Should Cricket Be A Part Of The Olympics?
- Thread starter Cricketfan96
- Start date
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
Bah, sounds like too much effort. 20-20 Olympic cricket could be the pinnacle of 20-20 cricket... something which isn't really the same as 50 over or Test Cricket. Sounds good to me. I'd watch it. Certainly enjoy it more than generic ODI series number 15X. Cricket is so fractured, that a few focal points could be good for it... still this post is probably too close to being sensible 
It's not about you or me watching it and deciding where we rank it though. It's down to the players and those running the game. Look at Football in the Olympics. Players were pulled out left, right and centre, either by themselves, or their club, which would never happen at a World Cup, because it's deemed more important.
In cricket, look at the Asian games example. Weak teams turned up because something else was more important. That's not a pinnacle of the sport and therefore should not be in the Olympics.
In cricket, look at the Asian games example. Weak teams turned up because something else was more important. That's not a pinnacle of the sport and therefore should not be in the Olympics.
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
Why is football being used? Even their domestic competitions are more important than most of the International tournaments. Cricket has Test Cricket (with no real focal point other than rankings) and the Cricket World Cups which exist for the 50-50 and 20-20 variants). I think if a Gold Medal was attached to the 20-20 World Cup, it would fast become one of the most coveted cricketing awards.
Again, not sure what the Asian games have to do with anything?
----------
And if it's not down to us, why are you bothering to talk about it
Again, not sure what the Asian games have to do with anything?
----------
And if it's not down to us, why are you bothering to talk about it
ferg512
International Coach
I'd rather it didn't to be honest, the olympics doesn't need it nor does cricket. Football and Tennis already simply shouldn't be there as it is. Although it would be interesting to see Jamaica vs Australia etc.
Bah, sounds like too much effort. 20-20 Olympic cricket could be the pinnacle of 20-20 cricket... something which isn't really the same as 50 over or Test Cricket. Sounds good to me. I'd watch it. Certainly enjoy it more than generic ODI series number 15X. Cricket is so fractured, that a few focal points could be good for it... still this post is probably too close to being sensible
I agree with this! A 20-20 Olympic gold medal can replace the pinnacle of T20 cricket which is the current T20 World Cup. All that you have to do is induct it into the Olympics (play in the same country as the Olympics) and give a gold medal to the winners, silver to the runner up and bronze using a playoff between the losing semifinalists.
Just a general reply regarding Rugby 7s being introduced into the Olympics. The pinnacle of Rugby 7s is currently the Commonwealth games, hence it will now become the Olympics. Players who play Rugby 7s in the major countries are completely different to those who play 15s at the highest level. Yes some 15s players would be great 7s players, but the players who play 7s are normally not even close to playing 15s at the highest level.
This is quite different to T20 cricket, where to have a World T20 tournament at the Olympics the top players would more than likely have to be there. i.e. to apply the 7s argument to cricket, you'd have to imagine having a tournament with players who are no where near Test cricket. The IRB keep 7s and 15s completely separate, while all formats of cricket are intertwined with each.
In response to the actual thread topic, I don't think cricket should be there from the perspective of what sports I think should be at the Olympics, but considering some of the other rubbish that is there why not chuck it in?
This is quite different to T20 cricket, where to have a World T20 tournament at the Olympics the top players would more than likely have to be there. i.e. to apply the 7s argument to cricket, you'd have to imagine having a tournament with players who are no where near Test cricket. The IRB keep 7s and 15s completely separate, while all formats of cricket are intertwined with each.
In response to the actual thread topic, I don't think cricket should be there from the perspective of what sports I think should be at the Olympics, but considering some of the other rubbish that is there why not chuck it in?
Skater
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2004
- Profile Flag
- England
Why is football being used? Even their domestic competitions are more important than most of the International tournaments. Cricket has Test Cricket (with no real focal point other than rankings) and the Cricket World Cups which exist for the 50-50 and 20-20 variants). I think if a Gold Medal was attached to the 20-20 World Cup, it would fast become one of the most coveted cricketing awards.
Again, not sure what the Asian games have to do with anything?
