Cricket to the Olympic Games (Discuss)

Top Contributors
gbatman

gbatman

Member
Cricket to the Olympic Games (Discuss)

For ages there has been a debate that cricket should be a part of the Olympic games. In my opionion it should as it's one of the most participated sports, it's got a massive following and is very wealthy.
The excuse has always been that cricket matches took too long to complete and the "real" form of cricket takes 5 days.
Now we have one day cricket but even that would be too intensive for players to complete in time.
Twenty20 cricket is here and is now a recognised form of the game and while many long time cricket fans don't like it it's crickets big chance to make it to the Olympics and to take the interest in cricket to non-cricket nations.

Their is no reason Twenty20 cricket shouldn't be an Olympic sport. Teams could easily play 2 matches in one day if they had to, the length of play excuse is gone IMO.

If baseball and some of the rubbish sports like synchronised swimming are in the olympics then that makes an even bigger case for cricket.
The LBW law should have nothing to do with cricket not being there asmany rubbish sports in the olympics that have judges who can give even worse scores than cricket umpires give LBW's.

The reason is that powerful Olympic nations like the USA have control over it. Cricket is not played in the major Olympic European countries, Northern Asia and the USA so it's political BS that it's not involved. Baseball should not be in the Olympics ahead of cricket as it's only played by 2 countries.

Funny how all the sports/athletics in the Olympics have good participation in the USA. It's been a long joke that Cricket is not in the games because the USA don't play it but their is far too much truth in it.

If the USA central Europe and northern asia want it to be "their games" then the cricket nations should boycot it as it's rubbish that cricket's not in it. It's not their games, it's every ones games, it's the worlds games and cricket being one of the most followed sports on the planet belongs there.

I think we could drop the T20 world cup for the Olympics.
 
Re: Cricket to the Olympic Games (Discuss)

My view is if an event should only be included in the Olympics if it would be the pinnacle of said sport. In athletics, swimming, rowing, and a most other included sports, an olympic medal is the highest honour. In the case of tennis, for example, most competitors really don't care that much, and would much rather win a grand slam. Cricket would be much the same, no country would value an olympic medal over an ashes or world cup victory, therefore it should not be part of the olympics.
 
Re: Cricket to the Olympic Games (Discuss)

I am sure baseballers would rather a world series and basket ballers to win the NBA championships.
 
Re: Cricket to the Olympic Games (Discuss)

gbatman;355527 said:
I am sure baseballers would rather a world series and basket ballers to win the NBA championships.
Click to expand...

Therefore those sports should not be in the olympics
 
Re: Cricket to the Olympic Games (Discuss)

No, for the reason that AFE has said. The olympics need to be the highest honour for a particular sport, not just something 'extra'.
 
Re: Cricket to the Olympic Games (Discuss)

I must say I agree with the notion that cricket should not be in the Olympic games. One is how will the FTP deal with yet another event? I doubt if anyone except maybe India would like this(winning that first gold medal..)

Also it will mean that cricket will be an extra code and how would entrance be determined ..

Leave the game as is, quality and not quantity..
 
Re: Cricket to the Olympic Games (Discuss)

What if we were to dump the T20 world cup? Then the Olympics would be the hightes honor for T20 cricket.
 
Re: Cricket to the Olympic Games (Discuss)

gbatman;355573 said:
What if we were to dump the T20 world cup? Then the Olympics would be the hightes honor for T20 cricket.
Click to expand...

Still the issue of the other formats.

Really though, what would having cricket in the Olympics achieve?

Greater exposure? Not really, as it would only get limited coverage, apart from in those countries that already play the game.

Attract more nations to play the game? Maybe, doubtful though and anyway as we've seen it takes time to develop a team capable of competing. Do you really want to see squads made up of ex-pat Asian, Australian, South African and English players? It's bad enough now when you look at the likes of the US or Hong Kong.

