Brendon McCullum nearly dumped NZ for IPL

[Howsie]

The only real option they have is to do what Sri Lanka did and play India fifteen million times a year. Realistically, though, Australia should be helping them out a bit being one of the richer boards in their vicinity.

Playing the likes of Australia, England, South Africa and India regularly at home would help. The crowds for games involving those four teams are always a lot bigger then when the likes of Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh tour here. But until New Zealand improve as a cricketing country they will only see those teams on these shores once every six or seven years. Instead of looking for ways to make a quick buck New Zealand cricket really should be trying to make the New Zealand team marketable around the entire planet.

How do they do that? Well producing better cricketers for starters would help, improve the level of FC cricket here, perhaps even import one or two overseas players for each domestic team just to get a higher level of play going on. Fight to keep New Zealand's best young athletes playing cricket instead of deciding on rugby or other sports, keeping talent like Israel Dagg for example who at 16 was bowling at over 90mph is almost imperative for a country of New Zealand's size. A team full of big, athletic brutes who can change a game just like that (Your Carins's, Bonds etc) are what people want to see, get an exciting team and people will want to watch.

 

[pcfan123]

That is a great long term solution, but its not going to help keep the current superstars.

IPL salaries might be 3-5 million in a few years

 

[Howsie]

I'd say there isn't a lot any country would be able to do if salaries ever got that ridiculous, you'd just have to hope they stay loyal to the country that got them where they are I spose, or have the ICC step in.

 

[Robelinda]

The ICC should 100% work toward protecting the younger players, who havent even gotten to FC level. At least thats one positive of 20 20, young players will choose cricket over other sports because now there is good money available from the various countries and tournaments. Doesnt help keep the best players long term for each country, which is where the ICC should step in, for all countries, not just NZ, SL, WI etc.

 

[War]

The ICC could help poorer boards like NZ, WI, SRI, PAK alot with its youth development & academies if it was a proper independent governing body as i always say.

Unfortunately in its current state, nothing proper will ever happen.

 

[-D-S-B-]

Fight to keep New Zealand's best young athletes playing cricket instead of deciding on rugby or other sports, keeping talent like Israel Dagg for example who at 16 was bowling at over 90mph is almost imperative for a country of New Zealand's size.

Wow, I just read Israel Dagg's Wikipedia page, and he is super talented !
If a kid is bowling 90 mph at the age of 16 NZ cricket need to do the best they can to keep them in the sport. But he obviously thinks he'll have a better career in rugby, which he probably will so good luck to him.

 

[sohum]

The ICC could help poorer boards like NZ, WI, SRI, PAK alot with its youth development & academies if it was a proper independent governing body as i always say.

Unfortunately in its current state, nothing proper will ever happen.

The ICC is not the responsible party for a country that has been playing Test cricket for that long. New Zealand has produced enough world-class cricketers and has been dominant enough in ODI cricket (they were ranked in the top 4 for a large part of this decade) that they should be able to sustain themselves.

The ICC plays no part in youth development and academies--this is all up to the individual country boards. Nor should they impose their regulation on those boards because that would destroy the unique domestic structure prevalent in each region.

What you're talking about is not an "independent governing body" but a "dominating autonomous body" that controls everything, and that is definitely NOT what the ICC should become. The main goal of the ICC right now is to spread cricket, and that is not a decision that has been taken by any single member board. Your argument that a single or minority of boards is causing a developed cricket nations system to suffer is farcical at best.

 

[ShamiLoverGlipGlops]

It is a shame even that he thought of dumping NZ!!!

 

[War]

The ICC is not the responsible party for a country that has been playing Test cricket for that long. New Zealand has produced enough world-class cricketers and has been dominant enough in ODI cricket (they were ranked in the top 4 for a large part of this decade) that they should be able to sustain themselves.

The ICC plays no part in youth development and academies--this is all up to the individual country boards. Nor should they impose their regulation on those boards because that would destroy the unique domestic structure prevalent in each region.

What?

