Summer Olympic Games Los Angeles 2028 Sports Programme

[hckošice 13,271]

27 minutes ago, NearPup said:

I keep mentally lumping them with North America because they are a CONCACAF member / sort of culturally part the Caribbean but you are of course correct.

While it is nonsense from geographical point of view, I agree that Guyana and Suriname are more regionally "Concacafal countries" than for example Ausralia asian or Kazakhstan European

[De_Gambassi 896]

52 minutes ago, OlympicIRL said:

Yes cricket has way more relevance around the world than hockey or water polo. I mean hockey isn’t even popular in most of the countries who actually do well in it and that’s a small number to begin with.

Whether you want it in or out is a personal preference but you can’t say it’s any less deserving than hockey or water polo.

Depends on how you look at it, outside the test nations*, cricket is basically a non entity and it's played (when it's played) only by people coming from cricket nations. 

 

Handball, field hockey, water polo have domestic traditions in many more countries (often small, but still). Cricket is a sport still alien to 90% of the nations of the world.

 

*Please that someone don't give me the exemple of the Netherlands

 

[phelps 6,889]

1 hour ago, JoshMartini007 said:

One thing that holds cricket back is the stadium requirements. The field of play is massive so unless you already have one you'll have to build one, you can't convert a football stadium into a cricket field.

all athletics stadiums have the perfect size and shape to be converted for a couple of weeks into cricket stadiums...

[phelps 6,889]

54 minutes ago, Monzanator said:

If flag football and baseball/softball are approved then nobody in USA will give a flying hoot about cricket. Americans usually don't care about any sport they aren't good at and I haven't seen USA national team play world class cricket lately? It took years for soccer to even register on the US pro sporting map and you want to sell them cricket at the Olympics? Zero chance that happens.

if cricket makes it to the Games, you can be sure that in the USA you'll find enough people to fill a 20/30,000 seat stadium in all the tournament matches with those with heritage from the sports Nations of that discipline...

 

exactly as they used to fill the football stadiums back in the Cosmos days or at the 1984 Olympics / 1994 world cup...

 

and in any case, it's not about the USA...it's about a big part of the world (like it or not, we're talking of billions of fans through 5 Continents...which isn't the case for the above mentioned team sports already in the Olympic program -and not from yesterday) which doesn't have many of their most popular sports included in the Olympic schedule and would like to have something big (for them) to follow...

 

and it's about the IOC's requirements in terms of how much it's spread and played all around the world (even if in Europe it's almost inexistent outside GBR & Ireland)...

[OlympicIRL 4,771]

32 minutes ago, De_Gambassi said:

Depends on how you look at it, outside the test nations*, cricket is basically a non entity and it's played (when it's played) only by people coming from cricket nations. 

 

Handball, field hockey, water polo have domestic traditions in many more countries (often small, but still). Cricket is a sport still alien to 90% of the nations of the world.

 

*Please that someone don't give me the exemple of the Netherlands

 

The thing is though unlike water polo or hockey, cricket is hugely popular in some countries… England, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Australia, South Africa, across the Caribbean and although not the biggest sport in New Zealand by any means I assume it’s one of the top sports there. I didn’t even mention countries like Afghanistan where it is huge as well. And I’m Irish so my knowledge of cricket is not great so others can probably advocate the point better.

 

Water polo and hockey don’t carry the same appeal even in most of the nations that do well in those sports (there are exceptions I know and hockey is huge in India I know that too).

Like I say it’s all about perspective. I myself prefer hockey and water polo than cricket and I would selfishly want them in the Olympics ahead of cricket because I like them more.

But I don’t see how cricket has less of a place in the Games as those 2 sports.

 

It’s funny how I am arguing in favour of a sport like cricket that I never really followed nor is it particularly a sport I want to in the Olympics but just being objective.

 

If I was to choose and didn’t have to care what others thought, I’d include bowls, darts and snooker as I love them  

[phelps 6,889]

I want pencak silat and Turkish oil wrestling!  

[De_Gambassi 896]

7 minutes ago, OlympicIRL said:

 

 

It’s funny how I am arguing in favour of a sport like cricket that I never really followed nor is it particularly a sport I want to in the Olympics but just being objective.

 

I know the feeling  And yes, cricket is hugely popular in a few countries, but then its popularity drops off a cliff.

 

Anyway, there is no defintive way to judge of one sport popularity. So one knows, and I don't even really care neither(the trap of arguing stuff on the internet )

[OlympicIRL 4,771]

1 minute ago, De_Gambassi said:

 

Anyway, there is no defintive way to judge of one sport popularity. So one knows, and I don't even really care (the trap of arguing stuf on the internet )

This is generally my feeling anytime I post on here…. one more counter argument and I would have given up and just do what I do best, watch sport  

[Monzanator 3,599]

26 minutes ago, OlympicIRL said:

The thing is though unlike water polo or hockey, cricket is hugely popular in some countries… England, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Australia, South Africa, across the Caribbean and although not the biggest sport in New Zealand by any means I assume it’s one of the top sports there. I didn’t even mention countries like Afghanistan where it is huge as well. And I’m Irish so my knowledge of cricket is not great so others can probably advocate the point better.

 

Water polo and hockey don’t carry the same appeal even in most of the nations that do well in those sports (there are exceptions I know and hockey is huge in India I know that too).

Like I say it’s all about perspective. I myself prefer hockey and water polo than cricket and I would selfishly want them in the Olympics ahead of cricket because I like them more.

But I don’t see how cricket has less of a place in the Games as those 2 sports.

 

It’s funny how I am arguing in favour of a sport like cricket that I never really followed nor is it particularly a sport I want to in the Olympics but just being objective.

 

If I was to choose and didn’t have to care what others thought, I’d include bowls, darts and snooker as I love them  

 

The scoring in cricket is way too complicated for casuals to catch up within two weeks of Olympics. How many overs, balls and runs and what are the extras? Who in USA knows what lbw means? Probably 0,02%. Water polo and hockey might not have the appeal but they have simple rules. Two goals and one ball. Put the object ball into the net. Scoring in cricket? That's another thing to debate. At least the baseball scoring is easier to keep the track on if nothing goes on. I'm not even going to mention the usual bitching about piste conditions in cricket. Imagine if outside powers set up a cricket turf on neutral grounds? The bitching would never stop from these players. Too soft, too hard, too whatever 

[Dnl 661]

Hey what about addition to already existing sports like Compound to archery or 5x5 to football and thing like that?