ODI cricket and general cricketing discussion [self - mod]

[CryptoBuds]

Indian women are now more fit and strong than before. There is consistency in their performance. India performed well in the ODI series against England. Despite losing the T20 series, India's women's team managed to win all the matches in the ODI series. And their performance was worth watching. Now the India women's team is at the fourth position in the world ranking. And if they are able to maintain the consistency of their performance, they will be able to occupy second place in the ranking even after the next 2/3 series.

If a team is ahead in any of the three formats, they try to gradually move forward in other formats as well. If the India women's team reached in the  third position in the ICC ranking, they won't be far behind in other formats as well. Moreover, what everyone is repeatedly mentioning is that their cricket has improved and will be at a higher level in the future.

You are right. With the Indian women's team doing well in the ODI format, they will now look to do well in the T20 and Test formats as well. And I think the Indian women's team will improve very quickly in the Test and T20 rankings. The Indian team is quite strong now. They have been able to do well both in bowling and batting. The team has some great batsmen like Harmanpreet Kaur and Harleen Deol. Now the Indian women's team will fight for the top spot in the ranking.

[1714202836]

1714202836

[1714202836]

1714202836

[1714202836]

1714202836

[Sithara007]

You are right. With the Indian women's team doing well in the ODI format, they will now look to do well in the T20 and Test formats as well. And I think the Indian women's team will improve very quickly in the Test and T20 rankings. The Indian team is quite strong now. They have been able to do well both in bowling and batting. The team has some great batsmen like Harmanpreet Kaur and Harleen Deol. Now the Indian women's team will fight for the top spot in the ranking.

The Indian women were always good as far as batting is concerned. What changed now is regarding pace bowling (similar to what happened with the men's team almost a decade ago). Renuka Singh Thakur has performed exceptionally in the recent months, and she wrecked the England batting lineup multiple times during the recent tour. The absence of Jhulan Goswami will not be felt, thanks to players such as Renuka. Not taking any credit away from players such as Harmanpreet and Smriti. They also played a major role in the series win against England.

[Juggy777]

You are right. With the Indian women's team doing well in the ODI format, they will now look to do well in the T20 and Test formats as well. And I think the Indian women's team will improve very quickly in the Test and T20 rankings. The Indian team is quite strong now. They have been able to do well both in bowling and batting. The team has some great batsmen like Harmanpreet Kaur and Harleen Deol. Now the Indian women's team will fight for the top spot in the ranking.

The Indian women were always good as far as batting is concerned. What changed now is regarding pace bowling (similar to what happened with the men's team almost a decade ago). Renuka Singh Thakur has performed exceptionally in the recent months, and she wrecked the England batting lineup multiple times during the recent tour. The absence of Jhulan Goswami will not be felt, thanks to players such as Renuka. Not taking any credit away from players such as Harmanpreet and Smriti. They also played a major role in the series win against England.

@Sithara007 their achievements were often not seen by the fan’s, but they yet kept performing to the highest standards and now they have the fan’s attention and hopefully they will keep on rising upwards from here. Also the key point as you mentioned was their ability to transform with time and not stick to past methods, and thus I believe that we’ll see more success stories of theirs in 2023 as this Indian women team won’t back down against any opponent.

[JSRAW]

^^ Indian women's team still needs to do a lot of hard work on their fitness and fielding. They are one of the top 4 teams in women's cricket but they can't reach the top if they are neglecting these areas, especially when up against the likes of Australia.

I really don't understand why we are having a world cup with only 10 teams and why the smaller teams are not being given enough chances to show their talent?

In 2007, the ICC did give them a chance to take part in the 2007 World Cup, but that event failed to generate enough revenue to justify the idea, and so they dropped the idea. However, I believe that right now that's exactly what cricket needs right now. There is no doubt that cricket will be a lot more exciting if they give enough opportunities to the smaller teams right now. Since T20 is a much more unpredictable game, at least I expected that a lot more teams would take part in the T20 world cup.