----------
And if it's not down to us, why are you bothering to talk about it
The earliest cricket could be introduced would be 2020, and by then we will have the World Test Championship, which will be the pinnacle of the sport. The broadcasters and sponsors wouldn't be happy with a T20 World Cup held only every four years, and then we have the stumbling block of England and the West Indies not being able to compete.
cricket_icon
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
This is a tough one. The only form of cricket viable for a tournament such as the Olympics is the T20 form of the game, which is also a great introduction to the sport for the uninitiated. Having said that, I can't think of any of the top6 teams sending their best players to the games, simply because the international calendar is already bursting at the seams. This means a second XI or maybe youth squads will be sent to the Olympics, which is no doubt a great opportunity for those players but it will not provide the same quality we are used to at the upper levels of the game. It would garner the same sort of indifference that Olympic football does, or basketball (a number of top American basketball players have not been glowing in regards to Olympic tournaments, now and in the past).
Another factor is how important will an Olympic medal be for those who are from successful test playing nations. Many of the top footballers, tennis players and basketball players have viewed the games as nothing more than a nuisance to their schedules. Where will the Olympics rank in regards to the WC, the T20 WC, the Ashes, a Pakistan/India series etc. I'd say pretty low.
Another factor is how important will an Olympic medal be for those who are from successful test playing nations. Many of the top footballers, tennis players and basketball players have viewed the games as nothing more than a nuisance to their schedules. Where will the Olympics rank in regards to the WC, the T20 WC, the Ashes, a Pakistan/India series etc. I'd say pretty low.
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
Why do people keep suggesting Tennis players consider it a nuisance. The greatest player of all time has been desperate for a Gold medal for years. He cried when he won a doubles gold medal... he never bothers playing doubles normally 
Football is only taken with a pinch of salt because of the ridiculous money that is staked in each players welfare by clubs paying stupid salaries. Every other sport, the Olympics is a chance for World glory and increased sponsorship/boosted revenue streams. It's also about honour and pride, which is something that died within football many decades ago.
Football is only taken with a pinch of salt because of the ridiculous money that is staked in each players welfare by clubs paying stupid salaries. Every other sport, the Olympics is a chance for World glory and increased sponsorship/boosted revenue streams. It's also about honour and pride, which is something that died within football many decades ago.
Bevab
Staff Member
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
My consistent point though, is that Test Cricket and 20-20 cricket are almost different sports. An Olympic T20 would probably be the pinnacle of T20 cricket.
It clearly won't happen, and your point about sponsors is the most salient reason as to why. A tournament occurring every 4 years does not allow the various authorities to maximise their revenue streams.
Also, try and tell Brazil that an Olympic medal is nothing in football, think the likes of Neymar, Oscar and their full-teams coach being used highlights how much they want that medal. Don't presume that the British press opinion is universal.
Prithvi
10 years at Planetcricket
There is no England contingent in Olympics. Great Britain is the contingent, in which all the English fall.
Also, regarding this issue, I would definitely love to see cricket in mighty Olympics, provided ICC and all the nations must co-operate. All the main squads must be sent to the games, so that the interest in people will be alive.
And regarding England and West Indies issues, Great Britain can easily fit in with all possible England players. Trinidad & Tobago, although it is a domestic team, but it is fit enough to make upsets, if they are allowed to play Olympics.
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
England could still play as England, if cricket T20 was played at the Olympics. The medal would just be classed under "Great Britain". Wales folks already in part of cricket anyway, so that would also cover the issue of Scotland and Northern Ireland not being part of a team GB in cricket.
But splitting West Indies could be problem though, which would mean linking T20 W-Cup with an Olympic gold to make it the pinnacle of the T20 format would make the idea invalid. Unless the ICC can convince the IOC to go against 116 years of tradition and allow the "West Indies" as a combined Caribbean to play as team just for cricket in the Olympics.
So if cricket is played at the Olympics in a T20 form, one would have to probably let me it be a Under-23/25 tournament or something.
But splitting West Indies could be problem though, which would mean linking T20 W-Cup with an Olympic gold to make it the pinnacle of the T20 format would make the idea invalid. Unless the ICC can convince the IOC to go against 116 years of tradition and allow the "West Indies" as a combined Caribbean to play as team just for cricket in the Olympics.
So if cricket is played at the Olympics in a T20 form, one would have to probably let me it be a Under-23/25 tournament or something.
Last edited:
