decade or so, we might be able to see 20-25 or more teams participating in World cups.

[mm2543363580]

The general consensus among Cricket fans is that if they include Cricket in the Olympics more countries will be taking a keen interest in the sport and allocating budget for the sport which will help the sport in the longer run and with the T20 format it is the best time to introduce Cricket for the global audience.

I understand what you're trying to say here, but it isn't guaranteed that inclusion of the sport in the Olympics will help it in the long run since it could actually have the reverse effect and cause a drop in its popularity.

Frankly, the main reason that cricket was dropped from the Olympics a long time ago was because it didn't attract many viewers.

If viewership is the case then there are many games in Olympics that have much less viewership then cricket like field hockey. There is criteria like the game must be played in certain amount of countries before its included in Olympics. Beside that ICC is also not much interested in including cricket into Olympics.

[darewaller]

If viewership is the case then there are many games in Olympics that have much less viewership then cricket like field hockey. There is criteria like the game must be played in certain amount of countries before its included in Olympics. Beside that ICC is also not much interested in including cricket into Olympics.

In all cases, crickets entry in Olympics is beneficial for the member countries but sadly few big boards are not like this idea and try to disrupt which is surely not good idea from them because with these tactics they are not helping cricket they have to be realistic about this all and things could be also clear for be better future on other side if we have entry into Olympics then surely many more countries will also take interest because now with the t20 and franchise leagues things are going into positive way and players can earn good amount from these leagues and also can enjoy better life.

But ICC own policy is not favourable for this all, and they are trying to stay away from this all which is clearly indicating things are not going on merit it's all happening just for the few members hold on this all.

[Sithara007]

It's actually quite the opposite and in the long run very beneficial for associate nations.

They get very little support from ICC and receiving additional funds from their sports ministry will help grassroots cricket. There are 90+ associate nations and even 10 countries show some sort of improvement, it'll only help cricket in general. Let's say in a decade or so, we might be able to see 20-25 or more teams participating in World cups.

Agreed with this. The ICC allocation for associate member nations went down during the 2015-23 cycle and many of the countries (such as Nepal and Kenya) saw their annual funding reduced by as much as 80%. When Afghanistan and Ireland became test nations, the funds for associate nations got reduced much further (the additional funds for AFG and IRE came from the associate pot). Srinivasan, at the peak of his power proposed reducing funding for associate nations to 0 (you heard it right - zero). Shashank Manohar was only slightly better. He kept some amount for the associates, but they are receiving far less from what they were getting a decade ago.

I don't have much hope for the 2024-27 funding cycle as well. The BCCI is going to demand a far higher share, as 80% of the media rights income came from India. The so called "full members" don't want their share to be reduced. And in the end, there will be another reduction to the funding for associates. And this time, many of the associate countries are not going to survive. Those who are in emergency life-support, such as Kenya, Papua New Guinea and Nepal would fold up completely.

[BobK71]

If viewership is the case then there are many games in Olympics that have much less viewership then cricket like field hockey. There is criteria like the game must be played in certain amount of countries before its included in Olympics. Beside that ICC is also not much interested in including cricket into Olympics.

In all cases, crickets entry in Olympics is beneficial for the member countries but sadly few big boards are not like this idea and try to disrupt which is surely not good idea from them because with these tactics they are not helping cricket they have to be realistic about this all and things could be also clear for be better future on other side if we have entry into Olympics then surely many more countries will also take interest because now with the t20 and franchise leagues things are going into positive way and players can earn good amount from these leagues and also can enjoy better life.

But ICC own policy is not favourable for this all, and they are trying to stay away from this all which is clearly indicating things are not going on merit it's all happening just for the few members hold on this all.

If the ICC was reorganized in a new way, there could be some change here. But who will do that? If cricket was spread with many countries then it would be possible to appoint big positions of ICC through the votes of those countries. Only a few countries are included and even there the nominees are always acting according to their wishes. It is very difficult for cricket to overcome this situation. As a result, it is not possible to enrich cricket at any event including the Olympics.

[eaLiTy]

~
I understand what you're trying to say here, but it isn't guaranteed that inclusion of the sport in the Olympics will help it in the long run since it could actually have the reverse effect and cause a drop in its popularity.

Inclusion in the Olympics will not definitely have an inverse affect simply because the fan base Cricket has right now in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka is not going to change and that is the major fan base. There are countries that focus on winning a medal in global events and thereby they will allocate funds to certain sporting activities according to their priorities and inclusion will help in that aspect.

Frankly, the main reason that cricket was dropped from the Olympics a long time ago was because it didn't attract many viewers.

Only two teams participated in the 1900 Olympics, England and France, filled with England players. During those period, there was not set timeline for a match as it could continue for weeks but they had certain rules implemented for the Olympics and it was dropped due to the time factor and not much teams playing the sport and right now we have the T20 format and the best time to introduce Cricket in the Olympics.

