• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Cricket in Olympics

Faisal1985

International Vice-Captain
Well hockey's an Olympic sport and both India and Pakistan have proud histories of success and how's that doing when compared to cricket on the subcontinent nowadays?
May be thats because we are not winning any medals in hockey...


IMO, Cricket is still quite limited to only a handful of countries and rather than more teams becoming test material teams are becoming less and less competitive at the test level.

From a test's perspective i think Olympic T20s would cause further problems as to how the players prepare themselves....At Olympic T20s a player who wants to aim for that or a team wants to aim for that will obviously prepare for rash slogging...Imagine a team or a player who is a "Cricketing Gold Medalist" not making to the test team.......LOL but on the other side it will give Test cricket the distinction as ..THE best quality Cricket ever played where Gold medalist do not necessarily make it....

But from a the popularity and public awareness purposes i think Olympics is the best platform that Cricket would get to promote cricket and....seems to have more advantages overall
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
I'm all for it. Although it would be the end of the West Indies.
I don't think it would. They'd just split up for the Olympics (like England, Scotland, Wales and the Ulster bit of Ireland will join tog for union 7s, presumably). Jamaica, Barbados and Antigua and Barbuda all played in the Commonwealth Games in 98. Although not T&T for some reason.
 

slippyslip

U19 12th Man
Football has had the crap flogged out of it for a hell of a lot longer.
People in Europe seem to have an insatiable appetite for a billion football matches a year with the same old clubs winning the same old trophies.

Cricket fans are a little more ... discerning.

Anyway, I was thinking about the 2020 Olympics. If they go to a city from the USA I'm pretty sure the Americans will be pressing hard for baseball to be included back for the 2020 Olympics. Could you imagine how Americans would react if they were forced to have cricket instead of baseball? Lets just say the bombs might start flying in the direction of cricketing countries. Especially if Sarah Palin is President in 2020.

Lets imagine if Rio had to include cricket. What kind of cricket grounds do you think Brazilians would build? They would be rectangle and instead of stumps there would be goals at either end.

Cricket is unique that the ground plays such a massive part in the game and takes more preparation that other sports. There is no definitive guide to pitch preparation. And unlike baseball fields you can only use a pitch for a certain amount of time before it becomes unsuitable. Grass tennis courts also wear out but out of the 25 biggest tennis tournaments of the year (4 slams, Tour finals, 9 1000 masters, 11 500 series) a whopping 1 is held on grass and thats only because Wimbledon is Wimbledon.

Unless the ICC coughs up a lot of money to support cricket at the Olympics I dont see many countries voting for cricket to be included due to the costs and logistical nightmares it would bring for non cricketing cities.

And I see no one has suggested a solution to the myriad of problems of having cricket at the Olympics
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
And if you talk about participants....synchronized swimming? Really? How many people in the world participate in synchronized swimming in their leisure time?

Cricket has a much stronger case than so many other sports, and definitely should be in there IMO.
Why do you think I go to the beach every year for 4 weeks? Lobbying hard for mens' synchronised tbh.
 

slugger

State Vice-Captain
People in Europe seem to have an insatiable appetite for a billion football matches a year with the same old clubs winning the same old trophies.

Cricket fans are a little more ... discerning.

Anyway, I was thinking about the 2020 Olympics. If they go to a city from the USA I'm pretty sure the Americans will be pressing hard for baseball to be included back for the 2020 Olympics. Could you imagine how Americans would react if they were forced to have cricket instead of baseball? Lets just say the bombs might start flying in the direction of cricketing countries. Especially if Sarah Palin is President in 2020.

Lets imagine if Rio had to include cricket. What kind of cricket grounds do you think Brazilians would build? They would be rectangle and instead of stumps there would be goals at either end.

Cricket is unique that the ground plays such a massive part in the game and takes more preparation that other sports. There is no definitive guide to pitch preparation. And unlike baseball fields you can only use a pitch for a certain amount of time before it becomes unsuitable. Grass tennis courts also wear out but out of the 25 biggest tennis tournaments of the year (4 slams, Tour finals, 9 1000 masters, 11 500 series) a whopping 1 is held on grass and thats only because Wimbledon is Wimbledon.

Unless the ICC coughs up a lot of money to support cricket at the Olympics I dont see many countries voting for cricket to be included due to the costs and logistical nightmares it would bring for non cricketing cities.

