http://www.cricketeurope4.net/DATABASE/ARTICLES2/articles/000070/007090.shtml

“ICC gains full Olympic recognition”

Wrong. Ice hockey has been part of the winter Olympics from the very beginning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Olympic_Games#Early_years

Likewise with Cricket… top 8 countries (thats pretty much the serious Rugby playing countries) play round robin in 2 groups of 4 (would need to start a few days before opening ceremony as with football). So 20 days to complete with final on the last day. Top team in each group plays in the final. Max number of games for finalists is 4 in 20 days., game every 5 days. Thats the only way Rugby should be allowed anywhere near the Olympics. Wont happen of course.

Top 8 countries (thats about all the decent test playing countries) play knockout 4 day games, played end to end with round robin and the top 2 play the final. Therefore top team in each group could play max of 4 games (by max 4 days per game) = max 16 days play. That should really get the Olympics rocking

I don’t know think you would be able to fit too many Cricket test matches, in to the two week period that the Olympics are on for.

As you get older you care less and less. It’s good for young kids thought teaches them about the world.

Cricket would be good for the Olympics because people care about cricket.

But on the whole Olympics and Paralympics bring people from all walks of life together. Most countries participate — no racial, colour, sex or disability bar. Nothing is perfect but Olympics get as close to it as anything else.

Sport selection needs a rethink. But to condemn and redicule Olympics in toto is not fair.

However, it would help the expansion of the sport in China and the USA and because cricket is one of the most popular games in the world the Olympics just looks nerdish without it.

If professional sports like soccer, rugby, baseball are contested in Olympics, why not an abridged form of cricket? OK, don’t pay the cricketers for playing in Olympics which will make it an amateur sport for that period. But I don’t think, they will agree! Let us find out.

I understand (and partly agree) with your arguments to exclude team games from Olympics. But to remove swimming? OH NO! It is an integral part of Olympics like running, pole vaulting and yes, long jumping! And yes, swimmers, like rest of the participants, should not be funded for participating in Olympics.

Have I taken a leave of my senses or gone for a nose dive?

Le’ts change Olympic Soccer to ‘penalty 5s’!!!

Although, there’s probably a better and deeper history of womens participation (compared to Rugby) to support the endeavours.

High profile professional sports, tennis, soccer, basketball, rugby, baseball, swimming, cricket etc should be completely barred from the olympics as I believe they detract from the event as they prevent smaller, less visible sports getting coverage.

Any day of the year I can find television coverage of the professional sports, however once every four years I like to be able to watch a bunch of sports that are otherwise never covered. The increasing inclusion of these professional sports has killed this opportunity.

This has also led to a situation where a few high profile sports get the majority of the available funding and the minor sports get SFA. As an example, one team I was involved with was representing Oz, at a sanctioned Olympic MQS qualification event, the competitors had to pay their own way AND were REQUIRED to pay for their tracksuits. Yet we see swimmers being given multiple “go faster suits” and being fully funded.

So I believed that cricket in all forms should be told by the IOC to take a long jump, so we can watch the long jump (sorry but I couldn’t resist).

Rabz