Topic: ODI cricket and general cricketing discussion [self - mod] - page 992. (Read 160890 times)
Sri Lankan cricket team going through their worst time. Recently they become whitewash by England in T20 series. Now they have started with poor performance in ODI series too. Though Sri Lanka was in good condition until Hasaranga got out. Perera & Hasaranga made a good partnership, and it was giving positive hope to them. But their batting lineup collapsed while the partnership broken. Eventually, they gave a target of 186 runs and England won the match by 5 wickets. Sri Lanka will have pretty low odds to win in upcoming matches.
The ICC has to push for that to happen and considering cricket has a large audience than any other sport if the ICC really push for an inclusion the Olympic association would have already added cricket.
The problem is that some of the powerful boards are still against the idea of Olympic inclusion. The BCCI has changed its stance, after Ganguly and Jay Shah replaced the Srinivasan-Pawar mafia. But the ECB and CA (along with CNZ) remains opposed to this idea (and that of globalization of cricket in general). And given the usual delaying tactics, I would say that even the target of 2032 looks not possible. All the ICC has done is to give some empty statements. They haven't done anything on the ground.
In my opinion, I will be happy if Cricket will join to the Olympics. Because, no matter what the rules are now, no rules are permanent. All rules will change over time. So let's join the Cricket at the Olympics. If it is profitable for cricket, the ICC will definitely give more teams a chance to participate. I think all the rules will change over time.
The ICC has to push for that to happen and considering cricket has a large audience than any other sport if the ICC really push for an inclusion the Olympic association would have already added cricket.I agree with @swordsoffredom. Now we are only happy if cricket will join in the Olympics game. ICC has increased the number of teams participating in the World Cup. After joining the Olympics, if ICC thinks, the game will be more competitive if the number of teams increases. Then they will change the rules again.
Cricketers now also entering in the NFT world. 
That's a good use case for NFTs.
Wasim Akram to auction exclusive NFTs from 1992 World Cup
I have seen the hype behind NFT and i know many projects are coming out but what i did not understand just yet is what are they actually auctioning, digital paintings and pictures that can be stored in a blockchain That's a good use case for NFTs.Wasim Akram to auction exclusive NFTs from 1992 World Cup
. Why is there a demand for things that are digital, if Wasim Akram is auctioning his dress that he wore in the final or the stumps used in the finals it will create interest in me. But i really cannot understand why anyone would spend money if you cannot own the physical items.I am totally ignorant of this space and hence asking these doubts.
In my opinion, I will be happy if Cricket will join to the Olympics. Because, no matter what the rules are now, no rules are permanent. All rules will change over time. So let's join the Cricket at the Olympics. If it is profitable for cricket, the ICC will definitely give more teams a chance to participate. I think all the rules will change over time.
The ICC has to push for that to happen and considering cricket has a large audience than any other sport if the ICC really push for an inclusion the Olympic association would have already added cricket. legendary
Activity: 2884
Merit: 1115
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
It's not even click bait for speculation, these days they're just taking money from anyone willing to pay their fees. Do a small bit of editing and meet their guidelines. Make many disclaimers and they can even publish scams for all anyone cares (and they probably have loads now that they delete from servers after the scams happen.
BUT this is a different affair and I'm sure it can be backed by reliable sources. Let's wait and see... Cricket is a gentlemen's game and yeah, not glamorous like other sports yet.
BUT this is a different affair and I'm sure it can be backed by reliable sources. Let's wait and see... Cricket is a gentlemen's game and yeah, not glamorous like other sports yet.
At this point, I would say that I will be happy even if it is an 8-team competition. It is a bit harsh on the smaller teams, but the most important thing to remember here is that they will receive funding from their respective governments, if cricket becomes an Olympic sport. If they could participate in the tournament, then it will be even better. But you need to wait for some time. One thing I don't agree with this plan is ICC's suggestion to have just one out of 8 teams from the qualifying tournament. That is very unfair and they need to make it at least 3-4.
In my opinion, I will be happy if Cricket will join to the Olympics. Because, no matter what the rules are now, no rules are permanent. All rules will change over time. So let's join the Cricket at the Olympics. If it is profitable for cricket, the ICC will definitely give more teams a chance to participate. I think all the rules will change over time.
