The ICC have announced that the Olympics is back on the agenda. Somewhere in the ivory towers in the deserts of Dubai, our lords and masters are going to debate cricket’s inclusion, which is a welcome step forward from a body that has ignored the Olympics in the past.
Cricket has appeared at the Olympics before. In 1900 in Paris, a ‘tournament’ took place, although after Belgium and the Netherlands dropped out, only Britain and France took part in one single match.
The French won, made up of a team of British expats.
Ninety-eight years later, cricket made an appearance at the Commonwealth Games, but this also had issues, especially as nations such as England decided not to send full strength teams due to scheduling conflicts.
The winners were South Africa, who defeated Australia in the final, both of whom sent full strength teams. Despite these past failures, cricket can still work at the Olympics.
One thing cricket has in its favour is pedigree. There are more than 100 nations who are registered with the ICC, and over two billion fans worldwide, making cricket arguably the second most popular team sport in the world.
Compare cricket to some of the other sports that will be included in the Olympics in coming years. To be played in Japan in 2020 are golf, rugby sevens and kite-surfing, all of which don’t come close to having the same popularity as cricket worldwide.
Another reason why cricket would now work is the change in format. In 1900, Britain and France faced off in a five-day Test and in 1998, Australia and South Africa faced off in a ODI match during the day.
If cricket is to be included in the Olympics, the obvious option is Twenty20. As the shortest form of the game, it is the most unpredictable, meaning that the gap in skill between the top teams and the bottom ones is less, making matches more exciting and meaning that teams like Afghanistan still have a chance against Australia.
Top countries don’t have to worry about schedule conflicts, as the squads used for T20s are often vastly different to those used for ODIs and Test matches.
With T20 several matches can be played in a day as well. Say a tournament featured 16 teams in four groups and needed to be finished in 14 days. Impossible? No.
Let’s say we have one cricket ground. For each day, three matches are played on that ground; one in the morning from 10:30am to 12:30pm, one in the afternoon from 2pm to 5pm and one in the evening from 6:30pm until 9:30pm. There would need to be 24 matches in the group stage, and at around three a day this would mean the group stage takes only 8-10 days.
After a one-day break, the semi-finals with the top team from each group would take place on the same day, one after the other. Then, after another one-day break, the bronze and gold medal matches could take place consecutively.
Playing three matches a day would also give the TV companies plenty of cricket. Although this broadcast deal would have to be tied up separately to the main broadcast deal in order for a decent amount of cricket to be televised, which could make things more difficult for cricket to be included in the Olympics.
There are of course many issues with cricket at the Olympics. For example, the broadcast deal, as not every match could be televised. Teams would also face an intense schedule, and facilities may not be up to scratch in some countries.
However, there are many benefits to cricket at the Olympics. Despite the ICC trying to make cricket the top sport in the world, they refuse to increase the amount of teams at the World Cup and limit the amount of teams who have the chance to compete in Test cricket. Having cricket at the Olympics would give the sport a massive boost worldwide, without compromising the ICC’s principles.
If we dropped the ICC T20 (do we really need a tournament every two years?) and replaced it with an Olympic tournament which allows our best cricketers to compete for the ultimate prize on the world stage, the benefits would be endless.
Who knows, one day Glenn Maxwell might be the owner of a Olympic gold medal, having won it in a thrilling match against Ireland at the 2032 Olympics in Rome.
Matt from Armidale
Roar Rookie
I'm not a fan of niche sports at the olympics, especially for teams, and i'm afraid that's what cricket would be. It would make hosting even more expensive and wouldn't give cricket any more exposure. Do you still remember who won the softball before they cancelled it? Didn't think so... Also there's a danger that winning the olympics remains secondary within the sport - much like soccer or basketball now. In soccer, winning the world cup is a million times more important than olympic gold and in basketball, a lot of the NBA stars don't turn up. If cricket does feature then the olympics should be the most important thing you can win. That's difficult if teams like England and the WI aren't there properly and if the game is T20 and not test cricket.
pat malone
Guest
you really think the olympics boosts sports popularity in non cricket nations? how much archery, judo and sailing did you watch in london?
pat malone
Guest
says the guy with a cricketer as his picture.
peeeko
Guest
they got rid of it for that reason but its decent in USA, canada, Mexico, cuba, venezuela, japan. korea, taiwan, panama
peeeko
Guest
theres a tonne of nations that are good at basketball. the USA has dominated a lot of sports at olympic level
Andy
Guest
Which is not what the olympics is meant to be. Its not meant to be a show of a particular sport, its meant to be a show of the very best of a particular sport. By all means write an article about how cricket could have a cameo performance at an olympics or at the same time in the same country have a few t20 games but you dont include a sport in the olympics to make the sport more popular.
