Cricket match prediction discussions

[noormcs5]

It's been a long time since I watched and bet on a cricket match.
As far as I can remember, the last time I watched a cricket match was a team from India and India was one of my favorite and mainstay teams at that time.
For now, I haven't updated on the development of the Indian cricket team, is it still the same as before, which has pretty good strengths and game strategies so that it always manages to give me an advantage when betting in favor of them.
The last time I heard about the India vs West Indies match was in last year's ODI match and India managed to beat the West Indies.
Maybe in the future I will return to actively betting and watching every cricket match that will take place.

You haven't mentioned when exactly you watch the last cricket match but believe me, Indian team, as gotten better over the time. There was a time when Indian team had a very good batting attack but they lack in the bowling department but the modern cricket team has produced both great batsmen and bowlers in recent time. The IPL has really contributed well to making India the top-performing team.

As far as betting is concerned, i would suggest not to bet blindly on one team. Always see the current match situation, the opponent the Indian team is playing and then decide to bet on them or bet against them.

[Sithara007]

From what I can see, no important decision was taken during the recently concluded ICC meeting at the United Arab Emirates. The most sticky topic is regarding revenue distribution among the full and associate members. And they need to do finalize the structure quickly, since the current structure expires within 9 months. It may take at least 6 months to get in to all the finer details and setup the payment gateways. So any delay in this regard will have the potential to hamper the functioning of national cricket boards.

Just a remainder. This is the existing structure for fund allocation:

[JSRAW]

@Sithara007 According to you, how ICC's new revenue allocation policy should look like? Considering it's on record and a well established fact that BCCI contributes 90% of revenue?

Do you think that BCCI now has a genuine claim or it's still an unfair demand? IMO they should get a bigger pie this time.

[tusandii]

It's been a long time since I watched and bet on a cricket match.
As far as I can remember, the last time I watched a cricket match was a team from India and India was one of my favorite and mainstay teams at that time.
For now, I haven't updated on the development of the Indian cricket team, is it still the same as before, which has pretty good strengths and game strategies so that it always manages to give me an advantage when betting in favor of them.
The last time I heard about the India vs West Indies match was in last year's ODI match and India managed to beat the West Indies.
Maybe in the future I will return to actively betting and watching every cricket match that will take place.

You haven't mentioned when exactly you watch the last cricket match but believe me, Indian team, as gotten better over the time. There was a time when Indian team had a very good batting attack but they lack in the bowling department but the modern cricket team has produced both great batsmen and bowlers in recent time. The IPL has really contributed well to making India the top-performing team.

As far as betting is concerned, i would suggest not to bet blindly on one team. Always see the current match situation, the opponent the Indian team is playing and then decide to bet on them or bet against them.

I was last aware of the Indian team's cricket match in July 2022.
After that match I was no longer active in any Indian team cricket matches due to other factors which made me leave cricket betting and could not watch it.
If indeed the Indian team is as good as this is quite good information because I will start being active in cricket betting by supporting India as my favorite team.
How can I bet not only on one team while there is a limit to the betting funds that I use so it is not possible to bet on more than one team.

[Sithara007]

@Sithara007 According to you, how ICC's new revenue allocation policy should look like? Considering it's on record and a well established fact that BCCI contributes 90% of revenue?

Do you think that BCCI now has a genuine claim or it's still an unfair demand? IMO they should get a bigger pie this time.

None of the sports bodies work that way. USA and EU contribute to more than 50% of FIFA revenues. But these countries don't get any extra funding from the FIFA, and in case of USA their grants are much lower compared to high performing countries such as Argentina and France. Funding should be based on performance, and not based on where the funds originate. First of all, this tiered structure of full members and associate nations should be done away with. And then, funds should be allocated based on performance (only after repealing the current eligibility laws, which allow a "national" team to be comprised of 100% foreign citizens).

