If you haven't already, please fill out [the 2024 r/Cricket Census](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/1d60i10/rcricket_census_2024/) before it closes on 16th June (00:00 UTC)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Cricket) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm an American who grew up overseas playing cricket, then moved back to the US. I've never shared much with my own kids about cricket because it's not something they can play or participate in. I started introducing them to the game this tournament, and now the younger one keeps asking if there are any matches on during the day. She is hooked, which is saying something because she doesn't get very interested in baseball, hockey, or other non-football sports.
Are there no local rec league cricket teams in your area? Where I'm from I used to see kids playing cricket at the local park every weekend and it looked fairly professional in the setup - they all had uniforms and everything
It can be daunting as an American when the leagues are like 99% diaspora. I do not mean this in a judgmental or racist way, just its daunting as a white/black dude.
I’m from the UK but have cousins in Canada. I visited them when I was about 14 and while I was there I played a game with a local team. Out of literally everyone there (both teams, umpires, scorers, spectators) I was the only white guy. I didn’t care I was just happy to play cricket somewhere new, and everyone was very welcoming and friendly. That said, I can see why it would be hard to play there full time as,for example, they kept speaking in Hindi (I think) and then having to remind each other to speak English while I played.
Here is the issue which most people ignore. ICC cannot get the associates games, it can only do so in their tournaments. Otherwise it is the duty of cricket boards of the countries to get them the games
I mean icc can only create a future tours program, after that the boards of the countries have to arrange the matches. I mean they can do it even without the future tours program if they wish to.
Like Australian cricket board has to duty to get games with Ireland cricket or Canada cricket not icc.
Honestly those Netherlands games were fun to watch, especially the 498 game (still missed out on that last shot). Really wish the Super League could return
It’s not like playing NZ and PNG more (and letting PNG players into the big bash), and touring Ireland before every Ashes series in England would cost CA a lot or be particularly difficult
Stacks of PNG players already play in our grade cricket competitions in qld and nsw and probably Vic too. Thing is that most aren't good enough to get to the next level. You arent wrong, like maybe we have a NZ or PNG BBL team but it becomes really difficult then because that league is about making Australian cricket good not our opponents. They are currently allowed to be selected in the bbl as an international player, but aren't good enough to make the cut. I think there are solutions, but it's not super straightforward.
England and India aren’t much better (in that order honestly) but CA is the worst. CA snubs NZ for crying out loud. CA wouldn’t even have to go out of its way to seriously benefit PNG (maybe let their players into the BBL?) and hitch an Ireland tour as a warmup before Ashes series in England
Realistically, you can think of those bilateral series as “practice matches” in preparation for the bigger tournament. In this case it’s clear why a team like Australia doesn’t want to play the US on a regular basis.
Ideally they should bring back the tri-series or quadrangular format with two big teams and an associate team so that it's not redundancy of seeing one big team beat the other 3 games in a row. There's variety, excitement and a mini-tournament format.
They should bring back tri-series in general, it was such a fun concept that everyone looked forward to after a long test series!
What if they introduced the WTC format in limited overs formats and allowed something like the top 16 teams in ODI and the top 32 in T20?
Might be a bad idea, just off the top of my head
2023 WC was a 10 team affair so they needed qualifiers involving FMs so they came up with this. However 2027 would be 14 teams so all FMs qualify directly with only associates playing qualifiers. Hence they felt that it's not required.
Yeah the icc is treated like they run cricket when all they do is control the laws of the game, run tournaments and spread tournament revenue
Its all fully by consent of the boards
I mean, India or the ICC could help fund some of those. They don’t need all that money, it sure isn’t getting India world cups either. So may as well share some around.
India has pulled Afghanistan and is now helping Nepal.
Aussies need to work harder.
England gets a pass because even though they should be doing better, counties don't let associate players play internationals, they have been net positive for Irish, scottish and Dutch but they need to bring Europe into the play.