Have rules and regulations like the FIFA, under 23 and a few senior players get the slot, so that we would see young players in the Olympics to be a fair competition for everyone .

[Tony116]

It's actually quite the opposite and in the long run very beneficial for associate nations.
They get very little support from ICC and receiving additional funds from their sports ministry will help grassroots cricket. There are 90+ associate nations and even 10 countries show some sort of improvement, it'll only help cricket in general. Let's say in a decade or so, we might be able to see 20-25 or more teams participating in World cups.

Agreed with this. The ICC allocation for associate member nations went down during the 2015-23 cycle and many of the countries (such as Nepal and Kenya) saw their annual funding reduced by as much as 80%. When Afghanistan and Ireland became test nations, the funds for associate nations got reduced much further (the additional funds for AFG and IRE came from the associate pot). Srinivasan, at the peak of his power proposed reducing funding for associate nations to 0 (you heard it right - zero). Shashank Manohar was only slightly better. He kept some amount for the associates, but they are receiving far less from what they were getting a decade ago.

I don't have much hope for the 2024-27 funding cycle as well. The BCCI is going to demand a far higher share, as 80% of the media rights income came from India. The so called "full members" don't want their share to be reduced. And in the end, there will be another reduction to the funding for associates. And this time, many of the associate countries are not going to survive. Those who are in emergency life-support, such as Kenya, Papua New Guinea and Nepal would fold up completely.

If this ends up happening, the people in those countries are going to be further demotivated to play cricket, especially as their job. Those countries are already not very popular for cricket. And a big reason for that is they are not being able to pay the cricketers as much money as the other jobs in their country does. So of course the players will have to choose another profession instead of cricket.

I really hope that the funding for the associate nations does not get reduced. But the way things are moving right now it is obviously going to happen. And I do not see how these associate nations who generally do not have money to spend on cricket and always have to rely on the funding that they get from the ICC are going to survive.

[JSRAW]

It's actually quite the opposite and in the long run very beneficial for associate nations.

They get very little support from ICC and receiving additional funds from their sports ministry will help grassroots cricket. There are 90+ associate nations and even 10 countries show some sort of improvement, it'll only help cricket in general. Let's say in a decade or so, we might be able to see 20-25 or more teams participating in World cups.

Agreed with this. The ICC allocation for associate member nations went down during the 2015-23 cycle and many of the countries (such as Nepal and Kenya) saw their annual funding reduced by as much as 80%. When Afghanistan and Ireland became test nations, the funds for associate nations got reduced much further (the additional funds for AFG and IRE came from the associate pot). Srinivasan, at the peak of his power proposed reducing funding for associate nations to 0 (you heard it right - zero). Shashank Manohar was only slightly better. He kept some amount for the associates, but they are receiving far less from what they were getting a decade ago.

I don't have much hope for the 2024-27 funding cycle as well. The BCCI is going to demand a far higher share, as 80% of the media rights income came from India. The so called "full members" don't want their share to be reduced. And in the end, there will be another reduction to the funding for associates. And this time, many of the associate countries are not going to survive. Those who are in emergency life-support, such as Kenya, Papua New Guinea and Nepal would fold up completely.

For a change and just to create some chaos in full members, i would like to see a new scenario.

Every full member should get only 15-20% amount of their contribution in ICC's piggy bank and the rest of the amount should be distributed among associates equally.

Not practical but it would be really fun for obvious reasons. 

  

[Sithara007]

For a change and just to create some chaos in full members, i would like to see a new scenario.

Every full member should get only 15-20% amount of their contribution in ICC's piggy bank and the rest of the amount should be distributed among associates equally.

Not practical but it would be really fun for obvious reasons. 

The number of associate nations have gone up over the years, as the ICC have added dozens of fake teams such as Norway and Czech Republic, which are entirely made up of nationals from India or Pakistan. Now the associate pot already got reduced by a lot in the 2015-23 cycle and then each team receives less amount because there are more number of countries. It is laughable that a country such as Nepal, which has 100% native players and has a cricketing history of many decades receive almost the same amount of funds that is received by Norway, which doesn't have a single national playing for it.

My proposal is to divide the test and associate nations, based on their performance. Each tier receives a proportionate amount of ICC funds.

Tier 1: IND, AUS, NZL, ENG and PAK
Tier 2: SL, WI, BAN, RSA and AFG
Tier 3: IRE, ZIM, SCO, NAM, NED
Tier 4: NEP, UAE, OMN, PNG, CAN
Tier 5: HK, USA, QAT, JER, UGA

[BobK71]

For a change and just to create some chaos in full members, i would like to see a new scenario.

Every full member should get only 15-20% amount of their contribution in ICC's piggy bank and the rest of the amount should be distributed among associates equally.

Not practical but it would be really fun for obvious reasons. 

