Men's Cricket ICC T20 World Cup 2022

[phelps 7,667]

1 hour ago, Nickyc707 said:

In the 86 years since handball was first introduced to the Olympics only two countries from outside Europe have ever won a medal. Do you think that sport should be excluded? Afterall Europe consists of fewer countries and far fewer people than the Commonwealth.

 

The introduction of cricket would mean that a lot of countries and parts of the world that never have the opportunity to compete in team sports at the Olympics would have a chance to do so. I'm thinking in particular of South Asia, Southern Africa and the Caribbean. The Olympics needs to stop being so Eurocentric.

tbh, the Olympics in the last 20 years have been hyper Far East centric.

 

most medal events added in that stint have gone to CHN, JPN and to a lesser extent KOR.

 

and in any case, the "newest" sports have a lot of interest in those Nations (which isn't surprising, as China rules the world and JPN and KOR have the main sponsors feeding the IOC, except for the US TV stations, namely NBC).

[Nickyc707 382]

3 hours ago, phelps said:

tbh, the Olympics in the last 20 years have been hyper Far East centric.

 

most medal events added in that stint have gone to CHN, JPN and to a lesser extent KOR.

 

and in any case, the "newest" sports have a lot of interest in those Nations (which isn't surprising, as China rules the world and JPN and KOR have the main sponsors feeding the IOC, except for the US TV stations, namely NBC).

Yep, but the overall programme remains heavily biased towards Europe and North America. Even if you add the big three from the Far East it leaves vast swathes of the planet under represented.

[Nickyc707 382]

4 hours ago, De_Gambassi said:

What kind of strawman argument is that. Handball has nothing to do with the discussion. It's an universal sport, heavely dominated by European countries, but played pretty much everywhere by locals. 

 

Cricket is not. Outside of T1 nations, the game is almost non existent or limited to expats from cricket nations. The Netherlands are often cited in these kind of discussions as some kind of proof of some depth behind T1 nations. Yet, with the country only having around 5,000 players it is demonstrating quite the opposite.

 

For me, that's a sport that should not be Olympic. 

 

In that regard, rugby is doing much better (Spain with 40k players as an exemple of a non-commonwealth, non-T1 nation), which was my initial point. Baseball also. 

 

Ps: I'm quoting numbers from european countries as they are the ones the most easely 

It was an argument made in response to your strawman argument that only Commonwealth countries would win Olympic medals in the next 100 years, and ignoring the possibility of further expansion, beyond the 30 or so NOCs where cricket is a significant sport, as a result of becoming an Olympic sport.

 

I referred to handball because it bears similarities in being a very Eurocentric sport which did not have the benefit of universality when it came into the Olympics and only significantly spread beyond Europe after becoming an Olympic sport. Even now it remains weak in most other parts of the world and apart from South Korea, China with a bronze is the only non-European country to win an Olympic medal in 86 years of trying.

 

Incidentally you've referred to rugby as being a Commonwealth sport which is not true in the sense you mean it. It has historically had strongholds in places way beyond the Commonwealth such as France, Italy, Romania, Argentina and Japan.

[Joshi 123]

Let's make no bones about it Australia will be pushing hard for this to be included if not already for Brisbane 2032. Just a pity the final will be played at the Gabba and not at the iconic MCG (one of the great sporting arenas in world sport) in Melbourne.

Edited October 24, 2022 by Joshi

[Fly_like_a_don 1,089]

If IOC wants money they will force cricket in LA 2028.

 

P.s:  is hosting the next T20 WC . 

[Siddhartha Talukdar 233]

Australia will definitely make a case for cricket in 2032. They by far are the best team in women's cricket and among the top 3 in men's cricket. Venues and scheduling won't be an issue as nearby cities like Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide have Test grounds too. Feasible scenario to be 8 team tournament for both men and women. 

Lastly why is it necessary to have the medal matches at Brisbane only

[De_Gambassi 1,223]

9 hours ago, Nickyc707 said:

It was an argument made in response to your strawman argument that only Commonwealth countries would win Olympic medals in the next 100 years, and ignoring the possibility of further expansion, beyond the 30 or so NOCs where cricket is a significant sport, as a result of becoming an Olympic sport.

 

I referred to handball because it bears similarities in being a very Eurocentric sport which did not have the benefit of universality when it came into the Olympics and only significantly spread beyond Europe after becoming an Olympic sport. Even now it remains weak in most other parts of the world and apart from South Korea, China with a bronze is the only non-European country to win an Olympic medal in 86 years of trying.

 

Incidentally you've referred to rugby as being a Commonwealth sport which is not true in the sense you mean it. It has historically had strongholds in places way beyond the Commonwealth such as France, Italy, Romania, Argentina and Japan.

You didn't understand the discussion then...

