 |
Series | Countries |  |
Live Scores | Fixtures | Results | |
News |
Features
|
Photos | Blogs | Statistics | Archive | |
Audio | Video | Games | Mobile | |||||||||||||||||||||
- Home
- |
- Regulars
- |
- Highlights
- |
- Opinion
Opinion 
Sambit Bal Andrew Miller Ian Chappell Fazeer Mohammed Countyscape Dileep Premachandran Tony Cozier Peter Roebuck Peter English Christian Ryan Jason Gillespie Osman Samiuddin Jayaditya Gupta Kumar Sangakkara Gideon Haigh Rob Steen Matthew Hoggard Telford Vice Mukul Kesavan Martin Williamson Tim de Lisle Guest Column - |
- The Short Stuff
- |
- Reviews
- |
- All Time XI
All Time XI
Australia - |
- Archives
Feeds
| Archives
|
Why cricket isn't an Olympic sport
The Olympics should be the pinnacle of an athlete's career, and if it is not, then the sport has no place on the schedule
August 28, 2008
| ||
Apparently there has been some cricket taking place over the past Olympic fortnight, but if you're a sports fan in either Britain or India, it's possible you haven't really noticed. Gold fever has gripped both nations, you see - 19 nuggets-worth for Team GB, the country's biggest haul in a century, and a single precious medal for the Indian marksman, Abhinav Bindra, whose victory in the 10m Air Rifle has been described by Kapil Dev (with no apparent false modesty) as the greatest achievement in India's sporting history.
Kapil is not unknown for hyperbole, but his new-found enthusiasm for the Olympics is clearly shared by many in the cricketing fraternity. The greatest sporting spectacle in the world has just taken place in Beijing, and it's clear that many of the game's great and good feel they have missed out on something special. One thing's for sure - had Kevin Pietersen and Co. been obliged to head for Karachi to compete for gold medals rather than the worthless Champions Trophy, that competition would not have been ditched with quite the same unseemly haste.
But while the Champions Trophy has been sunk by player power, those same players are casting their beady eyes over some far more enticing baubles. Speaking at Sir Don Bradman's centenary dinner in Sydney on Wednesday, Ricky Ponting proved once again that the wish is father to the thought when he declared it was "inevitable" that cricket would soon become an Olympic sport. His reasoning did, however, have some validity - almost a quarter of the world's population lives in Asia; therefore it makes sense for the IOC to invite Asia's favourite sport to the festival.
Whether cricket actually belongs at the Olympics, however, is another matter entirely. The relationship between the two is brief and inglorious - only one contest has ever taken place, and that was in 1900 between the victors "Britain", a wandering side from Devon, and "France", a 12-man outfit of English expats (and it was a further 12 years before the match was recognised by the IOC). Compared to the agony, ecstasy and compelling drama of the majority of the 28 sports on show in Beijing this month, it's still doubtful whether cricket would take its inclusion any more seriously this time around.
The Olympic ideal has been somewhat tarnished over the years with drugs scandals, political boycotts and sundry charges of corruption, but the basic magnificence of the human spirit somehow manages to weave its way through the chaos and find a way to soar. In those silent few seconds when the athletes are under starter's orders - when the realisation dawns that four years of solid and unstinting sacrifice are about to be condensed into a few moments of supreme exertion - you'd be hard-pressed to find a more compelling sporting scenario in any walk of life.
Is that really how England's cricketers would react if they lined up as the representatives of "Great Britain" on the opening day of the Delhi Games in 2020? Almost certainly not. The Olympics should be the pinnacle of an athlete's career, and if it is not, then the sport has no place on the schedule. "Why cricket?" said Linford Christie, whose fall from grace doesn't preclude him from making valid points. "In a team of 11 players, nine might be working hard but the other two might not. This is not in line with the spirit of the Olympics."
| There have been 18 medallist nations in hockey since 1908 - it'll take another 100 years and more for cricket to provide that many countries who stand a chance of making it to the podium | |||
Cricket, in fact, would fail on two counts. Firstly, the chosen format for Olympic inclusion would have to be the short and disposable Twenty20, because the truly Olympian version of the game, Test cricket, would be impenetrable to the game's new-found global audience. Secondly, the calendar is simply too crowded for the players to treat the trip with anything like the gravitas it would deserve.
