Cricket match prediction discussions

[JSRAW]

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

Looks like a relegation system to me, which i am in favor of for a long time.

Although, if i look at the last 5 years or so then i don't know what Pakistan has done in test cricket so if push comes to shove then I'll put them in Tier 2 and move SA up in the pecking order.

[Sithara007]

Looks like a relegation system to me, which i am in favor of for a long time.

Although, if i look at the last 5 years or so then i don't know what Pakistan has done in test cricket so if push comes to shove then I'll put them in Tier 2 and move SA up in the pecking order.

Apart from performance, I took other factors as well, such as popularity of cricket in that country and size of the market. Pakistan is a country of 230 million people and cricket is the most popular sport there. South Africa has a population of approx. 60 million and cricket is the 3rd or 4th most popular sport. And at this point, I would say that both the nations are performing at the same level. But the market size should push Pakistan ahead of RSA. Anyway, it is a promotion-relegation system, so after every 3 or 4 years, teams who can't perform will get relegated.

BTW, there is good news coming in from Nepal. The Cricket Association of Nepal (CAN) has lifted its ban on Sandeep Lamichhane. Now he will be eligible to participate in the tri-series against Namibia and Scotland, which will begin later this month (part of ICC Men's Cricket World Cup League 2).

[YinShuiSiYuan]

Looks like a relegation system to me, which i am in favor of for a long time.

Although, if i look at the last 5 years or so then i don't know what Pakistan has done in test cricket so if push comes to shove then I'll put them in Tier 2 and move SA up in the pecking order.

Apart from performance, I took other factors as well, such as popularity of cricket in that country and size of the market. Pakistan is a country of 230 million people and cricket is the most popular sport there. South Africa has a population of approx. 60 million and cricket is the 3rd or 4th most popular sport. And at this point, I would say that both the nations are performing at the same level. But the market size should push Pakistan ahead of RSA. Anyway, it is a promotion-relegation system, so after every 3 or 4 years, teams who can't perform will get relegated.

Pakistan performance in last year has been phenomenal throughout, although they didn't get any trophy but still they were in finals of Asia Cup and t20 World Cup (India wasn't in them obviously). The point is just because of test series you cannot change Pakistan ranking and bring it below South Africa,  who is also a very good team.

[JSRAW]

Looks like a relegation system to me, which i am in favor of for a long time.

Although, if i look at the last 5 years or so then i don't know what Pakistan has done in test cricket so if push comes to shove then I'll put them in Tier 2 and move SA up in the pecking order.

Apart from performance, I took other factors as well, such as popularity of cricket in that country and size of the market. Pakistan is a country of 230 million people and cricket is the most popular sport there. South Africa has a population of approx. 60 million and cricket is the 3rd or 4th most popular sport. And at this point, I would say that both the nations are performing at the same level. But the market size should push Pakistan ahead of RSA. Anyway, it is a promotion-relegation system, so after every 3 or 4 years, teams who can't perform will get relegated.

BTW, there is good news coming in from Nepal. The Cricket Association of Nepal (CAN) has lifted its ban on Sandeep Lamichhane. Now he will be eligible to participate in the tri-series against Namibia and Scotland, which will begin later this month (part of ICC Men's Cricket World Cup League 2).

If the popularity of sport and population are the criteria then India should get a separate tier alone. Bangladesh is not far behind, they should be ahead of NZ too.

Oh well SA beat India 2-1 in their last home series. Pakistan lost all 3 test series at home, they didn't even win the series against SL and WI in the current WTC cycle.

Pakistan performance in last year has been phenomenal throughout, although they didn't get any trophy but still they were in finals of Asia Cup and t20 World Cup (India wasn't in them obviously). The point is just because of test series you cannot change Pakistan ranking and bring it below South Africa,  who is also a very good team.

ICC funding is based on Test status and not LOIs performance, that's why everyone wants test status tag.

[Sithara007]

If the popularity of sport and population are the criteria then India should get a separate tier alone. Bangladesh is not far behind, they should be ahead of NZ too.

Oh well SA beat India 2-1 in their last home series. Pakistan lost all 3 test series at home, they didn't even win the series against SL and WI in the current WTC cycle.

