Cricket is planning a run at the Olympics again.
But is it just wishful thinking from administrators or could it actually happen this time? Either way, I believe it has to occur now if the sport wants to grow.
This week MCC World Cricket Committee Chairman Mike Gatting has started talking up the prospect of cricket appearing at the Los Angeles Olympic Games in 2028. He says he’s spoken to world cricket’s governing body, the ICC, and they are working on it and are “hopeful.”
Let’s hope Gatting’s judgement here is better than it was that fateful day at Old Trafford in 1993, because plenty of young cricketers’ hopes are resting on him not getting bowled on this one.
(Photo by PA Images via Getty Images)
Of all the arguments in favour of cricket becoming an Olympic sport, the key one is that it will give more opportunity to Associate and Affiliate nation cricketers. These are players from the Americas, Africa, Europe, Asia and Oceania who have been hoping for years to be part of a truly international cricket tournament and so far been basically denied.
One presumes, with the International Olympic Committee involved, that cricket’s administrators won’t be able to limit the number of participating countries to just ten, as they did in the last World Cup in England. I would love to see eight groups of four teams which then leads to a round of 16, probably involving most of the top nations and hopefully a few surprises.
There are other key reasons to get cricket to the Olympics too. Despite all the critics of the IOC in recent times, getting a spot on the Olympic stage is a great way to lift a sport’s exposure globally. For cricket, which is still written off in large parts of the world as a quirky British colonial pastime, it’s a chance to show how far the modern game has come.
In Twenty20, cricket has the perfect format for a short, intense competition involving plenty of teams over just a few weeks. While not particularly nuanced, the 20-over game is entertaining and doesn’t require much patience from the viewers. The format has been tried and tested over some period now and – boundary count-backs notwithstanding – it should be easy for new fans to understand.
Then there’s the issue of history. For a sport that was reportedly planned to feature in the first modern Olympics, cricket has only been at the Games once – in 1900 in Paris. Back then, Great Britain thumped France in the ‘final,’ with only two teams involved in the tournament.
After that, its reappearance in the 2012 London Olympics opening ceremony didn’t do much for the sport’s street cred. It’s a poor legacy which needs changing.
There will be those that doubt whether the US can put on a world-class T20 competition involving multiple teams, especially after the recent upheaval in that country’s cricket scene. Most likely, the tournament will need to be played in different parts of the country, including Florida, Texas and Indiana, where other higher-level cricket pitches exist.
I’m concerned about the matches fitting into an already cramped international schedule, but if the BCCI and ECB back the proposal, and the money is right, I’m sure they can find some room. It’s just one less meaningless bilateral series for the big nations every four years and fledgling nations don’t get enough cricket anyway, so they’ll enjoy the qualifiers.
Los Angeles might seem a strange place to revive cricket’s Olympic story, but it’s as good a place as any. At least the weather is half decent. The recent European Cricket League event in Spain showed what can be achieved in a non-cricketing country when a tournament is well organised.
Now, all we need to do is find the next Pavel Florin. Get the Romanians involved!
JohnB
Guest
I think 20/20 would be great at the Olympics, but the logistical issues aren't that easy. 4 groups (2 mens, 2 womens) of 4 each playing round robin games is 24 games (6 for each group). You could get through that at one ground playing double headers in 12 days - provided you didn't mind the pitches on that ground being pretty much stuffed at the end of it. You then need 2 more days for semis (2 on each day) and a final day for 2 finals. 15 days fits within the span of an Olympics - but realistically it would work much better with more grounds. And keeping it to 8 teams would be problematic also, from the point of view of the Olympics wanting sports that are widely played and from diverse regions of the world. While there's no doubt using existing stadiums would make sense, one issue in countries where cricket is at best a very minor sport will be whether the playing surface at an existing stadium is the right size and shape for cricket - often it won't be - or whether that will involve removing exisiting running tracks or other infrastructure.
