Topic: ODI cricket and general cricketing discussion [self - mod] - page 807. (Read 161503 times)

England Women vs India Women, 1st ODI ICC Championship Match
 India Women won the toss and decided to bat.  England Women are now batting they have lost 5 wickets so far. England Women scored 118 runs in 33 overs.  Danielle Wyatt has scored 43 off 48 balls so far.  Looks like he will play very well in this match. Let's see what happens.

If Sergiu Toma represented Moldova in 2012 Olympics and you claim that within an year he got an Emirati Citizenship, the players in the Cricket team are playing for a long time in the team which means they are settled their for years and it is not that they are taking different players for every series they play, if giving them a citizenship will make a drastic change then what is the logic of all these debates.

Lets say hypothetically if ICC comes up with a stipulation that every player need to have citizenship to be in the team, do you really think that it will be hard for those GCC Kings to give everyone that are playing a citizenship  .

LOL dude.. you are comparing apples with oranges.

In the Olympic games (and in 99% of the other sports), not even a single non-citizen is allowed in to the playing XI. And in any sport other than cricket, they don't allow a team to be comprised 100% of foreigners.

Sergiu Toma became a naturalized Emirati citizen in 2013, and won the medal in 2016. That is not the case with their cricket players. None of them have Emirati citizenship.


5 maybe a good limit, that is acceptable to all. But if you ask me, I would say that a national team should be comprised only of citizens. And the ICC should also stop giving preferential treatment for these mercenary teams in terms of fund allocation. They are making rich teams richer, and poor teams even more poorer.

I have no problems with teams having 4 or 5 players that are not native. Nevertheless, I have a problem when the teams do not even have two or three native players on the team. I think there should be a number. It would be a good decision to restrict the number of ex-pats to a maximum of five. In other words, just because a team has money does not mean that they can build a good team without having any actual players from the country. A lot of poor countries that actually have some talent are being held back by these rich countries, so they are unable to make a mark in the cricket world despite the fact that they have some talent.

A country will pick the players according to the level of standard they can perform and if teams like Oman, UAE, Kuwait and Bahrain is complying with the selection procedure made by ICC and hence allowed to play the matches, then what is the issue with everyone else as it is just a sport and view them like that. Since you mentioned that it is against Olympic committee rules, UAE and the above said nations participates in the Olympic games as well and Sergiu Toma won them a medal in 2016 representing UAE while in the earlier Olympic games he was representing Moldova. So what happened to that rule you mentioned then  .

Life is not a fair game after all, UAE and other Arab nations you mentioned have grass roots in Cricket and if you know the history of the region you will understand as the British took the game to those regions well before the 19th century and they were playing the game.

All these mentioned regions were not as wealthy as they are now 50 years ago and now they have wealth due to the resources available and you cannot expect the elite rich to come out and play Cricket and that was not the situation before that historically.

Cricket is not even the national game of India and how many matches do you follow in Hockey as it is the national sport . India participates in many sporting events and tournaments globally and only Cricket is getting the publicity which is not fair for other sports and talents.

This is exactly what I was saying. In football, volleyball, field hockey.etc, only citizens are allowed to represent a country. An argument can be made that cricket is not very popular and therefore some relaxation needs to be made. OK. Then let's have a maximum of 3-4 foreigners in the playing XI, along with the native players. But that is not the case now. 11 out of the 11 players are foreigners, in case of 80% of the associate nations. How can they claim that these teams represent the corresponding countries? A perfect example here. The "Czech Republic" "national" cricket team:



And worse still, the biased ICC fund distribution system means that a lion's share of funds end up with such teams rather than native sides such as Nepal and Namibia.

Agree with you, first of all cricket is a gentleman's game. Each national team represents their country around the world. Every nation's cricket team is associated with emotions of all the people of the country. If the cricket team wins, the country wins. If the cricket team loses, the country also has to face various criticisms.

I will not disagree with you, I also agree that a country can gain recognition and reputation in the world through winning by  game like Cricket any any others games. But if a country's team plays badly during the match then it becomes a shame for that country . Which we see many times in the game of cricket.

