T20 and T20I cricket prediction and discussion

[fuguebtc]

Yes, if Kenya had been consistent since 2003, they would have been a much better team than West Indies or Zimbabwe at the moment because they had the experience of beating big teams. ICC is not doing anything to prioritize any potential team. There are currently 85 countries in the ICC Cricket Ranking list. This situation seems that they are interested in adding more countries to cricket just for quantity. But what they really deserve that is not clear. ICC needs to give special facilities to those who love cricket and those who truly try to develop their cricket.

How can they be consistent when they were not allowed to play against full members during the 2003-2007 period? They played a few matches during the 2003 World Cup. The next opportunity came during the 2007 World Cup. In between they played zero matches in 4 years against full members. And the funding actually went down during the same period. And the so called 85 "associate member" list is a myth. At least 60-65 of these teams doesn't have a single citizen in the team and are entirely comprised of tourists and students from India/Pakistan.

We all know that it is just Kenya not being able to keep people on paycheck who come from another country because the financial situation of Kenya is not that good, which is the reason why they are not doing well right now in cricket. I am sure that if they did something like those “associate nations“ are doing, they would have also got a good amount of funding from the ICC.

Just tell me, how a team that was in the semifinals of the 2003 World Cup not play even a single match against full members before playing in the 2007 World Cup? The 2007 World Cup was the World Cup of surprises. If Kenya actually continued playing against full members of the ICC, I think they were also going to do well in the 2007 World Cup.

[1715441855]

1715441855

[1715441855]

1715441855

[1715441855]

1715441855

[1715441855]

1715441855

[1715441855]

1715441855

[Sithara007]

✂
Just tell me, how a team that was in the semifinals of the 2003 World Cup not play even a single match against full members before playing in the 2007 World Cup? The 2007 World Cup was the World Cup of surprises. If Kenya actually continued playing against full members of the ICC, I think they were also going to do well in the 2007 World Cup.

Well.. the full member nations simply refused to play against them. I am not just talking about the pig-4 (BCCI, CA, ECB and CNZ), but also about the other full member boards such as the SLCB, WICB and ZC. For a team like India, playing against Kenya was not a revenue-earning option. That was understandable. But I don't know why the teams like Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe refused to play against them. On the other hand, Bangladesh was provided with tons of opportunities at the same time. Anyway, Kenya cricket is now almost defunct.

[darewaller]

the full member nations simply refused to play against them. I am not just talking about the pig-4 (BCCI, CA, ECB and CNZ), but also about the other full member boards such as the SLCB, WICB and ZC. For a team like India, playing against Kenya was not a revenue-earning option. That was understandable. But I don't know why the teams like Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe refused to play against them. On the other hand, Bangladesh was provided with tons of opportunities at the same time. Anyway, Kenya cricket is now almost defunct.

Here I will blame ICC because they need to be stick about their game's quality which is important, but they are not doing anything about this and discouraging Associate countries just because of playing against big nations are not good for their finances here they must act and bring better policy which helps all nations for increasing quality and having experience because if you want to bring more teams in system then actions like these are must.
 
Even if they can't big regular teams then playing against A team from big nations are also helpful for them because now it's time for having few events like Under-17 and Under20 because this will help youths, and they will be able to have better technique and experience.

[fuguebtc]

✂
Just tell me, how a team that was in the semifinals of the 2003 World Cup not play even a single match against full members before playing in the 2007 World Cup? The 2007 World Cup was the World Cup of surprises. If Kenya actually continued playing against full members of the ICC, I think they were also going to do well in the 2007 World Cup.

Well.. the full member nations simply refused to play against them. I am not just talking about the pig-4 (BCCI, CA, ECB and CNZ), but also about the other full member boards such as the SLCB, WICB and ZC. For a team like India, playing against Kenya was not a revenue-earning option. That was understandable. But I don't know why the teams like Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe refused to play against them. On the other hand, Bangladesh was provided with tons of opportunities at the same time. Anyway, Kenya cricket is now almost defunct.

I simply think that it was because they did not see the potential that the Africans had in cricket. I don’t think there should be an option for the teams if they actually do or don’t want to play against a certain team. The decision should be taken by the ICC. But obviously, ICC was not controlled by the ICC themselves. It was controlled by the big four.

