Cricket match prediction discussions

[ilovealtcoins]

Cricket should be like any other sport, where only citizens are allowed in national teams. FIFA, FIH or FIBA doesn't allow a single foreigner in national teams. FIBA even have strict rules regarding players who are naturalized and holding citizenship. But cricket is a joke, and you can have a national team of Slovakia or Armenia with 11 tourists from Pakistan. And on top of that, these teams now get a majority of the funding from the ICC, with huge reductions being made in fund allocation to teams with native players (Kenya, Nepal, Namibia, Scotland.etc).

I think we all should realize by now that the ICC actually does not care about the state of cricket. They are only worried about what is going on in the top 5 or 6 teams. And I want to sleep a leave that they are absolutely careless about what goes on in the associate countries. How can the national team have players from another country? What's the point of a national team being made by foreign players? At least give them citizenship and make them a legal citizens of your country and then get him in the national team. But ICC seems to be less worried about that and more worried about some bullshit agenda like black lives matters etc.

[n0ne]

The performance based system is not a problem. The problem is those teams are performing well which have foreign players stacked in the team. I would actually like to see a 50% cut in pay for the teams which have foreign players in the squad. And that 50% should be equally divided into the teams which do not have foreign players in the team.

Actually, another thing which can be done is don't have any performance based payment for the teams which have foreign players in the squad. The performance based pay should actually only exist for those which do not have foreign players in the squad. In this way, the teams will be much more interested in performing well and also not have foreign players in the team.

Cricket should be like any other sport, where only citizens are allowed in national teams. FIFA, FIH or FIBA doesn't allow a single foreigner in national teams. FIBA even have strict rules regarding players who are naturalized and holding citizenship. But cricket is a joke, and you can have a national team of Slovakia or Armenia with 11 tourists from Pakistan. And on top of that, these teams now get a majority of the funding from the ICC, with huge reductions being made in fund allocation to teams with native players (Kenya, Nepal, Namibia, Scotland.etc).

That's true, cricket rules are completely different and ICC doesn't care about it. ICC play its role only when the four powers of cricket experience some problem. According to me, playing with foreign players is not an issue. Let the funding be provided equally to every team than the performance based system. Even in football it is possible to see the players descent from two different countries and the kid playing for another nation. This doesn't come under foreign playing just because the player is born in that country.

[BobK71]

The performance based system is not a problem. The problem is those teams are performing well which have foreign players stacked in the team. I would actually like to see a 50% cut in pay for the teams which have foreign players in the squad. And that 50% should be equally divided into the teams which do not have foreign players in the team.

Actually, another thing which can be done is don't have any performance based payment for the teams which have foreign players in the squad. The performance based pay should actually only exist for those which do not have foreign players in the squad. In this way, the teams will be much more interested in performing well and also not have foreign players in the team.

Cricket should be like any other sport, where only citizens are allowed in national teams. FIFA, FIH or FIBA doesn't allow a single foreigner in national teams. FIBA even have strict rules regarding players who are naturalized and holding citizenship. But cricket is a joke, and you can have a national team of Slovakia or Armenia with 11 tourists from Pakistan. And on top of that, these teams now get a majority of the funding from the ICC, with huge reductions being made in fund allocation to teams with native players (Kenya, Nepal, Namibia, Scotland.etc).

That's true, cricket rules are completely different and ICC doesn't care about it. ICC play its role only when the four powers of cricket experience some problem. According to me, playing with foreign players is not an issue. Let the funding be provided equally to every team than the performance based system.

Since the ICC higher officials are mostly big 4 supporters they always support those countries. There may be many other reasons for this, especially the economy. The amount of revenue ICC gets from the Big 4 is not possible by any other countries. On the other hand, paying equally to all countries would not be rational. Because the cost of a team of Big 4 is not the same as the cost of a weaker team. If you follow this rule, the small cricket countries will benefit, but the big 4 will suffer. Which I think will never be possible.

[Negotiation]

Cricket should be like any other sport, where only citizens are allowed in national teams. FIFA, FIH or FIBA doesn't allow a single foreigner in national teams. FIBA even have strict rules regarding players who are naturalized and holding citizenship. But cricket is a joke, and you can have a national team of Slovakia or Armenia with 11 tourists from Pakistan. And on top of that, these teams now get a majority of the funding from the ICC, with huge reductions being made in fund allocation to teams with native players (Kenya, Nepal, Namibia, Scotland.etc).

I think we all should realize by now that the ICC actually does not care about the state of cricket. They are only worried about what is going on in the top 5 or 6 teams. And I want to sleep a leave that they are absolutely careless about what goes on in the associate countries. How can the national team have players from another country? What's the point of a national team being made by foreign players? At least give them citizenship and make them a legal citizens of your country and then get him in the national team. But ICC seems to be less worried about that and more worried about some bullshit agenda like black lives matters etc.