Take Paul Collingwood's comments from earlier this week. He is unquestionably one of the most professional men in the England squad, but he is also one of the straightest talkers, as he showed while reflecting on a season in which his form had fallen apart. "We're always asked to be 100% all of the time, but I'd rather be crap against New Zealand and then build form up towards Australia," said Collingwood. "We've got a big Ashes series coming up, so maybe subconsciously you try and peak at the right time."
In the Olympics, however, there is nothing subconscious or shameful about peaking at the right time. On the contrary, the knowledge that this is it, your one shot at everlasting glory, forms the essence of the drama. Not that cricket would be alone in its awkwardness, mind you. The football tournament, differentiated by artificial age restraints, has no place in the modern games, and then there's the biggest anomaly of the lot, the tennis, which served up two particularly telling scenarios.
Firstly there was Andy Murray, a hot tip for the title but with most of his thoughts pinned on the impending US Open. He bombed out in the first round of the singles, and instantly admitted he had not been "professional" enough. Then there was the sight of Rafael Nadal, the unstoppable champion, inching himself away from the cameras after a barrage of questions about how much his gold medal meant to him. He knew in the circumstances what his answer should have been, but he also knew that everyone else knew the truth - this title wasn't a patch on Wimbledon or Roland Garros.
And that, really, is what it all comes down to. If there is a bigger prize to be had in your particular sport - be it the Ashes, a World Cup, or even the Champions Trophy - then you simply don't belong at the Olympics. Even the women's beach volleyball, which somehow managed to transform itself from soft porn to an Orwellian style war minus the shooting when Russia and Georgia went head to head in the preliminary rounds, has more of a claim to the Games than cricket, for the simple fact that it is the sport's athletic apex.
Likewise the hockey competition. It may have been won by either India or Pakistan in every tournament from 1928 to 1968, but it wasn't until 1971 that a World Cup was inaugurated to fill the void between four-year cycles. Moreover, there have been 18 medallist nations since 1908 - it'll take another 100 years and more for cricket to provide that many countries who stand a chance of making it to the podium.
Have your say
| ||||||
| Comments have now been closed for this article |
||||||
Top
Sponsored Links
Western Union Instant Win Game
NoPurchaseNecessary. Subject toOfficial Rules
Buy Ashes merchandise - clothes, books, DVDs & more
At Cricshop
Get the right speed and online tools
Rogers Business Internet
No Minimum Balance NRI Account
Citibank
and get a calling card
I don't agree with Mr. Miller's theory of 100 years. Probably he does not know that China & South Korea were nowhere in the hockey scene 50 years back. Now look where they are today , ahead of India, definitely ahead of India in the ladies and almost on par in the gent's. Once you introduce it in the Olympics, every nation will make a dash for it ; for the Olympics has come now to represent more than a sport, an indicator of the nation's progress in the comity of nations.
Posted by Binodbikash on (August 30 2008, 07:34 AM GMT)In cricketing world there is a new dream and hope hanging around now. Most of the cricket player want to see cricket being included in Olympics as a medal sport. Everyone thinks that T20 cricket really fits into the Olympic schedule.All cricket players want to see cricket in Olympic because they have said they want Cricket to go global rather than congesting them into a dozen of countries. I really back this idea. However I think that this will not globalise cricket. The same bunch of players and teams will be playing in Olympics as well as world stage. This wont really attract other countries to play cricket.However, if cricket is ever introduced in Olympic than they should give chance to non test playing nations. This will lead to teams like Nepal, Afghanistan or Argentina to play at world level. The globalisation of cricket is only possible by giving chance to the non test playing nations into Olympics.Who knows if Russia makes it to the finals or China gets its team into Olympics?
Posted by Uranium on (August 29 2008, 21:07 PM GMT)I currently play cricket in Germany. As cyclists pass by the ground you can hear commenting about us "playing baseball". Such is the ignorance regarding cricket outside commonwealth countries. What can we do to introduce cricket to such people? I would say the Olympics is the best way. For people watching the Olympics it is a chance to see weird and wonderful sports, novel sports. We cricket lovers take for granted many people around the world have very little knowledge about cricket, and if anything it has a reputation as a boring game. Enter 20/20, a 3 hour game with massive 6's left right and centre and quick wickets. Not only would the rest of the world be drawn to the novelty of cricket, but they might just find it exciting too. Suddenly countries like Japan, China, and the USA would want to send teams to the Olympics and try their chance at a medal. Olympics cricket would also be a great way to make the subcontinent feel more include d in the Olympics.
