I know everyone is dying for some more cricket discussion. I found a point-counter-point regarding the idea of admitting cricket into the London 2012 games and whether it should be admitted in the Twenty20 format or the regular, days long test cricket format. This is a very interesting debate and completely relevant to our discussion about the new baseball rule, baseball in the Olympics, and TV’s relationship to sport.
Imagine if someone streamlined baseball, cut it down to an hour so it was a better fit for TV. Then imagine if the new version became popular in China. So popular, and made so much money that MLB was having to consider it for the World Baseball Classic and the Olympics.
From the Times of India:
What would earlier have been dismissed as a pipe dream is suddenly being discussed seriously. Australian great Adam Gilchrist’s suggestion that Twenty20 cricket be included in the 2020 Olympic Games has struck a chord with other cricketers.
Several players, including Kumara Sangakkara and Steve Waugh, have backed the proposal. Inclusion of cricket in the Olympics has traditionally faced two obstacles. One is the length of a match which in the 50-over format took an entire day to complete; two, enough countries did not play the game. With the spectacular success of Twenty20 cricket and its three-hour games, the problem of the long duration of cricket ties has been taken care of. Next year’s Twenty20 World Cup will be held over 16 days, which is one day shorter than the Olympic programme.
And here’s the other side. I sure as heck don’t want to watch a five day long baseball game, but if you impose the scenario I have above…scary, right? In light of the new rule for baseball I’d say test cricket has a zero percent chance of being admitted to the 2012 games. If it was it would be obviously be hypocrisy deserving of…hmm, boycott.
The writer of the pro-test cricket piecedoesn’t seem to know about the new baseball rule or its implications on the sport.
There is no reason why Twenty20 cricket should feature as an Olympic event. The Olympics are an occasion to showcase sporting events that are representative of a large number of countries and have a long tradition as a sport. Twenty20 cricket doesn’t qualify for the Olympics on both counts.
Here we need to make a distinction between cricket and Twenty20. Cricket, to be precise Test cricket, has a long sporting history. It is played only by a handful of nations, but in those cricketing countries the game is taken seriously as a sport. It is played for the pure pleasure of playing.
10 responses so far ↓
1 Baseball News Aggregator » How Does a 1 Hour Olympic Baseball Game Grab You? // Aug 8, 2008 at 10:56 am
[...] Original post here [...]
2 baekgom84 // Aug 9, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Twenty20 cricket is the only version of cricket that has a chance of making the Olympics, precisely because it’s the only version of cricket that will make any money. There’s also the one-day format, which is more than twice as long as Twenty20 (50 overs, as opposed to 20) but still condenses the match into a single day.
What has happened with baseball at this Olympics makes me angry, but I doubt you’ll see the length of games shortened; remember that a match of Twenty20 is still only just a little shorter than your average ball game. What I don’t get is why you’d include a sport that is only played competitively by a handful of former and current Commonwealth countries.
3 Thirsty // Aug 11, 2008 at 11:32 am
A couple of other points to consider about including cricket.
Test Match cricket is only played between 10 teams, you have to have been deemed good enough at 1 day matches to be allowed to play in Tests, called test status.
So if they introduced Test match cricket to the Olympics you would eliminate all but the teams already allowed to play this format be the ICC.
If you made it One day matches there are actually only 16 teams with One day status, the 10 with test status and 6 others who gained One day status to compete in the last world cup there status will exxpire in 2009 and i am unsure how they can get this back.
Finally if you look at Twenty20 there are currently only 16 countries playing this internationally but England who would possibly consider themselves medal contenders but would probably not be allowed to compete if the soccer is anything to go by.
England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales compete seperatly on the normal international stage. To play in the Olympic soccer tournament would mean they would have to revoke their status as individual international teams for all other competitions and form the GBR team, i imagine this would be the same for the cricket.
So from 16 possible you would lose England, Scotland and the Irish team as this is a combined Norht and Republic of Ireland team. Leaving you with 13 possible competitors.
Not a particulalry interesting olympic competition!!
