Cricket match prediction discussions

[Sithara007]

Frankly, anyone who occupies the PCB's chair becomes a mentally unstable individual.

The amount of interviews Sethi Sahab gives to every media (except pak media) nowadays indicates the same. It shows the desperation and the funny part is BCCI hardly takes anything seriously.

Although they did say no to "Australia as host" regarding bilateral tests series (Ind vs Pak). Context ** Sethi gave an interview regarding Australia hosting India vs Pakistan.

PCB seems to be desperate to increase their revenue and a series between India and Pakistan can be life-changing for them. But the problem is that such a series is not important for the BCCI, who are swimming in wads of money (IPL media rights, increased allocation from the ICC and now the next cycle of bilateral media rights is up for auction). The silver lining for PCB is that their financial condition is set to improve, as the ICC has increased allocation by 116%, from $16 million per year (2015-23) to $34.51 million per year (2024-27 period). 

[posi]

Has anyone have any updates in the Asia Cup? In Pakistan a lot of drama is going on. Rambo has termed Najam Sethi as "mentally unstable" after the latter proposed to move the tournament to England. Anyway, how can a tournament that is specific to the Asian continent be moved to an European country? The BCCI is still firm in its demand that the tournament needs to be moved out of Pakistan, while the SLCB and BCB have stated that they are OK with the hybrid model that is proposed by the PCB. Former Pakistan player Salman Butt has come up with a bizarre proposal BTW. His suggestion is to have the tournament to be held in England, with 6 teams from Asia (those who already qualified) and 4 from Europe (England, Scotland, Ireland and Netherlands). He claims that this "Euro-Asian cup" will act as a rehearsal for the ODI world cup.

Frankly, anyone who occupies the PCB's chair becomes a mentally unstable individual.
The amount of interviews Sethi Sahab gives to every media (except pak media) nowadays indicates the same. It shows the desperation and the funny part is BCCI hardly takes anything seriously.
Although they did say no to "Australia as host" regarding bilateral tests series (Ind vs Pak). Context ** Sethi gave an interview regarding Australia hosting India vs Pakistan.

I actually do not want to get engaged into this drama. I really want to see the end of it. I understand that Pakistan is currently not a very safe country. The political situation and also the economic situation of Pakistan are not good at all right now.

So the safe decision is going to be moving the Asia Cup to a neutral place. At first, I thought England or Australia is not going to be a good idea. But on second thought I believe it is not going to be bad honestly. BCCI might actually want that as it will give them a good experience outside the subcontinent conditions.

[JSRAW]

~snip~
PCB seems to be desperate to increase their revenue and a series between India and Pakistan can be life-changing for them. But the problem is that such a series is not important for the BCCI, who are swimming in wads of money (IPL media rights, increased allocation from the ICC and now the next cycle of bilateral media rights is up for auction). The silver lining for PCB is that their financial condition is set to improve, as the ICC has increased allocation by 116%, from $16 million per year (2015-23) to $34.51 million per year (2024-27 period). 

Yup, only desperation nothing else.

BTW he also raised his voice regarding the ICC revenue model, to his credit he did acknowledge that BCCI deserves a big share. His objection focus on the revenue formula, which actually looks weird on paper.

So the safe decision is going to be moving the Asia Cup to a neutral place. At first, I thought England or Australia is not going to be a good idea. But on second thought I believe it is not going to be bad honestly. BCCI might actually want that as it will give them a good experience outside the subcontinent conditions.

Asia Cup in Europe and Oceanic countries when ODI World Cup is scheduled in the Indian subcontinent. Not a wise decision IMO.

[posi]

So the safe decision is going to be moving the Asia Cup to a neutral place. At first, I thought England or Australia is not going to be a good idea. But on second thought I believe it is not going to be bad honestly. BCCI might actually want that as it will give them a good experience outside the subcontinent conditions.

Asia Cup in Europe and Oceanic countries when ODI World Cup is scheduled in the Indian subcontinent. Not a wise decision IMO.