[Juggy777]

It's been a long time since I watched and bet on a cricket match.
As far as I can remember, the last time I watched a cricket match was a team from India and India was one of my favorite and mainstay teams at that time.
For now, I haven't updated on the development of the Indian cricket team, is it still the same as before, which has pretty good strengths and game strategies so that it always manages to give me an advantage when betting in favor of them.
The last time I heard about the India vs West Indies match was in last year's ODI match and India managed to beat the West Indies.
Maybe in the future I will return to actively betting and watching every cricket match that will take place.

You haven't mentioned when exactly you watch the last cricket match but believe me, Indian team, as gotten better over the time. There was a time when Indian team had a very good batting attack but they lack in the bowling department but the modern cricket team has produced both great batsmen and bowlers in recent time. The IPL has really contributed well to making India the top-performing team.

As far as betting is concerned, i would suggest not to bet blindly on one team. Always see the current match situation, the opponent the Indian team is playing and then decide to bet on them or bet against them.

I was last aware of the Indian team's cricket match in July 2022.
After that match I was no longer active in any Indian team cricket matches due to other factors which made me leave cricket betting and could not watch it.
If indeed the Indian team is as good as this is quite good information because I will start being active in cricket betting by supporting India as my favorite team.
How can I bet not only on one team while there is a limit to the betting funds that I use so it is not possible to bet on more than one team.

@tusandii there’s not many major developments since you last watched an India’s cricket match except that their wicket keeper suffered an horrific accident but is making a recovery now, and second big development was Australia defeating them and winning the series despite being the tourists. Furthermore IPL is starting now so you may want to get a closer look on the player’s, as that’ll prepare you for future tournaments to decide whether to wager on India or some other team.

[Sithara007]

@tusandii there’s not many major developments since you last watched an India’s cricket match except that their wicket keeper suffered an horrific accident but is making a recovery now, and second big development was Australia defeating them and winning the series despite being the tourists. Furthermore IPL is starting now so you may want to get a closer look on the player’s, as that’ll prepare you for future tournaments to decide whether to wager on India or some other team.

Rishabh Pant is just lucky that he escaped more serious consequences. A few seconds after he got out of the vehicle, it caught fire and was completely destroyed in a matter of few hours. And regarding the Indian tour of Australia, the visitors performed poorly in the first two test matches when Pat Cummins was captaining them. But after Cummins was replaced with Steven Smith, they roared back with an upset win and then managed a draw for the 4th match. And then came the upset series win during the ODI series.

[JSRAW]

@Sithara007 According to you, how ICC's new revenue allocation policy should look like? Considering it's on record and a well established fact that BCCI contributes 90% of revenue?

Do you think that BCCI now has a genuine claim or it's still an unfair demand? IMO they should get a bigger pie this time.

None of the sports bodies work that way. USA and EU contribute to more than 50% of FIFA revenues. But these countries don't get any extra funding from the FIFA, and in case of USA their grants are much lower compared to high performing countries such as Argentina and France. Funding should be based on performance, and not based on where the funds originate. First of all, this tiered structure of full members and associate nations should be done away with. And then, funds should be allocated based on performance (only after repealing the current eligibility laws, which allow a "national" team to be comprised of 100% foreign citizens).

A comparison with FIFA doesn't make sense at all. We have an ICC tournament every freaking year, it's not the case with the former. Then there is full members and associate nations drama.

USA ($25T) and EU ($17T) are developed economies and they contribute more than 50% of FIFA revenues according to you (or maybe at best 60-70%). In comparison, a developing economy like India ($3.5T) contributes 90% of ICC revenue. Stark differences in all indicators, don't you think?

[Sithara007]

A comparison with FIFA doesn't make sense at all. We have an ICC tournament every freaking year, it's not the case with the former. Then there is full members and associate nations drama.

USA ($25T) and EU ($17T) are developed economies and they contribute more than 50% of FIFA revenues according to you (or maybe at best 60-70%). In comparison, a developing economy like India ($3.5T) contributes 90% of ICC revenue. Stark differences in all indicators, don't you think?

