The Future of Cricket 🏏

As the game has changed, so have the priorities of cricketers, with many sacrificing the opportunity to represent their nation in multiple formats, for a quick buck essentially; franchise cricket. Although the English had initially started the first franchise t20 cricket league in 2003, the T20 format hadn’t bloomed until 2008, during the inaugural season of the Indian Premier League. There were many skeptics at the beginning, however, the prospect of having the best cricketers playing on the same team, now bonded by the franchise team they play for rather than the country they represented was extremely appealing, as if anyone didn’t want to see the likes of Chris Gayle and AB de Villiers on the same team.

Fast forward 16 years later, and t20 cricket has become the most popular format, with its shorter format and Hollywood-esque presentation appealing to many more. Nowadays, t20 and test cricket seem like completely different sports, essentially comparing a marathon to a sprint. The 100m/200m sprint is one of the most watched events at every Olympics, however, more hardcore running fans would likely be more interested in marathons.

As a result, many fans, players, and critics are stuck at a crossroads on whether to champion tradition or embrace modernity and usher in a new way of cricket.

∘ The Big 3
∘ ELO ratings
∘ Test Cricket
∘ T20 and Franchise Cricket
∘ One-Day-Internationals: The forgotten format
∘ The Future of the Game
∘ Conclusion

The Big 3

India, Australia, and England, commonly known as the “Big 3”, have a disproportional control and effect on global cricket, with the three sides combined taking more than 50% of ICC’s revenue, based on the 2024–27 distribution plan. The 3 sides have the best international cricket players, and have played a uniquely significant role in cricket; the English invented the game and distributed the game through its colonies, and the Australians have been the most dominant at this game and were the first country other than England to play this game. The Indians have essentially become the leaders of the sport, although not necessarily on the pitch.

However, within the grander scheme of the sport and the game, although the 3 teams may be comparable in terms of on-field quality, no international cricketing board in the world can operate in the same stratosphere as the Indian cricket team and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). Ironically, that’s what the BCCI has managed to do in world cricket, control it.

This is Jay Shah’s World Cup in more ways than one. It is, after all, Jay Shah’s sport to start with. Shah, who has been head of the BCCI for the last four years, is the most powerful single person in any sport anywhere in the world. In the last few months alone Shah has run a World Cup, and taken over the running of the Asia Cup because he felt like it while maintaining a guiding hand on the world’s second most potent franchise league after the NFL. This week Arjuna Ranatunga accused Shah of running Sri Lankan cricket as an after-hours hobby.This is Jay Shah’s World Cup in more ways than one. It is, after all Jay Shah’s sport to start with. Shah, who has been head of the BCCI for the last four years, is the most powerful single person in any sport anywhere in the world.

In the last few months alone Shah has run a World Cup, taken over the running of the Asia Cup because he felt like it, while maintaining a guiding hand on the world’s second most potent franchise league after the NFL. This week Arjuna Ranatunga accused Shah of running Sri Lankan cricket as an after-hours hobby.

World Cup final is a coronation but cricket's rulers are not in doubt | Barney Ronay

As the top 3 cricketing boards become wealthier and wealthier, the more costly it becomes for other cricketing boards to arrange and play test cricket matches. Whilst 5-match test series used to be a commonality, those have become a complete rarity, now being exclusively reserved for test match series between the big 3 teams. Other full-member nations such as South Africa and the West Indies can’t even afford to host a 3-match series at home, rather resorting to a 2-match test series, followed by a 5-match t20 series and sometimes a few ODI matches. The increased scarcity of financial resources for non-big-3 cricketing boards means priorities have been pivoted towards more profitable ventures, with the BCCI leading the path for that.

The number of matches played by each test-nation country since the inception of cricket

It’s been argued that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is undermining world cricket through its substantial financial dominance and influence over the International Cricket Council (ICC). This dominance creates a power imbalance where decisions often favor India’s interests, potentially neglecting the development and needs of smaller cricketing nations. The BCCI’s control over the international cricket schedule leads to an imbalanced calendar, where other countries must often accommodate India’s packed home schedule driven by lucrative broadcasting deals.

