Yes. It is misplaced patriotism. The patriotism that abuses a player for attending to the birth of his child and for skipping after all an ‘international game of sport’. One that throws stones and hurts players families when results don’t go their way. One where ppl die because they couldn’t take a defeat in after all a game of sport because they think their country has lost.
Let me remind you that MSD was the one who sparked the debate pertaining to the birth of a child. Each player has different priorities. MSd didnt attend the birth of his daughter by citing the CWC 2015 preparation. However, Virat and Umesh did. This isn't misplaced patriotism. Just cause one person did it, doesn't mean the rest ought to follow suit.
As for people getting upset due to losses, I see nothing wrong in that. India has been an emotional country whenever it comes to sport. If we continually lose (despite being a powerful cricket nation, people are bound to question)
On your 2nd reply - Players priorities are changing. Yes international cricket is still valued right now because the generation where intl cricket was romanticized, are still in play. But already moves are happening to offer players long term contracts where franchises manage player workloads and decide “where the player will play for”. When the next generation takes over, they’ll value IPL/league successes.
How does this translate to '
I said that players play with a lot more freedom/clarity when playing for franchises than when they play with their country name that is tied to the private entity that is associated with ICC' ? I say this ,as my point was specifically in relation to your statement.
If, as per the above, Franchisees start controlling the game(as it happens in football) players would be under more pressure to perform or perish. What you are also forgetting my friend, is that the BCCI still holds all aces to the game. It simply takes 10 seconds for them to devalue the entire league if they feel their own powers are being curtailed.
Franchisees may have a controlling stake in terms of lesser nations- they have always had- English counties powers over the Associate European players- however, that has not let international cricket suffer. WI were stupid enough to let theirs happen- I doubt England, Australia and India would let the same happen.
On your argument about ppl having same feelings for MI or CSK - well it’s completely different. You don’t have a country name associated with those teams. When they lose, fans know that it’s just a franchise and s private company that runs the team. But with internationals, this private company called BCCI runs it under the name “India” (why govt hasn’t objected to it? The govt owns BCCI as a proxy through its ruling party BJP).
I still don't get why you are so against the BCCI representing Indian cricket. Indian govt has not raised any concern, so be it. It is more transparent than Hockey India, WFI, Chess Fed and Indian Football. Secondly, I dont think it wise wise to state that the govt is owning the BCCI via BJP. In essence, whenever a new govt takes centre-stage, all heads of sporting feds are changed. This happens in most of the nations.
Coming to your point over MI or CSK. I guess you answered the concerns of patriotism yourself. People just do not have the same feelings cause these are mere franchisees. For all you know, it simply takes a business down tide to get rid of some of the big names. Rivalries will exist at all levels- however, CSK beating Sialkot/Sydney will never have the same effect that India beating Australia/ Pakistan will have.