Well, I am saying that performance should be the main criteria, but other factors can be supplementary. In case of Pakistan, injury to their premier fast bowler (Shaheen Shah Afridi) had a major impact on their recent matches. If you check the T20 rankings, Pakistan is at 3rd position and South Africa is at 4th. While deciding about the funding, performance in T20 should get higher priority, because it is the main revenue source. In case of Bangladesh, their performance can't be compared with either Pakistan or South Africa. They are far behind.

[JSRAW]

If the popularity of sport and population are the criteria then India should get a separate tier alone. Bangladesh is not far behind, they should be ahead of NZ too.

Oh well SA beat India 2-1 in their last home series. Pakistan lost all 3 test series at home, they didn't even win the series against SL and WI in the current WTC cycle.

Well, I am saying that performance should be the main criteria, but other factors can be supplementary. In case of Pakistan, injury to their premier fast bowler (Shaheen Shah Afridi) had a major impact on their recent matches. If you check the T20 rankings, Pakistan is at 3rd position and South Africa is at 4th. While deciding about the funding, performance in T20 should get higher priority, because it is the main revenue source. In case of Bangladesh, their performance can't be compared with either Pakistan or South Africa. They are far behind.

If a full test nation relies on only 1 bowler in a test format and that too in the home season then there is something very wrong in the setup. In contrast, SA beat the No 1 Indian team with 3 debutants in the team.

T-20 is a new phenomenon and unofficially the funding setup has a history of decades. T-20 ranking is volatile and it could change in a span of just 200 overs or 5 matches so it hardly matters. Cricket as a sport will die if you distribute funding based on T-20, primarily because of franchise cricket.

[Marvell1]

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.

In cricket, the tier system is not going to probably be the best option. But the problem is there is no other good system right now except for this in my opinion. Because the system we have right now is not the best as well. With this system, the bigger and richer boards are doing whatever they want. Basically, that has to change.

BTW, there is good news coming in from Nepal. The Cricket Association of Nepal (CAN) has lifted its ban on Sandeep Lamichhane. Now he will be eligible to participate in the tri-series against Namibia and Scotland, which will begin later this month (part of ICC Men's Cricket World Cup League 2).

Sandeep Lamichhane is a great player. It is quite good to see that he finally has been unbanned. It will be very interesting to see him perform once again in the international arena. I remember seeing him and thinking that he has a great future ahead of him. But Nepal is certainly not in a very good state right now. And because of his ban, we could not see much of him.

[dezoel]

If a full test nation relies on only 1 bowler in a test format and that too in the home season then there is something very wrong in the setup. In contrast, SA beat the No 1 Indian team with 3 debutants in the team.

T-20 is a new phenomenon and unofficially the funding setup has a history of decades. T-20 ranking is volatile and it could change in a span of just 200 overs or 5 matches so it hardly matters. Cricket as a sport will die if you distribute funding based on T-20, primarily because of franchise cricket.

I believe these are all baseless baseless because in ICC how things will work they have better idea and doing with their own sack and priorities as well but still now I have feeling we need few changes in this system if we want to have better performance and quality which will increase interest in few regions of this world for this game specially they need to work on South America and Europe which is completely out of their limits just because few members feel if they will involve more countries than surely they will be losing their grip on ICC and things could be happened on merit which is not suitable for big-3 which are currently ruling this all.

T20 is the future, and they need to develop with facilitating more leagues and having more players and development which increase salary of players and fan base as well because right now mostly having feeling we can't stay without India which is surely not positive mindset because entry in Olympics is also beneficial and can give big boost.

[Ayers]

If the popularity of sport and population are the criteria then India should get a separate tier alone. Bangladesh is not far behind, they should be ahead of NZ too.
Oh well SA beat India 2-1 in their last home series. Pakistan lost all 3 test series at home, they didn't even win the series against SL and WI in the current WTC cycle.

Well, I am saying that performance should be the main criteria, but other factors can be supplementary. In case of Pakistan, injury to their premier fast bowler (Shaheen Shah Afridi) had a major impact on their recent matches. If you check the T20 rankings, Pakistan is at 3rd position and South Africa is at 4th. While deciding about the funding, performance in T20 should get higher priority, because it is the main revenue source. In case of Bangladesh, their performance can't be compared with either Pakistan or South Africa. They are far behind.