FIFA and its member confederations d organize a number of tournaments. And the latest addition is FIFA Club World Cup, which is going to be expanded to 32 teams from the current 7-team setup. Once again, I don't think that the economic status of the country or contribution to the overall revenues should be a deciding factor. BCCI is a filthy rich board, and even if they get 90% of the ICC revenues that will comprise only a fraction of their total turnover. The only side effect will be that the other nations will suffer and they will fail to become competitive at international level. In the end, cricket will become a one-nation sport, similar to baseball.

[Haunebu]

The only side effect will be that the other nations will suffer and they will fail to become competitive at international level. In the end, cricket will become a one-nation sport, similar to baseball.

I disagree. Baseball is popular in many countries(USA, Japan, Korea etc) and Cricket will always be popular at the international level thanks to the rising popularity levels of the T-10 and T-20 formats primarily.

Both FIFA and ICC have always been corrupt, but that never really caused an impact on the popularity of the sports themselves and I am confident that none of this will ever change in the future.

Rich boards will keep getting richer while the poor boards will perish basically.

[Unknown Op]

Rishabh Pant is just lucky that he escaped more serious consequences. A few seconds after he got out of the vehicle, it caught fire and was completely destroyed in a matter of few hours. And regarding the Indian tour of Australia, the visitors performed poorly in the first two test matches when Pat Cummins was captaining them. But after Cummins was replaced with Steven Smith, they roared back with an upset win and then managed a draw for the 4th match. And then came the upset series win during the ODI series.

Rishabh Pant was lucky to escape the car fire unscathed it would be unfair to attribute his success to luck alone. As a talented and hardworking cricketer he has proven himself time and again on the field with great performances in both domestic and international matches. The Indian team's victory in Australia was a result of their resilience and determination rather than the leadership of any one individual. The team came together to overcome the odds and emerge victorious demonstrating their skills and teamwork. The ODI series win further cemented their status as a formidable cricketing force.

[Sithara007]

I disagree. Baseball is popular in many countries(USA, Japan, Korea etc) and Cricket will always be popular at the international level thanks to the rising popularity levels of the T-10 and T-20 formats primarily.

Both FIFA and ICC have always been corrupt, but that never really caused an impact on the popularity of the sports themselves and I am confident that none of this will ever change in the future.

Rich boards will keep getting richer while the poor boards will perish basically.

There are major differences between FIFA and the ICC:

1. In FIFA, every member nation has equal voting right. In ICC only 12 full members have voting rights.
2. FIFA expanded the world cup from 32 to 48 teams. ICC reduced the size from 16 teams to 10.
3. FIFA never allows foreigners in national team. ICC allows a team to be made of 100% foreigners.
4. FIFA fund allocation is based on performance. ICC fund allocation is based on member status.
5. FIFA is mostly administered by ex-players. ICC is mostly run by businessmen with no link to cricket.

[Haunebu]

There are major differences between FIFA and the ICC:

1. In FIFA, every member nation has equal voting right. In ICC only 12 full members have voting rights.
2. FIFA expanded the world cup from 32 to 48 teams. ICC reduced the size from 16 teams to 10.
3. FIFA never allows foreigners in national team. ICC allows a team to be made of 100% foreigners.
4. FIFA fund allocation is based on performance. ICC fund allocation is based on member status.
5. FIFA is mostly administered by ex-players. ICC is mostly run by businessmen with no link to cricket.

I agree with all the points that you stated and it's true that FIFA is better than ICC in several ways, but they are also a lot worse in several ways. One of them is corruption. FIFA is 100% more corrupt than the ICC.

https://www.britannica.com/event/2015-FIFA-corruption-scandal

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/sports/soccer/qatar-and-russia-bribery-world-cup-fifa.html

These are just a couple of examples to prove my statements. ICC can't hold a candle against FIFA in the corruption department.

[Tony116]

There are major differences between FIFA and the ICC:
1. In FIFA, every member nation has equal voting right. In ICC only 12 full members have voting rights.
2. FIFA expanded the world cup from 32 to 48 teams. ICC reduced the size from 16 teams to 10.
3. FIFA never allows foreigners in national team. ICC allows a team to be made of 100% foreigners.
4. FIFA fund allocation is based on performance. ICC fund allocation is based on member status.
5. FIFA is mostly administered by ex-players. ICC is mostly run by businessmen with no link to cricket.