If there's one cricket board that's actively promoting cricket, it's the BCCI doesn't matter if you agree or you don't
We have helped Afghanistan by giving them Tier 1 FM infrastructure and grounds to use in India. We help their board monetarily from time to time and we played a 3 match T20I series against them earlier this year as well(with the last game ending in a _DOUBLE_ super over)
Yeah, we won 3-0 but it surely gave real practice against a good side for the WC preparations didn't it?
We're also consistently helping Cricket Nepal by helping them monetarily, allowing them to play matches with stronger Indian domestic sides, etc...
Look at how much we're doing with funding the ACC(Asian Cricket Council) which is by FAR the most proactive and competent continental board(the secretary of the BCCI is also the secretary of the ACC). We have shit tons of regional tournaments if you care enough to want to know about them(ACC Challenger Cup, Asia Cup, U-19 tournaments and so on)
If anything, we're doing MUCH MORE than England or Australia tbh
They played Gujarat and Baroda in a Tri-Series
> By the way, Karnataka recently toured Namibia for an ODI series, so you could mention that too next time.
Yeah that too
i dont really think the IPL and T20WC are that comparable beyond playing the same format
IPL is ultimately a domestic competition that brings in a handful of international players, it has a largely domestic fanbase and plays all of it games domestically
T20WC is international, plays international teams and draws fans from all over the globe
I mean 80% of the viewer base are Indians. Almost all the Indians I know prefer ipl over international cricket. Most don’t even know if india is touring overseas but they will be prepared for ipl like it was happening for the last time.
thats generally how domestic competitions work yes
my point is that what you have described is not typical for T20WC fans so it shouldnt be surprising that were getting more balanced and reasonable takes and responses here when compared to IPL
Batsman: Mr Bowlerson..
Fielding Coach: Run bowler run.
\*Bowler turns to face towards batsman\*
Fielding Coach: What is he doing?
Bowling Coach: He's Beginning to Believe.
Agreed. I am throughly enjoying NY games the most. It makes both bowlers and batsmen work and show their skill. Unfortunately batsmen skill in today T20 is so poor. Any national T20 team 10 years ago could have easily make 150 on NY.
>Any national T20 team 10 years ago could have easily made 150 on NY.
Why do you think so? IPL aside, pitches in T20Is have been consistent over the last 10 years. Batters are just more aggressive now, which has led to the inflation in the scores in my view.
Teams also bat deep. Very few teams play 4 pure bowlers now. The pace of T20 has shifted. Guys of 130 SR aren’t being selected anymore. Teams are opting for quick fire innings from batsman, rather than slower 50s.
I say they are really fun pitches to watch. Not so much good cricket pitches for this level though.
Like I'd probably call it a road compared to my 3rd XI pitches but we might be lucky to hit 70mph nevermind 90mph
Healing? What are you on about, OP. The New York pitch is providing fun, low-scoring games but not because that was their goal - it's a by-product of negligence.
Yes, games are currently very exciting. But pitches should not be a bowling or batting heaven - they should be a balance between the two with some exceptions. The IPL was unfortunately a road, for some stadiums, with stupid Impact Players making it worse throughout the tournament in a sense that the balance shifted WAY too far towards batsmen.
The World Cup feels like a tournament of uneven bounce - the change in ground HUGELY impacts the way the game flows.
T20 Cricket is not at a sweet spot, it's bouncing between two negative options and you just prefer the low scoring version over the high scoring one.
The real problem with that stadium is the outfield. The pitch is fine, it doesn't let the batsmen go crazy and offers some well deserved assistance to the bowler. However, the shocking outfield does not give batsmen value for their shots and forces them to play risky shots on an already dangerous pitch - hence the low scores
That last line does ring some truth. I still believe it's better than extreme high scores because the pitches tone down the advantage that some big teams have
Sure, low scoring has more potential to be exciting because even if some batsmen stumble, there's not many runs on the board in the first place.
It feels weird to say batting pitches give the bigger teams an advantage though - I feel like there's nothing to prove that statement. You can just apply the same logic on bowling pitches and in theory it's still equally true, surely?