If you want to do well, you have to think anew there is no doubt about it but since the ICC is actually the status of cricket cup head-to-head. There is also the thought of whether it is right to spend more on it this time ICC is not doing that they want to put cricket in reverse. Cricket is supposed to be popularized where additional teams are given the opportunity to play in the World Cup. Test team Zimbabwe has fallen behind due to problems with cricket.

[Ayers]

The performance based system is not a problem. The problem is those teams are performing well which have foreign players stacked in the team. I would actually like to see a 50% cut in pay for the teams which have foreign players in the squad. And that 50% should be equally divided into the teams which do not have foreign players in the team.
Actually, another thing which can be done is don't have any performance based payment for the teams which have foreign players in the squad. The performance based pay should actually only exist for those which do not have foreign players in the squad. In this way, the teams will be much more interested in performing well and also not have foreign players in the team.

Cricket should be like any other sport, where only citizens are allowed in national teams. FIFA, FIH or FIBA doesn't allow a single foreigner in national teams. FIBA even have strict rules regarding players who are naturalized and holding citizenship. But cricket is a joke, and you can have a national team of Slovakia or Armenia with 11 tourists from Pakistan. And on top of that, these teams now get a majority of the funding from the ICC, with huge reductions being made in fund allocation to teams with native players (Kenya, Nepal, Namibia, Scotland.etc).

That's true, cricket rules are completely different and ICC doesn't care about it. ICC play its role only when the four powers of cricket experience some problem. According to me, playing with foreign players is not an issue. Let the funding be provided equally to every team than the performance based system.

When a kid starts playing for a country from a young age that's not a problem. But when they are trying to make a team with people who basically came to the country to find work or just visiting that's the actual problem. The best solution will be to just make those players the citizens of the country. That way no one is going to question anything and the government is also going to be responsible for them.

Since the ICC higher officials are mostly big 4 supporters they always support those countries. There may be many other reasons for this, especially the economy. The amount of revenue ICC gets from the Big 4 is not possible by any other countries. On the other hand, paying equally to all countries would not be rational. Because the cost of a team of Big 4 is not the same as the cost of a weaker team. If you follow this rule, the small cricket countries will benefit, but the big 4 will suffer. Which I think will never be possible.

One thing is sure that ICC is not going to do anything which will not be in the best interest for the top 4 teams. They will always think about the top 4 teams first, after that, they will see if that is even good for the game or not. You know that ICC actually does not run the big four, the big four is actually the one running ICC.

[romero121]

The performance based system is not a problem. The problem is those teams are performing well which have foreign players stacked in the team. I would actually like to see a 50% cut in pay for the teams which have foreign players in the squad. And that 50% should be equally divided into the teams which do not have foreign players in the team.

Actually, another thing which can be done is don't have any performance based payment for the teams which have foreign players in the squad. The performance based pay should actually only exist for those which do not have foreign players in the squad. In this way, the teams will be much more interested in performing well and also not have foreign players in the team.

Cricket should be like any other sport, where only citizens are allowed in national teams. FIFA, FIH or FIBA doesn't allow a single foreigner in national teams. FIBA even have strict rules regarding players who are naturalized and holding citizenship. But cricket is a joke, and you can have a national team of Slovakia or Armenia with 11 tourists from Pakistan. And on top of that, these teams now get a majority of the funding from the ICC, with huge reductions being made in fund allocation to teams with native players (Kenya, Nepal, Namibia, Scotland.etc).

That's true, cricket rules are completely different and ICC doesn't care about it. ICC play its role only when the four powers of cricket experience some problem. According to me, playing with foreign players is not an issue. Let the funding be provided equally to every team than the performance based system.

Since the ICC higher officials are mostly big 4 supporters they always support those countries. There may be many other reasons for this, especially the economy. The amount of revenue ICC gets from the Big 4 is not possible by any other countries. On the other hand, paying equally to all countries would not be rational. Because the cost of a team of Big 4 is not the same as the cost of a weaker team. If you follow this rule, the small cricket countries will benefit, but the big 4 will suffer. Which I think will never be possible.

ICC never makes any statement against the decisions made by the four. This is known, and the revenue is the biggest factor that gives them the power. So, until something go against them we can't be see changes happening as expected. Even with the Asia Cup, the council is in favour of India. There is proper reason, but it is not in a stand to accept or favour Pakistan. So, we can't expect native player issue to change.