Back in 2007, they had 4 groups of 4 teams each. That gave 3 guaranteed matches for each team in the first phase. But the problem is that both India and Pakistan were kicked out in the first phase itself and the tournament became a disaster for the ICC (in terms of revenue). So they went back to the old formula of allowing only the top teams. Ireland became a victim of their own success and never again participated in a world cup after 2015. ICC should probably go with 14 teams (7x2) in the first phase, which would give 6 guaranteed matches for each team.

I really don't understand. Yes, India and Pakistan got kicked out of the tournament early, so what?
That is like directly saying that if India and Pakistan are out of the world cup there is no point in having a World Cup.

That directly means ICC is not going to give the smaller teams a good enough chance to prove themselves. The first couple of times it was going to be a bad thing for ICC in terms of revenue. But with a lot of teams being interested in the smaller formats of cricket, I think this is the right time for ICC should think about the future of this game. And with a lot of rich countries participating I don't think ICC will have to worry too much about the revenue.

Read this week old post and it looks like no one gave any answer to @Posi.

Well, bhai because of India/Pakistan elimination. ICC was robbed of a marquee match between both nations, as everybody is aware of how this clash attracts the eyeballs and generates revenue. Also, India's elimination ensured revenue loss for broadcasters because most of the money comes from the Indian market and it directly affected ICC too. That's why it was an economic disaster.

[posi]

Read this week old post and it looks like no one gave any answer to @Posi.

Well, bhai because of India/Pakistan elimination. ICC was robbed of a marquee match between both nations, as everybody is aware of how this clash attracts the eyeballs and generates revenue. Also, India's elimination ensured revenue loss for broadcasters because most of the money comes from the Indian market and it directly affected ICC too. That's why it was an economic disaster.

I know what we are talking about and I know that the ICC had to take a big loss in the 2007 world cup.
But, that cannot be an excuse for not giving the smaller countries a chance in the world cup or/and not expanding the number of teams that play cricket regularly.

If there were a greater number of teams playing in the world cup ICC wouldn't have to worry about the revenue from only one match at all. And if ICC does not have the balls to take a little loss for the greater good of cricket, they should just keep thinking about the revenue from that one match and be happy with it.

[Sithara007]

Read this week old post and it looks like no one gave any answer to @Posi.

Well, bhai because of India/Pakistan elimination. ICC was robbed of a marquee match between both nations, as everybody is aware of how this clash attracts the eyeballs and generates revenue. Also, India's elimination ensured revenue loss for broadcasters because most of the money comes from the Indian market and it directly affected ICC too. That's why it was an economic disaster.

I had posted this solution a few months ago, but most of the other users termed it as crazy. Lets go once more:

Why can't we have two additional teams from India: India U-23 and India A?

If we can allow teams such as Oman and UAE (where 100% of the players are citizens of India or Pakistan), then I don't think that there will be an issue with allowing multiple teams from India. I don't think that any of the proper associate nations (i.e those with native players) will feel angry about this. If UAE or Oman feel so, then they can sponsor any of these teams from India.

[JSRAW]

Read this week old post and it looks like no one gave any answer to @Posi.

Well, bhai because of India/Pakistan elimination. ICC was robbed of a marquee match between both nations, as everybody is aware of how this clash attracts the eyeballs and generates revenue. Also, India's elimination ensured revenue loss for broadcasters because most of the money comes from the Indian market and it directly affected ICC too. That's why it was an economic disaster.

I know what we are talking about and I know that the ICC had to take a big loss in the 2007 world cup.
But, that cannot be an excuse for not giving the smaller countries a chance in the world cup or/and not expanding the number of teams that play cricket regularly.

If there were a greater number of teams playing in the world cup ICC wouldn't have to worry about the revenue from only one match at all. And if ICC does not have the balls to take a little loss for the greater good of cricket, they should just keep thinking about the revenue from that one match and be happy with it.

From ICC and the broadcaster's point of view, 70% of revenue loss is not so little and it comes from just 1 source.

We've discussed many times here and everyone is very critical on how unfair is to organize only 10-12 team WC, including the qualification process. But at the same time we have to be practical as well, after all, this money subsidizes cricket in smaller cricketing nations.

I had posted this solution a few months ago, but most of the other users termed it as crazy. Lets go once more:

Why can't we have two additional teams from India: India U-23 and India A?