Explosion of T20 leagues amid packed cricket calendar challenges BBL resurgence | Jack Snape and…

ELO ratings

To understand the dynamics of the sport and how they’ve changed since the inaugural ICC t20 World Cup in 2007, we’ve looked at the ELO ratings of international cricket teams across all 3 formats to get an insight into the trends that have changed this sport, and how it will affect the future. Although most of the associate nations don’t have a license to play test cricket, for example, it gives insight into where growth of the game has occurred, and whether there’s a possibility to bridge the gaps between the full member nations and the associate nations.

The Elo system was invented as an improved chess-rating system over the previously used Harkness system,[1] but is also used as a rating system in association football, American football, baseball, basketball, pool, various board games and esports, and more recently large language models.

The difference in the ratings between two players serves as a predictor of the outcome of a match. Two players with equal ratings who play against each other are expected to score an equal number of wins. A player whose rating is 100 points greater than their opponent’s is expected to score 64%; if the difference is 200 points, then the expected score for the stronger player is 76%.[2]

Additionally, looking at historical ELO ratings either over time, or in recent world cups tells us how noise there is in a game between two teams; with greater noise meaning greater uncertainty in terms of who will win. For example, a test match series between Australia and Sri Lanka will be a less “noisy” match then a match in the Border Gavaskar series between Australia and India. Whilst it’s important to account for home advantage and pitch conditions, this is something that’ll be accounted for in the future when working on augmented calculations of ELO ratings for cricket-playing nations.

import os
import json
import pandas as pd
import pydash
import plotly.express as px
import plotly.graph_objects as go
from plotly.subplots import make_subplots
import numpy as np
import csv
from mpl_toolkits.mplot3d import Axes3D
from sklearn.preprocessing import StandardScaler
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt # plotting
import seaborn as sns

*Import dataset*
matches = pd.read_csv("/Users/samyukth/Downloads/t203.csv", index_col=0)

matches.columns

unique_teams = pd.concat([matches['Team1'].str.strip(), matches['Team2'].str.strip()]).unique()

# Print unique teams
print(unique_teams)

unique_countries_team1 = matches['Team1'].str.strip().unique()

matches_count = {}
for team in unique_teams:
    matches_count[team] = ((matches['Team1'].str.strip() == team) | (matches['Team2'].str.strip() == team)).sum()
matches_count_df = pd.DataFrame(list(matches_count.items()), columns=['Team', 'MatchesPlayed'])

matches_count_df = matches_count_df.sort_values(by='MatchesPlayed', ascending=False)

print(matches_count_df)

unique_teams = pd.concat([matches['Team1'], matches['Team2']]).str.strip().unique()
elo_ratings = {team: 1000 for team in unique_teams}

#Set K-factor
#k_factor = 20


*Building the ELO Rating Model*

# Convert the entries in the 'Team1' and 'Team2' columns to strings and handle NaN values
matches['Team1'] = matches['Team1'].fillna('').astype(str)
matches['Team2'] = matches['Team2'].fillna('').astype(str)

# Initialize Elo ratings columns in the matches DataFrame
matches['team1_rating'] = matches['Team1'].map(lambda x: elo_ratings.get(x.strip(), 1000)).astype('float64')
matches['team2_rating'] = matches['Team2'].map(lambda x: elo_ratings.get(x.strip(), 1000)).astype('float64')

# Continue with the rest of your code
matches['team1_newrating'] = None
matches['team2_newrating'] = None

# Additional processing...

def calculate_elo_rating(team1_rating, team2_rating, outcome, k_factor):
    expected1 = 1 / (1 + 10 ** ((team2_rating - team1_rating) / 400))
    elo_change = k_factor * (outcome - expected1)
    return expected1, elo_change

def update_elo_ratings(matches, elo_ratings, k_factor):
    for index, match in matches.iterrows():
        team1 = match['Team1'].strip()
        team2 = match['Team2'].strip()
        
        winner = match['Winner'] if pd.notna(match['Winner']) else ''
        
        if winner.strip() == team1:
            outcome_team1 = 2  # Win for team1
            outcome_team2 = 0  # Loss for team2
        elif winner.strip() == team2:
            outcome_team1 = 0  # Loss for team1
            outcome_team2 = 2  # Win for team2
        else:
            outcome_team1 = 1  # Draw
            outcome_team2 = 1  # Draw