[Sithara007]

That's true, cricket rules are completely different and ICC doesn't care about it. ICC play its role only when the four powers of cricket experience some problem. According to me, playing with foreign players is not an issue. Let the funding be provided equally to every team than the performance based system. Even in football it is possible to see the players descent from two different countries and the kid playing for another nation. This doesn't come under foreign playing just because the player is born in that country.

In football if a player is allowed to represent two different countries, that is because he holds the citizenship of both these nations. Diego Costa is an example. He was born in Brazil and represented that country, before switching to Spain in 2014. A more recent example is that of Rogelio Funes Mori, who switched from Argentina to Mexico. Anyway, no one complains when 1-2 players are included from other nations. But the problem is when all the 11 players are foreigners, and none of the natives are included in the playing XI (this is the case with 80% of the associate teams).

[Ayers]

That's true, cricket rules are completely different and ICC doesn't care about it. ICC play its role only when the four powers of cricket experience some problem. According to me, playing with foreign players is not an issue. Let the funding be provided equally to every team than the performance based system. Even in football it is possible to see the players descent from two different countries and the kid playing for another nation. This doesn't come under foreign playing just because the player is born in that country.

In football if a player is allowed to represent two different countries, that is because he holds the citizenship of both these nations. Diego Costa is an example. He was born in Brazil and represented that country, before switching to Spain in 2014. A more recent example is that of Rogelio Funes Mori, who switched from Argentina to Mexico. Anyway, no one complains when 1-2 players are included from other nations. But the problem is when all the 11 players are foreigners, and none of the natives are included in the playing XI (this is the case with 80% of the associate teams).

Well at least in football they have the citizenship to play for that respective country. But in cricket that is not the case. In cricket, anyone can play for any country. That is wondering which ICC have to make a change on.

We certainly wouldn't have made any comments if only 1 or two or even 3 players were actually from another country presenting the national team. But the problem has come when 10/11 players are from another country. ICC also knows very well that those associate teams which are actually made out of foreign players actually do not have any intention of getting better in cricket. They are just here to find some profit.

[Vaskiy]

That's true, cricket rules are completely different and ICC doesn't care about it. ICC play its role only when the four powers of cricket experience some problem. According to me, playing with foreign players is not an issue. Let the funding be provided equally to every team than the performance based system. Even in football it is possible to see the players descent from two different countries and the kid playing for another nation. This doesn't come under foreign playing just because the player is born in that country.

In football if a player is allowed to represent two different countries, that is because he holds the citizenship of both these nations. Diego Costa is an example. He was born in Brazil and represented that country, before switching to Spain in 2014. A more recent example is that of Rogelio Funes Mori, who switched from Argentina to Mexico. Anyway, no one complains when 1-2 players are included from other nations. But the problem is when all the 11 players are foreigners, and none of the natives are included in the playing XI (this is the case with 80% of the associate teams).

Well at least in football they have the citizenship to play for that respective country. But in cricket that is not the case. In cricket, anyone can play for any country. That is wondering which ICC have to make a change on.

We certainly wouldn't have made any comments if only 1 or two or even 3 players were actually from another country presenting the national team. But the problem has come when 10/11 players are from another country. ICC also knows very well that those associate teams which are actually made out of foreign players actually do not have any intention of getting better in cricket. They are just here to find some profit.

I don't think the focus on having a national team atleast with the foreign players is to show the team's presence. It doesn't look like they're behind the money that is being funded for the respective cricket board. There is no native players interested in cricket, maybe for that reason the sports authority of the respective country might've made plans of having foreign players added to the team. ICC knew everything and this continues till some problem arises between the native and foreign players.

[Sithara007]

Well at least in football they have the citizenship to play for that respective country. But in cricket that is not the case. In cricket, anyone can play for any country. That is wondering which ICC have to make a change on.

We certainly wouldn't have made any comments if only 1 or two or even 3 players were actually from another country presenting the national team. But the problem has come when 10/11 players are from another country. ICC also knows very well that those associate teams which are actually made out of foreign players actually do not have any intention of getting better in cricket. They are just here to find some profit.

At this point, a country such as Norway receives almost the same amount of funds as Nepal. And the funds are significant (~$200,000 per year). Nepali players are struggling, because they need to fund the domestic cricket and school cricket as well with this amount, and the players are all native. On the other hand, teams like Norway and Sweden are 100% composed of foreign players and the cricket board has no recognition from the sports ministries in these countries. Whatever funds provided by the ICC is shared between the players and they don't spend any of that amount to increase the popularity of cricket, or to teach the sport to schoolkids. This is a big scam and has been going on for many years now. Hundreds of millions of USD worth of ICC funds are being stolen by undeserving people.