Yes I think you are right there are some countries which are not well known to people the only way to highlight these countries is through sports but many countries have become known in many places we have seen that many countries players name their country first because of many names.  And there are many that emerge through sports that emerge here as we see them

Cricket does not only refer to winning or losing through the game. It can also be identified as a part of a country's culture. It represents a country. For example, today India is easily known by the people of the cricket world and when a big tournament is organized then the organization of the people of that country, all kinds of things come up to the people of the whole world. From this point of view it is better to represent cricket through a country's own players.

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.

Mate, I think you are missing something and not trying to understand main point which is talk able here if any team having three or four players it's not issue but if you are not able to have any player from native country than what is point of having team from this country and as you give example of many players these all done good jobs in domestic set up and then have citizenship which is a good way for playing into this country but here teams like Oman, UAE, Kuwait and Bahrain having no native player and mostly players are coming from subcontinent and playing for them which is not acceptable and it's also against the rules of Olympics Committee.

If these Gulf region teams want to stay in then surely they need to have grass root links with their native players and bring them in main stream which is a good way for having quality game and better results otherwise teams like Nepal and Kenya will struggle and have no enough sources for competing with them on field.

In some games we see there are some teams who will win the match 100 percent sure but they lose but the reason they lose is because of their own failure they lose the match most of the times I see but they lose the match because of them I would say they  If they want to perform well, they need to practice well

For franchise leagues it is OK. The problem is with ICC tournaments. First of all, around 50% of the teams are from the South Asian region. On top of that, most of the associate nations who qualify are also made up 100% from South Asian players. When you call a competition "World" cup, there should be enough diversity. Else the interest from other parts of the world will die down and these events will get restricted to countries such as India and Pakistan. The ICC has increased number of participants to 12 teams from 2027 onwards, which is not sufficient IMO. I would have preferred 14.

Why does it matter if the teams from UAE, Oman are filled with players from other countries, if they can build a good team and are competitive they will be playing. If you are applying this standard then you need to say that Andrew Strauss, Andy Flower, Grand Flower, Kevin Pietersen should have played only for South Africa and Imran Tahir and Sikandar Raza should play for Pakistan and Andrew Symonds should only play for England.

The reason they are not including their local talents is because they are not interested in playing Cricket nor good enough to play for the national team and if they can assemble a good team, they should participate in any tournament.

Problem is not just with the number of teams. What is the point in having teams such as Oman and UAE which are entirely made up of foreigners? Already India and Pakistan are taking part in the world cup. There is no need to have additional teams, which are entirely made up of nationals from these countries. If countries such as Oman can't include citizens in their squad, then they should not participate in ICC tournaments.

And regarding the number of teams, I would like to have the following formula:

T20 World Cup: 20 teams (4 groups of 5 teams)
ODI World Cup: 16 teams (4 groups of 4 teams, or 2 groups of 8 teams)
Test: 15 teams with 3 divisions of five each

Quality is big concern otherwise ICC can go with good number of teams in their mega events like FIFA is increasing their number of teams in World Cup from 32 to 48 as they have good system, and they can manage this all with their own way which allow them for having things like this settled easily but here in cricket things are not going like many other sports organizations which is surely hurting beauty of this game.

Specially due to greediness now they are cutting funds for associate countries, and they have no check and balance system which provide good use of their funds for this game from every country sadly right now quality is declined in many big countries as well, so we can't expect good from things which are going to work under ICC.
I believe they can go with 20 teams in t20i world cup 16 teams in ODI and 12 teams in test matches with two groups as now this is surely not suitable game for many countries.

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 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.

I also agree with you that the ICC World Cup should consist of more teams than it does it now.  I think that ICC  is getting revenue hungry as you said which might hurt cricket in general in the longer run. I think the world cup should consist associate Nations as well  so that it becomes more competitive and interesting for the viewers. Also I really want to see South Africa complete in the world cup and it is going to be very sad if they don't qualify for that.