Here I will blame ICC because they need to be stick about their game's quality which is important, but they are not doing anything about this and discouraging Associate countries just because of playing against big nations are not good for their finances here they must act and bring better policy which helps all nations for increasing quality and having experience because if you want to bring more teams in system then actions like these are must.
 
Even if they can't big regular teams then playing against A team from big nations are also helpful for them because now it's time for having few events like Under-17 and Under20 because this will help youths, and they will be able to have better technique and experience.

ICC is to blame for everything bad that has happened in cricket in my opinion. I said that because they simply couldn’t actually hold that authority that they should have. What is the point of having a sports body if they are controlled by the big four teams? ICC should have taken a firm step in this situation.

[eaLiTy]

~
Just tell me, how a team that was in the semifinals of the 2003 World Cup not play even a single match against full members before playing in the 2007 World Cup? The 2007 World Cup was the World Cup of surprises. If Kenya actually continued playing against full members of the ICC, I think they were also going to do well in the 2007 World Cup.

You are missing all the crucial aspects, New Zealand refused to play against Kenya in Kenya as they were the co host during the 2003 World Cup, match fixing had a huge impact and the conflict between the players and their Cricket board and they were not able to replicate that World Cup success after that tournament and they were given opportunities to face national A sides and they were not able to defeat them either and you think a full member team should play during that period.

~
But I don't know why the teams like Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe refused to play against them. On the other hand, Bangladesh was provided with tons of opportunities at the same time. Anyway, Kenya cricket is now almost defunct.

I explained the reason above and in other Cricketing threads as well and on top of that the Kenyan Cricket board also got dissolved during that period and without a Cricket board there is no national team and you cannot blame the ICC for that.

~
ICC is to blame for everything bad that has happened in cricket in my opinion. I said that because they simply couldn’t actually hold that authority that they should have. What is the point of having a sports body if they are controlled by the big four teams? ICC should have taken a firm step in this situation.

England was controlling Cricket from its inception till the late 80s, India literally forced them to move the World Cup out of England in 1987 and then only Australia got the opportunity to host them in 1992 and other countries got the opportunity to host because of that tactical move and by that time India became a huge revenue generating market for the ICC and other countries can aspire to do the same and never expect to get these opportunities in a golden platter.

[n0ne]

Uganda have outlawed Kenya in a one off tournaments final match by a run. Uganda have scored 125 runs in 20 overs losing the entire wickets. Kenya started to chase the target with consecutive wicket fall, however the score kept coming along the way. Finally 24 runs required in the last 27 balls with 6 wickets in hand. Kenya wasn't able to reach the target and lost the match by a single run. Kenya seems to be better in ODI cricket whereas it wasn't able to perform big in T20.

[Sithara007]

ICC is to blame for everything bad that has happened in cricket in my opinion. I said that because they simply couldn’t actually hold that authority that they should have. What is the point of having a sports body if they are controlled by the big four teams? ICC should have taken a firm step in this situation.

Back then it was the Pawar/Srinivasan era. These two were only bothered about making money for themselves. Only when the mafia was kicked out by Jay Shah and Anurag Thakur, the horror story ended. And this is also one of the reasons why I don't oppose Jay Shah too much. Because the alternative is a lot worse. The only difference is that instead of Pawar/Srinivasan, it will be their nepotistic children (Rupa Gurunath and Supriya Sule) who are even worse. In less than a year, general elections are due in India. If NDA loses, then we'll again see Pawar/Srinivasan controlling the ICC.

[Juggy777]

ICC is to blame for everything bad that has happened in cricket in my opinion. I said that because they simply couldn’t actually hold that authority that they should have. What is the point of having a sports body if they are controlled by the big four teams? ICC should have taken a firm step in this situation.

Back then it was the Pawar/Srinivasan era. These two were only bothered about making money for themselves. Only when the mafia was kicked out by Jay Shah and Anurag Thakur, the horror story ended. And this is also one of the reasons why I don't oppose Jay Shah too much. Because the alternative is a lot worse. The only difference is that instead of Pawar/Srinivasan, it will be their nepotistic children (Rupa Gurunath and Supriya Sule) who are even worse. In less than a year, general elections are due in India. If NDA loses, then we'll again see Pawar/Srinivasan controlling the ICC.