        # Get current Elo ratings
        team1_rating = elo_ratings.get(team1, 1000)
        team2_rating = elo_ratings.get(team2, 1000)

        # Calculate Elo changes and expected outcomes
        expected1, elo_change1 = calculate_elo_rating(team1_rating, team2_rating, outcome_team1, k_factor)
        expected2, elo_change2 = calculate_elo_rating(team2_rating, team1_rating, outcome_team2, k_factor)

        # Update Elo ratings in the dictionary
        elo_ratings[team1] += elo_change1
        elo_ratings[team2] += elo_change2

        # Also update the Elo ratings and expected outcomes in the DataFrame
        matches.at[index, 'team1_rating'] = team1_rating
        matches.at[index, 'team2_rating'] = team2_rating
        matches.at[index, 'team1_newrating'] = elo_ratings[team1]
        matches.at[index, 'team2_newrating'] = elo_ratings[team2]
        matches.at[index, 'team1_expected'] = expected1
        matches.at[index, 'team2_expected'] = expected2
        matches.at[index, 'outcometeam1'] = outcome_team1
        matches.at[index, 'outcometeam2'] = outcome_team2
    
    return elo_ratings

# Extract unique teams
unique_teams = pd.concat([matches['Team1'], matches['Team2']]).str.strip().unique()

# Initialize Elo ratings dictionary
elo_ratings = {team: 1000 for team in unique_teams}

# Set K-factor
k_factor = 20

# Initialize Elo ratings columns in the matches DataFrame
matches['team1_rating'] = matches['Team1'].map(lambda x: elo_ratings.get(x.strip(), 1000)).astype('float64')
matches['team2_rating'] = matches['Team2'].map(lambda x: elo_ratings.get(x.strip(), 1000)).astype('float64')
matches['team1_newrating'] = None
matches['team2_newrating'] = None
matches['team1_expected'] = None
matches['team2_expected'] = None
matches['outcometeam1'] = None
matches['outcometeam2'] = None

# Update Elo ratings based on matches data
elo_ratings = update_elo_ratings(matches, elo_ratings, k_factor)

# Display updated Elo ratings
for team, rating in elo_ratings.items():
    print(f"{team}: {rating}")

# Print the updated DataFrame
print(matches[['id.1', 'Team1', 'Team2', 'team1_rating', 'team2_rating', 'team1_newrating', 'team2_newrating', 'team1_expected', 'team2_expected', 'outcometeam1', 'outcometeam2']])

#Export results into csv file#

output_file = 't20elo12.csv'
matches.to_csv(output_file, index=False)

import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import seaborn as sns

elo_ratings = {
    'Australia' : 1348.68482948994,
    'India' : 1341.6454997510018,
    'England' : 1330.933785768746,
    'South Africa' : 1317.914786524905,
    'Pakistan' : 1243.1974532184004,
    'New Zealand' : 1225.0369454470333,
    'Afghanistan' : 1213.0720163130363,
    'Sri Lanka' : 1172.3441275050225,
    'Bangladesh' : 1121.3988177750919,
    'West Indies' : 1115.630934440963,
    'Scotland' : 1109.2985371587038,
    'Netherlands' : 1070.3243671032287,
    'Ireland' : 1063.892823659004,
    'Zimbabwe' : 1062.066447829019,
    'Namibia' : 1056.3211026904478,
    'USA' : 1051.1685621601916,
    'Canada' : 1032.759559397242,
    'UAE' : 1013.9533640856462,
    'Uganda' : 1005.2074855398495,
    'Nepal' : 994.8565735114283,
    'Oman' : 985.9561945705592,
    'Papua New Guinea' : 944.3357860605399
}
# Convert the elo_ratings dictionary to a DataFrame for easier plotting with seaborn
elo_df = pd.DataFrame(list(elo_ratings.items()), columns=['Team', 'Elo Rating'])
matches.to_csv(output_file, index=False)