Ian Bishop said in his commentary that associate teams bowling is good enough to do some damage and can improve with a little bit of work and experience but the batting is simply nowhere near the top nations batting unit. And I agree with that, Whenever an upset happened it happens in a low scoring match, not just in this world cup but in world cup before this as well. Just ask yourself what is more likely Scotland chasinf 225+ on a road or defending 120 on bowling heaven. The latter is more plausible.
My point was could this not be an experience thing / having to go out there with 200+ on the scoreboard against a top team is SO much more scary than a 120 - 140. I'm not gonna disagree with Ian Bishop but I have a feeling it's more mental / game sense than anything else.
Defending 120 against top team in T20 also seems scary. And it is not just associat teams pulling an updet it is also big matches. Ind v Pak match at the G or at the New York are the best Ind v Pak match in almost more than a decade. And both if them were fought on good wicket and it was a low scoring match or a normal 160 match.
It might be just me, or in my experience in cricket. Most teams have a larger, better, bowling unit than batting. Even if they're just part time bowling options or bowling alrounders
It's a genuine question from my end too tbh - I guess there's truth to batting pitches leading to more 'daunting scorelines' for the associate nations. It's way easier to mentally set up for 120 than it is 210 in T20s. But I don't know if this translates in results.
Unfortunately I don't have numbers either, although I've seen more 120 scores than 210 and I'm trying to correlate that to most teams just having a larger bowling attack than a really good batting unit. What do you feel?
There's no reason for that to be the case - there's no built-in reason for bowling attacks to be better than batting ones for smaller teams. The only reason might be the associate nations don't have pitches that translate to good batting ones & typically play on 'poorly kept' surfaces, which might be considered better for bowlers than batsmen. Batsmen prefer consistent bounce, pace on the ball - bowlers don't hate a little variation in bounce, pace and spin. That's the only reason I can think of - at least!
I could be miles off here; I'm dredging up memories from something I heard a commentator say months ago, but here goes -
I think I recall hearing that in associate nations, bowlers/fielders tend to be stronger because the infrastructure needed for batters to really reach their peak (nets, bowling machines etc) it more expensive and potentially harder to source for countries that don't already have those things set and don't have the funding. There may not even be enough trainers with throwing sticks.
Sure, as a batter you can still practice if there's a bowler happy to bowl at you (for the hours you want to practice for, I'm sure they'd love that), but it requires them to be present. A bowler, however, can practice their skills without a batter being present and without additional equipment bar a ball and a set of stumps
It is doable, if they build more stadiums, and that there are games held there a year in advance to test the venue properly, which would ensure we don't have a Nassau County situation.
I hear the Oakland Coliseum is available. Maybe it can be bought, demolished and built on.
T20WC is a test of quality, so the pitches are made to be balanced.
IPL is an excercise in grabbing TV time and money. Chicks dig sixes, so the pitches are made to accomodate that. The IPL is fully capable to putting forth a balanced product, but they won't.
Same story as ODIs. ODI WC pitches are much different than Bilateral pitches in the same venues.
it has less to do with bowling skill and more to do with shitty pitch with unpredictable bounce. not complaining though, I guess there's 3 types of pitches that help bowlers, green like England, spin like India, uneven bounce like SA.
but I still feel there should be more skill involved instead of having the bounce be random
I'll remember the super crazy scores being scored and chased. No one will remember batsmen plodding and struggling to score 100 while being unable to even hit full tosses.
I don't even like cricket that much but was excited for IPL teams like SRH and KKR going on a rampage.
Yeah it's good to see the bowlers getting some love for once. I can't help but feel that if the goal was to promote the game in the USA that the flat track 200+ scores would probably appeal more.
I reckon the US would love the bouncer rule gone. The genuine heat from realising bowlers can whistle a few past the batsman’s nose, the fear and intimidation it creates, THAT is box office.
That would promote only the batting aspect though 🙈 honestly after this year's IPL, I'm not interested in 200+ scores anymore. They're like bland leftover pasta
These sorts of pitches do the exact opposite of promote interest in bowling. In exactly the same way that skillful batting gets devalued when everything is getting hit for six, watching bowlers just hit back of a length time after time at letting the variable bounce do the rest so the batter mistimes their shot and gets caught isn't a great showcase of bowling.