@Sithara007 even the current members of ICC are just interested in making money nothing more because the way matches are scheduled and the way IPL was granted the extended window says it’s all. Furthermore I don’t know if the alternative is worst or no but the fan’s and the media should try and make the ICC accountable because it’s high time they stop being authoritative and start taking making decisions.

[Sithara007]

@Sithara007 even the current members of ICC are just interested in making money nothing more because the way matches are scheduled and the way IPL was granted the extended window says it’s all. Furthermore I don’t know if the alternative is worst or no but the fan’s and the media should try and make the ICC accountable because it’s high time they stop being authoritative and start taking making decisions.

The IPL window is going to get extended further in the future. Right now we have 10 teams and a 2.5 month window. Sometime in the future, we might see a 20-team competition with a 4-month window. Already the IPL franchises are trying to enter into direct contracts with some of the overseas players. And they own teams in different leagues around the world, such as CPL, GT20 and ILT20. In the next 5-10 years, ICC and BCCI will get a taste of their own medicine, when the IPL franchises will take over world cricket.

[JSRAW]

@Sithara007 even the current members of ICC are just interested in making money nothing more because the way matches are scheduled and the way IPL was granted the extended window says it’s all. Furthermore I don’t know if the alternative is worst or no but the fan’s and the media should try and make the ICC accountable because it’s high time they stop being authoritative and start taking making decisions.

The IPL window is going to get extended further in the future. Right now we have 10 teams and a 2.5 month window. Sometime in the future, we might see a 20-team competition with a 4-month window. Already the IPL franchises are trying to enter into direct contracts with some of the overseas players. And they own teams in different leagues around the world, such as CPL, GT20 and ILT20. In the next 5-10 years, ICC and BCCI will get a taste of their own medicine, when the IPL franchises will take over world cricket.

And what would be the timeline for reaching 20 team competition? I believe a minimum of 20-25 years from now on.

IPL franchise expansion might work against BCCI in the future (not in the context of bilateral tho because these useless series are going to take a hit anyway) but for some time, let's say a decade or so these other T-20 leagues will work as a feeder for IPL.

[3kpk3]

The IPL window is going to get extended further in the future. Right now we have 10 teams and a 2.5 month window. Sometime in the future, we might see a 20-team competition with a 4-month window.

20 freaking teams? That would be insane and I doubt that would ever happen since the current 10 team format itself attracted a lot of criticism due to prolonging the duration of seasons stressing out the players and the crowds.

And what would be the timeline for reaching 20 team competition? I believe a minimum of 20-25 years from now on.

More like never. Too many teams would imply too many matches which would mess up the entertainment factor related to the IPL.

[n0ne]

20+ teams in IPL is possible, but this will surely affect the bilateral series and other tournaments. This will make players give importance to IPL than national cricket. Finally everywhere it is possible to see the franchise of IPL holding teams in each and every T20 league around the world. Right now South Africa T20 league teams were owned by different IPL franchise and now Texas Super Kings team owned by Chennai Super Kings on the Major League Cricket. Now the promotion is happening in USA. Slowly cricket is getting all around, even on countries where cricket isn't much followed.

[Sithara007]

And what would be the timeline for reaching 20 team competition? I believe a minimum of 20-25 years from now on.

IPL franchise expansion might work against BCCI in the future (not in the context of bilateral tho because these useless series are going to take a hit anyway) but for some time, let's say a decade or so these other T-20 leagues will work as a feeder for IPL.

20 years sound too long for me. IPL is growing at a pace that no one might have imagined a few years ago. IPL franchises are getting sold for almost $1 billion per team. Media rights are being sold for $1.2 billion per year. A few years ago, no one might have imagined these numbers were possible. My prediction is that by 2030 or so, IPL will be a four-month tournament played by 20 or so teams and the media rights will be worth anywhere from $3 billion to $5 billion per year. Player salaries can go up by 10x, and maximum salary may touch $25 million per year.

[Litzki1990]

20+ teams in IPL is possible, but this will surely affect the bilateral series and other tournaments. This will make players give importance to IPL than national cricket. Finally everywhere it is possible to see the franchise of IPL holding teams in each and every T20 league around the world. Right now South Africa T20 league teams were owned by different IPL franchise and now Texas Super Kings team owned by Chennai Super Kings on the Major League Cricket. Now the promotion is happening in USA. Slowly cricket is getting all around, even on countries where cricket isn't much followed.