#Sort Elo Ratings#

elo_df = elo_df.sort_values(by='Elo Rating', ascending=False)

# Print DataFrame to ensure correctness
print(elo_df)

elo_df.to_csv('t22.csv')
t204 = pd.read_csv("/Users/samyukth/Downloads/t22.csv", index_col=0)

Test Cricket

The ELO ratings of cricket teams in test cricket

As seen in the scatterplot above, there’s only 12 nations that have test status, with multiple nations attaining their test status at different times. This essentially means that the competitive playing field is inherently imbalanced as some countries are able to attain test status before others, gain more experience playing the format, and also have more accurate data to give insights into how good they really are. Given that test cricket is the oldest format of the game and has been played for much longer compared to ODI and t20 cricket, this causes even more discriminatory and skewed results. Furthermore, with the introduction of the World Test Championship in 2019, these teams are simply only competing against one another, effectively making test cricket more of a closed league, having prohibitively higher barriers of entry for associate nations compared to other formats of the sport.

As you’ll see with most of the data found, India, Australia, and England tend to always occupy the top 3 spots as the main dominant forces in cricket, both on the field and off it, followed by a couple other full member nations that aren’t too far away. However, as shown above, England and Australia had a significant head-start in terms of developing and playing the game, enabling them to stay at the top for a long time. Despite the English playing almost more then double the amount of test matches that Australia or India have played, they still have not dominated or taken control of the sport, regardless of the format, for a long period of time in the modern era.

Although Bangladesh remains as an outlier here, a full member nation performing similarly to its associate counterparts, it’s evident that the highest performing nations in the test format are the most well funded and the gap between the countries get increasingly greater and greater the further down the ranks you go, as proven by it’s reverse logit-like curvature.

Whilst test cricket has been the favourite format of cricketing purists, branding this format to the mainstream audience has been quite difficult. A game that goes on for the whole work-day for 5 days straight and may not even have a winner means that consumers will not be able to tune in for a long time. This combined with the slow nature of which test cricket is played means that it’s less action-packed. Comparing test cricket to its other formats is like comparing Lord of the Rings to Fast and Furious. If you have time to sit, watch, and truly understand what’s going on, you’ll thoroughly enjoy the format and the game; the dynamics and flows of test cricket being unrivalled by the other formats.

With a shorter action-packed film such as Fast and Furious, it doesn’t require much attention or focus, you just simply sit back and enjoy. You simply enjoy all the action and will definitely have a good time. Since most of the mainstream audience are seasonal fans of cricket, it’s difficult to garner and maintain support of the test cricket format. Beyond the Indian subcontinent, four season countries such as Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and England play multiple sports to a higher quality, which means cricket doesn’t get full attention until it’s cricket season in that given country. The cricket season in England runs from April to September, however, it’s unlikely that all English cricket fans would be tuned into the cricket that goes on from October to March, unless, it’s the Ashes. A similar narrative can be extended to Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand. In other parts of the year where the more popular sport (rugby, Aussie rules) takes the forefront, cricket is most definitely an afterthought.

T20 and Franchise Cricket

Based on the scatterplot below, compared to the ODI and Test cricket Elo ratings, the gap between the full member nations and the associate nations are the smallest out of all the 3 formats, suggesting that the t20 format is the most competitive out of the 3 formats. This is further proven by the ongoing 2024 ICC T20 World Cup in the USA & West Indies, where associate nations went neck and neck with some of the top cricketing nations in the world.

For example, the USA cricket team managed to stage a huge upset, and defeat Pakistan in a super over. Prior to the game, the USA had a 25.44% chance of winning the match, with Pakistan’s chance of winning at an extremely favourable 74.55%. The upset not only seemingly dented Pakistan’s chances of making the Super 8’s, but it had also decreased their ELO rating by 15 points, whereas the USA’s ELO rating increased by a whopping 34 points. The change in ELO rating not only depends on the strength of the opponent and the relative importance of the win, but it also depends on the k-factor used.