The game would have to sign up to WADA full time and follow it's drug testing routine. This means that players have to nominate a set time every day detailing where they will be; this has to be done for a period of 6 months in advance. It's bad enough in most sports but it would be a mare when it comes to cricket.

I'm not against drug testing but there does have to be a common sense approach that meets the individual requirements of the sport.

If any form of the game was to be included, then the obvious choice would be the women's game. I believe that the Olympics has had a positive impact in terms of football and I reckon it would work in a similar way with cricket.

Whilst it's true that they have their own world cup, the recognition etc is nowhere near that of their male counterparts and as such winning gold would still be seen as a desirable goal as well as providing much needed press coverage.
 
Re: Cricket to the Olympic Games (Discuss)

Why should cricket have to piggy back of the Olympic movement anyway? The sport is well established with a long history.

Leave the Olympics to the athletes etc, rather than diluting it with numerous sports.
 
Re: Cricket to the Olympic Games (Discuss)

i can't understand why the game seems to want to drive hell for leather into the US and Chinese markets at the expense of nations that actually might have something to contribute to the game; and certainly those nations that might find a source of unity from the sport. Afghanistan's recent success on the cricket fields has been cited as something of a unifying factor as the team came from almost every region and ehtnic group. similarly cricket has been the defacto national summer sport of the Netherlands and Denmark for decades. yet none of these are ever going to make test level if we don't try and develop the game.
as for 'rubbish' sports in the Olympics- synchronised swimming is a major sport in eastern Europe. there are dozens of Asian sports, played by nearly half the world's population, that are more suitable to the olympics, most of which might be considered rubbish. Polo is played in Sth America and Central Asia to a standard as high as anything in Europe or Nth America- that's why the best teams are loaded with these players. at the end of the day, because cricket has basically limited its growth in the interests of the two biggest commercial nations (India and Australia) it is limited to a tier system where it would require at least a combination of a tier and regional grouping. Most people already whinge about the US or Ireland making the various cups- how are they going to react to seeing Argentina and Brazil or Romania and Poland? then the non-cricketing spectators will be laughing at our 'rubbish' sport.
the most important reason for not including cricket into the Olympics is the fact that it would spell the end of the West Indies. they are already looking at unravelling now- national olympic interest would only hasten the decline.
Baseball is not just 'two countries.' a quick glance at the medal table will show that Cuba is number one when it comes to Olympic baseball; America's domination of Basketball (as a nation) is nearing its end with Lithuania, Russia and Croatia (at least) all ranked above the Americans.
as for putting women's cricket into the olympics it is never going to happen. the two biggest female team sports are softball- with powerful backing in Central Europe, North Asia and North America; and Netball- with powerful backing from Africa and South America as well as the Commonwealth. if with all these backers neither can get a gig, then the prospect for women's cricket is nil. If it weren't for the backing of men's soccer, hockey and basketball then women would be effectively reduced to the perve sports- athletics, swimming and gymnastics. i think it spoils the whole olympic spirit that the pinnacle of women's sports, as far as the olympic movement is concerned, are beach bimboes or 16 year old gaol bait.
 
Re: Cricket to the Olympic Games (Discuss)

absolutely not.

everyone else has rapped it up for me.

the only reason for it would be that i get to watch more cricket, but the amount thats on i dont think thats necessary.
 
Re: Cricket to the Olympic Games (Discuss)

The Olympics would mean more T20 and the world has enough of that right now.

I would think the IOC would be more interested in getting cricket in than the ICC were, as it opens 2 huge markets. India and Pakistan have unbelievably bad olympic records and show little interest (see TV ratings, newspaper columns). India, for example, are an enourmous emerging market with growing wealth... I think the IOC would like to get involved in that... if infrastructrue and political stability were better they would be desperate to have India host the games. So don't worry about the issue until the IOC try to beat down the door... then tell them where to go!
 
Re: Cricket to the Olympic Games (Discuss)

Maybe T20 in the Commonwealth Games. But even that is a little unneccessary.
 
