Topic: Cricket match prediction discussions - page 87. (Read 604079 times)

Between I never knew that Babar Azam has been nicknamed as Bobby until I read this post. Cricket is famous sports in India and it has taken a form of proper industry that generates huge revenue. It may be because Indian Education department has decided to teach cricket to young students from very start so that they can be part of that industry as they grow up. There are ten players in this list 3 are foreigners while rest of 7 are all Indian big names.

Babar Azam at Indian Text Book



The special care that India has towards cricket can be realized through their various events, even they hold various inter-sports competitive matches at school, college, university level. They have included the game of cricket in various educational syllabi of schools, colleges, and universities. The Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE) course includes a chapter called "Cricketers". Babar Azam has recently been included in this chapter. The chapter shows the various cricketers using their names as pseudonyms and the name with which column A and column B have to be matched.

I know your stand on this issue as we have already discussed this in our previous interactions.

BCCI can indeed field a minimum of 2 teams for every format and I sympathize with the sentiment that so many talents hardly get any chance to wear Indian colors in the ICC tournaments.

But at the same time I've never witnessed any sort of discussion on this particular idea, be it media, pundits or even BCCI, maybe because of the basic logic of " One country, one national team".

Well.. I am serious. If Oman and UAE can field India X or India Z teams by importing players, then why can't the BCCI field a few more additional teams? At least in this case, the quality will be much better. Because most of the players in the UAE squad are Indian Ranji Trophy players who couldn't carve out a regular spot in their state team. If the BCCI sends 2-3 additional teams, then it will be comprised of quality players. Right now there are at least 30-40 quality players who can't be included in the senior team because there are no vacant spots. I am talking about players such as Venkatesh Iyer, Kuldeep Sen and T Natarajan. These guys don't deserve to play in the ICC tournaments? 

We all know cricket is mostly common and loved in few countries,  Arabswere never into cricket and thats the reason they never does something for evolution and improvement of this in their country. They are into football, motor sports,  camel racing  and many more   that's why they have a team of all the outsiders .

UAE and USA cricket teams are very mixed they formed the team by boys from India,  Pakistan,  sikh communities . But the point is why to do this  much effort if you don't have native players and boys from your own country to represent cricket thoroughly. 

That's the main problem as there is virtually no space for any organic and grassroots growth of cricket in those countries and many fans don't like when ICC supports rich countries instead of developing countries like Nepal or Thailand (We saw what happened with their women's team).

It was a joke tho, just to prove a point. Personally, I don't support this notion.

 

Well... that is the point. If most of the revenues are coming from India, then why can't India have a few more teams in the ICC competitions? In addition to the India seniors team, there can be the India U-25 (or even the U-23 team) and India A teams. Or it can be regional based teams. In addition to the senior side, there can be two teams representing North India and South India. Anyway Indian players are playing for teams such as Oman and the United Arab Emirates. So why can't allow them to field the best teams possible?

These nations does not provide citizenships not even to Arabs from Jordan, Lebanon or Egypt who are living as refugees for decades or even born in the UAE even after a generation. The local Arabs in the UAE does not play Cricket, they only play or watch Football and love their sheesha  . There are many Cricket clubs and every club will have their teams competing against each other and i have personally played in these tournaments and majority are from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and there are many tournaments round the clock where you will be able to earn money and to be able to play for UAE you need to have a resident Visa and you need to live their for 4 years to get involved in the selection trials that is conducted.

In a hypothetical situation where you force the local Arabs to play the game who gets everything for free from the government, they will choose Football than Cricket.

Normally i am not against the migration of players but at the same time, I'd like to see the organic growth of cricket in specific countries and the fact is most of the time these teams look almost fake (would be much better if they allow India to field 4 teams lol). We hardly see any local players in many teams and in gulf countries, players don't even have a nationality.

The solution is simple, give them nationality or add at least 50% of local. Doesn't matter if any tax heaven countries have a team or not, building an office over there is just good for business.

Why is your hard on of the rule only focused and revolved around Arab countries hope you are aware that there are many other teams that play Cricket, what about teams like Austria, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark (some of the players are migrants), Estonia, Eswatini, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Norway, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Romania, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania, United States, who include Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indian migrants.

So what is your smart move to get rid of teams like UAE (who provides a tax heaven for ICC), Oman and Saudi Arabia, to disband all these associate teams to get rid of these Arab countries  .