Sideline Comm.
Guest
Fair enough. Dividing the Windies up could provide more sides, though.
Camo McD
Roar Guru
I reckon that's exactly why it should be in the Olympics. The standard of associate cricket has never been higher but they're starved of opportunities on the world stage with the WC being reduced and having to progress through multiple qualifying tournaments just to get a chance in the full draw of the world T20. The gap between full members and associates in T20 is not that great compared to the other formats. I went to a couple of games in the WT20 qualifier earlier this year and it was of good quality and very enjoyable cricket. A team like the Netherlands for instance are very competitive in this format. They've beaten England on a couple of occasions but as it exists now, they have little to play for - they're unlikely to make a WC with the reductions in available spots and need something realistic to aspire to. Having Olympic status will also unlock funding in many countries a be a huge boost to the profile of the game.
Sports fan
Guest
Neither would WI. It would have to compete as Jamaica etc.
John Hamilton
Roar Pro
Scotland wouldn't be in the Olympics as they'd compete as Great Britain
Naveen Razik
Roar Pro
If associate nations are going to show up and get flogged, they won't stick around for seconds. The ICC don't need the Olympics to be the pinnacle of cricket (They won't get any cash out of it for one). They need it to increase the popularity of cricket in smaller nations, and if one of them takes down a giant, it will give cricket a massive boost there. Let the smaller nations have their fun at the Olympics. The real pinnacle will always be Test Cricket / The World Cup. This won't replace it, rather, give a glimpse to the rest of the world of what Cricket is. Its really a promotional event :)
The Bush
Roar Guru
The thing cricket has going for it is that India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are not traditional powers at the Olympics. I hazard a guess that it doesn't rate much when it's on in those markets. The ICC would be very interested in an event that can bring in 1.5 billions viewers that then hopefully transfer over to viewing other sports. If rugby has qualified, I see no reason why T20 Cricket won't qualify as well.
Andy
Guest
Why would we want the most unpredictable form of the game? You dont choose a sport to include because everyone is pretty even, this is the olympics, for most sports, the pinnacle of that sport. To use the argument that it would give lesser nations (in cricket history and play) more of a chance seems to go completely against the idea of wanting to see and be the best. Im not saying that it shouldnt be t20 but to use that as an argument just goes against everything to do with being the best.
Tigranes
Guest
Cricket has a lot of fans, but a significant portion are in three countries - India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. I don't know if enough countries are competitive enough, and how can you argue that it should be in the Olympics, when the number of countries at the world cup is expected to decline.
Brian
Guest
It should be a no brainer for the ICC to pursue. Imagine the interest in India or Pakistan in the Olympics. That would be the big seller for the IOC. Imagine the lift for womens cricket in Australia or UK. That should help convince the ICC. WI would be out but England could compete under Great Britain.
Sideline Comm.
Guest
Come on now, there are so many sports in the Olympics that aren't very competitive world wide. Basketball is popular (like cricket, but not so much) but the dominance of the USA is far above any cricket nation. For me it's a no-brainer. T/20 should, and will, be in the Olympics. Many nations will compete and could be competitive.Not only Aus, Ind, Pak, SL, SA, NZ, Bang, Zim, Eng, WI, but, Ire, NLD, UAE, Afg, Scot, and even, Hong Kong, Canada, and other counties slipping my mind.
Naveen Razik
Roar Pro
There are probably more nations than baseball though and it got a place until 2012
Ash
Guest
No one is talking about Test cricket in the Olympics. It will be T20 obviously. And currently over 100 countries take part in the T20 World cup qualification process
peeeko
Roar Guru
there is criteria for selection- i don't think cricket is competitive in enough nations