I agree with all the points that you stated and it's true that FIFA is better than ICC in several ways, but they are also a lot worse in several ways. One of them is corruption. FIFA is 100% more corrupt than the ICC.

https://www.britannica.com/event/2015-FIFA-corruption-scandal
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/sports/soccer/qatar-and-russia-bribery-world-cup-fifa.html
These are just a couple of examples to prove my statements. ICC can't hold a candle against FIFA in the corruption department.

First of all, I agree with @Sithara007 that ICC is very corrupt. And BCCI is corrupt as well. But if we think about it, there had been times when the BCCI was the one who was basically oppressed by CA and other boards. So now it's their time. Why should they feel pity upon the others?

@Haunebu I am actually not going to get into the conversation of who is more corrupt. I think both ICC and FIFA are corrupt and the paradigm is almost similar to their corruption. I said that because ICC is not as big as FIFA. So there are a lot of chances of corruption in FIFA. ICC is certainly not as big as FIFA but it is still very corrupt.

[Sithara007]

I agree with all the points that you stated and it's true that FIFA is better than ICC in several ways, but they are also a lot worse in several ways. One of them is corruption. FIFA is 100% more corrupt than the ICC.

https://www.britannica.com/event/2015-FIFA-corruption-scandal

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/sports/soccer/qatar-and-russia-bribery-world-cup-fifa.html

These are just a couple of examples to prove my statements. ICC can't hold a candle against FIFA in the corruption department.

I have heard about this (2015 FIFA corruption case). In the end, most of the parties involved were indicted and Sepp Blatter was removed from office. Most of the accused entered in to guilty pleas, and only a few (Juan Ángel Napout, Carlos Chávez Landivar.etc) decided to fight their case. But the thing to remember here is that FIFA took strong action against these people. If the same happened in cricket, the accused individuals will most probably continue to hold their office. Anyway, if I want to look for a sports body that has taken strong action against corruption, I understand that FIFA is not the perfect choice.

[YinShuiSiYuan]

There are major differences between FIFA and the ICC:
1. In FIFA, every member nation has equal voting right. In ICC only 12 full members have voting rights.
2. FIFA expanded the world cup from 32 to 48 teams. ICC reduced the size from 16 teams to 10.
3. FIFA never allows foreigners in national team. ICC allows a team to be made of 100% foreigners.
4. FIFA fund allocation is based on performance. ICC fund allocation is based on member status.
5. FIFA is mostly administered by ex-players. ICC is mostly run by businessmen with no link to cricket.

I agree with all the points that you stated and it's true that FIFA is better than ICC in several ways, but they are also a lot worse in several ways. One of them is corruption. FIFA is 100% more corrupt than the ICC.

https://www.britannica.com/event/2015-FIFA-corruption-scandal
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/sports/soccer/qatar-and-russia-bribery-world-cup-fifa.html
These are just a couple of examples to prove my statements. ICC can't hold a candle against FIFA in the corruption department.

First of all, I agree with @Sithara007 that ICC is very corrupt. And BCCI is corrupt as well. But if we think about it, there had been times when the BCCI was the one who was basically oppressed by CA and other boards. So now it's their time. Why should they feel pity upon the others?

@Haunebu I am actually not going to get into the conversation of who is more corrupt. I think both ICC and FIFA are corrupt and the paradigm is almost similar to their corruption. I said that because ICC is not as big as FIFA. So there are a lot of chances of corruption in FIFA. ICC is certainly not as big as FIFA but it is still very corrupt.

The fact is no system is transparent there is always some corruption in system either its less or more , but obviously I'd you are talking about fifa who's the largest organisation right now dealing with 48 countries there will be massive problems and corruption. ICC in comparison is very small and limited but still there are uncertainty and chaos but main factor with icc is with BCCI influence and involvement in all matters.