Eagerly waiting to hear about this conundrum you were claiming as facts. None of the FIFA presidents in the past 50 years had any links to Football and they all served administrative positions.

BCCI money subsidizes most of the cricketing world (full-status countries) and every associate nation. Drop them out from this group and ICC will die within a week and no one has a backup plan for such a scenario.

They might not be responsible for the popularity but they sure pay the bill for everyone, now it's up to everyone how they look at it.

Cricket is popular in sub-continent and I don't think its popular because of BCCI. Cricket makes it to top popular sports just because its popular in densely populated region of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan. Even in countries like Australia and England, cricket is not the only popular sports like subcontinent where whole focus is on cricket alone.   

BCCI is no doubt the most profitable institution and of course the cricket boards are always influenced by the politicians as they control who is the chairman and who are on the big seats of the cricket board.

As far as the popularity of the cricket is concerned it is always been very high in the subcontinent region , both India and Pakistan. I don't think there is any other sport which is as popular as cricket in India. Also since the introduction of T20 cricket and specially the IPL the Indian cricket board has become the most profitable organization.

Gulf region is never been ideal for the cricket, and we all know how things going into this region because mostly top ranked peoples are interested into Soccer and having a good number of clubs in UEFA, so their main target is not cricket because it has never been beneficial for them, and they will never do anything for this game which is having no profit so just because of this ICC is having rule which is allowing them to have all players from other countries instead of having any native country and in soccer they have all native teams which is the biggest change.

ICC having some off the field benefits so just because of this we have teams from this region, and they are also taking good funds as well which are completely unfair with teams like Nepal and Kenya even they also need to improve quality, but things are not going as these needed to be done.

LOL.. how is BCCI responsible for the popularity of cricket in the sub-continent (nowhere else in the world, it is a no.1 sport)? Cricket was always the no.1 sport in India and the popularity experienced a significant surge after the national team won ODI World Cup under Kapil Dev in 1983. The BCCI has gained from the popularity of cricket, as it was made possible to employ various politicians to different posts within the BCCI and the state associations. Even now, 80% of the BCCI officials are either politicians or businessmen with no link to cricket.

Their actions don't really help much since it's just one corrupt person filling in for another corrupt person which is an endless cycle. Accused individuals in Cricket aren't always spared.

Best example here is how Chetan Sharma got screwed recently who was one of the top selectors thanks to a sting operation.

BCCI is corrupt for sure, but they also are the primary reason why Cricket is so popular globally which is why their huge influence over the ICC makes complete sense if you think about it.

This is the most idiotic argument that I have ever came across in this forum. United Arab Emirates, Oman and Saudi Arabia have been playing with Indian and Pakistani players since time immemorial. And how did that helped to grow the sport in that region? For the last two decades, I haven't seen a single Arab in any of these teams (before that there were a few, such as Sultan Zarawani and Saeed-Al-Saffar). If teams need to disband, then let it be. Why there should be a team from UAE, when none of the natives are interested in cricket?

I am a bit confused, are you saying that the Soccer Federation in USA is contributing major share to FIFA. how come that is even possible as Football is not that popular in USA and nowhere near NFL or NBA or even Baseball. If your claim is that companies from USA is contributing as part of broadcasting rights and sponsorships, then it is a different story altogether.

If a non profit sports body is able to generate 80% of its total income from a specific country, don't you think there is an aspect called fair share, no one is making any obstacles to generate the same income from other countries but they are not getting the same revenue from other countries, after all its business at the end of the day.

There is a major difference between Football and Cricket and how that game is played globaly.

Consider teams like China, Russia and all the associate teams comes together and then start creating new rules simply because they have voting rights. Only teams that play proper Cricket gets the voting rights and what is wrong in that.

 Remember 2007 World Cup 16 teams and it was the boring tournament till date, it was an experiment to include more teams and it failed miserably.

 You have a problem with restricting teams in World events and if strict rules are observed, then some of the teams will be disband. They allow these loopholes hoping that the sport would grow in that specific region.

 Mostly exaggerated and explained about the fair share model.
 
 No idea what you are talking about, name one ex Football player who was the president of FIFA in the past 50 years or even played for their school.

The fact is no system is transparent there is always some corruption in system either its less or more , but obviously I'd you are talking about fifa who's the largest organisation right now dealing with 48 countries there will be massive problems and corruption. ICC in comparison is very small and limited but still there are uncertainty and chaos but main factor with icc is with BCCI influence and involvement in all matters.