If we can allow teams such as Oman and UAE (where 100% of the players are citizens of India or Pakistan), then I don't think that there will be an issue with allowing multiple teams from India. I don't think that any of the proper associate nations (i.e those with native players) will feel angry about this. If UAE or Oman feel so, then they can sponsor any of these teams from India.

Well, it is a crazy idea lol but I won't mind if it gets implemented. Having said that almost every board will surely vote against this policy if discussed.

[Sithara007]

From ICC and the broadcaster's point of view, 70% of revenue loss is not so little and it comes from just 1 source.

We've discussed many times here and everyone is very critical on how unfair is to organize only 10-12 team WC, including the qualification process. But at the same time we have to be practical as well, after all, this money subsidizes cricket in smaller cricketing nations.

If the ICC want to limit the number of teams to 10 or 12, it is OK. But then there should be a fair qualification pathway. What happens now is that ODI ranking decides the 8 slots (where associate nations are not included), and the qualification tournament decides only the last two slots. In other sports, direct qualification is provided to only one team (hosts). Even giving direct entry to 2-3 teams is OK. But doing so for 80% of the participants is a sham. In FIFA World Cup, even teams like Brazil and Germany needs to play the qualifying tournament.

[JSRAW]

From ICC and the broadcaster's point of view, 70% of revenue loss is not so little and it comes from just 1 source.

We've discussed many times here and everyone is very critical on how unfair is to organize only 10-12 team WC, including the qualification process. But at the same time we have to be practical as well, after all, this money subsidizes cricket in smaller cricketing nations.

If the ICC want to limit the number of teams to 10 or 12, it is OK. But then there should be a fair qualification pathway. What happens now is that ODI ranking decides the 8 slots (where associate nations are not included), and the qualification tournament decides only the last two slots. In other sports, direct qualification is provided to only one team (hosts). Even giving direct entry to 2-3 teams is OK. But doing so for 80% of the participants is a sham. In FIFA World Cup, even teams like Brazil and Germany needs to play the qualifying tournament.

I've never liked the existing qualification process and am completely against it. We've seen a small example in the last Women's WC. IMO it should get scrapped for good.

If there is no consensus on scrapping this policy then at least make the qualification policy simple for associate nations.

[Theones]

iked the existing qualification process and am completely against it. We've seen a small example in the last Women's WC. IMO it should get scrapped for good.

If there is no consensus on scrapping this policy then at least make the qualification policy simple for associate nations.

Just heard the Bumrah is not in World cup
The bowler like him make the frontal action they bowl from back speed- like Sharne Warne, Bishop - if he would not change his style he will make more injury to his back
I have heard Shoaib Akhtar saying this about Bumrah

[justdimin]

From ICC and the broadcaster's point of view, 70% of revenue loss is not so little and it comes from just 1 source.

We've discussed many times here and everyone is very critical on how unfair is to organize only 10-12 team WC, including the qualification process. But at the same time we have to be practical as well, after all, this money subsidizes cricket in smaller cricketing nations.

If the ICC want to limit the number of teams to 10 or 12, it is OK. But then there should be a fair qualification pathway. What happens now is that ODI ranking decides the 8 slots (where associate nations are not included), and the qualification tournament decides only the last two slots. In other sports, direct qualification is provided to only one team (hosts). Even giving direct entry to 2-3 teams is OK. But doing so for 80% of the participants is a sham. In FIFA World Cup, even teams like Brazil and Germany needs to play the qualifying tournament.

We are talking too much about this all but sadly no one caring about this because deep greedy pockets are having their own mindset, and they are doing which is suitable for them, I am also not in favour of this system because they need to be set this only host and defending champion can go through direct all others have to be done qualification pathway which is much better and bring some more entertainment but sadly who cares in ICC about this they are doing their own business with their own policies which are not suitable for this game.

FIFA is surely doing one of the best thing in their game just because of this they have enough success and strong system even many allegations are around them as well, but their system is still one of the best and giving good development to the game.

[Sithara007]

I've never liked the existing qualification process and am completely against it. We've seen a small example in the last Women's WC. IMO it should get scrapped for good.