It's not even click bait for speculation, these days they're just taking money from anyone willing to pay their fees. Do a small bit of editing and meet their guidelines. Make many disclaimers and they can even publish scams for all anyone cares (and they probably have loads now that they delete from servers after the scams happen.
BUT this is a different affair and I'm sure it can be backed by reliable sources. Let's wait and see... Cricket is a gentlemen's game and yeah, not glamorous like other sports yet.
BUT this is a different affair and I'm sure it can be backed by reliable sources. Let's wait and see... Cricket is a gentlemen's game and yeah, not glamorous like other sports yet.
At this point, I would say that I will be happy even if it is an 8-team competition. It is a bit harsh on the smaller teams, but the most important thing to remember here is that they will receive funding from their respective governments, if cricket becomes an Olympic sport. If they could participate in the tournament, then it will be even better. But you need to wait for some time. One thing I don't agree with this plan is ICC's suggestion to have just one out of 8 teams from the qualifying tournament. That is very unfair and they need to make it at least 3-4.
Forbes these days is just what they call ego media. You can pay to get almost anything inside and because most people still think if you're published in Forbes it gives you reputation and credibility. It kinda does, but if you also see some of the crap inside Forbes you might not even want to be associated sometimes:)
Olympics for sure is the way, but maybe cricket takes too long.
Olympics for sure is the way, but maybe cricket takes too long.
I think it is just speculation by Forbes, they are know to create such kind of click bait. They are also not into cricket as much as espn is. It is better to wait and watch what espn has to say about the number of teams.
It's not even click bait for speculation, these days they're just taking money from anyone willing to pay their fees. Do a small bit of editing and meet their guidelines. Make many disclaimers and they can even publish scams for all anyone cares (and they probably have loads now that they delete from servers after the scams happen.
BUT this is a different affair and I'm sure it can be backed by reliable sources. Let's wait and see... Cricket is a gentlemen's game and yeah, not glamorous like other sports yet.
Forbes is a renowned newspaper. Will they give false or rumored news? Although Forbes does not do much news related to cricket. I agree with @pakhitheboss. ESPN is more credible than Forbes, in the case of sports news.
I agree with Maidak. Forbes is a trustworthy and reputable source. And unless they have a reliable informer who would confirm this news, Forbes would never publish any such news. And I believe that the news about 8 teams is true. Because for the 2022 Commonwealth Games, the ICC has limited the women's competition to 8 teams (with just one team coming from the qualifier tournament). They want these competitions to be as small as possible, because else they are afraid that the attractiveness of their own global tournaments will go down.
Forbes is one of the reputable media channels, although I don't think that they can be considered as any sort of authority in the field of cricket. So I would be more cautious before I confirm this news, preferably from the official ICC website, or from ESPN Cricinfo.
IMO, the number of teams doesn't matter much. If cricket is an Olympic sports, then it will be taken seriously by a lot of the governments around the world. Winning an Olympic medal is considered as close to priceless. And a lot of countries, where cricket is not popular now (China, Korea, Germany, Japan.etc), will give attention to the sport if it is included in the Olympics.
IMO, the number of teams doesn't matter much. If cricket is an Olympic sports, then it will be taken seriously by a lot of the governments around the world. Winning an Olympic medal is considered as close to priceless. And a lot of countries, where cricket is not popular now (China, Korea, Germany, Japan.etc), will give attention to the sport if it is included in the Olympics.
Forbes these days is just what they call ego media. You can pay to get almost anything inside and because most people still think if you're published in Forbes it gives you reputation and credibility. It kinda does, but if you also see some of the crap inside Forbes you might not even want to be associated sometimes:)
Olympics for sure is the way, but maybe cricket takes too long.
I think it is just speculation by Forbes, they are know to create such kind of click bait. They are also not into cricket as much as espn is. It is better to wait and watch what espn has to say about the number of teams.
Forbes is a renowned newspaper. Will they give false or rumored news? Although Forbes does not do much news related to cricket. I agree with @pakhitheboss. ESPN is more credible than Forbes, in the case of sports news.
Forbes is one of the reputable media channels, although I don't think that they can be considered as any sort of authority in the field of cricket. So I would be more cautious before I confirm this news, preferably from the official ICC website, or from ESPN Cricinfo.