And I see no one has suggested a solution to the myriad of problems of having cricket at the Olympics
there are alot of sports in the olympics that require unique elements, like sailing so a city has to have access to the ocean.

NB even Hungary has won a medal in sailing and its a land locked country, and its not the only land locked country to do so. don't make the asumption that other countries outside the test 8 wont be interested in competing in 20/20

In the case of when bejing hosted the game they built a man made river for sports such canoeing. a city is given plenty of time to get things right 7 years.
 
Last edited:

slippyslip

U19 12th Man
there are alot of sports in the olympics that require unique elements, like sailing so a city has to have access to the ocean.
Sure. Velodromes for example. They usually become white elephants once a games has finished. But you just need one. Not 4-6.

NB even Hungary has won a medal in sailing and its a land locked country, and its not the only land locked country to do so. don't make the asumption that other countries outside the test 8 wont be interested in competing in 20/20

In the case of when bejing hosted the game they built a man made river for sports such canoeing. a city is given plenty of time to get things right 7 years.
But sailing, kayaking/canoeing and rowing are established Olympic sports. Cricket needs to be voted in by the members of the IOC. Many countries, especially those with ambitions to host the Olympics will not want cricket included due to the costs involved with hosting it. With sports like sailing, kayaking/canoeing and rowing host cities have no choice, they're part of the Olympics like it or not. Sure, if Twenty20 was to be in the 2012 it would be no problem. An Olympic final at Lord's would be brilliant. But in the whole history of the Olympics only two cricketing countries have had cities host the Olympics. Australia and the UK. 2012 will be only the 5th time a city from a cricketing country has hosted the games.

I'm not against cricket in the Olympics. I think it would be great. But there is massive obstacles to deal with before cricket can become an Olympic sport.
 

slugger

State Vice-Captain
^^^^ you looking at it all wrong. as cricketing nations with over a 100 + years playing the game, which consist of many levels such as grass roots/domestic and internationals grounds have sprung up all over the cricketing nations fron Cairns to Kolkata, but at the same time we have also developed drop in pitches which I believe were first used at the 1992 world cups.

so a city that has to host the games only has to put together probably only 2 grounds/oval with temp stands with using a number of drop in pitches throughout the olympics.
 

Stapel

International Regular
To be honoust: the Olympics are, in many ways, a collection of sports that otherwise do not get any attention at all / sports that otherwise don't matter at all. And if these sports get attention otherwise, the Olympics mean crap. Track & Field, being the pinnacle of the Olympics, are the exception.

Football, the most popular sport in the world, means crap to nothing in its Olympic format. Not one football player will rate the Olympics higher than the WC. Same for cycling (Tour de France) or tennis (Wimbledon). Basketball, baseball, ice hockey... And what about rugby or yankeeball football?


However, there are two points that make a case for Olympic Cricket. If the ICC wants cricket to spread and grow outside its current fixed position, the Olympics are the way to go. It would mean A LOT for Dutch cricket!
The other point is money: I guess the IOC could use extra income from Indian sponsors

The only real down side of it, is a break up of the West Indies.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
People in Europe seem to have an insatiable appetite for a billion football matches a year with the same old clubs winning the same old trophies.

Cricket fans are a little more ... discerning.
The average T20 fan isn't. That's partly why it's popular - it has simple appeals to the watcher. Before one of the T20 haters shows up there's nothing wrong with liking T20 for that, nor is there anything wrong with liking football or movies with Arnie in them. I draw the line at TV shows such as Friends though.

Any sport will suffer some overkill to an extent, but the fact that the drive from the media and so on to keep packing the schedule for yet more football tells you that it isn't a factor that hurts profits.

Cricket at the Olympics will generate revenue and international exposure. It will contribute to player burnout, but better something like the Olympics than yet another mickey mouse series which is purely for monetary gain - which is what would happen if that schedule was vacant.

Getting back to the logistical argument. I don't think it's that big an issue, particularly compared to the other 'white elephants' people have mentioned. You would not need more than three stadia and these can be used or designed in a way to support other sports as well. They can use temporary stands and seating too. Obviously if you had three stadia they'd be different capacities and so on, same as Wimbledon has a centre court and outside courts.
 

Top