If an IPL franchise is formed with 20+ teams then the duration of the tournament will be much longer. This season the duration of IPL was like two months, if it is conducted with 20 teams then it will take about four to five months to finish this league. As a result, many bilateral series will be stopped. Not only in America, but also in Saudi Arabia, various countries are currently giving much importance to cricket. These countries may have discovered the lucrative aspects of cricket as a result of which they are planning how to profit by running these franchise leagues. BCCI is planning to conduct IPL with 20 plus teams as well as two ipls in a year. If more franchise leagues are organized then most of the players will not give much importance to T20 and Test cricket. Because T20 is a very short game and it is possible to earn more money in this short game.

[JSRAW]

And what would be the timeline for reaching 20 team competition? I believe a minimum of 20-25 years from now on.

IPL franchise expansion might work against BCCI in the future (not in the context of bilateral tho because these useless series are going to take a hit anyway) but for some time, let's say a decade or so these other T-20 leagues will work as a feeder for IPL.

20 years sound too long for me. IPL is growing at a pace that no one might have imagined a few years ago. IPL franchises are getting sold for almost $1 billion per team. Media rights are being sold for $1.2 billion per year. A few years ago, no one might have imagined these numbers were possible. My prediction is that by 2030 or so, IPL will be a four-month tournament played by 20 or so teams and the media rights will be worth anywhere from $3 billion to $5 billion per year. Player salaries can go up by 10x, and maximum salary may touch $25 million per year.

Expanding the team in the IPL would depend on the future media rights deal.

The current one is fixed for 5 years, so no changes in the 10-team format till 2027. If we go by their previous expansion pattern then they would like to add a few teams (at best 2) in every new cycle(given it's 4-5 years for every deal). That's why I came up with the number of min 20-25 years.

[dezoel]

20+ teams in IPL is possible, but this will surely affect the bilateral series and other tournaments. This will make players give importance to IPL than national cricket. Finally everywhere it is possible to see the franchise of IPL holding teams in each and every T20 league around the world. Right now South Africa T20 league teams were owned by different IPL franchise and now Texas Super Kings team owned by Chennai Super Kings on the Major League Cricket. Now the promotion is happening in USA. Slowly cricket is getting all around, even on countries where cricket isn't much followed.

I am not agreed with this idea of 20 teams in IPL because this is going to hurt badly many like players and fans with many other leagues are also going to disturb with this as well even this is not business of BCCI as they could be directly having huge benefit from this all, and they could be richer in the sporting world as well, but they need to work on too much for this all before jumping into this idea because now many IPL franchise are investing in other leagues and surely with this all they are also going hit them directly as well.

MLC in the USA is also going to launch something big with Saudis are also working with this system and trying to have something good in cricket in their country with this all, most chances BCCI will keep this all with 12 to 14 teams and allow others to also have something positive as well.

[speeder]

20+ teams in IPL is possible, but this will surely affect the bilateral series and other tournaments. This will make players give importance to IPL than national cricket. Finally everywhere it is possible to see the franchise of IPL holding teams in each and every T20 league around the world. Right now South Africa T20 league teams were owned by different IPL franchise and now Texas Super Kings team owned by Chennai Super Kings on the Major League Cricket. Now the promotion is happening in USA. Slowly cricket is getting all around, even on countries where cricket isn't much followed.

If an IPL franchise is formed with 20+ teams then the duration of the tournament will be much longer. This season the duration of IPL was like two months, if it is conducted with 20 teams then it will take about four to five months to finish this league. As a result, many bilateral series will be stopped. Not only in America, but also in Saudi Arabia, various countries are currently giving much importance to cricket. These countries may have discovered the lucrative aspects of cricket as a result of which they are planning how to profit by running these franchise leagues. BCCI is planning to conduct IPL with 20 plus teams as well as two ipls in a year. If more franchise leagues are organized then most of the players will not give much importance to T20 and Test cricket. Because T20 is a very short game and it is possible to earn more money in this short game.

