Topic: Cricket match prediction discussions - page 68. (Read 603074 times)

Even I am also not in favour to do things like these, but we have many sports grounds on the names of peoples those have no knowledge of games even they never play or watch this game because of their contribution for their country or other factors are also involved in this all as well.

In India, we have few other grounds as well which are named on peoples those are never involved like Rajiv Gandhi Stadium with this all I think it's never been problem in the game as I am feeling right now he is doing good for the country so having name on biggest ground of cricket is good for him and India as well.

Political Parties always uses things like these for their own sack, and it's never been new in this region as well because mostly ruling parties have tough control and good benefits for their aides.

Another worst thing that had happened with Indian cricket is the naming of ground in the name of the Prime Minister who doesn't have any knowledge about cricket. When more and more popular sportsman who had stood strong for the country are there, the political involvement lets them name the biggest ground as Narendra Modi Stadium. Cricket is popular in India, and the same is being used by the political parties for their benefits. Mix-up of politics and sports, this could create hatred when governments overrule.

Well, of course, the players are going to join the party of Modi. Because if someone is actually supporting the opposition party, they will have a huge list, even on their life, let alone their career. So right now, even if people genuinely don’t like the Modi government they are still joining because they want to have the privileges that come with being in support with the government. And eventually, that is making the government stronger. This is just the opposite of what should have been happening. When people are joining the government instead of raising a voice against them, you know that the situation is bad.

Yeah, that's absolutely correct but i'd blame BCCI for this as well. They have the power of distributing revenue, they actually control it and if they are determined then they could just fix such an issue or minimize the damage by just stopping funding the state board or at least advocate some sort of penalties.

Just recently they handed out more than 500 crores INR to 10 WC venues for renovation. Upgradation of the Outfield, lights, and new tech integration all are important but when 100s of crores are spent i am sure they could take care of small things (food, hygiene etc)as well, which is a basic need for the spectators.

Agreed, but there were more things that comes into the priority. Just on humanity basis there is no support for the people. In such a situation we can't expect things to happen in order with cricket. Political involvement shouldn't be there with politics. This is where we can experience the change. Even the players are worse, because they complete their days in cricket. Once after that joins the political party. In recent years more players have joined under Modi which should have never happened. Just for their own goodness they join parties.

The problem is almost all the politicians in the subcontinent are corrupt. And another big problem is India is mostly run by the Modi government. There is basically no opposition party in India. So if the general population has any problem, they cannot say anything because the government will send people who basically “does not exist” to “handle” the situation.

In other countries, we see that if the general population has any problem with the opposition party raises voice, and the government takes that into consideration and makes the changes that are needed. But India basically has become a dictatorship under the Modi government. So whatever the politicians do is going to be the final decision.

The state governments also impose tax of up to 28% over the ticket price (on top of that, they charge exorbitant amounts for providing security and ruling politicians demand thousands of complementary passes). And they never do anything for the cricket fans. I understand the criticism directed towards the BCCI, but not everything is black and white here. In India, attending cricket matches is considered as a luxury, and politicians believe that they should tax such super-rich people to the brim. An example here:

https://www.indiatoday.in/cities/thiruvananthapuram/story/kerala-minister-abdurahim-entertainment-tax-tickets-india-sri-lanka-thiruvananthapuram-odi-2319587-2023-01-10

^^ BCCI might be rich and generate more than enough revenue in the context of the ICC setup.

But they are still shitty when it comes to their own cricketing infrastructure. If we leave out VIP boxes then it's a very sad situation in every stadium, Motera might be exceptional but the ones i have attended so far, the majority of em were really bad. During IPL they are okay but everything goes down to shit when it's over.

One aspect i cannot understand is that, which sporting body will fund a country to build their basic infrastructure. All the basic infrastructure should be built by the respective boards and they should raise the funds with the help of private bodies and the funds provided by ICC should be used to help develop the players.

I do accept that everyone should get a fair share of the revenue and BCCI being a huge revenue generator could help other boards, other than that there is no way they are going to let go of the revenue model.

I don't think that infrastructural facilities should be given weightage in funding. If the member nation doesn't get funds from the ICC, then how they are supposed to get these facilities? IMO, one important metric is missing here. They need to differentiate teams with foreign players and native players. They are not incentivizing teams like Nepal and Namibia which plays with native players, and on the other hand a higher score is given to teams like Oman and UAE as a result of infra facilities and non-ICC funding.

The world doesn't work that way sadly which is why it's an unfair world where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer with time. Same logic applies to ICC's focus on favorites over underdogs just like in any other sport.

It all comes down to money at the end of the day and ICC stands to benefit the most by investing in favorites over the underdogs.

Scorecard and Competition grants seem thorough, but flaws lurk beneath. Scorecard Grant, balancing participation and income, is sound. But just 10% for infrastructural elements? It's the lifeblood of sports advancement. Competition Grant is on thin ice. Rewarding ICC tournament champs? Cool. Yet, no financial lifeline for teams failing World Cricket League Division 5? It's a vicious cycle for underdogs!