One of the main components of the Elo rating system is the so-called “K-Factor.” In short, the K-Factor is a limit on the total number of Elo points that a player can earn or lose in a single game. To keep an accurate rating, K-Factor is essential. Your K-Factor in chess, for example, is determined by your rating. You will have a larger K-Factor if your rating is lower. Remember that having a high K-factor also means that you will lose more points from defeats in addition to receiving more points from wins. If we had used a higher k-factor value, such as 30 or 40, this would cause more extreme ELO ratings and thus more definitive probabilities. By definitive, I don’t mean more accurate, but rather on the contrary. With a higher k-factor value, the difference in the ELO rating would be even bigger then before, and since to calculate the probability of either Team A or Team B to win we take ELO ratings of the 2 teams prior to the game, the increased difference would mean more top heavy-bias towards the winning teams. In simpler terms, a higher k-factor would’ve likely overestimated how good the top teams are, and underestimated how good the associate nations are.

Compared to the other formats, T20 cricket makes the cricketing boards money, rather then lose money. The fees required to arrange matches over a 4 hour period rather then a 5 day test where viewership isn’t likely to be as high are considerably less whilst also causing high viewership.

The boom of the Indian Premier League and the BCCI leading by example of how to extract record profits in this sport has lead to a gold rush in this game, with every full member nation have a franchise T20 league, as well as some associate nations.

In fact, whilst the test format still remains the most prestigious format amongst the full member nations, the accessibility of the T20 formats for all has seen the T20 format grow more then any of the other formats, and thus the rise of these leagues. With the increase of leagues, multiple cricketers are given a plethora of opportunities to not only make a sizeable amount of income relative to the contracts they receive from their cricketing boards, but also the opportunity to travel around the world whilst showcasing their skills. For example, seasoned Kiwi international Trent Boult currently plays for Rajasthan Royals, MI New York and MI Emirates, which means that for January to February, he’s playing in Dubai, from late March to late May he’s playing in India, and in the summer he’s playing in the USA, all the while trying to sandwich international cricket between these franchise cricket commitments.

The Indian Premier League (IPL), while financially successful, exacerbates these issues by clashing with international fixtures, leading to scheduling conflicts. Top international players frequently prioritize the IPL for its financial rewards, weakening national teams and reducing the competitiveness of international series during the IPL season. This prioritization also results in players opting out of international commitments, undermining the strength and integrity of their national teams. Additionally, the intense IPL schedule contributes to player burnout, affecting their performance in international matches. Critics also argue that the BCCI’s focus on commercialization prioritizes short-term financial gains over the long-term health and growth of cricket, leading to decisions that favor T20 leagues over longer formats like Test cricket. This approach can diminish the traditional values of the game. Furthermore, the financial and scheduling decisions influenced by the BCCI can disadvantage smaller cricketing nations, which struggle to attract top teams for bilateral series and face disparities in revenue sharing within the ICC. While acknowledging the BCCI’s contributions to cricket’s global popularity and financial growth, critics emphasize the need for a balanced approach that ensures equitable growth worldwide, respecting both commercial interests and the sport’s traditional values. But, how did this happen?

Well, India’s massive market for cricket-related products and sponsorships further solidified the BCCI’s financial dominance. Global corporations seeking to capitalize on the Indian market began investing heavily in cricket, ensuring that the BCCI had substantial funds at its disposal. This financial power allowed the BCCI to exert considerable influence over the ICC and its member boards.

The BCCI’s strategic alliances and lobbying within the ICC also played a crucial role. By forming coalitions with other powerful cricket boards, such as England and Australia, the BCCI secured key positions in ICC committees, ensuring that its interests were well-represented. These alliances led to significant changes in the governance and financial distribution models within the ICC, often favoring the “Big Three” — India, England, and Australia.

Additionally, India’s significance as a host for ICC events and its large diaspora, which drives viewership and sponsorship in other countries, reinforced its central role in the global cricketing economy. The BCCI’s ability to negotiate terms that benefit Indian cricket in ICC deals and international tours further underscores its dominance.