Re: Cricket to the Olympic Games (Discuss)

Wouldn't mind cricket being in the Commonwealth Games, considering most of the nations that play cricket are Commonwealth nations or have been one at some point in time it would make sense to have it in there.

It would have to be in Twenty20 format though, I don't think having ODI cricket at the Games would be feasible.
 
Re: Cricket to the Olympic Games (Discuss)

It was all a bit meh having 50 over games at the Kuala Lumpur Commonwealth Games (they were List As but not ODIs IIRC). The calander was awkward and resulted in a few understrength teams.

T20 could definitely work though. Probably be quite attractive to the CGF as a moneyspinner. As a rule I'm quite in favour of predominantly 'Commonwealth' sports like cricket, rugby 7s, touch, lawn bowls, netball, etc being included in the CommGames.
 
Re: Cricket to the Olympic Games (Discuss)

Caesar;364185 said:
It was all a bit meh having 50 over games at the Kuala Lumpur Commonwealth Games (they were List As but not ODIs IIRC). The calander was awkward and resulted in a few understrength teams.

T20 could definitely work though. Probably be quite attractive to the CGF as a moneyspinner. As a rule I'm quite in favour of predominantly 'Commonwealth' sports like cricket, rugby 7s, touch, lawn bowls, netball, etc being included in the CommGames.
Click to expand...

As am I. It'd be a good little tournament with Australia, India, New Zealand, England, Scotland, Canada, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, South Africa and the Caribbean nations all able to take part.

Come to think of it, it'd be a pretty competitive tournament. Ten major nations plus two of the Caribbean nations would equal a pool of 12 teams to take part.
 
Re: Cricket to the Olympic Games (Discuss)

Thumbs up;364164 said:
The Olympics would mean more T20 and the world has enough of that right now.

I would think the IOC would be more interested in getting cricket in than the ICC were, as it opens 2 huge markets. India and Pakistan have unbelievably bad olympic records and show little interest (see TV ratings, newspaper columns). India, for example, are an enourmous emerging market with growing wealth... I think the IOC would like to get involved in that... if infrastructrue and political stability were better they would be desperate to have India host the games. So don't worry about the issue until the IOC try to beat down the door... then tell them where to go!
Click to expand...

don't be surprised to see an Indian bid for the Olympics if the Commonwealth Games go well next year. Like China before the Beijing Games, India realises that its place on the world stage can only be seen if it is seen. it has no hope of getting soccer's world cup but would be a good bet for the Olympics- especially since China has had them.
 
Re: Cricket to the Olympic Games (Discuss)

Ljp86;364187 said:
As am I. It'd be a good little tournament with Australia, India, New Zealand, England, Scotland, Canada, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, South Africa and the Caribbean nations all able to take part.

Come to think of it, it'd be a pretty competitive tournament. Ten major nations plus two of the Caribbean nations would equal a pool of 12 teams to take part.
Click to expand...

the ICC withdrew from the Commonwealth Games because there was a perception that the Games needed Cricket more than Cricket needed the Games. there was also a hint that any attempt to get into America and China would be undermined by its association with a 'Colonial holdover.' this why the Commonwealth generally has been receptive to moves by Rwanda, Algeria and the Sudan for membership even though none technichally qualify. (other prospective members include Morocco and Angola and Madagascar but only the first three are regarded as serious in their intentions at this point. one article i have read even has Brazil as interested in membership via its links to Australia and Canada in the Cairns group).
one article on another cricketing site (it was a while ago that i read it and i forget which it was but think it was Cricinfo) suggests that the only way the ICC might return to the Commonwealth Games is if there was a provision for a Women's competition- something that is not out of the realm of possibility given support by India in particular. the better performance of Indians at the last games to finish a strong third instead of the usual expected fourth, plus the fact that they host the games next year, has led to an upsurge of interest in the Games. this could be cemented, with an increase in TV rights payments, if cricket were part of the Games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top