Why cricket isn't an Olympic sport

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."

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.