[eaLiTy]

~
None of the sports bodies work that way. USA and EU contribute to more than 50% of FIFA revenues. But these countries don't get any extra funding from the FIFA, and in case of USA their grants are much lower compared to high performing countries such as Argentina and France. Funding should be based on performance, and not based on where the funds originate.  

I am a bit confused, are you saying that the Soccer Federation in USA is contributing major share to FIFA. how come that is even possible as Football is not that popular in USA and nowhere near NFL or NBA or even Baseball. If your claim is that companies from USA is contributing as part of broadcasting rights and sponsorships, then it is a different story altogether.

If a non profit sports body is able to generate 80% of its total income from a specific country, don't you think there is an aspect called fair share, no one is making any obstacles to generate the same income from other countries but they are not getting the same revenue from other countries, after all its business at the end of the day.

~
There are major differences between FIFA and the ICC:

There is a major difference between Football and Cricket and how that game is played globaly.

1. In FIFA, every member nation has equal voting right. In ICC only 12 full members have voting rights.

Consider teams like China, Russia and all the associate teams comes together and then start creating new rules simply because they have voting rights. Only teams that play proper Cricket gets the voting rights and what is wrong in that.

 

2. FIFA expanded the world cup from 32 to 48 teams. ICC reduced the size from 16 teams to 10.

Remember 2007 World Cup 16 teams and it was the boring tournament till date, it was an experiment to include more teams and it failed miserably.

 

3. FIFA never allows foreigners in national team. ICC allows a team to be made of 100% foreigners.

You have a problem with restricting teams in World events and if strict rules are observed, then some of the teams will be disband. They allow these loopholes hoping that the sport would grow in that specific region.

 

4. FIFA fund allocation is based on performance. ICC fund allocation is based on member status.

Mostly exaggerated and explained about the fair share model.
 
 

5. FIFA is mostly administered by ex-players. ICC is mostly run by businessmen with no link to cricket.

No idea what you are talking about, name one ex Football player who was the president of FIFA in the past 50 years or even played for their school.

[Sithara007]

3. FIFA never allows foreigners in national team. ICC allows a team to be made of 100% foreigners.

You have a problem with restricting teams in World events and if strict rules are observed, then some of the teams will be disband. They allow these loopholes hoping that the sport would grow in that specific region.

This is the most idiotic argument that I have ever came across in this forum. United Arab Emirates, Oman and Saudi Arabia have been playing with Indian and Pakistani players since time immemorial. And how did that helped to grow the sport in that region? For the last two decades, I haven't seen a single Arab in any of these teams (before that there were a few, such as Sultan Zarawani and Saeed-Al-Saffar). If teams need to disband, then let it be. Why there should be a team from UAE, when none of the natives are interested in cricket?

[Haunebu]

But the thing to remember here is that FIFA took strong action against these people. If the same happened in cricket, the accused individuals will most probably continue to hold their office.

Their actions don't really help much since it's just one corrupt person filling in for another corrupt person which is an endless cycle. Accused individuals in Cricket aren't always spared.

Best example here is how Chetan Sharma got screwed recently who was one of the top selectors thanks to a sting operation.

ICC in comparison is very small and limited but still there are uncertainty and chaos but main factor with icc is with BCCI influence and involvement in all matters.

BCCI is corrupt for sure, but they also are the primary reason why Cricket is so popular globally which is why their huge influence over the ICC makes complete sense if you think about it.

[Sithara007]

BCCI is corrupt for sure, but they also are the primary reason why Cricket is so popular globally which is why their huge influence over the ICC makes complete sense if you think about it.

LOL.. how is BCCI responsible for the popularity of cricket in the sub-continent (nowhere else in the world, it is a no.1 sport)? Cricket was always the no.1 sport in India and the popularity experienced a significant surge after the national team won ODI World Cup under Kapil Dev in 1983. The BCCI has gained from the popularity of cricket, as it was made possible to employ various politicians to different posts within the BCCI and the state associations. Even now, 80% of the BCCI officials are either politicians or businessmen with no link to cricket.