Paul
Roar Guru
I think this might be very wishful thinking for a number of reasons Andre. First of all it has to get past the IOC and I'd guarantee the bulk of it's members may have heard of the game but have never seen it played. The second issue is the country where the sport is being hosted needs to have buy-in and the best way to do that is for them to have a competitive team in that sport. There's no way the USA can manufacture a competitive T20 side in the nest 9 years. The third issue flows on from the second. If the local team isn't competitive, will games be broadcast? Will American TV show even highlights of an event completely foreign to probably 98% of it's population? It's also unlikely to get many spectators going to wathc, let along new people to the game? Again, if people aren't watching it defeats the purpose of having the sport as part of the games. The fourth issue is commitment from the ICC. Your suggestion needs to become an ICC priority now, so it can really start to promote T20 cricket in America, lobby IOC members, etc. It will easily take 5 or 6 years of hard work to get this even to the stage of being a candidate for inclusion and if that effort and money isn't forthcoming, there's no chance this idea becoming reality.
The real SC
Roar Rookie
Cricket should be in there. Back in 2015, they had a cricket T20 match played in USA including legends like Tendulkar, Warne playing against each other. If Cricket is going into the Olympics it should be a T20 not ODIs or Tests. West Indies is represented by Anglophone Caribbean nation and I think that they must be played in their own stand-alone countries like St Lucia, Barbados, Guyana, Antigua. Countries that I would like to see are Australia, NZ, South Africa, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, UAE, Great Britain, Ireland, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Caribbean Nations, USA (as host country) and Canada.
Brian
Guest
It should definitely be there. Football, Basketball, Rugby and Tennis already are. Baseball had a go to so I'd say Cricket just about the most popular sport not in. 8 women's teams, 8 men's. 2 groups of 4 playing in one ground on alternate days 6 days for group games + 4 for finals, 10 days total short and sweet needs only one stadium. Wouldn't be a big burden most Olympic cities have spare sporting stadiums not used during the games. LA will have both NFL and Baseball stadiums that could host T20 just as Eden Park does.
J.T. Delacroix
Guest
Leave it as it is. The Olympics are very well served by popular sports such as volleyball, beach volleyball, judo, wrestling, synchronised swimming, archery etc.etc. Cricket simply doesn’t have the global interest.
Andre Leslie
Roar Guru
I reckon if any of those derelict Athens 2004 stadiums had had a cricket pitch inside them, they would still be being used. Just a gut feel...
Andre Leslie
Roar Guru
I take your point with T20 cricket developing in up-and-coming nations, to the exclusion of other formats. But, having played a long time in an Associate cricket nation myself, I know that T20 is easier to market locally and gets people interested. It is a major way to grow the sport… or it just won’t get a foothold. The teams themselves still play One Day format too, in most cases, because they know T20 isn’t the full monty. As for the creation of cricket grounds in non-cricketing nations… if I know expat cricketers as I do, these facilities will be greeted with open arms, no matter how remote they are positioned. This has been the case across Germany at least, after departing British troops left cricket grounds behind for the locals. In my experience, South Asian cricketers’ enthusiasm and willingness to travel to play cricket matches in far-flung places literally knows no limits. Especially if they’re guaranteed a good playing surface.
Hutcho
Roar Rookie
I can imagine the IOC would be keen for Indian TV viewers. The inclusion of cricket would certainly enhance the Olympics' tradition of leaving a legacy of rotting facilities and wasting millions of dollars on sports that simply don't belong.
The Bush
Roar Guru
I really hope that cricket is never an Olympic sport. Putting aside the fact I don't think major sports like cricket, rugby, golf, tennis or football should be in the Olympics anyway, there are a few things of importance to note: From the actual perspective of hosting the Olympics, this is a real drag. The event is already too expensive to host, can you imagine the expense involved in non-cricketing nations in having to build an oval stadium with a cricket pitch in it and a minimum seating of even a few thousand - we're talking millions of dollars here; From a cricket perspective it is also a bad idea. At least with rugby, rugby 7s hasn't and doesn't look like over taking 15s as the dominant version of the sport. You can't say this with cricket; T20 is a global threat to the integrity of test cricket and if you made T20 an Olympic Sport, you'd simply accelerate this - minor nations would only fund T20 cricket with no view to even ODI cricket, while even major countries would lose talent who want to get a gold medal, rather than don the whites (we already see it with the lure of money in the various T20 leagues around the world).