Well, UAE is always an option. Don't think anyone is going to oppose that idea, to be honest. Pakistani should understand that the situation is not right for Pakistan to host the Asia Cup right now. For actually any tournament as a matter of fact.

So, I don't think Pakistan will stand by their word for not participating in the world cup if the Asia Cup gets moved to another venue. It is true that Pakistan is not going to get the benefit that they could help get from the home ground. But it is what it is.

[JSRAW]

So the safe decision is going to be moving the Asia Cup to a neutral place. At first, I thought England or Australia is not going to be a good idea. But on second thought I believe it is not going to be bad honestly. BCCI might actually want that as it will give them a good experience outside the subcontinent conditions.

Asia Cup in Europe and Oceanic countries when ODI World Cup is scheduled in the Indian subcontinent. Not a wise decision IMO.

Well, UAE is always an option. Don't think anyone is going to oppose that idea, to be honest. Pakistani should understand that the situation is not right for Pakistan to host the Asia Cup right now. For actually any tournament as a matter of fact.

So, I don't think Pakistan will stand by their word for not participating in the world cup if the Asia Cup gets moved to another venue. It is true that Pakistan is not going to get the benefit that they could help get from the home ground. But it is what it is.

Yeah you are right, no one is going to oppose UAE as a venue but if i am being honest most of the tournaments scheduled there seem quite boring because of the toss. It's almost certain that "win the toss and win the match scenario".

It happened with the IPL, Asia Cup and T-20 WC so personally would like to see SL or Ban (or maybe together) hosting the Asia Cup. 

[MusaPk]

PCB seems to be desperate to increase their revenue and a series between India and Pakistan can be life-changing for them. But the problem is that such a series is not important for the BCCI, who are swimming in wads of money (IPL media rights, increased allocation from the ICC and now the next cycle of bilateral media rights is up for auction). The silver lining for PCB is that their financial condition is set to improve, as the ICC has increased allocation by 116%, from $16 million per year (2015-23) to $34.51 million per year (2024-27 period).  

PCB is not happy with ICC new revenue distribution model as Najam Sethi wants clarity on how figures are calculated. PCB chairman saying that we have no objection on India getting bigger share but ICC must tell how these figures are calculated. The amount of money BCCI is getting from IPL, I think 231 Million USD are not a huge money for them.

Image from ESPNCRICINFO

PCB is not happy with ICC new revenue distribution model as Najam Sethi wants clarity on how figures are calculated. PCB chairman saying that we have no objection on India getting bigger share but ICC must tell how these figures are calculated. The amount of money BCCI is getting from IPL, I think 231 Million USD are not a huge money for them.

[n0ne]

PCB seems to be desperate to increase their revenue and a series between India and Pakistan can be life-changing for them. But the problem is that such a series is not important for the BCCI, who are swimming in wads of money (IPL media rights, increased allocation from the ICC and now the next cycle of bilateral media rights is up for auction). The silver lining for PCB is that their financial condition is set to improve, as the ICC has increased allocation by 116%, from $16 million per year (2015-23) to $34.51 million per year (2024-27 period).  

PCB is not happy with ICC new revenue distribution model as Najam Sethi wants clarity on how figures are calculated. PCB chairman saying that we have no objection on India getting bigger share but ICC must tell how these figures are calculated. The amount of money BCCI is getting from IPL, I think 231 Million USD are not a huge money for them.

Image from ESPNCRICINFO

PCB is not happy with ICC new revenue distribution model as Najam Sethi wants clarity on how figures are calculated. PCB chairman saying that we have no objection on India getting bigger share but ICC must tell how these figures are calculated. The amount of money BCCI is getting from IPL, I think 231 Million USD are not a huge money for them.

PCB is the only board that tries to get some answers. The distribution is fair, and most have got good increase in the allocation. This could help with the improvement. However the difference between what India received against the other teams is really big. PCB had delayed its PSL, maybe if they've started it earlier they could've got good revenue by now. Because in terms of cricket supporters we were able to see a good number in Pakistan.