The number of associate nations have gone up over the years, as the ICC have added dozens of fake teams such as Norway and Czech Republic, which are entirely made up of nationals from India or Pakistan. Now the associate pot already got reduced by a lot in the 2015-23 cycle and then each team receives less amount because there are more number of countries. It is laughable that a country such as Nepal, which has 100% native players and has a cricketing history of many decades receive almost the same amount of funds that is received by Norway, which doesn't have a single national playing for it.

So fast ICC has introduced new countries into cricket which is not recognize a good decision at all. Which only increase criticism. Moreover, it is not possible for them to support so many countries at the simultaneously. If they want to cooperate by adopting a single policy, then countries like Nepal which have worked hard to build a position can suffer the most. The ICC should nurture the child born first and take it to the big core otherwise no one will be eligible if a new child is born at the same time.

[justdimin]

My proposal is to divide the test and associate nations, based on their performance. Each tier receives a proportionate amount of ICC funds.

Tier 1: IND, AUS, NZL, ENG and PAK
Tier 2: SL, WI, BAN, RSA and AFG
Tier 3: IRE, ZIM, SCO, NAM, NED
Tier 4: NEP, UAE, OMN, PNG, CAN
Tier 5: HK, USA, QAT, JER, UGA

I am in favour of tier system specially while it works based on performance which is based for every cycle because this will encourage teams to enhance their performance and having healthy competition and also given good shape to this game but here we need all settlements on every format like we need to have 24 to 30 teams in T20i and then 12 to 16 in ODI but just 8 for the Test format because now it's not beneficial for them many countries and also creating burden on their system, so now it's all on ICC to reduce their burden and just allow few countries for this format with having more activity in other formats.

Here again we need to work on few things which are more important like allow native players or players with having parents from this country as we have rules for the FIFA and Olympics because this will also increase native players to bring more players instead of having players from subcontinent for their teams which is unfair for this game.

[Sithara007]

I am in favour of tier system specially while it works based on performance which is based for every cycle because this will encourage teams to enhance their performance and having healthy competition and also given good shape to this game but here we need all settlements on every format like we need to have 24 to 30 teams in T20i and then 12 to 16 in ODI but just 8 for the Test format because now it's not beneficial for them many countries and also creating burden on their system, so now it's all on ICC to reduce their burden and just allow few countries for this format with having more activity in other formats.

Here again we need to work on few things which are more important like allow native players or players with having parents from this country as we have rules for the FIFA and Olympics because this will also increase native players to bring more players instead of having players from subcontinent for their teams which is unfair for this game.

Tier system will work only if strict eligibility criteria is maintained. That is not the case with cricket. Look at teams from United Arab Emirates and Oman. They don't have a single native playing for them and most of the squad is composed of former first class cricketers from India and Pakistan. They bring players on tourist visa and then add them to the squad. Poorer teams such as Nepal, who can't afford to import such players lose out in the end. And since the ICC distribute funds based on performance, teams such as UAE gets more funds to import even more players. And poorer boards such as Nepal gets even more poor.

But then, the entire ICC model is based on this logic - more funds for the richer boards and less funds for the poorer boards. BCCI and ECB gets the largest share, while WICB and PCB are at the bottom of the pyramid. If this continues, soon we will see players migrating from countries such as South Africa, West Indies and Pakistan to richer boards.

[Juggy777]

I am in favour of tier system specially while it works based on performance which is based for every cycle because this will encourage teams to enhance their performance and having healthy competition and also given good shape to this game but here we need all settlements on every format like we need to have 24 to 30 teams in T20i and then 12 to 16 in ODI but just 8 for the Test format because now it's not beneficial for them many countries and also creating burden on their system, so now it's all on ICC to reduce their burden and just allow few countries for this format with having more activity in other formats.

Here again we need to work on few things which are more important like allow native players or players with having parents from this country as we have rules for the FIFA and Olympics because this will also increase native players to bring more players instead of having players from subcontinent for their teams which is unfair for this game.

Tier system will work only if strict eligibility criteria is maintained. That is not the case with cricket. Look at teams from United Arab Emirates and Oman. They don't have a single native playing for them and most of the squad is composed of former first class cricketers from India and Pakistan. They bring players on tourist visa and then add them to the squad. Poorer teams such as Nepal, who can't afford to import such players lose out in the end. And since the ICC distribute funds based on performance, teams such as UAE gets more funds to import even more players. And poorer boards such as Nepal gets even more poor.

But then, the entire ICC model is based on this logic - more funds for the richer boards and less funds for the poorer boards. BCCI and ECB gets the largest share, while WICB and PCB are at the bottom of the pyramid. If this continues, soon we will see players migrating from countries such as South Africa, West Indies and Pakistan to richer boards.

@Sithara007 one key reason why I feel that poorer boards won’t get much from ICC is that the broadcasters earn more from the big 4 team’s, hence ICC has to keep the big 4 team’s happy at any cost. Lastly the second reason is very obvious i.e. the financial might of BCCI and ICC simply can’t afford to hurt them, even if it means upsetting the other nations.