Cricket only has 10 strong nations (8 if you want to get really specific). I dont see why especially when half of that 10 doesn't have strong domestic structures, cricket interest not being as strong as before (Windies & NZ), plus the unfortunate situation with Pakistan given that no-one can tour there.

Why the ICC if it was strong independent body can't play a major part in helping to finance & improve local academies to bridge that gap lacking in other areas for the poorer cricket boards.

What you're talking about is not an "independent governing body" but a "dominating autonomous body" that controls everything, and that is definitely NOT what the ICC should become. The main goal of the ICC right now is to spread cricket, and that is not a decision that has been taken by any single member board. Your argument that a single or minority of boards is causing a developed cricket nations system to suffer is farcical at best.

What?.

I am certainly talking about the ICC being a "independent governing body". I dont know what nonsense you going about their about me suggesting the ICC become a "dominating autonomous body", like WTF???

The ICC without a doubt should be independent from the boards. The way it has always been structured since the inception has made England the defacto leaders in the past & now India - which is ridiculous. None of the other major sporting bodies like FIFA, IOC, IRB is structured that way.

Plus i totally disagree that the ICC should be trying to 'spread cricket". All their efforts to try & make cricket popular in America & China are a total waste of time - it will neever happen.

The ICC should be trying to make sure the main 10 nations are all fairly strong & should invest in the likes of WI, NZ, PAK, SRI.

Your argument that a single or minority of boards is causing a developed cricket nations system to suffer is farcical at best.

:laugh Jesus WTF..when did i say that sir??. Dont be putting words into my mouth

 

[Vilander]

Aus can't help in this matter, they do not have fanatical following that Ind has, i think India needs to play few more games with NZ, cant let the game get weaker in NZ..

 

[pcfan123]

Yes we need the Indians to save the NZ cricketers from the IPL :sarcasm

 

[ShamiLoverGlipGlops]

You need some Talibanis who should ruin IPL and put an end to IPL to stop cricketers coming here!!

 

[pcfan123]

not that either hopefully. Id like the IPL to die, but not at the cost of human life.

 

[ShamiLoverGlipGlops]

Humans will not be effected!! We have an Indian Taliban in naxals!!

They just kill what seems to be right and not hurt others(Not know I suppose )

 

[sohum]

War, you implied that if the ICC was an "independent governing body" that they would be involved in the finances of the weaker boards. There's no connection between the two. The ICC being independent won't mean that they'll be giving money away to WI, NZ, SL, etc. Also, what do you mean by "independent"? You seem to throw that word around but please do describe how an organization will be independent from bias with only 10 countries to satisfy?

Secondly, even if a hypothetical "independent" utopia existed, the ICC would have no jurisdiction whatsoever to invest in so many different countries. If you are not already aware, all cricket boards are extensions of the country's government. The ICC does not have a right to change that system since each country has a separate governing system in place. And that's not the ICC's problem either, since in every single sport (even your beloved football) the domestic governing body is an extension of the government.

Potentially what the ICC could do is give money to the government and hope that they allocate it to cricket. Even then, where is all this money coming from? Making the ICC an "independent governing body" wouldn't magically convert them into a cash cow. There are too many flaws in this argument.

Finally, when you said "unfortunately in its current state, nothing proper will ever happen", there was a definite implication that because the ICC is not stable from a power standpoint, NZ, SL, WI and the poorer boards are suffering. That's no different from my statement that "a single or minority of boards is causing a developed cricket nations system to suffer". Even if the ICC reached some hypothetical realm where some independent body decided everything (and I assume none of the 10 Test nations would be represented to make it truly independent) none of these problems would be fixed, as I elaborated above. In fact, the fact that wealthy nations do exist have actually helped (at least in Asia, where India is willing to share it's wealth with it's Sri Lankan and Bangladeshi neighbors--something that Australia seems unwilling to do).

Basically when you said "if it was a proper independent governing body as i always say" you are referring to some magical silver bullet that would solve all issues in world cricket, which is something that simply does not and will not exist.