[JSRAW]

A detailed breakdown of ICC's proposed revenue distribution model. It's still not final as they'll still discuss this with all the boards.

This proposed amount mentioned here is for 1 year, the complete cycle is 4 years (2024-2027).

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/bcci-projected-to-earn-us-230-million-per-year-in-icc-s-new-finance-model-1374623

[bryant.coleman]

^^^ From what I can see, almost every one got more than what they are receiving right now and should be happy. And for the Associate nations, the lion's share will be pocketed by teams such as UAE and USA who doesn't have a single native in thier squad, which will make sure that cricket in countries such as Kenya and Nepal will die down over the next few years. The following is the criteria used by the ICC to distribute revenue:

Cricket history
Performance in both men's and women's ICC events over the last 16 years
Contribution to the ICC's commercial revenue
And, an equal weightage for the status of being a Full Member

For all the test nations (including Ireland and Afghanistan), this is something that they would welcome. For the Associates, there is not going to be much excitement. Overall amount allocated is higher, but most of it will end up in undeserving destinations.

[Sithara007]

The big winners here are BCCI, ACB and CI. I calculated the % change in fund inflows per year, and this is what they are going to get in 2024-27:

BCCI: +356%
ECB:   +138%
CA:   +135%
PCB:   +116%
CSA:   +64%
NZC:   +77%
WICB: +72%
SLC:   +70%
BCB:   +67%
CI: +261%
ACB: +236%
ZC: +47%
Associates: +236%

Some of the boards, such as CNZ and CSA are not going to be happy, I guess. But these two boards have sided with BCCI every now and then and have played their part in reducing the share for associate nations. So they deserve what they get. I am still curious about how the associate share ($67.16 million per year) will get distributed among the smaller nations. The ICC has not incentivized teams with native players, and in fact they seems to be rewarding the teams who have 100% foreigner squads.

[JSRAW]

^^^ From what I can see, almost every one got more than what they are receiving right now and should be happy. And for the Associate nations, the lion's share will be pocketed by teams such as UAE and USA who doesn't have a single native in thier squad, which will make sure that cricket in countries such as Kenya and Nepal will die down over the next few years. The following is the criteria used by the ICC to distribute revenue:

Cricket history
Performance in both men's and women's ICC events over the last 16 years
Contribution to the ICC's commercial revenue
And, an equal weightage for the status of being a Full Member

For all the test nations (including Ireland and Afghanistan), this is something that they would welcome. For the Associates, there is not going to be much excitement. Overall amount allocated is higher, but most of it will end up in undeserving destinations.

Yeah, everyone seeing the increase in USD but % wise it's going down if we compare it with the previous cycle (not counting Ire +Afg as they are new), although i agree they are still benefiting from it and might go with that.

I do sense some hurdles from the BCCI tho because they were demanding this 38% mark or similar pie in the past which ICC declined by citing revenue data(which was not public), in the public domain ICC accepted that it was around 70%, that's a story of past and many analysts believe it was a lie. Recent media rights clearly show that the current standing is close to 90% so i won't be surprised if BCCI bargaining in the next ICC meetup.

The big winners here are BCCI, ACB and CI. I calculated the % change in fund inflows per year, and this is what they are going to get in 2024-27:

I see everyone as a winner except BCCI and Associates. Every Test nation getting a bigger pie in comparison to their contribution to ICC's revenue pot.

[Ayers]

Well at least in football they have the citizenship to play for that respective country. But in cricket that is not the case. In cricket, anyone can play for any country. That is wondering which ICC have to make a change on.
We certainly wouldn't have made any comments if only 1 or two or even 3 players were actually from another country presenting the national team. But the problem has come when 10/11 players are from another country. ICC also knows very well that those associate teams which are actually made out of foreign players actually do not have any intention of getting better in cricket. They are just here to find some profit.

At this point, a country such as Norway receives almost the same amount of funds as Nepal. And the funds are significant (~$200,000 per year). Nepali players are struggling, because they need to fund the domestic cricket and school cricket as well with this amount, and the players are all native. On the other hand, teams like Norway and Sweden are 100% composed of foreign players and the cricket board has no recognition from the sports ministries in these countries. Whatever funds provided by the ICC is shared between the players and they don't spend any of that amount to increase the popularity of cricket, or to teach the sport to schoolkids. This is a big scam and has been going on for many years now. Hundreds of millions of USD worth of ICC funds are being stolen by undeserving people.

Do teams like Norway and Sweden actually need the same type of funding that Nepal gets? I absolutely do not think so. I think ICC really should think about having less money for the teams which are absolutely made out of foreign players. They should also allocate that money for teams like Nepal which are made up of native players.