If there is no consensus on scrapping this policy then at least make the qualification policy simple for associate nations.

Yeah.. last time Thailand finished on top of the points table, and yet the 2nd and 3rd placed teams qualified for the world cup because the former is not a part of the ICC ranking system. ICC has a habit of punishing the associates for their own success. The perfect example is that of the 2007 ODI World Cup. After Ireland and Bangladesh managed to kick out India and Pakistan in the group stage, the ICC reduced the number of participants from 16 to 10, just to prevent such upsets. FIFA, FIH and FIBA are trying to increase the number of participants in their world cup, while the ICC is going in the opposite direction.

[Theones]

Thank God after all we started talking and admiring  women cricket teams as well
I was watching Shahbash Mithu - a movie on indian cricket team and how they excelled despite of having  financial and cultural issues

I really doubt whether these Bollywood movies will give an accurate portrayal. For example, recently there was a movie named "Gunjan Saxena: The Kargil Girl" released on Netflix. It starred some of the big names in Bollywood, such as Janhvi Kapoor and Pankaj Tripathi. The Indian Air Force complained against the movie, for it's inaccurate portrayal of various facts. Even in cricket sector, there was another movie named 1983. This one also came under heavy criticism for historically inaccurate scenes.

I believe - the bollywood and lollywood need to invest more on research rather than investing on songs and costume.
We are not India but the movie on Indian woman team captain showed that maybe Indian Government don't invest much on the women athletes and other in sports.
But I think that too is not correct because Indian sports women are coming fwd in every fields

[JSRAW]

I've never liked the existing qualification process and am completely against it. We've seen a small example in the last Women's WC. IMO it should get scrapped for good.

If there is no consensus on scrapping this policy then at least make the qualification policy simple for associate nations.

Yeah.. last time Thailand finished on top of the points table, and yet the 2nd and 3rd placed teams qualified for the world cup because the former is not a part of the ICC ranking system. ICC has a habit of punishing the associates for their own success. The perfect example is that of the 2007 ODI World Cup. After Ireland and Bangladesh managed to kick out India and Pakistan in the group stage, the ICC reduced the number of participants from 16 to 10, just to prevent such upsets. FIFA, FIH and FIBA are trying to increase the number of participants in their world cup, while the ICC is going in the opposite direction.

It was a really shitty move and surprisingly no one from the cricketing world made any fuss except a couple of Op-ed.

ICC didn't even discuss this issue in their meetings so it's clear what their thought process is. Maybe the cricketing world would have taken this issue seriously if the Indian W team was the beneficiary of this fuckup.

[Sithara007]

It was a really shitty move and surprisingly no one from the cricketing world made any fuss except a couple of Op-ed.

ICC didn't even discuss this issue in their meetings so it's clear what their thought process is. Maybe the cricketing world would have taken this issue seriously if the Indian W team was the beneficiary of this fuckup.

The mainstream media hardly covers any of the qualifying matches. I mostly depend on blogs and social media to follow associate cricket, since ESPN-Cricinfo usually ignores such competitions. Another factor is that associate representation is very thin in the ICC. And now it is even thinner after the election of the pro-BCCI Pankaj Khimji (Oman) as one of the associate representative. The other two representatives (Imran Khwaja and Neil Speight) are unable to do much on their own, and constantly gets sidelined. 

[JSRAW]

It was a really shitty move and surprisingly no one from the cricketing world made any fuss except a couple of Op-ed.

ICC didn't even discuss this issue in their meetings so it's clear what their thought process is. Maybe the cricketing world would have taken this issue seriously if the Indian W team was the beneficiary of this fuckup.

The mainstream media hardly covers any of the qualifying matches. I mostly depend on blogs and social media to follow associate cricket, since ESPN-Cricinfo usually ignores such competitions. Another factor is that associate representation is very thin in the ICC. And now it is even thinner after the election of the pro-BCCI Pankaj Khimji (Oman) as one of the associate representative. The other two representatives (Imran Khwaja and Neil Speight) are unable to do much on their own, and constantly gets sidelined. 