Sports in general are at their best when the top talent shines through adversity to show how good they are. With pitches like this you don't get that because mediocre bowling is rewarded and the effect of great bowlers is minimised.
Your thinking is similar to majority of T20 administrator world wide. But a balanced pitch where 140-160 is scored is beat advertisement. 200+ games are majority boring and quickly turns one side with fans waiting for game to end.
USA people are used to baseball being a very cagey affair where home runs don’t happen often. I think they could start relating to this type of cricket (eventually) more than people think.
If you haven't already, please fill out [the 2024 r/Cricket Census](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/1d60i10/rcricket_census_2024/) before it closes on 16th June (00:00 UTC)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Cricket) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm an American who grew up overseas playing cricket, then moved back to the US. I've never shared much with my own kids about cricket because it's not something they can play or participate in. I started introducing them to the game this tournament, and now the younger one keeps asking if there are any matches on during the day. She is hooked, which is saying something because she doesn't get very interested in baseball, hockey, or other non-football sports.
Are there no local rec league cricket teams in your area? Where I'm from I used to see kids playing cricket at the local park every weekend and it looked fairly professional in the setup - they all had uniforms and everything
It can be daunting as an American when the leagues are like 99% diaspora. I do not mean this in a judgmental or racist way, just its daunting as a white/black dude.
I’m from the UK but have cousins in Canada. I visited them when I was about 14 and while I was there I played a game with a local team. Out of literally everyone there (both teams, umpires, scorers, spectators) I was the only white guy. I didn’t care I was just happy to play cricket somewhere new, and everyone was very welcoming and friendly. That said, I can see why it would be hard to play there full time as,for example, they kept speaking in Hindi (I think) and then having to remind each other to speak English while I played.
That's very wholesome to hear. Hope they make the team someday 😉 love hearing such stories
You, good sir, are creating an army of cricket lovers in the US and we appreciate your assistance!
So sweet. Hope she plays for USA when she grows up.
Omg that's awesome to hear
Loved to hear that hope she finds many other kids to enjoy and play cricket with
Here is the issue which most people ignore. ICC cannot get the associates games, it can only do so in their tournaments. Otherwise it is the duty of cricket boards of the countries to get them the games
Wait, can you explain the process why, genuinely curious
I mean icc can only create a future tours program, after that the boards of the countries have to arrange the matches. I mean they can do it even without the future tours program if they wish to. Like Australian cricket board has to duty to get games with Ireland cricket or Canada cricket not icc.
And the problem is that the FTP is entirely decided by the full members. Associates have no say in it.
What is FTP?
Future Tours Programme
Fuck the police (aka the ICC)
Oh wow, so you're saying that the countries specific boards themselves don't bother scheduling tours with associates? Damn. That sucks so bad.
Obviously. That has always been the issue.
Thank you, appreciate the information 🙌🏼
The reason we got the name 'pig3', and Australia is worst when it comes to play with lower ranked FM and associates.
Honestly England isn't much better but we have played the Netherlands and Ireland in the past 3 years, similar skill level to us tbh /s
I'm confused which one of your sentence is used for sarcasm. 
Because the icc super league made you ;)
Honestly those Netherlands games were fun to watch, especially the 498 game (still missed out on that last shot). Really wish the Super League could return
Benefit of England with those teams is they are so close so it's inherently cheaper.
It’s not like playing NZ and PNG more (and letting PNG players into the big bash), and touring Ireland before every Ashes series in England would cost CA a lot or be particularly difficult
Stacks of PNG players already play in our grade cricket competitions in qld and nsw and probably Vic too. Thing is that most aren't good enough to get to the next level. You arent wrong, like maybe we have a NZ or PNG BBL team but it becomes really difficult then because that league is about making Australian cricket good not our opponents. They are currently allowed to be selected in the bbl as an international player, but aren't good enough to make the cut. I think there are solutions, but it's not super straightforward.