Earlier this year, the South African test side that travelled to New Zealand for the World Test Championship was filled with inexperienced test cricketers, with the bulk of them having less than 10 caps. Whilst it would’ve been seemed unforeseeable 15–20 years ago, most of the key South African cricketers such as Aiden Markram, Kagiso Rabada, etc… decided to compete in the SA 20, the South African franchise cricket league instead, rather then play the test series against New Zealand. The reason? Well, it’s largely to do with opportunity cost and the substitution effect. An increase in the income, or the amount cricketers get paid from franchise cricket increases the opportunity cost of them not playing franchise, and given it’s now more costly then before to not play franchise cricket, cricketers would now have a higher reservation wage, or contract in this case, in order to sacrifice franchise cricket for international duty. The new revenue model certainly hasn’t helped nations outside of the “big 3”, and although these franchise leagues do make money for the cricketing boards, this sees a huge drop-off in the other formats.

However, as mentioned, the increased priority of franchise and t20 cricket has led to more competitive matches in the shortest format. Franchise leagues, such as the Indian Premier League (IPL), the Big Bash League (BBL), and the Caribbean Premier League (CPL), attract top talent from various countries, providing a platform for players to compete at high-intensity levels regularly. These leagues offer players exposure to diverse playing conditions, the opportunity to learn from and play alongside international stars, and the experience of handling pressure situations akin to international tournaments. As players participate in these competitive environments, their performances and confidence improve, translating into better displays during T20 World Cups.

Moreover, franchise cricket fosters an environment of constant innovation and strategic evolution, with teams employing data analytics, scouting, and specialized coaching to gain competitive edges. Players absorb these cutting-edge techniques and strategies, which they subsequently bring to their national teams. This cross-pollination of ideas and skills elevates the overall standard of play in T20 World Cups, making matches more exciting and closely contested.

Additionally, the financial rewards and visibility associated with franchise leagues incentivize players to prioritize and refine their T20 skills, often leading to more dynamic and explosive performances in international tournaments. The diverse experiences gained in franchise cricket also enable players to adapt quickly to different match situations and opponents, further contributing to the competitiveness of T20 World Cup matches.

One-Day-Internationals: The forgotten format

Countries are playing fewer One Day Internationals (ODIs) due to several key factors influencing the evolving landscape of international cricket. As the international cricket calendar is becoming increasingly congested, with teams having to balance commitments across Tests, ODIs, and T20s, this leads to a natural reduction in the number of ODIs played to accommodate the shorter and longer formats.

Another factor is the strategic shift by cricket boards and governing bodies like the International Cricket Council (ICC) to prioritise Test cricket and T20 internationals over ODIs. Test cricket is considered the pinnacle of the sport, and there has been a concerted effort to preserve and promote this traditional format. Meanwhile, T20 cricket, with its fast-paced and spectator-friendly nature, is seen as the key to expanding cricket’s global reach and financial viability. Consequently, the scheduling of ODIs, which traditionally sat in the middle, has been squeezed.

Moreover, the advent of the ICC World Test Championship and the ICC T20 World Cup has created structured leagues and tournaments that further reduce the emphasis on bilateral ODI series. The cyclical nature of these tournaments means that the focus shifts towards preparing for and participating in these marquee events, rather than maintaining a regular schedule of ODI matches.

Lastly, player workload management is a crucial consideration. With cricketers playing across all formats and participating in numerous domestic T20 leagues worldwide, the physical and mental toll on players is substantial. National boards are thus compelled to reduce the number of ODIs to prevent player burnout and ensure optimal performance in the more prioritised formats.

In summary, the decline in the number of ODIs played by countries can be attributed to the rise of T20 cricket, a congested international calendar, strategic shifts by governing bodies, and the need to manage player workloads effectively. This trend reflects the dynamic nature of modern cricket and its adaptation to changing audience preferences and commercial realities.

The Future of the Game

Given the lopsided nature of which countries has a large cricket fan base, the BCCI essentially determines everything that happens in world cricket, even up to what groups they’re drawn into and minor details as to whether they would have a reserve day. In fact, for the ongoing ICC T20 World Cup in the United States and West Indies, the groups weren’t drawn in a randomised way as you would see in football, but rather fixed on viewership. Given the most popular match is India vs Pakistan, they put the both of them in the same group, and given the popularity of the Ashes, they also drew England and Australia in another group. The rest of the teams in other groups was then essentially determined by what creates viewership. The key question though, is why is this the case. In the 2021 and 2022 ICC T20 World Cups, the full member nation states didn’t play in the first group stage as they did in this year’s tournament, and so once Australia got out, for example, this saw viewership and interest drop, a similar event happened for the Indian cricket team in 2021, except the drop off was much more significant.

