Cricket match prediction discussions

[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.

[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.