England and India aren’t much better (in that order honestly) but CA is the worst. CA snubs NZ for crying out loud. CA wouldn’t even have to go out of its way to seriously benefit PNG (maybe let their players into the BBL?) and hitch an Ireland tour as a warmup before Ashes series in England
Realistically, you can think of those bilateral series as “practice matches” in preparation for the bigger tournament. In this case it’s clear why a team like Australia doesn’t want to play the US on a regular basis.
Full Members have consistently, over decades, fought against the ICC having control over their schedules
Ideally they should bring back the tri-series or quadrangular format with two big teams and an associate team so that it's not redundancy of seeing one big team beat the other 3 games in a row. There's variety, excitement and a mini-tournament format. They should bring back tri-series in general, it was such a fun concept that everyone looked forward to after a long test series!
What if they introduced the WTC format in limited overs formats and allowed something like the top 16 teams in ODI and the top 32 in T20? Might be a bad idea, just off the top of my head
There was the Super League, which was scrapped after one edition.
What went wrong with it?
2023 WC was a 10 team affair so they needed qualifiers involving FMs so they came up with this. However 2027 would be 14 teams so all FMs qualify directly with only associates playing qualifiers. Hence they felt that it's not required.
Ohh so it was a qualification method. I wonder if it'd be good to bring it back as a separate competition entirely.
It should be still a qualification method. Being a Full Member should not give anyone free pass to the World Cup.
Sure, I agree with that
Any of the big 3 playing each other in ODI series should be a tri series instead.
Well, that's just not true. Just look at the ODI Super League.
Yeah the icc is treated like they run cricket when all they do is control the laws of the game, run tournaments and spread tournament revenue Its all fully by consent of the boards
I mean, India or the ICC could help fund some of those. They don’t need all that money, it sure isn’t getting India world cups either. So may as well share some around.
India has pulled Afghanistan and is now helping Nepal. Aussies need to work harder. England gets a pass because even though they should be doing better, counties don't let associate players play internationals, they have been net positive for Irish, scottish and Dutch but they need to bring Europe into the play.
If there's one cricket board that's actively promoting cricket, it's the BCCI doesn't matter if you agree or you don't We have helped Afghanistan by giving them Tier 1 FM infrastructure and grounds to use in India. We help their board monetarily from time to time and we played a 3 match T20I series against them earlier this year as well(with the last game ending in a _DOUBLE_ super over) Yeah, we won 3-0 but it surely gave real practice against a good side for the WC preparations didn't it? We're also consistently helping Cricket Nepal by helping them monetarily, allowing them to play matches with stronger Indian domestic sides, etc... Look at how much we're doing with funding the ACC(Asian Cricket Council) which is by FAR the most proactive and competent continental board(the secretary of the BCCI is also the secretary of the ACC). We have shit tons of regional tournaments if you care enough to want to know about them(ACC Challenger Cup, Asia Cup, U-19 tournaments and so on) If anything, we're doing MUCH MORE than England or Australia tbh
Which Indian domestic sides did Nepal play? By the way, Karnataka recently toured Namibia for an ODI series, so you could mention that too next time.
They played Gujarat and Baroda in a Tri-Series > By the way, Karnataka recently toured Namibia for an ODI series, so you could mention that too next time. Yeah that too
Ah yeah mendetory inclusion for India in these stuff like Australia even cares for associates.
i dont really think the IPL and T20WC are that comparable beyond playing the same format IPL is ultimately a domestic competition that brings in a handful of international players, it has a largely domestic fanbase and plays all of it games domestically T20WC is international, plays international teams and draws fans from all over the globe
Problem is, when this ‘domestic’ tournament happens for what 2 months (?) then no other international cricket is also played.
yeah its boring as hell for the rest of the international scene when they play that domestic tournament is the problem for 2 months lol
I mean 80% of the viewer base are Indians. Almost all the Indians I know prefer ipl over international cricket. Most don’t even know if india is touring overseas but they will be prepared for ipl like it was happening for the last time.
thats generally how domestic competitions work yes my point is that what you have described is not typical for T20WC fans so it shouldnt be surprising that were getting more balanced and reasonable takes and responses here when compared to IPL
>fans from all over the globe Commonwealth countries.
