Topic: Cricket match prediction discussions - page 161. (Read 598925 times)

Quote from: Minecache on May 27, 2022, 08:25:31 AM

If they actually care about cricket itself I think they would have increased the number of teams that are playing cricket regularly by now. At least there have been 20 teams playing in the world cup.

They already tried this once in past and burned their hands badly (Big teams got knocked out early). It was epic financial disaster for the ICC that they dropped this idea for good. I am in favour of 16-20 teams WC competition. It has many challenges as well which we already discussed many time in every cricketing thread.

Well, then why just ICC don't take any steps about making cricket popular in smaller countries?

If they are interested in cricket the revenue is not going to be a problem. I think if ICC thinks that playing a small number of teams in the world cup is going to be the solution to their """"revenue"""" problem I am going to say they are delusional and they are not thinking straight.

If they think that the smaller teams are not going to be interested in cricket because the people of those countries watching cricket for a long time will hamper productivity in those countries? then why don't ICC just takes some states about making cricket popular to economically rich countries?

There is a saying in the Hindi belt " Dhud ka jala, chanch bhi phuk phuk kar pita hai"

Their previous experiment with the 16 teams WC didn't end well for them so they are clearly scared off implementing same idea.

To do something meaningful they have to take to take approach of -Start up culture- Take a risk for at least 3-4 WC (t-20, 50 overs) in next 8 years cycle and include more teams. Also qualification process should be same for everyone, except host nation. For financial safety they could keep India and Pakistan in same group, same with England and Australia.

Sithara007

legendary

Activity: 3346

Merit: 1352

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Sithara007 on May 26, 2022, 09:24:09 PM

They tried with a 16-team competition in 2007. In terms of competitiveness, that tournament was a grand success. There were a lot of upsets and the matches were very interesting. But the problem was that in financial terms the tournament was a failure. That was the main reason why they went back to the 10-team setup. Now it is a difficult choice. Sports bodies such as FIFA can afford teams such as Italy and Brazil not playing in their world cup, or getting kicked out in the group stage. But ICC can't afford to lose the Indian team in the group phase of the world cup. If that happens, the TV broadcasters will be up in arms and will refuse to bid for the next tournament.

Well, I guess then the teams have to just play better and prepare better, right? If they arranged the world cup as they did in 2007 a lot more teams would have been playing cricket regularly and competitively. Eventually, by now the revenue would have been better.

IMO, although their decision of expanding the 2007 world cup to 16 teams was right, the tournament format was not proper. In the group phase, each team played a total of 3 matches and this increased the possibility of some of the big teams getting kicked out of the tournament as a result of just one bad match. Ideally they should have had 2 groups of 8 teams each, or 3 groups of 6 teams each (expanding the total number of participants to 18). But in the end, we just need to agree that teams such as Ireland played exceptionally well to kick out some of the top ranking teams.

Minecache

legendary

Activity: 2184

Merit: 1024

Vave.com - Crypto Casino

Quote from: JSRAW on May 26, 2022, 12:17:49 PM

Quote from: Sithara007 on May 26, 2022, 09:24:09 PM

If they actually care about cricket itself I think they would have increased the number of teams that are playing cricket regularly by now. At least there have been 20 teams playing in the world cup.

They already tried this once in past and burned their hands badly (Big teams got knocked out early). It was epic financial disaster for the ICC that they dropped this idea for good. I am in favour of 16-20 teams WC competition. It has many challenges as well which we already discussed many time in every cricketing thread.

Well, then why just ICC don't take any steps about making cricket popular in smaller countries?

If they are interested in cricket the revenue is not going to be a problem. I think if ICC thinks that playing a small number of teams in the world cup is going to be the solution to their """"revenue"""" problem I am going to say they are delusional and they are not thinking straight.

If they think that the smaller teams are not going to be interested in cricket because the people of those countries watching cricket for a long time will hamper productivity in those countries? then why don't ICC just takes some states about making cricket popular to economically rich countries?

They tried with a 16-team competition in 2007. In terms of competitiveness, that tournament was a grand success. There were a lot of upsets and the matches were very interesting. But the problem was that in financial terms the tournament was a failure. That was the main reason why they went back to the 10-team setup. Now it is a difficult choice. Sports bodies such as FIFA can afford teams such as Italy and Brazil not playing in their world cup, or getting kicked out in the group stage. But ICC can't afford to lose the Indian team in the group phase of the world cup. If that happens, the TV broadcasters will be up in arms and will refuse to bid for the next tournament.