If a full test nation relies on only 1 bowler in a test format and that too in the home season then there is something very wrong in the setup. In contrast, SA beat the No 1 Indian team with 3 debutants in the team.
T-20 is a new phenomenon and unofficially the funding setup has a history of decades. T-20 ranking is volatile and it could change in a span of just 200 overs or 5 matches so it hardly matters. Cricket as a sport will die if you distribute funding based on T-20, primarily because of franchise cricket.

I honestly feel like a lot of cricket boards are genuinely not very serious about test cricket right now because honestly, test cricket is going to die very soon. That's why I think Pakistan is actually not very serious about it. On the other hand, if Pakistan is actually serious about it, I do not think that they are doing a good job.

You are absolutely right, only being dependent on one bowler for the test format is absolutely not a good idea at all. And I think not only in the test format, Pakistan depends on certain players in almost all formats of cricket. If they are not performing well, Pakistan is losing.

Some serious changes need to be made in cricket. Otherwise, it is very true that cricket will eventually die. And they have to change the funding based on the revenue.

[Sithara007]

~~~
T-20 is a new phenomenon and unofficially the funding setup has a history of decades. T-20 ranking is volatile and it could change in a span of just 200 overs or 5 matches so it hardly matters. Cricket as a sport will die if you distribute funding based on T-20, primarily because of franchise cricket.

T20I is the only ICC ranking system where the associate nations are included. Match between associate nations are awarded T20I status and therefore considered for ranking. On the other hand, only matches with full members are considered for ODI and Test ranking. So how can the funding be decided based on ODI/Test ranking, when only 10-12 countries are effectively included there? I understand that the T20I team rankings can be quite volatile. The solution here is to take the average of ranking over a 4-year period, rather than look at the rank on a particular cutoff date.

[justdimin]

I honestly feel like a lot of cricket boards are genuinely not very serious about test cricket right now because honestly, test cricket is going to die very soon. That's why I think Pakistan is actually not very serious about it. On the other hand, if Pakistan is actually serious about it, I do not think that they are doing a good job.

You are absolutely right, only being dependent on one bowler for the test format is absolutely not a good idea at all. And I think not only in the test format, Pakistan depends on certain players in almost all formats of cricket. If they are not performing well, Pakistan is losing.

Some serious changes need to be made in cricket. Otherwise, it is very true that cricket will eventually die. And they have to change the funding based on the revenue.

Right now we have only three countries those are interested in test format, and they are Australia, England and India because they have good domestic set up and all resources which are helpful for having good check and balance in this format others are suffering due to finances and other domestic issues which is the biggest concern right now with this now time to give up about ODI and just depend on test and T20 which will be more beneficial and having better chance of development.

ODI is also having no chance to grow up, so now we need to give all intention to t20 which is future and right now we can bring 16 to 20 good teams which will provide good entertainment, and we will have better revenue as well and then Olympics is also needed good intention which will give more exposure to this game in many countries but if ICC wants to have better results in test then surely needs to have good strategy for this as well which is important for the better future.

[wiss19]

T20I is the only ICC ranking system where the associate nations are included. Match between associate nations are awarded T20I status and therefore considered for ranking. On the other hand, only matches with full members are considered for ODI and Test ranking. So how can the funding be decided based on ODI/Test ranking, when only 10-12 countries are effectively included there? I understand that the T20I team rankings can be quite volatile. The solution here is to take the average of ranking over a 4-year period, rather than look at the rank on a particular cutoff date.

Now it's time for ICC to have good changes in their strategy because now things are changing drastically, and we can't afford more waste of time for this all they need to bring new setup for the funding like increase finances for the t-20 countries even they are associate and give them better help for increasing quality and performance which is good and if they have problem for awarding funds then bring a system where all countries will play a quota of matches every year and then after the world cup which is now going to play after every two years give them funds on their two years performance base which will give good improvement in quality and performance for them but surely need to start from scratch and also have good confidence for the better development of the associate countries as well.

[Ayers]

Right now we have only three countries those are interested in test format, and they are Australia, England and India because they have good domestic set up and all resources which are helpful for having good check and balance in this format others are suffering due to finances and other domestic issues which is the biggest concern right now with this now time to give up about ODI and just depend on test and T20 which will be more beneficial and having better chance of development.

ODI is also having no chance to grow up, so now we need to give all intention to t20 which is future and right now we can bring 16 to 20 good teams which will provide good entertainment, and we will have better revenue as well and then Olympics is also needed good intention which will give more exposure to this game in many countries but if ICC wants to have better results in test then surely needs to have good strategy for this as well which is important for the better future.

The only three countries that are actually interested in test cricket are actually interested in test cricket because they are getting decent popularity for the test cricket that they play. We all know that India is a great test cricket team. And we also know that the Ashes is still a very popular tournament of cricket. Probably these are the only two reasons why test cricket is still alive.

I really do not want to talk about how the ICC is sending only six teams to the Olympics. Because I feel like they have got a lot of backlash because of it. But they are not going to change anyway.

[JSRAW]