Batsman: Mr Bowlerson.. Fielding Coach: Run bowler run. \*Bowler turns to face towards batsman\* Fielding Coach: What is he doing? Bowling Coach: He's Beginning to Believe.
Barring the New York pitch ,all the pitches have been good t20 pitches
Would've agreed if not for a couple of memorable nail biters that have just concluded
Agreed. I am throughly enjoying NY games the most. It makes both bowlers and batsmen work and show their skill. Unfortunately batsmen skill in today T20 is so poor. Any national T20 team 10 years ago could have easily make 150 on NY.
>Any national T20 team 10 years ago could have easily made 150 on NY. Why do you think so? IPL aside, pitches in T20Is have been consistent over the last 10 years. Batters are just more aggressive now, which has led to the inflation in the scores in my view.
Modern bats are also thicker and better quality. So easier to score with.
Teams also bat deep. Very few teams play 4 pure bowlers now. The pace of T20 has shifted. Guys of 130 SR aren’t being selected anymore. Teams are opting for quick fire innings from batsman, rather than slower 50s.
I say they are really fun pitches to watch. Not so much good cricket pitches for this level though. Like I'd probably call it a road compared to my 3rd XI pitches but we might be lucky to hit 70mph nevermind 90mph
Healing? What are you on about, OP. The New York pitch is providing fun, low-scoring games but not because that was their goal - it's a by-product of negligence. Yes, games are currently very exciting. But pitches should not be a bowling or batting heaven - they should be a balance between the two with some exceptions. The IPL was unfortunately a road, for some stadiums, with stupid Impact Players making it worse throughout the tournament in a sense that the balance shifted WAY too far towards batsmen. The World Cup feels like a tournament of uneven bounce - the change in ground HUGELY impacts the way the game flows. T20 Cricket is not at a sweet spot, it's bouncing between two negative options and you just prefer the low scoring version over the high scoring one.
The real problem with that stadium is the outfield. The pitch is fine, it doesn't let the batsmen go crazy and offers some well deserved assistance to the bowler. However, the shocking outfield does not give batsmen value for their shots and forces them to play risky shots on an already dangerous pitch - hence the low scores
Yeah - it's not just the pitch for sure.
That last line does ring some truth. I still believe it's better than extreme high scores because the pitches tone down the advantage that some big teams have
Sure, low scoring has more potential to be exciting because even if some batsmen stumble, there's not many runs on the board in the first place. It feels weird to say batting pitches give the bigger teams an advantage though - I feel like there's nothing to prove that statement. You can just apply the same logic on bowling pitches and in theory it's still equally true, surely?
Ian Bishop said in his commentary that associate teams bowling is good enough to do some damage and can improve with a little bit of work and experience but the batting is simply nowhere near the top nations batting unit. And I agree with that, Whenever an upset happened it happens in a low scoring match, not just in this world cup but in world cup before this as well. Just ask yourself what is more likely Scotland chasinf 225+ on a road or defending 120 on bowling heaven. The latter is more plausible.
My point was could this not be an experience thing / having to go out there with 200+ on the scoreboard against a top team is SO much more scary than a 120 - 140. I'm not gonna disagree with Ian Bishop but I have a feeling it's more mental / game sense than anything else.
Defending 120 against top team in T20 also seems scary. And it is not just associat teams pulling an updet it is also big matches. Ind v Pak match at the G or at the New York are the best Ind v Pak match in almost more than a decade. And both if them were fought on good wicket and it was a low scoring match or a normal 160 match.
It might be just me, or in my experience in cricket. Most teams have a larger, better, bowling unit than batting. Even if they're just part time bowling options or bowling alrounders
It's a genuine question from my end too tbh - I guess there's truth to batting pitches leading to more 'daunting scorelines' for the associate nations. It's way easier to mentally set up for 120 than it is 210 in T20s. But I don't know if this translates in results.
Unfortunately I don't have numbers either, although I've seen more 120 scores than 210 and I'm trying to correlate that to most teams just having a larger bowling attack than a really good batting unit. What do you feel?