IMO, the number of teams doesn't matter much. If cricket is an Olympic sports, then it will be taken seriously by a lot of the governments around the world. Winning an Olympic medal is considered as close to priceless. And a lot of countries, where cricket is not popular now (China, Korea, Germany, Japan.etc), will give attention to the sport if it is included in the Olympics.
IMO, the number of teams doesn't matter much. If cricket is an Olympic sports, then it will be taken seriously by a lot of the governments around the world. Winning an Olympic medal is considered as close to priceless. And a lot of countries, where cricket is not popular now (China, Korea, Germany, Japan.etc), will give attention to the sport if it is included in the Olympics.
Forbes these days is just what they call ego media. You can pay to get almost anything inside and because most people still think if you're published in Forbes it gives you reputation and credibility. It kinda does, but if you also see some of the crap inside Forbes you might not even want to be associated sometimes:)
Olympics for sure is the way, but maybe cricket takes too long.
I think it is just speculation by Forbes, they are know to create such kind of click bait. They are also not into cricket as much as espn is. It is better to wait and watch what espn has to say about the number of teams.
Forbes is one of the reputable media channels, although I don't think that they can be considered as any sort of authority in the field of cricket. So I would be more cautious before I confirm this news, preferably from the official ICC website, or from ESPN Cricinfo.
IMO, the number of teams doesn't matter much. If cricket is an Olympic sports, then it will be taken seriously by a lot of the governments around the world. Winning an Olympic medal is considered as close to priceless. And a lot of countries, where cricket is not popular now (China, Korea, Germany, Japan.etc), will give attention to the sport if it is included in the Olympics.
IMO, the number of teams doesn't matter much. If cricket is an Olympic sports, then it will be taken seriously by a lot of the governments around the world. Winning an Olympic medal is considered as close to priceless. And a lot of countries, where cricket is not popular now (China, Korea, Germany, Japan.etc), will give attention to the sport if it is included in the Olympics.
Forbes these days is just what they call ego media. You can pay to get almost anything inside and because most people still think if you're published in Forbes it gives you reputation and credibility. It kinda does, but if you also see some of the crap inside Forbes you might not even want to be associated sometimes:)
Olympics for sure is the way, but maybe cricket takes too long.
Can you share the news link? I want to know the whole news.
But I would be happy if Cricket joins the Olympics. Although the competition is now limited to 8 teams, there is no problem. If joining the Olympics is profitable for cricket, the ICC must consider whether to increase the number of teams later.
But I would be happy if Cricket joins the Olympics. Although the competition is now limited to 8 teams, there is no problem. If joining the Olympics is profitable for cricket, the ICC must consider whether to increase the number of teams later.
I could find a link from Forbes:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tristanlavalette/2021/05/28/indias-t20-cricket-world-cup-set-to-be-moved-while-eight-teams-in-the-olympics-is-preferred/?sh=7e5cbbd6553d
Forbes is one of the reputable media channels, although I don't think that they can be considered as any sort of authority in the field of cricket. So I would be more cautious before I confirm this news, preferably from the official ICC website, or from ESPN Cricinfo.
IMO, the number of teams doesn't matter much. If cricket is an Olympic sports, then it will be taken seriously by a lot of the governments around the world. Winning an Olympic medal is considered as close to priceless. And a lot of countries, where cricket is not popular now (China, Korea, Germany, Japan.etc), will give attention to the sport if it is included in the Olympics.
legendary
Activity: 2884
Merit: 1115
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
There is some disappointing news coming in. At first I was happy that finally the ICC had taken a positive view on the inclusion of cricket in the Olympics. But now they are saying that the competition will be limited to a total of 8 teams. When the world cup (from 2027 onward) will witness the participation of 14 teams, I was hoping for at least 16-20 teams in the Olympics. This is very disappointing news for the associate nations. The format to be used will be T20, and there was no surprise at least on that aspect.
Can you share the news link? I want to know the whole news.
But I would be happy if Cricket joins the Olympics. Although the competition is now limited to 8 teams, there is no problem. If joining the Olympics is profitable for cricket, the ICC must consider whether to increase the number of teams later.
There is some disappointing news coming in. At first I was happy that finally the ICC had taken a positive view on the inclusion of cricket in the Olympics. But now they are saying that the competition will be limited to a total of 8 teams. When the world cup (from 2027 onward) will witness the participation of 14 teams, I was hoping for at least 16-20 teams in the Olympics. This is very disappointing news for the associate nations. The format to be used will be T20, and there was no surprise at least on that aspect.