[Sithara007]

PCB is the only board that tries to get some answers. The distribution is fair, and most have got good increase in the allocation. This could help with the improvement. However the difference between what India received against the other teams is really big. PCB had delayed its PSL, maybe if they've started it earlier they could've got good revenue by now. Because in terms of cricket supporters we were able to see a good number in Pakistan.

IMO, the revenue allocation should have been purely based on performance in ICC tournaments (this is what other sports bodies such as the FIFA does). This would have given a higher share to teams such as Australia and lower share for the BCCI. The logic of allocating 39% of all the funds to one country doesn't make sense. In the long term, this will ensure the death of cricket in most of the countries outside South Asia. Already we are witnessing the signs in South Africa, West Indies and associate nations such as Netherlands.

[JSRAW]

PCB is the only board that tries to get some answers. The distribution is fair, and most have got good increase in the allocation. This could help with the improvement. However the difference between what India received against the other teams is really big. PCB had delayed its PSL, maybe if they've started it earlier they could've got good revenue by now. Because in terms of cricket supporters we were able to see a good number in Pakistan.

Sethi not particularly opposing the bigger share of BCCI. He and many raised an eyebrow at the distribution formula and rightly so.

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

Those criteria - "component weightings", the model calls them - are:

-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

IMO, the revenue allocation should have been purely based on performance in ICC tournaments (this is what other sports bodies such as the FIFA does). This would have given a higher share to teams such as Australia and lower share for the BCCI. The logic of allocating 39% of all the funds to one country doesn't make sense. In the long term, this will ensure the death of cricket in most of the countries outside South Asia. Already we are witnessing the signs in South Africa, West Indies and associate nations such as Netherlands.

Yeah, it would look okay if there is only 1 WC after every 3-4 years but we have ICC tournaments every year. We already know why ICC love this new setup, including boards (except BCCI).

[MusaPk]

PCB is the only board that tries to get some answers. The distribution is fair, and most have got good increase in the allocation. This could help with the improvement. However the difference between what India received against the other teams is really big. PCB had delayed its PSL, maybe if they've started it earlier they could've got good revenue by now. Because in terms of cricket supporters we were able to see a good number in Pakistan.

PSL is giving good revenue to PCB with every passing year. I don't think there is any comparison of IPL with any other league in the world. PCB claims that every PSL is giving them more profit compared to the last one but still it wont go anyway near to IPL. India is getting major portion of ICC funds because BCCI is the where funds for ICC comes from. I support PCB stance that ICC must clarify how these funds are distributed.

[DanWalker]

PCB is the only board that tries to get some answers. The distribution is fair, and most have got good increase in the allocation. This could help with the improvement. However the difference between what India received against the other teams is really big. PCB had delayed its PSL, maybe if they've started it earlier they could've got good revenue by now. Because in terms of cricket supporters we were able to see a good number in Pakistan.

IMO, the revenue allocation should have been purely based on performance in ICC tournaments (this is what other sports bodies such as the FIFA does). This would have given a higher share to teams such as Australia and lower share for the BCCI. The logic of allocating 39% of all the funds to one country doesn't make sense. In the long term, this will ensure the death of cricket in most of the countries outside South Asia. Already we are witnessing the signs in South Africa, West Indies and associate nations such as Netherlands.

Cricket is certainly not as big as football. So the ICC cannot take the same steps as FIFA to allocate the money. If they just give the money based on performance of course the smaller teams are not going to survive. They just cannot charge the team which has been playing cricket for a long time and the team which has just started on the same pedestal.

I think there should be a bare minimum amount that has to be given to a country. I think the problem is going to be fixed if they just stop giving so much money to the teams which are made out of foreign players and give them to the teams with native players.

[Webetcoins]

PCB is the only board that tries to get some answers. The distribution is fair, and most have got good increase in the allocation. This could help with the improvement. However the difference between what India received against the other teams is really big. PCB had delayed its PSL, maybe if they've started it earlier they could've got good revenue by now. Because in terms of cricket supporters we were able to see a good number in Pakistan.

IMO, the revenue allocation should have been purely based on performance in ICC tournaments (this is what other sports bodies such as the FIFA does). This would have given a higher share to teams such as Australia and lower share for the BCCI. The logic of allocating 39% of all the funds to one country doesn't make sense. In the long term, this will ensure the death of cricket in most of the countries outside South Asia. Already we are witnessing the signs in South Africa, West Indies and associate nations such as Netherlands.

Cricket is never been treated as normal sport due to strong hold of Britain colonist mindset with this now power is already shifted from England and Australia to India which is taking good advantage of this all, and we have no answer of this all because right now all finances are under Indian control or due to Indian market which is surely not comparable so if India is taking advantage then surely it's their right due to long control of England and Australia with their power.

But if we want better changes then surely we need to have some fair policies which are not coming because no one interested in this all, and they are trying to have their own share which is good enough for them, so they are enjoying but if we have more countries involved, and then we also have just two world cups with one is T20i and second is WTC after every four years and other events need to be ended hopefully things have good change.

[darewaller]

PCB is the only board that tries to get some answers. The distribution is fair, and most have got good increase in the allocation. This could help with the improvement. However the difference between what India received against the other teams is really big. PCB had delayed its PSL, maybe if they've started it earlier they could've got good revenue by now. Because in terms of cricket supporters we were able to see a good number in Pakistan.

PSL is giving good revenue to PCB with every passing year. I don't think there is any comparison of IPL with any other league in the world. PCB claims that every PSL is giving them more profit compared to the last one but still it wont go anyway near to IPL. India is getting major portion of ICC funds because BCCI is the where funds for ICC comes from. I support PCB stance that ICC must clarify how these funds are distributed.

PSL is not good in terms of sustainability in long run because of current situation in Pakistan things can go in wrong way anytime which could be not ideal as well so just because of this Sethi is giving statements like these if Pakistan have better situation then surely they never need any series or any things like this which involved India as well.

Recently we have too much criticism against Sethi about his statement as he wants to play against India because right now things are not favorable for this all so just because of this many are against him and his statement, but due to current political instability things are not going to on normal with this all most chances we will not have Asia Cup in this year even on neutral venue.

[DanWalker]

PSL is giving good revenue to PCB with every passing year. I don't think there is any comparison of IPL with any other league in the world. PCB claims that every PSL is giving them more profit compared to the last one but still it wont go anyway near to IPL. India is getting major portion of ICC funds because BCCI is the where funds for ICC comes from. I support PCB stance that ICC must clarify how these funds are distributed.

PSL is not good in terms of sustainability in long run because of current situation in Pakistan things can go in wrong way anytime which could be not ideal as well so just because of this Sethi is giving statements like these if Pakistan have better situation then surely they never need any series or any things like this which involved India as well.
Recently we have too much criticism against Sethi about his statement as he wants to play against India because right now things are not favorable for this all so just because of this many are against him and his statement, but due to current political instability things are not going to on normal with this all most chances we will not have Asia Cup in this year even on neutral venue.

Probably it is actually not going to be a bad idea if the Asia Cup is actually postponed. After all India and Pakistan are the best two teams in the Asia Cup. If these two cannot come to a solution together I don't think it is going to be a good idea to get into the Asia Cup.

I fear that Pakistan might actually want to not play the Asia Cup if it is not held in Pakistan. That is certainly going to cost the ICC a lot of money. Because India versus Pakistan is a very big revenue generator for them. So, I believe they should postpone the Asia Cup and once there is stability again they should arrange the Asia Cup.

[jaberwock]

Probably it is actually not going to be a bad idea if the Asia Cup is actually postponed. After all India and Pakistan are the best two teams in the Asia Cup. If these two cannot come to a solution together I don't think it is going to be a good idea to get into the Asia Cup.

I fear that Pakistan might actually want to not play the Asia Cup if it is not held in Pakistan. That is certainly going to cost the ICC a lot of money. Because India versus Pakistan is a very big revenue generator for them. So, I believe they should postpone the Asia Cup and once there is stability again they should arrange the Asia Cup.

Right now, as things are going I am feeling now it's time for taking bold decisions if ICC and ACC wants to do something positive for the cricket because due to these two countries tensions we are losing something from Asian Cricket and overall in this game as well if these are not agreed about few things then surely ACC or ICC needs to work on ban this event from these two countries, and they will be never eligible for holding this just Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and UAE these three venues are OK because no one have problem and these two teams can also participate in these countries as well and if this is not going to work then surely they need to ban Pakistan from Asian cricket because they are creating mess-up which is not good for the game in this region here I am going with India just because of their market and influence in this game, so all could be OK, and they are also able to have good funding from this event without any problem as well.

[Vaskiy]

PCB is the only board that tries to get some answers. The distribution is fair, and most have got good increase in the allocation. This could help with the improvement. However the difference between what India received against the other teams is really big. PCB had delayed its PSL, maybe if they've started it earlier they could've got good revenue by now. Because in terms of cricket supporters we were able to see a good number in Pakistan.

IMO, the revenue allocation should have been purely based on performance in ICC tournaments (this is what other sports bodies such as the FIFA does). This would have given a higher share to teams such as Australia and lower share for the BCCI. The logic of allocating 39% of all the funds to one country doesn't make sense. In the long term, this will ensure the death of cricket in most of the countries outside South Asia. Already we are witnessing the signs in South Africa, West Indies and associate nations such as Netherlands.

Cricket is certainly not as big as football. So the ICC cannot take the same steps as FIFA to allocate the money. If they just give the money based on performance of course the smaller teams are not going to survive. They just cannot charge the team which has been playing cricket for a long time and the team which has just started on the same pedestal.

I think there should be a bare minimum amount that has to be given to a country. I think the problem is going to be fixed if they just stop giving so much money to the teams which are made out of foreign players and give them to the teams with native players.

Every sport grows over time. Football reached the world earlier and it can be seen much on the European and American continents. Around the Asian circle we were able to see cricket much more than other sports. Now only it is getting widened around the world. Even football might've faced the same problem earlier. Its time for the board to try and correct itself.

It is common to have minimum amount. Even with cricket this is how distribution is done. Apart from the minimum amount will be the performance based funding. Foreign players controversy doesn't come to an end for some reason.

[Sithara007]

Cricket is certainly not as big as football. So the ICC cannot take the same steps as FIFA to allocate the money. If they just give the money based on performance of course the smaller teams are not going to survive. They just cannot charge the team which has been playing cricket for a long time and the team which has just started on the same pedestal.

I think there should be a bare minimum amount that has to be given to a country. I think the problem is going to be fixed if they just stop giving so much money to the teams which are made out of foreign players and give them to the teams with native players.

None of the other sports do have this lop sided revenue distribution model. In cricket, the top 12 teams receive 89% of all the revenue and the remaining 100 plus countries receive 11%. And then the new formula favors teams that don't have any native players in their squad, such as the United Arab Emirates and the United States of America. ICC's revenue distribution model ensures that poor teams remain poor, and the rich ones get even more richer. And another drawback is that there is no promotion-relegation system among the top-12.

[Rabata]

Cricket is certainly not as big as football. So the ICC cannot take the same steps as FIFA to allocate the money. If they just give the money based on performance of course the smaller teams are not going to survive. They just cannot charge the team which has been playing cricket for a long time and the team which has just started on the same pedestal.

I think there should be a bare minimum amount that has to be given to a country. I think the problem is going to be fixed if they just stop giving so much money to the teams which are made out of foreign players and give them to the teams with native players.

None of the other sports do have this lop sided revenue distribution model. In cricket, the top 12 teams receive 89% of all the revenue and the remaining 100 plus countries receive 11%. And then the new formula favors teams that don't have any native players in their squad, such as the United Arab Emirates and the United States of America. ICC's revenue distribution model ensures that poor teams remain poor, and the rich ones get even more richer. And another drawback is that there is no promotion-relegation system among the top-12.