~~~
T-20 is a new phenomenon and unofficially the funding setup has a history of decades. T-20 ranking is volatile and it could change in a span of just 200 overs or 5 matches so it hardly matters. Cricket as a sport will die if you distribute funding based on T-20, primarily because of franchise cricket.

T20I is the only ICC ranking system where the associate nations are included. Match between associate nations are awarded T20I status and therefore considered for ranking. On the other hand, only matches with full members are considered for ODI and Test ranking. So how can the funding be decided based on ODI/Test ranking, when only 10-12 countries are effectively included there? I understand that the T20I team rankings can be quite volatile. The solution here is to take the average of ranking over a 4-year period, rather than look at the rank on a particular cutoff date.

Sure associate nations,  many of them find it hard to field even competitive teams unless there are subcontinent players or have some sort of experience in counties.

Can bet my BTC stash that the current system is not going to change in our lifetime and it's for good, sure franchise cricket will create its own ecosystem but only the strong will survive.

[Sithara007]

Sure associate nations,  many of them find it hard to field even competitive teams unless there are subcontinent players or have some sort of experience in counties.

Can bet my BTC stash that the current system is not going to change in our lifetime and it's for good, sure franchise cricket will create its own ecosystem but only the strong will survive.

Agreed on this part. The system is not going to change. Out of the 16 voting members of the ICC, only 3 are representing associates. And even out of these three, one (Oman) is a proxy of the BCCI. So 14 out of the 16 members have reasons to maintain the current system. When Shashank Manohar was the chairman of the ICC, I had some hope. But he was soon replaced by the pig-4 nominee Greg Barclay. And among associates, the ongoing process of teams with 100% foreigner squads gaining over the native sides will accelerate in the future.

Now coming to franchise cricket, I don't think that we will see a situation similar to what we have in football sometime soon. International cricket (bilaterals and ICC tournaments) still attract a lot of revenue. Although leagues such as IPL are important, they are not going to replace ICC tournaments. ICC has already announced calendar up to 2031, and we have a major ICC tournament every year. This is dissimilar to the case with football, where they have the World Cup only once in 4 years.

[BobK71]

Right now we have only three countries those are interested in test format, and they are Australia, England and India because they have good domestic set up and all resources which are helpful for having good check and balance in this format others are suffering due to finances and other domestic issues which is the biggest concern right now with this now time to give up about ODI and just depend on test and T20 which will be more beneficial and having better chance of development.

ODI is also having no chance to grow up, so now we need to give all intention to t20 which is future and right now we can bring 16 to 20 good teams which will provide good entertainment, and we will have better revenue as well and then Olympics is also needed good intention which will give more exposure to this game in many countries but if ICC wants to have better results in test then surely needs to have good strategy for this as well which is important for the better future.

I really do not want to talk about how the ICC is sending only six teams to the Olympics. Because I feel like they have got a lot of backlash because of it. But they are not going to change anyway.

As it is still awaiting its approval, we will have to wait longer. There may be some reasons why ICC has recommended only 6 teams to be there. I think it can be time consuming as only top 6 teams are allowed to participate. If such rules are in force in every event then there should not be any difficulty. All the countries who can hold the top position of the ranking will be able to play there. In this regard maximum efforts will be made to retain everyone's position in the ranking. As a result, more seriousness will increase towards cricket.