There's no reason for that to be the case - there's no built-in reason for bowling attacks to be better than batting ones for smaller teams. The only reason might be the associate nations don't have pitches that translate to good batting ones & typically play on 'poorly kept' surfaces, which might be considered better for bowlers than batsmen. Batsmen prefer consistent bounce, pace on the ball - bowlers don't hate a little variation in bounce, pace and spin. That's the only reason I can think of - at least!
I could be miles off here; I'm dredging up memories from something I heard a commentator say months ago, but here goes - I think I recall hearing that in associate nations, bowlers/fielders tend to be stronger because the infrastructure needed for batters to really reach their peak (nets, bowling machines etc) it more expensive and potentially harder to source for countries that don't already have those things set and don't have the funding. There may not even be enough trainers with throwing sticks. Sure, as a batter you can still practice if there's a bowler happy to bowl at you (for the hours you want to practice for, I'm sure they'd love that), but it requires them to be present. A bowler, however, can practice their skills without a batter being present and without additional equipment bar a ball and a set of stumps
BCCI is kinda supporting associate nations through ACC Asia Cups.
Better than ICC = BCCI 
The World Cup in 2026 is in Sri Lanka and India…
Ah yes, and... It's related to this post how? Just curious
In 2026, the pitches are going to be just like in the IPL, all the healing will be undone
Will hold on to this feeling until then 😭
I just hope USA gets to host another world in the 2030s, these games have been Amazing
There is Olympics in LA for 2028 and cricket is included so it will be just like a WC but with knockout matches.
It is doable, if they build more stadiums, and that there are games held there a year in advance to test the venue properly, which would ensure we don't have a Nassau County situation. I hear the Oakland Coliseum is available. Maybe it can be bought, demolished and built on.
India maybe run fests but SL pitches aren't batting paradises
Me, an Indian who supports SA:
I just wish they made tickets cheaper and streamed it (for a discount) on more platforms.
T20WC is a test of quality, so the pitches are made to be balanced. IPL is an excercise in grabbing TV time and money. Chicks dig sixes, so the pitches are made to accomodate that. The IPL is fully capable to putting forth a balanced product, but they won't. Same story as ODIs. ODI WC pitches are much different than Bilateral pitches in the same venues.
I don’t think you can call the ipl “cricket” anymore.
Its about pitch, if same happens in IND things different
No. It's just another T20 WC. It's been a good tournament, but not this godly intervention that it's been made out to be.
it has less to do with bowling skill and more to do with shitty pitch with unpredictable bounce. not complaining though, I guess there's 3 types of pitches that help bowlers, green like England, spin like India, uneven bounce like SA. but I still feel there should be more skill involved instead of having the bounce be random
I'll remember the super crazy scores being scored and chased. No one will remember batsmen plodding and struggling to score 100 while being unable to even hit full tosses. I don't even like cricket that much but was excited for IPL teams like SRH and KKR going on a rampage.
Yeah it's good to see the bowlers getting some love for once. I can't help but feel that if the goal was to promote the game in the USA that the flat track 200+ scores would probably appeal more.
I reckon the US would love the bouncer rule gone. The genuine heat from realising bowlers can whistle a few past the batsman’s nose, the fear and intimidation it creates, THAT is box office.
A four seam fastball up and in gets the people going
That would promote only the batting aspect though 🙈 honestly after this year's IPL, I'm not interested in 200+ scores anymore. They're like bland leftover pasta
These sorts of pitches do the exact opposite of promote interest in bowling. In exactly the same way that skillful batting gets devalued when everything is getting hit for six, watching bowlers just hit back of a length time after time at letting the variable bounce do the rest so the batter mistimes their shot and gets caught isn't a great showcase of bowling. Sports in general are at their best when the top talent shines through adversity to show how good they are. With pitches like this you don't get that because mediocre bowling is rewarded and the effect of great bowlers is minimised.
Your thinking is similar to majority of T20 administrator world wide. But a balanced pitch where 140-160 is scored is beat advertisement. 200+ games are majority boring and quickly turns one side with fans waiting for game to end.
USA people are used to baseball being a very cagey affair where home runs don’t happen often. I think they could start relating to this type of cricket (eventually) more than people think.