On 24 December, reports suggested the Board of Control for Cricket in India would back a bid to include cricket in the 2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles.
Should the bid be successful, it would be only the second time ever, after Great Britain won gold (over France) by 158 runs in 1900.
Traditionalists may howl at yet another tournament crowding the calendar (is there a worse term in cricket than “ICC tournaments” to describe a player’s record in World Cups/T20 World Cups/whatever?) but let me posit that this could be the tonic for what increasingly feels like a mindless muddle of tournaments happening around the globe.
For one thing, the IOC would be less reliant on making sure India/Australia/England make at least the semi-finals. Sure, the gold will likely go to a heavyweight of the game, but the short timeframe (and the IOC’s own financial heft) will ensure the tournament will likely have a focus on excellence over TV rights. No ten-team round robins!
This might mean more room for minnows. This is more wishful (basketball only has 12 teams and baseball tournaments have had six to eight in years gone past), but perhaps the IOC will enforce a bigger-than-ten-team tournament.
We will see cricket played by the best in new locations. While I am usually a traditionalist, the idea of seeing Australia playing India under lights in a T20 in Los Angeles for a gold medal sounds amazing. As for those who say the ground can not be found – if the New Zealanders can play cricket at Eden Park, you can fit inside an NFL stadium.
And best of all, it will actually mean something. T20 is still searching for tradition and something for fans to attach memories to (do you recall many previous T20 World Cups? Apart from the fabulous women’s T20 this year, I hardly do). Olympic Games are iconic events with a sense of occasion – Sydney 2000, Beijing 2008, London 2012. They have a gravitas that would resonate with both fans and a wider audience.
Look at someone like Cameron Green – at his age he could play in both 2028 and 2032. What sounds better: two-time Gold Medalist Cameron Green or two-time T20 World Cup Winner Cameron Green? It’s the former for me.
And to those who say the players won’t care for it, I quote Michael Bevan, describing Shaun Pollock after South Africa won gold over Australia at the 1998 Commonwealth Games: “he stood on the dais in Kuala Lumpur, gold medal around his neck, proudly singing his country’s national anthem…I’d have liked to have done that” (source: The Best of Bevan, p128).
I’d like to see that too. Bring it on!
torchbearer
Guest
And this is what will (rightly) keep cricket out of the Olympics- universality. A sport must be played in a certain minimum number of countries to be considered, and cricket is not even close. Also the IOC is veering to TV friendly youth sports- breakdancing, wall climbing, surfing and skateboarding- not old fashioned colonial sports. AND they are trying to reduce the number of team sports and venues to cut costs. They cant even manage to keep cricket in the Commonwealth Games!
torchbearer
Guest
It is hugely uncommon in the Olympic and fiercely resisted. This is a major issue.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Don't need to. Let them play as individual countries and don't let any other test nation play except maybe Afghanistan. Other than that only let ICC associate countries play. Great way to spread the great news.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Cricket should only be an olympic sport if only the ICC associate countries compete. What is the point of Australia or India winning the gold or silver or bronze?
Arka
Guest
The Rose Bowl is actually a circular shaped stadium, not a typical American football shaped stadium. Not sure how your argument works here. Also, they choose new sports in the Olympics with seven years in hand. During that time, they pump in huge money to develop infrastructure and new stadiums in that city if they don't already have it.
Arka
Guest
Have you been keeping track of how they are gonna play women's cricket in the 2022 Birmingham Commonwealth Games? If the West Indies qualify, they are gonna select the country that won the domestic T20 championship in the Caribbean before the CWG. Also, it is not uncommon in Olympics. In rugby sevens and football, England/Wales/Scotland have to play as the Great Britain. While Northern Ireland in part of GB and Ireland is separate in the Olympics, although they play as an all-Ireland team in international rugby union. So teams splitting up or patching up for the Olympics is not something unheard of.
David
Guest
There’s also the issue of how to accommodate the West Indies, who are not a separate Olympic Committee. Each of the various countries within Cricket’s understanding of the West Indies, (Barbados, Trinidad & Tobago, Guyana, Jamaica etc) all compete separately at the Olympics under their respective flags. I can’t see how the ICC will get that around the labyrinthine rules of the IOC.
Paul
Roar Guru
why would you need to use major fields? There are more than a few decent grounds over there that could be adapted to take crowds of 10-20,000, while Dodgers Stadium has already hosted a cricket match not so long ago. I don't think the logistics would be a problem nor would having this as an Olympic sport. The IOC would simply remove another as they do pretty regularly.
Paul
Roar Guru
I get where you're coming from regards the pride factor, Colly. I think there'd be plenty of lumps in throats in an Australian side was announced as gold medal winners. I'm wondering though, whether the ends justifies the means? Other forms of the game, especially Tests, are under increasing pressure to compete with the financial juggernaut that is T20 cricket. If you throw in the bonus of playing for your country at an Olympics, this would throw the attention & importance of T20 cricket even more into the spotlight and along with it, sponsorship money. If this tournament proved popular, yes it might draw more fans, but at what cost? I suspect it might kill of Test cricket and if that were the case, I don't think this tournament is worth it.
Sherry
Guest
All the major fields in LA, being designed for American football, are long and narrow. If the pitch were laid north and south, or east and west in any of the existing, big-capacity stadiums, you'd get nothing but fours and sixes and not much running between the wickets. To the horror of the purists, a condensed version of cricket would have to be designed. And with those tempting short boundaries classic stroke selection would be limited. Besides, the Olympics, about to admit street fun like breakdancing and skateboarding, needs to cut events not pile on more.