@Sithara007 technically speaking PCB and ICC have no right to ask money from the sales of those NFT, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they send him a bill asking for their share. Furthermore I’m sure all cricketers will be watching with keen interest how this goes, because if he successfully sells these then many more cricketers will follow suit and start selling their own NFTs.
Not sure about this. The tournament was organized by the ICC. Anything related to the tournament, including video footage, memorabilia.etc belongs to the ICC. I am not saying that Wasim Akram has no right to sell those NFTs, but at least he should seek permission from the ICC. There is no issue in listing an NFT in his name. But this time, he has used one of the global events to brand it. All that said, I am not a big supporter of the NFTs. For me NFTs make no sense. There is nothing called a digital memorabilia. It has to be physical.
I think also technically, they have no rights, unless those photos were theirs (which means they have to prove it). I mean, look at all the past NFTs also from singers doing it, photos that didn't belong to their labels. I know NBA takes "moments" and sells them but that is direct from their footage.
But knowing ICC sure, they will come knocking.
@Sithara007 technically speaking PCB and ICC have no right to ask money from the sales of those NFT, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they send him a bill asking for their share. Furthermore I’m sure all cricketers will be watching with keen interest how this goes, because if he successfully sells these then many more cricketers will follow suit and start selling their own NFTs.
Not sure about this. The tournament was organized by the ICC. Anything related to the tournament, including video footage, memorabilia.etc belongs to the ICC. I am not saying that Wasim Akram has no right to sell those NFTs, but at least he should seek permission from the ICC. There is no issue in listing an NFT in his name. But this time, he has used one of the global events to brand it. All that said, I am not a big supporter of the NFTs. For me NFTs make no sense. There is nothing called a digital memorabilia. It has to be physical.
So the money he will get from selling his NFT will belong to him and the board will have no share in it ?
This is just like players auctioning their bats or bowl with their signature on it. NFT is the new way of earning money for these players.
This is just like players auctioning their bats or bowl with their signature on it. NFT is the new way of earning money for these players.
Why he need to share it with the board? As long as the NFTs are not approved by the PCB, he doesn't need to share any of the revenues with them. But remember that this is from a global tournament, which was organized by the ICC and the Pakistan team was managed by the PCB. So in a way, he needs the permission from both the boards before doing something like this. But I don't understand the point in owning such NFTs. For antique purposes, you need some physical asset. Digital assets are not suitable for this purpose.
@Sithara007 technically speaking PCB and ICC have no right to ask money from the sales of those NFT, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they send him a bill asking for their share. Furthermore I’m sure all cricketers will be watching with keen interest how this goes, because if he successfully sells these then many more cricketers will follow suit and start selling their own NFTs.
So the money he will get from selling his NFT will belong to him and the board will have no share in it ?
This is just like players auctioning their bats or bowl with their signature on it. NFT is the new way of earning money for these players.
This is just like players auctioning their bats or bowl with their signature on it. NFT is the new way of earning money for these players.
Why he need to share it with the board? As long as the NFTs are not approved by the PCB, he doesn't need to share any of the revenues with them. But remember that this is from a global tournament, which was organized by the ICC and the Pakistan team was managed by the PCB. So in a way, he needs the permission from both the boards before doing something like this. But I don't understand the point in owning such NFTs. For antique purposes, you need some physical asset. Digital assets are not suitable for this purpose.
Cricketers now also entering in the NFT world. That's a good use case for NFTs.
Wasim Akram to auction exclusive NFTs from 1992 World Cup
That's a good use case for NFTs.Wasim Akram to auction exclusive NFTs from 1992 World Cup
So the money he will get from selling his NFT will belong to him and the board will have no share in it ?
This is just like players auctioning their bats or bowl with their signature on it. NFT is the new way of earning money for these players.
Players continue to put franchise cricket above national duty. Previously, the Australian players used to be an exception. But that is no longer the case. A record six Australian players have pulled out of national duty, to keep themselves fit for the IPL. These players are: David Warner, Glenn Maxwell, Kane Richardson, Pat Cummins, Marcus Stoinis and Jhye Richardson. I wouldn't balme them. Because after all cricket is like any other profession and these players need to earn as much as they can when they are fully fit.
Jump to: