Why cricket is not included in Olympics?

shivesh73 · 23-09-2015 2:48pm #1

Cricket is one of the top sports in world and it is not included in biggest sporting event i.e. Olympic Games. Cricket was played only one time in the history of Olympics which was in 1900.

What are the possible reasons why cricket is not included in Olympics??

TrueDub · 23-09-2015 3:01pm

Because only a limited number of nations are interested, I would suggest.

Also, until relatively recently, cricket matches lasted 4 or 5 days - there wasn't time to play it to a conclusion during an Olympics.

With the advent of T20 that might change, and there have been murmurings in that direction recently.

ceegee · 23-09-2015 3:02pm

Main issue would be match length (even 20/20 is lengthy enough)
Added to that is the fact that only a few countries would have much interest in it.

Dozen Wicked Words · 23-09-2015 6:25pm

Time of matches is clearly not an issue for the Olympic committee since they are happy enough with golf.

Hockey is in Olympics and isn't played to high standard by any more international teams than cricket is.

Baseball, Softball and Rugby sevens have, or are going to feature at Olympics and I would question any of those sports have broader appeal than cricket.

NinetyForNone · 23-09-2015 6:35pm

Lack of the host having a cricket infrastructure/grounds would be one valid reason.
I assume a baseball diamond would be cheap enough to develop and replace.

shivesh73 · 24-09-2015 2:19pm

I think match length is not a valid reason as a twenty20 match takes hardly 3.5 hours to complete. So it can be considered.

Rjd2 · 24-09-2015 4:37pm

From all accounts its the dreadful Giles Clarke and the ECB very much against it as they fear it would mess their summer schedule. I can't see any reason why the associates would not want to be part of it whatsoever.

Dirty Dingus McGee · 26-09-2015 10:23am

Surely there are enough sports where the Olympics have no real status without adding another to it.

It's a joke that Golf,Tennis,Soccer etc are in it without adding another sport where the competition will have no real meaning.

ArmaniJeanss · 29-09-2015 10:53am

50 over tournament was in the Commonwealth Games relatively recently (1998) and didn't really work.
Could argue that if it was a roaring success in the Commonwealth Games then it might ultimately have become an Olympic sport, and conversely if the CG now doesn't bother with it (despite all the major cricket powers being Commonwealth countries) then why should the Olympics have an interest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_at_the_1998_Commonwealth_Games

Dozen Wicked Words · 19-10-2015 8:44am

Looks like Colin Graves reads boards, he thinks cricket should push for Olympic inclusion. He's mentioned idea of 10 over games though, and that's taking the p*ss imo.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/oct/18/ecb-chairman-colin-graves-cricket-olympics

Beasty · 21-10-2015 12:11am

I think any new sport can only be introduced at the expense of one currently at the Olympics. It would need support from the IOC and a host nation as initially it needs to go in as a test event. There are simply not enough countries involved in cricket to get enough support and indeed throw out another sport (most of which have widespread support across IOC members)

hinault · 21-10-2015 1:40pm

Beasty wrote: »

I think any new sport can only be introduced at the expense of one currently at the Olympics. It would need support from the IOC and a host nation as initially it needs to go in as a test event. There are simply not enough countries involved in cricket to get enough support and indeed throw out another sport (most of which have widespread support across IOC members)

The populations of Australia, West Indies, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, New Zealand, England, not to mention ICC non-test playing nations, Ireland, Scotland, Holland, Afghanistan, UAE.............................all prove that Cricket enjoys huge international support compared to Olympic sports such as 7's rugby for example.

ArmaniJeanss · 22-10-2015 11:15am

hinault wrote: »

The populations of Australia, West Indies, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, New Zealand, England, not to mention ICC non-test playing nations, Ireland, Scotland, Holland, Afghanistan, UAE.............................all prove that Cricket enjoys huge international support compared to Olympic sports such as 7's rugby for example.

Rugby 7s is very simple to schedule in an Olympics.
1 stadium for 4 days (2 days women, 2 days men). Done and dusted.

A 12 team cricket comp is 18 group games (assuming 3 roundrobin groups of 4) or 30 group games (assuming 2 roundrobin groups of 6). Then knockouts.
Double your total of games for the womens event.
Even if its 20/20 variant its still 4 hours a game, so looks to need fairly exclusive use of 2, probably 3 grounds for the entire 14 days of the Olympics. Justifiable?(bearing in mind the Olympics will mostly be in cities without existing cricket grounds)

minitrue · 27-10-2015 6:24pm

A T20 is 2h40m (without delays) and not 4 hours, so with floodlights you could easily play 3 games per day on a ground and perhaps even 4.

Given that Rugby has gone with 7s it wouldn't be outlandish to have 6s Cricket at the Olympics instead of T20s or 10 over games. 6s has a huge advantage in terms of producing a suitable ground as it doesn't need anything like the space of an 11 a side game. It also levels out the field a lot and makes it far more possible for the non-Test nations to produce a competitive side.

An Irish 6s side of KOB, Stirling, Balbirnie+, Mooney, Sorenson and Murtagh sounds pretty good to me

Kilo · 05-11-2015 2:36pm

minitrue wrote: »

A T20 is 2h40m (without delays) and not 4 hours, so with floodlights you could easily play 3 games per day on a ground and perhaps even 4.

Given that Rugby has gone with 7s it wouldn't be outlandish to have 6s Cricket at the Olympics instead of T20s or 10 over games. 6s has a huge advantage in terms of producing a suitable ground as it doesn't need anything like the space of an 11 a side game. It also levels out the field a lot and makes it far more possible for the non-Test nations to produce a competitive side.

An Irish 6s side of KOB, Stirling, Balbirnie+, Mooney, Sorenson and Murtagh sounds pretty good to me

That might work. The main problem with cricket is length of matches and size of ground. Also the number of grounds required might be an issue.

If you could double up ground usage with other sports then it might be a runner.

But it all comes down to what sports would lose out.

Dozen Wicked Words · 05-11-2015 10:08pm

Kilo wrote: »

That might work. The main problem with cricket is length of matches and size of ground. Also the number of grounds required might be an issue.

If you could double up ground usage with other sports then it might be a runner.

But it all comes down to what sports would lose out.

Baseball/Softball at a guess, they bounce in and out of the games too though. Those sports need similar amount of time and playing area.

salmocab · 05-11-2015 10:20pm

Just to stick my oar in on this, I don't think cricket should be an olympic sport just like the watered down version of things like soccer and rugby shouldn't be along with a few other games. The olympics should be the pinnacle of a sport not just another tournament. Would a Tennis player or golfer rather win a major or olympic gold? Id be fairly confident it would be the major and they get 4 or 5 shots at them a year.

The Lost Sheep · 05-11-2015 11:23pm

salmocab wrote: »

Just to stick my oar in on this, I don't think cricket should be an olympic sport just like the watered down version of things like soccer and rugby shouldn't be along with a few other games. The olympics should be the pinnacle of a sport not just another tournament. Would a Tennis player or golfer rather win a major or olympic gold? Id be fairly confident it would be the major and they get 4 or 5 shots at them a year.

The thing with rugby 7s is the Olympics is the pinnacle of that particular version of the sport.
I don't think we can rule out sports like Tennis, Cycling, Football, Golf etc. What is real need to remove them?

riffmongous · 06-11-2015 1:13am

salmocab wrote: »

Just to stick my oar in on this, I don't think cricket should be an olympic sport just like the watered down version of things like soccer and rugby shouldn't be along with a few other games. The olympics should be the pinnacle of a sport not just another tournament. Would a Tennis player or golfer rather win a major or olympic gold? Id be fairly confident it would be the major and they get 4 or 5 shots at them a year.

I'd agree with the principle of this, but the olympics seems to be getting further away from this unfortunately and if all those other sports get a place then why not cricket too I guess

feargale · 06-11-2015 1:33am

The powers have not been good at propagating cricket. They froze out USA in 1914 when it was a force.
And their attitude to granting Ireland test status is mealy-mouthed.

salmocab · 06-11-2015 9:18am

riffmongous wrote: »

I'd agree with the principle of this, but the olympics seems to be getting further away from this unfortunately and if all those other sports get a place then why not cricket too I guess

Id agree with you, the reality is the Olympics is about money and bums on seats so soccer and rugby 7s might shift tickets but cricket might not especially if it was in a country with little interest existing in it.

Rjd2 · 06-11-2015 10:57pm

salmocab wrote: »

Just to stick my oar in on this, I don't think cricket should be an olympic sport just like the watered down version of things like soccer and rugby shouldn't be along with a few other games. The olympics should be the pinnacle of a sport not just another tournament. Would a Tennis player or golfer rather win a major or olympic gold? Id be fairly confident it would be the major and they get 4 or 5 shots at them a year.

And what is the pinnacle of the game for associates? They struggle to get games and the few they do is often against b sides of test sides when they can be bothered to play them once in a blue moon. They would kill to be in the Olympics and have something to strive for. At the moment with the horrible Giles Clarke reducing both world cups to the big boys, where is the carrot for young people to get involved?

The ideas that some have suggested such as beach cricket are a little silly, but **** it, most associates would gladly accept it as they are crying out for chances to express themselves on the world stage.

