Should Cricket Be A Part Of The Olympics?

[Skater]

Do the Olympic Gold Medal winners in Football get called the best in the World? No, the World Cup winners do, which would be exactly the same in Cricket. And that's without getting into the fact that the pinnacle of the sport to most people (Test cricket) wouldn't even be used for the games, making it an even more diluted version of the sport.

This is true. I don't consider the 50 over or T20 World Cups to be the pinnacle of cricket, for me that is the no.1 Test ranking. It would be impossible to introduce 5 day matches in the Olympics, and the sport would be diluted anyhow by the need for youth players. The cricket calendar is congested enough as it is, and while you might get the Italians entering a team in the Olympics everyone knows India or Australia, or someone along those lines, would win gold.

 

[War]

No, the 'idea' if you really want to use that term, isn't to celebrate sports and have some big party proclaiming about how great everything is. The Olympics is about being the highest level of competition. It happens every 4 years and is special. Just like the World Cup is in football. For 4 years you have that right to be called the best in the World at what you do. Whether that be Usain Bolt or the Spanish football team. If you bring Cricket into the Olympics, you bring in a second tier competition (just like the Olympics is in football), which is against the very mantra of what the Olympic games are all about.

Do the Olympic Gold Medal winners in Football get called the best in the World? No, the World Cup winners do, which would be exactly the same in Cricket. And that's without getting into the fact that the pinnacle of the sport to most people (Test cricket) wouldn't even be used for the games, making it an even more diluted version of the sport.

Its a mixture of celebrating world sports and the highest level of competition.

Cause take out major world sports like football, cricket, rugby and tennis who have their world cups and grand slams as the pinnacle of their individual sports - pretty much every major sport in the world has Olympics as its pinnacle.

You could probably add NBA basketball to this list as well, since international basketball isn't that popular, given that the NBA is the hub of world B-Ball. Even though the American national team takes Olympic gold seriously.

Then of course other Americanized sports like Baseball, NFL, NHL and Australian rules football are other major sports who seriously wouldn't be in the Olympics since, they are solely country based sports with minimal worldwide appeal.

However going back to the point and with football, as i said its hard to not include to world most popular game in the Olympics. FIFA knows that.

What i think FIFA should do is probably proclaim the Olympics tournament an official "Under 21 world-cup" and then i think the football world would take it more seriously.

Recently Harry Winter from the telegraph had suggested this - London 2012 Olympics: Home Nations' simmering rivalries mean that Team GB football will never fully embrace Games - Telegraph

With cricket, lets be fair. Test cricket would never be played in the Olympics, even if its the purest form of our sport.

We all know T20 cricket is means in which other countries will be attracted to cricket, so by playing it at a major event like the Olympics could possible bring more people towards the game. When that happens and they come into our cricket world - then we can try to indoctrinate them into test cricket.

Also i highly suspect, if America or China was playing cricket, it would already be in the games also. Since as i said, alot of dumb sports are at the games which they have tonnes of athletes in, which adds to their gold/medals tally, which see's every Olympics turned into a USA vs China battle for the most medals

 

[6ry4nj]

The Olympics is the pinnacle of amateur sport, so there is no conflict with the prestige of the various World Cups etc. The corruption in the Olympic ranks that has seen professionals getting involved, needs to be well and truly rooted out and stomped on. There is no impediment to amateur cricket being included in the Olympics.

And it should be real cricket, ie. not T20.

 

[sami ullah khan]

Cricket should definitely be a part of Olympics. Its the only chance we have to get some gold . Cricket is becoming a global sport and yes there are a lot of crap sports that are less popular than cricket and are always part of Olympics, so why not cricket.

 

[Auwais]

How would England or the West Indies compete?

 

[Lee1981]

so why not cricket.

Because other than the few test playing nations cricket is hardly a big draw is it

It would just be another meaningless sport thrown in to boost someone's medal tally,

 

[Skater]

How would England or the West Indies compete?

England would be ok, the current England cricket team includes Wales anyway so it would fit in fine with Team GB.

The West Indies would be another issue, having to compete as their separate islands, but it would not likely be an officially sanctioned event so it wouldn't matter too much.

 

[Owzat]

there are a lot of crap sports that are less popular than cricket and are always part of Olympics

The olympics are the pinnacle of achievement in some 'sports', however the likes of tennis, cricket, football, rugby, golf etc already have their pinnacle.

Tennis : grandslam > olympic gold
Cricket : World Cup > olympic gold
Football : World Cup/Euros/Copa America > olympic gold
Rugby : World Cup > olympic gold
Golf : major/Ryder Cup etc > olympic gold

So for me the olympics is a perfect competition for those 'sports' that don't have a really big tournament like a World Cup. Some are making a big deal about Murray winning olympic gold, but it will grind on him that he hasn't yet won, and may never win, a grandslam. I wonder if he were honest if he'd swap it for a Wimbledon crown, I'm guessing he will find it hard to be truly honest as he may never win a grandslam so may hide behind bigging up his gold....................

Cricket definite no-no for the olympics, football shouldn't be in it either

 

[Bevab]

How would England or the West Indies compete?

How does the England national football team compete in the Olympics?

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

the west indies issue is quite a good one. good call on that, hadn't thought of that before.

I don't think it should be in the olympics, it's too niche a sport, but it should definitely be in commonwealth games.

 

[Aislabie]

A good way of levelling the playing field a bit would be if no player in the squad can have played Test cricket in the last 12 months, except the captain. Have a 24-team tournament, 8 groups of 3, top of each group into the quarter finals, etc.

And for the record, I know that it wouldn't be the pinnacle of cricket. I know that cricket fans wouldn't particularly value Olympic gold. But it would be a terrific way of globalising the game.

 

[puddleduck]

Should cycling be removed from the Olympics because of the Tour De France?

 

[MUFC1987]

Should cycling be removed from the Olympics because of the Tour De France?

You're letting yourself down here.

Since when was did the Tour de France feature an indoor track? Let alone other aspects, like BMX etc.

The Olympics is the (arguably) pinnacle for road Cyclists, in terms of a one off race, which is just one small part of the sport of cycling as a whole. the Tour de France is specialised in featuring many stages which is entirely different, so for a one off race, the cyclists would much rather win the Olympic Road Race than the Road Race world Championship.

 

[War]

Because other than the few test playing nations cricket is hardly a big draw is it

It would just be another meaningless sport thrown in to boost someone's medal tally,

Well if their is sudden concern about meaningless Olympic sports being thrown around to boost a nations medal tally vs the conventional wisdom that the Olympics should be "pinnacle of sports".

Then of the 26 regular sports that are part of the summer Olympic games, MANY sports in this group 0f 26 would come under great scrutiny then.

 

[puddleduck]

You're letting yourself down here.

Since when was did the Tour de France feature an indoor track? Let alone other aspects, like BMX etc.

The Olympics is the (arguably) pinnacle for road Cyclists, in terms of a one off race, which is just one small part of the sport of cycling as a whole. the Tour de France is specialised in featuring many stages which is entirely different, so for a one off race, the cyclists would much rather win the Olympic Road Race than the Road Race world Championship.

So perhaps cricketers would much rather win the 20-20 gold medal than 20-20 world cup? Thanks for making my point