yea agreed, and that's why I think if cricket is in the Olympics it should be without any of the full-member sides. Associates are the ones who would benefit the most from it anyways. Increased funding and exposure, and they won't mind playing on synthetic surfaces.Yeah I think you'd get a ton of complaints from traditionalists if you forced everything to be on synthetic pitches. Can't imagine the subcontinent boards would be keen on that.
India's one chance at a medal and you propose thisyea agreed, and that's why I think if cricket is in the Olympics it should be without any of the full-member sides. Associates are the ones who would benefit the most from it anyways. Increased funding and exposure, and they won't mind playing on synthetic surfaces.
Not sure how the IOC would feel about that tho.
I mean I get where you're coming from but that instantly makes it a complete non-starter. The ICC is the IOC-recognised organisation that has to greenlight any attempt to get cricket into the Olympics and the ICC is for all intents and purposes the consolidated interests of the full members (three in particular).yea agreed, and that's why I think if cricket is in the Olympics it should be without any of the full-member sides. Associates are the ones who would benefit the most from it anyways. Increased funding and exposure, and they won't mind playing on synthetic surfaces.
Not sure how the IOC would feel about that tho.
Good chance for HK to win another medal tho. Singapore might finally win one as well.India's one chance at a medal and you propose this
You're being a bit cynical but yea that's likely to be the stumbling block. But if you think about it, that's the ideal way to have cricket as an Olympic sport without having to worry about how it impacts the international calendar. Just sign off on it and let all the teams who fail to qualify for the WT20 chase Olympic gold instead. Proper win-win solution.I mean I get where you're coming from but that instantly makes it a complete non-starter. The ICC is the IOC-recognised organisation that has to greenlight any attempt to get cricket into the Olympics and the ICC is for all intents and purposes the consolidated interests of the full members (three in particular).
but T10s suckOr you could just play T10s, as I originally suggested. It's not a new idea: T10 format could be vehicle for cricket's return to Olympics, as ICC steps up interest (espncricinfo.com)
As do T20'sbut T10s suck
T10s suck moreAs do T20's
But how will the ICC make money from it thenAren't there only 12 teams in the sevens?
In terms of fitting it into international calendar, couldn't it replace one of the t20 wcs given there are two of those per four year cycle
Yes, yes yes.Golf shouldn't be an Olympic sport. Squash should be.
How would you fit that into two weeks?16 team U23s ODIs would be my suggestion. Serious enough to sell proper cricket to the world but not necessarily interfering with IPL and the other money leagues.