Cricket fan · 07-11-2015 3:24am

Its not in the Olympics because the ICC are ran by morons who dont give a toss about the game in general. These nonsensical suggestions of 10 over or beach cricket just shows how serious the ICC take this whole thing.

Rugby making monumental strides globally and here we have cricket stuck with utterly pointless,boring meaningless bilaterals between the same 4 sides over and over and over. Part of me hopes rugby leaves cricket in the dust, least then a genuinely progressive sport will get its rewards as opposed to this sham of a governing body claiming to be in charge of the world no.2 sport.

On the one hand the ICC throw millions at the US trying laughably to gain a foothold and on the other hand the one thing that'd make the US government invest millions into the game and they dont want it. Would be funny if it wasnt so sad.

Notabluffer · 10-11-2015 12:33am

I agree with that.

salmocab · 14-11-2015 10:07pm

Rjd2 wrote: »

And what is the pinnacle of the game for associates? They struggle to get games and the few they do is often against b sides of test sides when they can be bothered to play them once in a blue moon. They would kill to be in the Olympics and have something to strive for. At the moment with the horrible Giles Clarke reducing both world cups to the big boys, where is the carrot for young people to get involved?

The ideas that some have suggested such as beach cricket are a little silly, but **** it, most associates would gladly accept it as they are crying out for chances to express themselves on the world stage.

Sorry for the late reply I was away, even if cricket was at the olympics I can't see too many associates being there. The ICC would still have to be involved if it was an olympic sport and as we all know they are crickets real problem.

shivesh73 · 03-12-2015 11:59am

ICC is putting great efforts to bring cricket in Olympics as well as in Commonwealth Games. We may see cricketers participating in Olympic Games and winning gold medal for country.

The Lost Sheep · 03-12-2015 12:56pm

shivesh73 wrote: »

ICC is putting great efforts to bring cricket in Olympics as well as in Commonwealth Games. We may see cricketers participating in Olympic Games and winning gold medal for country.

Might see cricket going into Commonwealth games but if it doesn't go into Commonwealth games it has no chance of making it into the Olympics and I don't see 20/20 ever being played in an Olympics

Skid X · 01-07-2016 10:01am

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/1031283.html

Cricket will be included in the 2024 Olympics if Rome wins their bid to host the games, the president of the Italian board has said.

Rome is one of the cities bidding to host the Olympics in 2024 - alongside Paris, Los Angeles and Budapest - and, under new regulations, will have the opportunity to add five sports to the games as they see fit. France Cricket is attempting to win a similar commitment with the Paris organising committee.

"If Rome hosts the Olympics, cricket will be included," Simone Gambino, president of the Federazione Cricket Italiana (FCI) told ESPNcricinfo. "We have had a firm commitment from the organising committee."

It seems unlikely that (some form of) Cricket could make it to the Olympics within 8 years, but if there is any substance in that article, it might happen.

pajor · 01-07-2016 11:45am

hinault wrote: »

The populations of Australia, West Indies, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, New Zealand, England, not to mention ICC non-test playing nations, Ireland, Scotland, Holland, Afghanistan, UAE.............................all prove that Cricket enjoys huge international support compared to Olympic sports such as 7's rugby for example.

One thing that would have to be considered as well is the matter of countries/nations and players having to declare.

Would there be any players on Irish team who would want to declare for Team GB?

England + Scotland (for now) = Team GB

West Indies would have to be fragmented into their respective countries. Which was only ever done before for the '98 CG.

I'm not sure would this shifting around of teams be an advantage for the likes of Team GB or would it level the field for everyone?

salmocab · 03-07-2016 8:27am

pajor wrote: »

One thing that would have to be considered as well is the matter of countries/nations and players having to declare.

Would there be any players on Irish team who would want to declare for Team GB?

England + Scotland (for now) = Team GB

West Indies would have to be fragmented into their respective countries. Which was only ever done before for the '98 CG.

I'm not sure would this shifting around of teams be an advantage for the likes of Team GB or would it level the field for everyone?

I think in Rugby 7s there is an agreement that players from Ulster will only play for Ireland as its a 32 county game like cricket so maybe they could make a similar agreement. It would need English cricket and Irish cricket to agree obviously but I wouldn't imagine either would object.

Fratton Fred · 30-08-2016 3:52pm

salmocab wrote: »

I think in Rugby 7s there is an agreement that players from Ulster will only play for Ireland as its a 32 county game like cricket so maybe they could make a similar agreement. It would need English cricket and Irish cricket to agree obviously but I wouldn't imagine either would object.

And Scottish cricket.

Why cricket is not included in Olympics?

Comments