I believe I got to know about this story from one ESPN article then maybe I heard Isa Guha talking about this. Usually, I hardly follow women's cricket except for important matches of our girls but I tuned in because of Isa Guha as I'm a big fan of her commentary and voice (due to tradition of man of culture lol).

[Theones]

It was a really shitty move and surprisingly no one from the cricketing world made any fuss except a couple of Op-ed.

ICC didn't even discuss this issue in their meetings so it's clear what their thought process is. Maybe the cricketing world would have taken this issue seriously if the Indian W team was the beneficiary of this fuckup.

The mainstream media hardly covers any of the qualifying matches. I mostly depend on blogs and social media to follow associate cricket, since ESPN-Cricinfo usually ignores such competitions. Another factor is that associate representation is very thin in the ICC. And now it is even thinner after the election of the pro-BCCI Pankaj Khimji (Oman) as one of the associate representative. The other two representatives (Imran Khwaja and Neil Speight) are unable to do much on their own, and constantly gets sidelined. 

I believe I got to know about this story from one ESPN article then maybe I heard Isa Guha talking about this. Usually, I hardly follow women's cricket except for important matches of our girls but I tuned in because of Isa Guha as I'm a big fan of her commentary and voice (due to tradition of man of culture lol).

Women would always be having tough time where-ever they go
But those who survive are really iron ladies - those who stand by their will and makes a differences

[Sithara007]

Once again, there are attempts to reform the ICC voting structure, to be discussed during the board meeting next month:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tristanlavalette/2022/09/21/a-push-for-full-membership-to-be-scrapped-amid-proposed-cricket-governance-overhaul/

I am not expecting much, and even the proposals doesn't sound unbiased. Once again, they want to distribute funds based on performance of the teams, which would result in more teams importing players from India and Pakistan and then fielding a playing XI comprised of zero citizens.

BTW, Emirates Cricket Board boss Mubashshir Usmani has once again renewed his demand for full membership status for the United Arab Emirates. If granted, it will just destroy associate cricket. A large chunk of the funds earmarked for associates will be eaten up by a team that has no citizens in the team, and they will use that funds to import more mercenary players.

[coinerer]

Once again, there are attempts to reform the ICC voting structure, to be discussed during the board meeting next month:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tristanlavalette/2022/09/21/a-push-for-full-membership-to-be-scrapped-amid-proposed-cricket-governance-overhaul/

I am not expecting much, and even the proposals doesn't sound unbiased. Once again, they want to distribute funds based on performance of the teams, which would result in more teams importing players from India and Pakistan and then fielding a playing XI comprised of zero citizens.

BTW, Emirates Cricket Board boss Mubashshir Usmani has once again renewed his demand for full membership status for the United Arab Emirates. If granted, it will just destroy associate cricket. A large chunk of the funds earmarked for associates will be eaten up by a team that has no citizens in the team, and they will use that funds to import more mercenary players.

Mubashshir Usmani is very enthusiastic about overseas players from various foreign countries. In this way they have given permission to their various agents. They want more players where almost everyone can be an outside player. Such a decision by him will definitely cause a backlash among the local players. They will be discouraged from cricket. As a result, their country's cricket will be more hindered in the future.

[YinShuiSiYuan]

From ICC and the broadcaster's point of view, 70% of revenue loss is not so little and it comes from just 1 source.

We've discussed many times here and everyone is very critical on how unfair is to organize only 10-12 team WC, including the qualification process. But at the same time we have to be practical as well, after all, this money subsidizes cricket in smaller cricketing nations.

If the ICC want to limit the number of teams to 10 or 12, it is OK. But then there should be a fair qualification pathway. What happens now is that ODI ranking decides the 8 slots (where associate nations are not included), and the qualification tournament decides only the last two slots. In other sports, direct qualification is provided to only one team (hosts). Even giving direct entry to 2-3 teams is OK. But doing so for 80% of the participants is a sham. In FIFA World Cup, even teams like Brazil and Germany needs to play the qualifying tournament.

Right now cricket is not played by majority of countries as compare to football. ICC should introduce cricket in different countries to make it qualifying process more diverse and fair. Cricket is for now limited to few countries that's y we have lesser teams and unfair competition, with diversity there comes fair rankings.