The Special Grant is a wild card. Bravo ICC for World Cup sweeteners! But, wouldn't nurturing budding teams, even non-finalists, lead to a cricket bloom in those regions?

@Sithara007 I have followed SA only in their international matches but I feel that they’re no longer the dominant force they once used to be and maybe they’re having more local matches like you say but in international tournaments they’re not performing that well. Furthermore the debate about native and non native player’s is not really worth it cause those team’s that rely on outside player’s do it due to the current rule’s and while it’s harsh to other team’s nothing really can be done about it.

Here you go:

https://cutsinfo.com/associate-funding-faq/

Tim Cutler is a big supporter of associate cricket and you will find many interesting articles in his website. But he stopped updating the site four years ago. And this is the only article I could find which explains the complexities of ICC fund allocation towards associate members. ICC never publishes anything on this regard, and Culter got this information because he was employed with Cricket Hong Kong sometime back.

You can clearly see the bias. There is a lot of weightage being given to infrastructural facilities and funding from other sources. This gives more weightage to teams like UAE and USA, who have better facilities and access to sponsorship deals. On the other hand, less well off boards find themselves with lower allocation, because they can't participate in ICC qualifiers due to fund shortage, and also due to lack of infrastructure.

Interesting and a lot of information there. Overall, it looks like a shitty deal, no wonder spreading the game narrative is ridiculous in reality and just a lip serving from the ICC.

But I'd like to dig into it and check more details. Mind adding the main source link in your post as well? That would be helpful.

Competition grants are a source of income for teams that are contested because a large number of prizes given can help the team to have better quality players and can also boost some of the team's developments that will be carried out.
But it's not easy to get it because have to beat other big teams to fight for the top spot and qualify for the World Cricket League.
$700,000 is a lot of money and the team that gets it can definitely use that money to pick up and each player's skills.

There has been a lot of questions on how ICC distributes its revenue among the Associate member nations. So I thought that I would try to explain it as much as I can understand.

ICC divides the associate funding to two branches - Scorecard Grant and Competition Grant. Teams are divided based on scoring on these two branches and allotted funding based on the scoring.

Scorecard Grant: ICC divides associate nations to 8 categories (Group A to Group N). Scoring is made on the basis of three parameters - 70% for participation (6 separate criteria), 20% for income other than that derived from the ICC and 10% for Infra and others (five separate criteria). For the 2015-23 cycle, funding allotted from this branch ranged from $12,500 per year for 20 teams in Group N, to $510,000 for the 4 teams in Group A. The 4 teams ranked in Group A during 2015 were Afghanistan, Ireland, Scotland and UAE.

Competition Grant: This branch measures the performance from associate teams in ICC tournaments. Under this branch, the top teams received around $700,000 per year. Those teams that are not capable of qualifying to World Cricket League Division 5 receive nothing from this branch.

Special Grant: In addition to the above two branches, the ICC sometimes provide special funding for some of the teams. These are: A. For qualifying to the ODI World Cup - $1 million each (provided to Afghanistan, Ireland, Scotland and UAE in 2015, and to none in 2019). B. $425,000 each is provided to teams that qualify for the T20 World Cup (in 2016 - Ireland, Afghanistan, Scotland, Oman, Hong Kong and Netherlands). C. Special grants to teams with ODI status - In 2016 $500,000 each to Ireland and Afghanistan, and $250,000 each to Scotland, Oman, Hong Kong, UAE, PNG and Netherlands.  

Note: Taken from the article by Tim Cutler.

Well, honestly, even if I do agree that the situation of cricket in Africa is actually improving, I think the improvement should have been done a little more quickly. South Africa and Zimbabwe are obviously great in cricket. I think it is the fault of ICC and cricket that they are not being able to generate as much as they want to.

The situation is certainly improving in cricket for Africa. I just don’t know if that improvement is actually going to have some meaning. And by that what I am trying to say is that I hope they will be able to play against four members of the ICC regularly.

Don't agree with rest of Africa, but cricket in Kenya has been on the decline for a while. But then Africa is the region where maximum growth has been attained over the last decade or so. I have been following various tournaments such as the T20 World Cup Qualifiers and Women's World Cup qualifiers. At this point, there are close to 20 countries who play cricket regularly, with two test nations (South Africa and Zimbabwe) and two other strong teams who are capable of qualifying to major ICC tournaments (Namibia and Uganda). And the best part is that almost all of these teams mainly rely on native players.

The fact that Kenya has to depend on a player that is already 41 years old indicates why Junior is not a strong team anymore and why they are also suffering. In fact, the other two top scorers from Kenya were also more than 33 years old. And the fact that they have been able to reach the finals of the continental cup Africa also shows that the situation of cricket in Africa is not good at all. The final was really exciting and close in the end. Congratulations to Uganda for being able to win this tournament. Really did not expect this type of performance from them. I also agree that they have actually improved.