If the IPL franchise consists of 20+ teams, the duration of the tournament is naturally longer. I think if the tournament goes on for a long time India will become very strong economically in terms of cricket. Because India will have a chance to earn a huge amount of money with the IPL running for a long time. But this is a matter of great joy for the gamblers not only in India but here as the tournament runs for a long time. If the IPL is conducted with 20 teams, gamblers can stay involved in the IPL for a long time. And can earn huge amount of money from ipil

[Litzki1990]

20+ teams in IPL is possible, but this will surely affect the bilateral series and other tournaments. This will make players give importance to IPL than national cricket. Finally everywhere it is possible to see the franchise of IPL holding teams in each and every T20 league around the world. Right now South Africa T20 league teams were owned by different IPL franchise and now Texas Super Kings team owned by Chennai Super Kings on the Major League Cricket. Now the promotion is happening in USA. Slowly cricket is getting all around, even on countries where cricket isn't much followed.

If an IPL franchise is formed with 20+ teams then the duration of the tournament will be much longer. This season the duration of IPL was like two months, if it is conducted with 20 teams then it will take about four to five months to finish this league. As a result, many bilateral series will be stopped. Not only in America, but also in Saudi Arabia, various countries are currently giving much importance to cricket. These countries may have discovered the lucrative aspects of cricket as a result of which they are planning how to profit by running these franchise leagues. BCCI is planning to conduct IPL with 20 plus teams as well as two ipls in a year. If more franchise leagues are organized then most of the players will not give much importance to T20 and Test cricket. Because T20 is a very short game and it is possible to earn more money in this short game.

If the IPL franchise consists of 20+ teams, the duration of the tournament is naturally longer. I think if the tournament goes on for a long time India will become very strong economically in terms of cricket. Because India will have a chance to earn a huge amount of money with the IPL running for a long time. But this is a matter of great joy for the gamblers not only in India but here as the tournament runs for a long time. If the IPL is conducted with 20 teams, gamblers can stay involved in the IPL for a long time. And can earn huge amount of money from ipil

Due to cricketers from most countries performing in the IPL, different countries usually refrain from organizing bilateral series between them during the period when the IPL is on. Because if a bilateral series is organized during IPL then no sports channel is available to broadcast that bilateral series due to which the host country suffers a lot. If the IPL is formed with 20 teams, half of the year will be spent on the IPL season and the remaining half will be spent on various tournaments and other matters, leaving no time to organize bilateral series. ICC cannot give permission to conduct IPL with 20+ teams even if it thinks of organizing bilateral series between different countries.

[Sithara007]

Expanding the team in the IPL would depend on the future media rights deal.

The current one is fixed for 5 years, so no changes in the 10-team format till 2027. If we go by their previous expansion pattern then they would like to add a few teams (at best 2) in every new cycle(given it's 4-5 years for every deal). That's why I came up with the number of min 20-25 years.

I heard that the current media rights deal for IPL includes clauses for an increase in payment in case the number of matches per season are increased (it doesn't mention about the number of teams though). Your argument is valid though. Adding 3-4 teams at once can disrupt the equilibrium, as some of the franchises are finding it hard to get enough number of quality Indian players (Sunrisers Hyderabad and Punjab Kings are examples). Increasing the number of teams would further dilute the player pool, which will probably force the BCCI to remove the limit on overseas players. 

[JSRAW]

Expanding the team in the IPL would depend on the future media rights deal.

The current one is fixed for 5 years, so no changes in the 10-team format till 2027. If we go by their previous expansion pattern then they would like to add a few teams (at best 2) in every new cycle(given it's 4-5 years for every deal). That's why I came up with the number of min 20-25 years.

I heard that the current media rights deal for IPL includes clauses for an increase in payment in case the number of matches per season are increased (it doesn't mention about the number of teams though). Your argument is valid though. Adding 3-4 teams at once can disrupt the equilibrium, as some of the franchises are finding it hard to get enough number of quality Indian players (Sunrisers Hyderabad and Punjab Kings are examples). Increasing the number of teams would further dilute the player pool, which will probably force the BCCI to remove the limit on overseas players. 

I don't know about this specific clause as it's not in the public domain, actually, no one discloses the full contract in public except few obvious details. Having said that this info seems correct to me as the IPL distribution model is now came onto 50-50 Shares.

I guess atm we have more than enough talent, it's just SRH, and Punjab are both struggling due to their management. In the context of "limit on overseas players". I believe this might not happen because ICC is discussing the possibility of a cap on foreign player's inclusion in the playing XI (Max 4).