I understand ICC is always looking for profit. But they should also understand that once it actually becomes a big enough game all around the world it is not going to be a problem to earn profit.

[fuguebtc]

The big winners here are BCCI, ACB and CI. I calculated the % change in fund inflows per year, and this is what they are going to get in 2024-27:

BCCI: +356%
ECB:   +138%
CA:   +135%
PCB:   +116%
CSA:   +64%
NZC:   +77%
WICB: +72%
SLC:   +70%
BCB:   +67%
CI: +261%
ACB: +236%
ZC: +47%
Associates: +236%

Some of the boards, such as CNZ and CSA are not going to be happy, I guess. But these two boards have sided with BCCI every now and then and have played their part in reducing the share for associate nations. So they deserve what they get. I am still curious about how the associate share ($67.16 million per year) will get distributed among the smaller nations. The ICC has not incentivized teams with native players, and in fact they seems to be rewarding the teams who have 100% foreigner squads.

The most interesting one is going to be the associate's one in my opinion. It will actually be very interesting to see how they allocate the money after so much controversy. If this time ICC does not give more money to the teams which are actually made out of native players it will be really annoying. It is time for ICC to actually incentive the teams which has more native players. It is actually very stupid for the ICC to give more money to those teams which are already very rich and can effort to have foreign players in the team.

[bryant.coleman]

From what I can see, the allocation to associate nations have gone down, and now it is the lowest ever in terms of percentage. During 2007-14 cycle, the associate nations used to receive 35% of all the funds. Now they receive just 11%. And the number of associate nations have gone up, mainly due to fake teams made of foreigners. And this ensures that deserving teams receive hardly any funds from the ICC.

[Rabata]

From what I can see, the allocation to associate nations have gone down, and now it is the lowest ever in terms of percentage. During 2007-14 cycle, the associate nations used to receive 35% of all the funds. Now they receive just 11%. And the number of associate nations have gone up, mainly due to fake teams made of foreigners. And this ensures that deserving teams receive hardly any funds from the ICC.

I think two classes are benefiting by this allocation. One is the upper division and the other is the Associated Nations teams. However, the condition of those who have been giving more time in cricket won't be improved. BCCI is the most profitable and the reason behind this is that they have the most revenue generated through them. But what you said in the others nations those are mostly fake teams. Whose country has no own player. They also got a good amount of money and were very numerous. So, there is no doubt that the some countries who are positioning in the middle will be under threat. Next year 24-27 will create a bigger gap. In such a situation, many people are making speculations about the condition of cricket and what will be in the future.

[JSRAW]

Why would these old fucks support the associates? If we look at it from their point of view then there is no benefit even in the long term.

They just want to milk the Indian market and keep filling their pocket. In almost every podcast or commentary there is a subtle indication that BCCI should give up a big portion of their share because they earn enough through IPL but no one even argues how to make the existing market lucrative for the rest of the boards.

By mean milking; they don't want to introduce more teams in the ICC tournament. Just look at the current ODI WC setting it's freaking embarrassing, there are 10 teams going in for qualifiers and only 2 will get the slot for 10 teams ODI WC (it's directly related to the 2007 crisis).

[Sithara007]

Why would these old fucks support the associates? If we look at it from their point of view then there is no benefit even in the long term.

Two decades back, there were only 20-30 associate teams that used to take part regularly in the qualifier tournaments. Now that number has increased to around 100. So previously, if $25 million was allocated to the associates, each team would receive $1 million each. But now a lot of fake teams have entered, such as Norway, Belgium, Cyprus.etc. These teams are entirely made of foreigners and they receive the same funding as other teams like Nepal or Kenya. On paper, the allocation has gone up from 2007-14 ($25 million to $67 million). But each country will receive less amount, because the number of teams have increased. And obviously fake teams will receive a higher share since they are ranked higher. A comparison here:

ICC T20I Ranking:

Hong Kong: Rank 18 (100% foreigner)
Oman: Rank 20 (100% foreigner)
Qatar: Rank 26 (100% foreigner)
Kuwait: Rank 27 (100% foreigner)
Kenya: Rank 28 (mostly native)
Bahrain: Rank 29 (100% foreigner)
Saudi Arabia: Rank 32 (100% foreigner)
Belgium: Rank 37 (100% foreigner)
Vanuatu: Rank 43 (100% native)
Rwanda: Rank 66 (100% native)
Thailand: Rank 81 (mostly native) 
Greece: Rank 84 (mostly native)

Fake teams get higher ranking, because they win matches with the help from Indian and Pakistani players. And in the end, since their ranking is higher they get a higher share of the revenues.