Compared to other countries, the ICC knows that the Indian cricketing fanbase are pretty much die-hards, and so will watch every game, no matter the opponent. Thus, the easier the path to the finals, the more games India would likely play, and thus more wins. Seeing India potentially win an ICC tournament has an immense effect on the viewership of the game and thus ICC. Furthermore, the increased viewership would also mean that cricketing boards would get more money from the tournament, based on the revenue model.

Furthermore, the Super 8 groups were fixed such that seeding didn’t matter; in other words, as long as a given full member nation finished in the top 2, the position didn’t matter as the groups for Super 8’s were predetermined. In fact, regardless on whether India finished first or second in their Super 8 group, the venue for their semi-final was already fixed to be in Guyana; so, even in the case that India finished second in their group, they would’ve still played in Guyana. Moreover, India’s semi-final in Guyana does not have a reserve date, whereas the other semi-final does, weirdly so. A reserve day is minimum protocol in most cricketing tournaments to ensure a fair contest is being held and inclement weather doesn’t come in the way of that. If the match is a washout, then India would automatically progress to the final, as they finished on more points then England both in the First and Second Group stages. This has been the overall main criticism of Indian cricket and BCCI: why does it need to flex its muscles to the point where sporting integrity is at stake?

This increasingly imbalanced dynamic between ICC, BCCI, and the other cricketing boards will mean more and more cricketers will bend to BCCI’s will and the money that India has to offer in terms of cricket. Whilst the growth of the game has been promising in the T20 cricket, the increasing power of BCCI in the sport means that the gap between the full member and associate nations may not be narrowed anytime soon.

It’s also worth acknowledging the widespread influence of the Indian diaspora of the game, and how that affects the game. As seen by the interactive map below, most of the cricketers participating in the World Cup are born in India, regardless of whether they play for India or not.

Conclusion

All in all, using ELO ratings to predict the outcomes of cricket matches across all formats — Test, One Day Internationals (ODIs), and Twenty20 (T20) games — is beneficial for several reasons. Firstly, ELO ratings provide a dynamic and continuous measure of team strength that adjusts based on the outcome of each match. Unlike static rankings, ELO ratings take into account the relative strengths of the opposing teams, offering a more nuanced and accurate reflection of a team’s performance over time. This is especially useful in cricket, where teams frequently face opponents of varying calibers across different formats.

Secondly, ELO ratings can adapt to the specific context of each game. For instance, by adjusting the K-factor, which determines how much ratings change after each match, one can reflect the varying importance of matches. In a World Cup final, for example, the K-factor can be higher, indicating a more significant impact on a team’s rating compared to a bilateral series match. This flexibility allows for a more precise assessment of team capabilities and potential outcomes, enhancing predictive accuracy.

Furthermore, ELO ratings facilitate the understanding of long-term trends and patterns within the sport. By tracking changes in ratings over time, analysts can identify periods of dominance or decline for teams, correlate these trends with changes in team composition, coaching strategies, or other factors, and make informed predictions about future performances. This historical perspective is invaluable for fans, analysts, and stakeholders who seek to understand the evolving landscape of cricket.

In addition, ELO ratings provide an objective basis for comparing teams across different eras. As cricket formats evolve, with the rise of T20 cricket and changes in the structure of international competitions, maintaining a consistent method of evaluation helps in assessing the relative strengths of teams from different periods. This continuity is essential for preserving the integrity of historical comparisons and for appreciating the progression of the game.

Overall, the use of ELO ratings in cricket offers a sophisticated tool for predicting match outcomes and understanding broader trends within the sport. By capturing the dynamic nature of team performance and accounting for the context of each match, ELO ratings enhance the analysis and appreciation of cricket in all its formats.