Your EMails

It's a mute point whether cricket (the limited overs version, of course) should once again become an Olympic sport. It was included in the Modern Olympics after 1896 but discontinued after only a few Games (sic).

As a cricket devotee I would love it but think of the logistics. Cricket requires a huge, well-prepared space in addition to the safe-distance spectator area. Specifically skilled officials are needed in umpiring, refereeing and scoring. All this would add enormously to the cost of staging an Olympic Games in a non-cricket playing country. I think this was the reason cricket was discontinued in the first place. It is also the prime reason why golf is not included in the Olympics.

On the plus side, it would constitute a wonderful boost for cricket on a global scale and doubtless help to make the game an even more international sport than it already is.

Thanks for all the hard work, and good luck.

James F. Goater
Co-founder Nagoya Cricket Club
Nagoya, Japan

Dear Tony

Re: Cricket In The Olympics

The desire of the Associate member nations to get some top class international competition with high exposure in the form of the Olympic Games is admirable and I certainly would not oppose it on principle.

But, as a result of living in Australia and having seen the workings of the IOC much too closely of late, the question has to be asked, do we really want cricket to have any involvement?

How much wheeling and dealing will have to be done to ensure a desirable level of media coverage? What is the likelihood that the entry of a sport not supported by most of the IOC delegates will be heavily opposed for a long time, only to eventually be rushed in so that the sitting IOC President can take the credit for it?

Remember, these people are not their countries representatives on the IOC, they are the IOC's representatives in their countries.

If we want to give the Associate members of the ICC more exposure (and I certainly do), some options might be:

But let's not subject ourselves to the ignomy of letting the IOC in on our show. It's just not worth the trouble.

Daniel Viles
inxia@one.net.au
Brisbane, Australia

As the world's second most popular spectator sport and perhaps the oldest professional team sport in the world it is surprising that cricket has only been played in the Olympics once before.

The Olympic Games puts a great spotlight on sport and on newly added sports specifically. The added publicity and exposure would help bring cricket to those nations who have little or no interest currently.

Also, depending on the qualifying process it might add a little more fire to the current rivalries in world cricket. In fairness to the nations who are not currently international sides there should be age restrictions placed on countries currently playing test and one-day cricket. The other option would be to let all international sides enter plus an additional 4 sides who have qualified through a separate qualification process.

Dmitri Reavis
Washington DC, United States of America

Personally I believe it's not a matter of whether cricket should become an Olympic sport, but rather cricket has to become an Olympic sport.

Many people will argue and I believe rightfully that cricket as an Olympic sport will just mean another meaningless competition with a second rate team coming away with a gold medal. Therefore cricket should not degrade itself by becoming an Olympic sport.

Unfortunately this has been the trend for many of the more popular sports. The Olympic gold medallists in tennis, soccer (football), baseball etc. are certainly not the best in the world. However the sport gets three very important things out of being in the Olympics. Firstly it gets a public profile; secondly it gets infrastructure set up in the host country; and thirdly it develops fora with which cricket delegates can meet with representatives of other sports.

Outside the Commonwealth, cricket suffers badly from a low profile and without infrastructure, cricket will find it difficult to expand. Similarly if cricket is not recognised as a sport by other sporting organisations it will continue to get a negative image (or worse no image at all) in noncricketing nations. It is most unlikely that cricket will become the premier summer sport in too many more countries.

However the trend in many cricketing nations has been for cricket to fall from virtually the only summer sport to just another summer sport. I cannot see how this trend can be reversed and in some ways I see no reason to reverse it. Instead cricket must look beyond its traditional boundaries and become accepted in other countries as at least another summer sport. This will ensure cricket's survival and prevent it from becoming other sport's whipping boy!

Being part of the Olympics will go a long way in achieving the goal of globalising cricket.

Surely the benefits of being part of the Olympics outweigh the negatives.

It is also important for cricket authorities to act now. The IOC are already talking about rationalising the number of events in the Olympics. So cricket could be dealt a death blow before it even starts.

The ICC have not been the fastest moving organisation, when it comes to joining world sporting organisations. As an example it would appear that the ICC, although generally enthusiastic about joining the GAISF (General Association of International Sports Federations) have yet to make any commitment. (It should be noted that the GAISF is an important world sporting association representing many world sports).

Could delays and procrastination on behalf of cricket, becoming an Olympic sport also prove costly?

Kim Wellens
Canberra Australia