[Sithara007]

As it is still awaiting its approval, we will have to wait longer. There may be some reasons why ICC has recommended only 6 teams to be there. I think it can be time consuming as only top 6 teams are allowed to participate. If such rules are in force in every event then there should not be any difficulty. All the countries who can hold the top position of the ranking will be able to play there. In this regard maximum efforts will be made to retain everyone's position in the ranking. As a result, more seriousness will increase towards cricket.

The bigger problem is with the proposal by ICC to do away with a qualifier tournament. In Olympics, it doesn't work like that. Automatic qualification is provided only for hosts and everyone else need to play the qualifiers. ICC ranking is not recognized by the IOC, because it is meaningless. ICC eligibility criteria is a joke and matches using this criteria can't be used for qualifying to the Olympics. If ICC is serious about cricket getting included in the Olympics, then they need to come up with a proper proposal and not this sham they put forward now. 3 Olympic medals can't be distributed among 5 teams (+hosts) and they need to work on Olympic qualifier tournament if they are serious about it. 

[mm2543363580]

As it is still awaiting its approval, we will have to wait longer. There may be some reasons why ICC has recommended only 6 teams to be there. I think it can be time consuming as only top 6 teams are allowed to participate. If such rules are in force in every event then there should not be any difficulty. All the countries who can hold the top position of the ranking will be able to play there. In this regard maximum efforts will be made to retain everyone's position in the ranking. As a result, more seriousness will increase towards cricket.

The bigger problem is with the proposal by ICC to do away with a qualifier tournament. In Olympics, it doesn't work like that. Automatic qualification is provided only for hosts and everyone else need to play the qualifiers. ICC ranking is not recognized by the IOC, because it is meaningless. ICC eligibility criteria is a joke and matches using this criteria can't be used for qualifying to the Olympics. If ICC is serious about cricket getting included in the Olympics, then they need to come up with a proper proposal and not this sham they put forward now. 3 Olympic medals can't be distributed among 5 teams (+hosts) and they need to work on Olympic qualifier tournament if they are serious about it. 

ICC should give a reasonable proposal for Olympics and atleat send 10 teams which should include all big 3 , associate teams so that people should wnjoy that and there should be competitive matches. Yes the format should be discussed like make it 10 overs or 20 overs depending upon time given but atleast give some attention to this Olympics.

[Sithara007]

ICC should give a reasonable proposal for Olympics and atleat send 10 teams which should include all big 3 , associate teams so that people should wnjoy that and there should be competitive matches. Yes the format should be discussed like make it 10 overs or 20 overs depending upon time given but atleast give some attention to this Olympics.

Most of the team sports in Olympics have either 12 or 16 participants. For football, it is 16 (with almost 200 countries participating in the qualifier tournament), while for other sports such as basketball, field hockey and volleyball it is 12. IMO, 12 should be a good number for cricket, for both the men's and women's tournaments. And the IOC has ruled out T10 format, because they want a format which is played regularly. But then, a normal T20 game takes at least 3 to 3.5 hours to get completed.

The main issue with the bid from ICC is that they don't have any qualifying tournament. They want teams to be selected on the basis of ICC ranking, which is biased towards the full members. IOC wants a fair pathway for all the competing nations and they will definitely shoot down this obscene proposal from the ICC. And perhaps this is exactly what the ICC want.

[eaLiTy]

~
The main issue with the bid from ICC is that they don't have any qualifying tournament. They want teams to be selected on the basis of ICC ranking, which is biased towards the full members. IOC wants a fair pathway for all the competing nations and they will definitely shoot down this obscene proposal from the ICC. And perhaps this is exactly what the ICC want.

Even now the schedule is full and every player is complaining that they are not getting enough rest and in that instance how can the ICC allocate a qualifying tournament for the ICC. The solution should be, there should be a qualification round like the Test Championships and the team should be ranked and picked for the Olympics according to that ranking rather than conducting a separate tournament.

The sole reason FIFA has implemented rules to participate in the Olympics is because they do not want the Olympics to be bigger than the World Cup and ICC should follow that guideline.