Posted by mukesh-mall on (August 29 2008, 20:06 PM GMT)In that case, there shouldn't be any basketball(pinnacle is NBA), foootball(pinnacle is FIFA and champions league), baseball(pinnacle is Major League baseball),tennis. However, note that these were included in olympics becuase these are the most popular sport across globe and cricket definitely get's up there as it is the staple of game of huge no. of people in ASIA. I think only reason it wasn't included yet was that the game was too long to be accomodated in olympics schedule. Now with the advent and acceptance of T20 ( among the masses and not necessarily with critics like you who are a stark minority anayway), I am of the opinion that this should and will be included in olympics ASAP. I really see only two reasons of you not agreeing to cricket in olympics-- either you don't love T20 cricket or you dont love olympics. And just to remind its players who are going to play and if they say they want olympics in cricket, it shouldn't be you and me deciding-give them a chance
Posted by dudley on (August 29 2008, 14:08 PM GMT)The simple way to make the Olympics the pinnacle of a cricketers career s to limit it to amatuer players. This would also give many more countries the chance to medal as the associate members would be at nearly full strength. This would help globalisation as well as teams from America, China, Russia etc would not be completely outclassed and could develop some decent teams.
Posted by insidethegames.com on (August 29 2008, 08:55 AM GMT)You may be interested in this feature that appeared on my website. It is an indepth look into why the Olympic Movement is keen for cricket to be included on the programme. http://www.insidethegames.com/show-news.php?id=2639
Posted by Browndog1968 on (August 29 2008, 02:51 AM GMT)I'm a cricket nut and I tend to agree with Andrew. Whilst I would like to see cricket in the Olympics I believe Andrew's reasoning should be taken one step further. Get rid of all team sports especially those where we get a saturation year in year out. Football should go as well as tennis, baseball is gone and so should basketball. I believe the Olympic's appeal is that it showcases sports we get little or no exposure to in everyday life. For two weeks every four years (4 weeks if you count the Commonwealth Games) we get to see the miracle of the marathon, the flying pole vaulters, the Kenyan & Ethiopian running machines, the power of the weight lifters. No, cricket & other similarly exposed sports have got their days in the sun, let the others have their time in the limelight. Faster, higher & further (something like that anyway)
Posted by visvim on (August 29 2008, 00:50 AM GMT)I totally agree, cricket should never be a olympic event. It is already in a state of mediocrity, it shouldn't be allowed to venture into more deepening abyss' of no return until it sorts out its huge ongoing issues.
Posted by SimranSandhu on (August 28 2008, 23:39 PM GMT)Ok i will have to disagree with Andrew Miller, Because it wouldn't take another 100 years to globalize cricket, Probably another 10 years or something. What matters is how it is introduced!. 20/20 is the format that can take it to very next level because i live in US and i really think 20/20 cricket is more entertainig then baseball games in US. If compared only 20/20 world cup tounament in South Africa i bet you it generated more revenue then World Series. IPL,EPL and Stanford 20/20 are actually helping it globalize the game by offering money. 2020 Olympics 20/20 format cricket 17 nations "Nuclear Missle on Baseball" Because as i remember only 8 nations competed in the Baseball Olympics. So why not put it on big Stage and let the ball be hit out the park.
Posted by StJohn on (August 28 2008, 22:56 PM GMT)The arguments trotted out against cricket being in the Olympics are not particularly strong. A few weeks ago we had Ian Chappell arguing that it would be too difficult to cram another tournament into an already crowded international schedule & globalisation of the IPL model would be a better way to expand the game. Here, Andrew Miller's only argument is that the Olympics shouldn't feature cricket because the players wouldn't much care about it in comparison with, say, the Ashes. But none of these points really rebut the arguments for inclusion, the main ones being it's a global marketing opportunity & why, really, not include it. The only reason not to include it, as I have commented before, is if it would be bad for cricket to be in the Olympics. So far, nobody has argued that. And I doubt anyone could, because how could it be bad? Here's a novel idea: if it's allowed, combine Olympic cricket with a 20:20 world cup. That, at least, would completely defeat Andrew Miller's argument.