Well, I guess then the teams have to just play better and prepare better, right? If they arranged the world cup as they did in 2007 a lot more teams would have been playing cricket regularly and competitively. Eventually, by now the revenue would have been better.

Sithara007

legendary

Activity: 3346

Merit: 1352

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

As a sports body, I don't think ICC should have any favorites. But ICC is doing the absolute opposite. As a sports body ICC should have favored the countries that are really struggling and not those countries which have better money. To be honest I think India knows very well how to please the ICC. But it should not be anything like that. And we all know that ICC is also corrupted and they just want money. If they actually care about cricket itself I think they would have increased the number of teams that are playing cricket regularly by now. At least there have been 20 teams playing in the world cup.

They tried with a 16-team competition in 2007. In terms of competitiveness, that tournament was a grand success. There were a lot of upsets and the matches were very interesting. But the problem was that in financial terms the tournament was a failure. That was the main reason why they went back to the 10-team setup. Now it is a difficult choice. Sports bodies such as FIFA can afford teams such as Italy and Brazil not playing in their world cup, or getting kicked out in the group stage. But ICC can't afford to lose the Indian team in the group phase of the world cup. If that happens, the TV broadcasters will be up in arms and will refuse to bid for the next tournament.

JSRAW

legendary

Activity: 2184

Merit: 1540

Quote from: JSRAW on May 26, 2022, 04:09:02 AM

If they actually care about cricket itself I think they would have increased the number of teams that are playing cricket regularly by now. At least there have been 20 teams playing in the world cup.

They already tried this once in past and burned their hands badly (Big teams got knocked out early). It was epic financial disaster for the ICC that they dropped this idea for good. I am in favour of 16-20 teams WC competition. It has many challenges as well which we already discussed many time in every cricketing thread.

Minecache

legendary

Activity: 2184

Merit: 1024

Vave.com - Crypto Casino

Quote from: Sithara007 on May 25, 2022, 10:01:01 PM

What is the need for the smaller boards to appease BCCI? As per the schedule, BCCI needs to reciprocate the tours. The case with Pakistan is understandable. But they can't refuse to tour other countries such as Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, West Indies or South Africa. Now it may be true that if the boards are hostile then the BCCI may agree only to a bare minimum of matches. Then it is up to the opposite side to decide, whether they want to go for monetary gain or self respect. And once again, the real reason why revenues are so concentrated in India is due to the fact that ICC refused to popularize the game.

It's a give or take relationship instead of Appeasement.
In my experience BCCI hardly play hardballs with smaller boards in context of bilateral series (unless their plans are clashing with IPL), mainly Ban + SL + WI + SA. One of the reason their relationship with the BCCI are very friendly in comparison to Aus and Eng ( Ex: Aus cancelling the SA's tour and ENG pulling out)

As a sports body, I don't think ICC should have any favorites. But ICC is doing the absolute opposite. As a sports body ICC should have favored the countries that are really struggling and not those countries which have better money. To be honest I think India knows very well how to please the ICC. But it should not be anything like that. And we all know that ICC is also corrupted and they just want money. If they actually care about cricket itself I think they would have increased the number of teams that are playing cricket regularly by now. At least there have been 20 teams playing in the world cup.

Minor Miner

legendary

Activity: 2464

Merit: 1020

Be A Digital Miner

Quote from: JSRAW on May 26, 2022, 04:09:02 AM

Changes are part of the process and we can't predict outcome so it could go both ways. I'm not aware about bribery culture in ICC management but we can't rule that out. Having said that i would say most of the time their crappy decisions are influenced by hard realities (dependency on BCCI).

But that is not the right way and I believe everybody knows that. It is the international cricket council, not the Indian cricket council. So, ICC should think about all the other teams equally as they do about the big four. That will be the greatest step taken for the better future of cricket. I hope that ICC is able to understand that. This is a major reason why I think the number of teams that play cricket regularly is not increasing. Obviously, the big four do not want their power to go away.

galambo

sr. member

Activity: 966

Merit: 311

Quote from: JSRAW on May 26, 2022, 04:09:02 AM

Latter part was completely hypothetical.

Well I don't think that financial stats matter only, though Pakistan, Bangladesh and Srilanka are weak in terms of money still they attract lots of cricket and not to forget due to these small boards we have big 3. Hypothetical was saying that bcci will leave icc, which didn't make any sense to me.