I don't know on what basis they( ICC) chose such a distribution method. But if overall development of cricket is aimed then they must move away from this distributed system. One thing I find very annoying is that if a country is completely lead by foreign players how can they develop cricket in that country? and what is the goal of the ICC in this situation? Policies should be made where poor cricketing countries can be encouraged to play cricket. Another rule should be made that every country should have at least 5 native players mandatory in cricket. Then we can hope for good in that country even after a long time.

[romero121]

Cricket is certainly not as big as football. So the ICC cannot take the same steps as FIFA to allocate the money. If they just give the money based on performance of course the smaller teams are not going to survive. They just cannot charge the team which has been playing cricket for a long time and the team which has just started on the same pedestal.

I think there should be a bare minimum amount that has to be given to a country. I think the problem is going to be fixed if they just stop giving so much money to the teams which are made out of foreign players and give them to the teams with native players.

None of the other sports do have this lop sided revenue distribution model. In cricket, the top 12 teams receive 89% of all the revenue and the remaining 100 plus countries receive 11%. And then the new formula favors teams that don't have any native players in their squad, such as the United Arab Emirates and the United States of America. ICC's revenue distribution model ensures that poor teams remain poor, and the rich ones get even more richer. And another drawback is that there is no promotion-relegation system among the top-12.

I don't know on what basis they( ICC) chose such a distribution method. But if overall development of cricket is aimed then they must move away from this distributed system. One thing I find very annoying is that if a country is completely lead by foreign players how can they develop cricket in that country? and what is the goal of the ICC in this situation? Policies should be made where poor cricketing countries can be encouraged to play cricket. Another rule should be made that every country should have at least 5 native players mandatory in cricket. Then we can hope for good in that country even after a long time.

When a country is ready to spend on its players. The native players aren't interested in playing cricket, and the country wants a cricket team. By the time foreign players are ready to play for the country. In such situation what should be done. Because no country intentionally add foreign players leaving the natives. The natives always have the priority, just because they aren't interested the opportunity is being used by the foreign players.

[Blitzboy]

Cricket is certainly not as big as football. So the ICC cannot take the same steps as FIFA to allocate the money. If they just give the money based on performance of course the smaller teams are not going to survive. They just cannot charge the team which has been playing cricket for a long time and the team which has just started on the same pedestal.

I think there should be a bare minimum amount that has to be given to a country. I think the problem is going to be fixed if they just stop giving so much money to the teams which are made out of foreign players and give them to the teams with native players.

None of the other sports do have this lop sided revenue distribution model. In cricket, the top 12 teams receive 89% of all the revenue and the remaining 100 plus countries receive 11%. And then the new formula favors teams that don't have any native players in their squad, such as the United Arab Emirates and the United States of America. ICC's revenue distribution model ensures that poor teams remain poor, and the rich ones get even more richer. And another drawback is that there is no promotion-relegation system among the top-12.

I don't know on what basis they( ICC) chose such a distribution method. But if overall development of cricket is aimed then they must move away from this distributed system. One thing I find very annoying is that if a country is completely lead by foreign players how can they develop cricket in that country? and what is the goal of the ICC in this situation? Policies should be made where poor cricketing countries can be encouraged to play cricket. Another rule should be made that every country should have at least 5 native players mandatory in cricket. Then we can hope for good in that country even after a long time.

First off, I totally get your frustration, mate. I mean, how can a country develop its own cricket when the team is stuffed with foreign players? Isn't it like cooking spaghetti bolognese with soy sauce? Doesn't quite sit right, does it? Here's the pickle though. What if the native players aren't quite interested in cricket? Do we force them to play? Or do we let the foreign players take the field because they're ready and willing? And who's going to break the news to them - "Sorry, you can't play because you're not from around here"? The ICC should indeed do something about this, perhaps some sort of incentive for the locals to step up their game? Now wouldn't that be a sight for sore eyes?