4 Andre // Aug 15, 2008 at 9:09 pm
The problem T20 cricket has is that defense is secondary. It’s short enough that a team can waste a few wickets swinging away. If IPL/ICL/EPL debate in India and UK has done nothing else, it has demonstrated that although vile to purists, it offers more to a TV audience… just like the DH rule… but if the trend continues and T20 is not a fad, then I see it entering the olympics the next time a test-level cricketing nation hosts the olympics after 2012… then dropped soon afterward on the same grounds as baseball
5 Bruce B // Aug 30, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I started writing an entirely different post, but after thinking a little more about it, this is what I came up with (for better or worse):
I doubt that cricket will be a permanent Olympic sport because most cities that host the Games just don’t have the facilities. However, you probably have as many countries that are considered competetive in cricket as in baseball.
In baseball, you can say the USA, Japan, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, South Korea, Taiwan and Mexico or Puerto Rico are “competetive.” In cricket, it’s England, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, Bangladesh and the West Indies. Zimbabwe used to be in this group, but Mugabe has destroyed everything there, including sports. Still, that’s eight, which is enough for an Olympic tournament.
I could see Twenty/20 cricket played as a demonstration sport in the 2012 Summer Games because England has terrific facilities and there would be great interest among the nations involved, but doubt that it would go beyond that. Cricket is a great game, but you’ve got to have a place to play it.
6 Shinsano // Aug 30, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Thanks for the comment Bruce (and Andre and Thirsty for that matter). I always like it when people who enjoy other sports bother to check in with an opinion relevant to the discussion. I have a lot of respect for the game of Cricket. I don’t understand it all that well, but I the little I know appeals to me. I don’t feel the same about soccer/football…just so you know I’m not blowing hot air.
I think it’d be just fine if test or Twenty/20 Cricket were at the Olympics in 2012. However, I don’t think it compares to baseball in terms of international popularity. You’re right in mentioning the countries above, but it’s also getting popular/competitive in Australia. The team I work for signed 3 players out of Australia just this year and there are a number of Aussies (I’ll just guess about 20) in MLB systems. Ditto, albeit to a lesser extent, in Holland. China now sends a team to every international competition, and Germany and South Africa usually do too. Even France and Czech have national teams.
I see cricket as being at kind of a crossroads. It sounds like a lot of people don’t have the patience for the original game, but yet a number of others aren’t ready to strip it down for mass consumption. Until that’s resolved I doubt it’ll be able to compete internationally with it’s younger brother.
7 simon // Aug 31, 2008 at 12:23 am
FYI, the last Cricket World Cup featured 16 teams, and looks to be a little less competitive than the WBC. Then again cricket is huge in India, and I’m sure that’ll gain more pull in the future. But yeah, demonstration sport in 2012 and doubtful afterwards sounds reasonable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Cricket_World_Cup
8 baekgom84 // Aug 31, 2008 at 2:19 am
I think baseball has far more international recognition than cricket does. Even in Australia, where baseball is pretty much a nothing sport, there is still a reasonably competitive international team and people at least know the basic principles of how to play. I doubt that most Americans would have any idea of what the hell was happening in a game of cricket without detailed explanation.
So while it’s true that the number of competitive cricket playing nations is rougly similar to those who are competitive in baseball (Bruce, you can include Sri Lanka in your list), I think that there’s not nearly as many nations in the lower tiers who could be used to make up the numbers and generate more interest. Ireland, Canada and Holland are some that come to mind, but I can’t think of many others.
Test match would be unfeasible as an Olympic sport if only for the length of the games; even if you took the same approach as football and started the tournament earlier than the official Olympics, I doubt you could manage to squeeze in any sort of competitive fixture. I’d say Twenty20 is the way to go, but as a new variation of the sport, it needs more time to find its feet and develop a little prestige.
9 hansioux // Aug 31, 2008 at 10:21 am
Just a reminder. The British Baseball league a while back said they are hosting a game of top Cricketers playing baseball against the British National Baseball Team.
http://www.baseballsoftballuk.com/gen_insert.php?from_level3=Articles&db_story=2313&this_page=teamsnews&back=Current++News
10 Duncan // Sep 7, 2008 at 7:35 am
Bruce, you are overlooking the fact that Olympic teams represent countries and West Indies is not a country but a loose grouping of Caribbean islands which come together to form a team of international standard. At the Olympics, each island nation would have to compete separately, increasing the number of competitors but diluting the standard.
Leave a Comment