JSRAW

legendary

Activity: 2184

Merit: 1540

Quote from: Minor Miner on May 25, 2022, 12:34:28 PM

Quote from: Sithara007 on May 25, 2022, 10:01:01 PM

Like i said if they are not coming up with any self sustaining plan then there is no hope whatsoever.

Another scenario would be revamp of ICC sharing revenue but then there is a slight possibility of BCCI pulling out from ICC completely and if by any chance it happens then i can guarantee you ICC is dead for good.

yeah, that is true.

ICC is a lot dependent on the BCCI. And not having the BCCI on their side can cause a lot of problems for them. But, I think a complete change of Personnel in the ICC is not going to be that bad, right?
I believe they also might be offered bribery.

Changes are part of the process and we can't predict outcome so it could go both ways. I'm not aware about bribery culture in ICC management but we can't rule that out. Having said that i would say most of the time their crappy decisions are influenced by hard realities (dependency on BCCI).

Quote from: galambo on May 26, 2022, 03:30:29 AM

Ganging up is only going to help with the votings, like we witnessed couple of times. Otherwise i don't see anything substantial coming out from any rebellion grouping. But yeah if they can become self sufficient then it's completely different story.

Just to give others one example how WICB, CSA etc are completely dependent on BIG-3 for bilateral series, specially BCCI. Single bilateral tour which last for max 1 month generate minimum $80-90 Millions easily, not sure if these boards are going to upset BIG-3 in any drastic way.

---
Actual figures are more than $100 millions according to WICB's recent interview.

What is the need for the smaller boards to appease BCCI? As per the schedule, BCCI needs to reciprocate the tours. The case with Pakistan is understandable. But they can't refuse to tour other countries such as Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, West Indies or South Africa. Now it may be true that if the boards are hostile then the BCCI may agree only to a bare minimum of matches. Then it is up to the opposite side to decide, whether they want to go for monetary gain or self respect. And once again, the real reason why revenues are so concentrated in India is due to the fact that ICC refused to popularize the game.

It's a give or take relationship instead of Appeasement.

In my experience BCCI hardly play hardballs with smaller boards in context of bilateral series (unless their plans are clashing with IPL), mainly Ban + SL + WI + SA. One of the reason their relationship with the BCCI are very friendly in comparison to Aus and Eng ( Ex: Aus cancelling the SA's tour and ENG pulling out)

Like i said if they are not coming up with any self sustaining plan then there is no hope whatsoever.

Another scenario would be revamp of ICC sharing revenue but then there is a slight possibility of BCCI pulling out from ICC completely and if by any chance it happens then i can guarantee you ICC is dead for good.

Dada why removing bcci from ICC?, it's ICC that is part of BCCI cricket ecosystem not the other way. Do you think its possible to remove BCCI from ICC and ICC can still function. Cricket is badly centered in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Srilanka. ICC can't remove the other three small boards also since that will effect cricket viewership.

Latter part was completely hypothetical.

galambo

sr. member

Activity: 966

Merit: 311

Like i said if they are not coming up with any self sustaining plan then there is no hope whatsoever.

Another scenario would be revamp of ICC sharing revenue but then there is a slight possibility of BCCI pulling out from ICC completely and if by any chance it happens then i can guarantee you ICC is dead for good.

Dada why removing bcci from ICC?, it's ICC that is part of BCCI cricket ecosystem not the other way. Do you think its possible to remove BCCI from ICC and ICC can still function. Cricket is badly centered in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Srilanka. ICC can't remove the other three small boards also since that will effect cricket viewership.

Sithara007

legendary

Activity: 3346

Merit: 1352

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Ganging up is only going to help with the votings, like we witnessed couple of times. Otherwise i don't see anything substantial coming out from any rebellion grouping. But yeah if they can become self sufficient then it's completely different story.

Just to give others one example how WICB, CSA etc are completely dependent on BIG-3 for bilateral series, specially BCCI. Single bilateral tour which last for max 1 month generate minimum $80-90 Millions easily, not sure if these boards are going to upset BIG-3 in any drastic way.

---
Actual figures are more than $100 millions according to WICB's recent interview.

What is the need for the smaller boards to appease BCCI? As per the schedule, BCCI needs to reciprocate the tours. The case with Pakistan is understandable. But they can't refuse to tour other countries such as Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, West Indies or South Africa. Now it may be true that if the boards are hostile then the BCCI may agree only to a bare minimum of matches. Then it is up to the opposite side to decide, whether they want to go for monetary gain or self respect. And once again, the real reason why revenues are so concentrated in India is due to the fact that ICC refused to popularize the game.