 

I didn't make that argument in the first place, that was @Vektor. I was responding to it, particulary the point where he lumps both rugby and cricket as equally commonwealth-focused. I was pointing out that Rugby is indeed a lot less commonwealth-focused, using a slightly exaggerated argument (no shit). RU is my favorite sport btw and I know more than a bit of its history having dedicated hundred of hours searching and writing about it...

 

And back to your handball argument, it's really "but, but tennis table shouldn't be an olympic sport, because China". Yeah, the sport is heavely dominated by Europeans. But who cares, as long as the game is universal and played pretty much everywhere.  The universality of a sport has not to be judged on the regional spread of its top nations, but on the number of players around the world and the number of nations that do play the game.

 

And perhaps, it was not so the case when handball was introduced back then. But again, who cares? It was a different time with different exigences and different rules (IIRC, IOC was only asking for 25 countries to play a sport to be considered at that time)

 

I don't wish cricket to be an olympic sport because it's too commonwealth (that was never my argument, only if that was argument had to be made, rugby would fared a lot better in that regard), but because it's not universal enough in my book. Besides, I don't think cricket will gain olympic status, but not because of its lack of universality, but for more practical reasons (cost and legacy of a cricket stadium and quotas requirement).

 

 

 

[Dragon 1,843]

2 hours ago, De_Gambassi said:

You didn't understand the discussion then...

 

I didn't make that argument in the first place, that was @Vektor. I was responding to it, particulary the point where he lumps both rugby and cricket as equally commonwealth-focused. I was pointing out that Rugby is indeed a lot less commonwealth-focused, using a slightly exaggerated argument (no shit). RU is my favorite sport btw and I know more than a bit of its history having dedicated hundred of hours searching and writing about it...

 

And back to your handball argument, it's really "but, but tennis table shouldn't be an olympic sport, because China". Yeah, the sport is heavely dominated by Europeans. But who cares, as long as the game is universal and played pretty much everywhere.  The universality of a sport has not to be judged on the regional spread of its top nations, but on the number of players around the world and the number of nations that do play the game.

 

And perhaps, it was not so the case when handball was introduced back then. But again, who cares? It was a different time with different exigences and different rules (IIRC, IOC was only asking for 25 countries to play a sport to be considered at that time)

 

I don't wish cricket to be an olympic sport because it's too commonwealth (that was never my argument, only if that was argument had to be made, rugby would fared a lot better in that regard), but because it's not universal enough in my book. Besides, I don't think cricket will gain olympic status, but not because of its lack of universality, but for more practical reasons (cost and legacy of a cricket stadium and quotas requirement).

 

 

 

For my part, I don't expect cricket to ever be a permanent part of the Olympic schedule but when certain countries host the Games (Australia, India and possibly the UK or South Africa) and have suitable cricket stadiums that can be used there are financial and other reasons why it could be included.

 

The quota argument is a good argument against cricket but actually a better one against baseball and softball where the squad sizes are so much bigger.

I think 2 cricket tournaments of 8 teams would take up around 240 quota, about the same as baseball/softball in 2021.

You could even cut it down to 2 6 team tournaments with 14 players on each roster (168 quota)

[Dolby 735]

54 minutes ago, Dragon said:

For my part, I don't expect cricket to ever be a permanent part of the Olympic schedule but when certain countries host the Games (Australia, India and possibly the UK or South Africa) and have suitable cricket stadiums that can be used there are financial and other reasons why it could be included.

 

The quota argument is a good argument against cricket but actually a better one against baseball and softball where the squad sizes are so much bigger.

I think 2 cricket tournaments of 8 teams would take up around 240 quota, about the same as baseball/softball in 2021.

You could even cut it down to 2 6 team tournaments with 14 players on each roster (168 quota)

Basically, allot 200-250 quota to host nation? Let Australia use it for Cricket, Japan for Baseball?

[De_Gambassi 1,223]

1 hour ago, Dragon said:

For my part, I don't expect cricket to ever be a permanent part of the Olympic schedule but when certain countries host the Games (Australia, India and possibly the UK or South Africa) and have suitable cricket stadiums that can be used there are financial and other reasons why it could be included.

 

The quota argument is a good argument against cricket but actually a better one against baseball and softball where the squad sizes are so much bigger.

I think 2 cricket tournaments of 8 teams would take up around 240 quota, about the same as baseball/softball in 2021.

You could even cut it down to 2 6 team tournaments with 14 players on each roster (168 quota)

It's still a lot more than individual sports and only delivers two gold medals. With the limit of athletes we have now and the number of sports/events, the odds are stacked against any new team sport entering the olympics even as additional sport. Will Brisbane even have 240 quotas to use for its additional sports ? 

Edited October 24, 2022 by De_Gambassi