Minor Miner

legendary

Activity: 2464

Merit: 1020

Be A Digital Miner

Quote from: Juggy777 on May 24, 2022, 10:23:50 PM

Like i said if they are not coming up with any self sustaining plan then there is no hope whatsoever.

Another scenario would be revamp of ICC sharing revenue but then there is a slight possibility of BCCI pulling out from ICC completely and if by any chance it happens then i can guarantee you ICC is dead for good.

yeah, that is true.

ICC is a lot dependent on the BCCI. And not having the BCCI on their side can cause a lot of problems for them. But, I think a complete change of Personnel in the ICC is not going to be that bad, right?
I believe they also might be offered bribery.

minairia3

sr. member

Activity: 1498

Merit: 326

Vave.com - Crypto Casino

Quote from: Sithara007 on May 24, 2022, 10:12:11 PM

Quote from: YinShuiSiYuan on May 23, 2022, 08:08:50 AM

Pakistan in 2012/13 toured India https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/pakistan-tour-of-india-2012-13-589300/match-results and played 3 ODIs and 2 T20Is. Since it was financially in favour of India so Mumbai and Pathankot incidents were set aside. But when India was required to tour back they recalled Mumbai and Pathankot. India has taken full advantage of Mumbia attacks in establishing its narrative worldwide (they planned it very well) while Pakistan is the one who suffered this incident - Pakistan government spokesman said years back.

In my opinion, politics should be kept aside from sports. Here the real problem is not with PCB or BCCI, but with the ICC. The ICC should ask the Indian board to pay compensation, in case they are unable to tour Pakistan. If a small board such as New Zealand can compensate Pakistan for their inability to tour, then a rich board such as BCCI should definitely do that one moral grounds. Take the case of football. North Korea participated in the 2010 FIFA world cup, despite the fact that they have horrible relations with their neighbors and with the United States. Sports help us to alleviate political tensions. And the same approach can be tried with India and Pakistan as well.

I don’t think that BCCI will compensate Pakistan, but why can’t they allow India to play Pakistan on a neutral venue like Dubai and this way both the teams can earn some revenues, and both countries fans too want to see them on the pitch against one another. Furthermore ICC failed to force India to play against Pakistan, but I hope that in coming year’s these two can face off against each other in ODI and T20 series, and I’m sure that we’ll witness even bigger coverage then what Ashes gets.

These teams don't even seem to be on speaking terms and we are talking about compensation! that is obviously not going to happen. The problem is India is not going to play against Pakistan. Pakistan is not going to play in a Neutral Venue. that's what Pakistan is saying right now. yes, we are surely going to have some matches when we say these teams are against each other in some ICC tournament but the bilateral series seems to be quite impossible.

JSRAW

legendary

Activity: 2184

Merit: 1540

Quote from: Minor Miner on May 25, 2022, 11:19:01 AM

Quote from: Sithara007 on May 25, 2022, 09:25:25 AM

If the countries outside big-4 unite, then it will be possible to free ICC from the control of a few powerful boards. But that is not the case now, as seen from the election of ICC chairman. Greg Barclay was the nominee from big-4 and still he was able to secure two-thirds of the votes. PCB should be supported by other smaller boards such as CSA, BCB and WICB. But as we have seen from previous instances, these smaller boards are very dependent on the BCCI and never take any step that antagonizes the Indian board.

Ganging up is only going to help with the votings, like we witnessed couple of times. Otherwise i don't see anything substantial coming out from any rebellion grouping. But yeah if they can become self sufficient then it's completely different story.
Just to give others one example how WICB, CSA etc are completely dependent on BIG-3 for bilateral series, specially BCCI. Single bilateral tour which last for max 1 month generate minimum $80-90 Millions easily, not sure if these boards are going to upset BIG-3 in any drastic way.
---
Actual figures are more than $100 millions according to WICB's recent interview.

And if you look at it realistically I think you will recognize that the matches that will be played without the involvement of the big three are not going to generate much revenue. so the smaller teams will obviously look for matches against the big 3 or 4. but I think if all the other teams actually come forward and make a combined decision, changes can be made but it will be really hard for all the teams for boards to be on the same page.

Like i said if they are not coming up with any self sustaining plan then there is no hope whatsoever.

Another scenario would be revamp of ICC sharing revenue but then there is a slight possibility of BCCI pulling out from ICC completely and if by any chance it happens then i can guarantee you ICC is dead for good.

Minor Miner

legendary

Activity: 2464

Merit: 1020

Be A Digital Miner