Sorry i have taken so long to respond. Uni got me busy. But lets goooo again..
The boards that are financially poor (such as New Zealand) and are losing players due to that.
I'm not sure what you suggesting here. This was the portion of quote that you said, which is responsed to:
you said:
The ICC's main source of income is sponsorship from the GCC which IIRC was a long contract that took them through their main events (World Cup, Champions Trophy, etc.). What ICC spends their money on is a matter of opinion. The ICC can't really spend their money paying salaries, either, as that would be a major conflict of interest.
Are you saying that the ICC pays the salaries of players of the financially poor boards?
You didn't read, as usual. You say that the ICC needs to be independent to help the weaker boards, whereas the ICC doesn't have to be independent to help the weaker boards. I can't elaborate any further since it goes over your head.
If the ICC in its current state could have aided current boards financially they would have a long time ago. But they never have.
If in a hypotetical situation right now, WI or NZ asked the ICC for an investment in a local academy they are unlikely to get it, since their is no "ICC" to go to. Ohter boards may oppose or dispute it when they meet & the proposal would crash.
What we have now is a ame duck ICC using whatever money it has in useless globalization. If the ICC becomes independent with representatives from all over - the priorities of the ICC would be put into proper prerspective. Thus things like investment in the development of financially weaker boards, would become more of a priority.
The ICC has several independent committees that make a lot of decisions independently from the boards:
International Cricket Council - The ICC - About The Organisation - ICC Commitees
Specifically the Cricket Committee, which is comprised of past and present players as well as others involved in cricket around the world (umpires, referees, statisticians, etc.).
The board reps meet when a decision needs to be made about the executive committee or a decision that may malign one or more countries. E.g. choosing the ICC president.
:laugh.
[B said:
The remit of the ICC Cricket Committee is to discuss and consult on any cricket-playing matters [/B]and to formulate recommendations to the CEC which relate to cricket-playing matters. Any recommendations made by the ICC Cricket Committee will not take effect until they are ratified and/or approved by CEC and the Board.
And who is the CEC??
The 10 member nations plus the ICC Chairman & CEO. Which is what Chappell & I just said. This shocker proves finally for everyone who is still reading our discussion that you really can't read...
As a matter of fact, Tim May i remember a major memeber on this ICC CC, criticised the ICC structure:
Survey shows players lack faith in the ICC | Cricket News | Global | Cricinfo.com
quote said:
The ICC has lost the confidence of the majority of international players and is under pressure to review its "outdated" structure.
A survey conducted by the Federation of International Cricketers' Associations (FICA) during the World Cup makes miserable reading for ICC officials, with 56% of players questioning its ability to run the game and 89% rating the tournament in the Caribbean as average or worse and 87% saying it was too long.
Tim May, FICA's chief executive, called on the ICC to seriously consider reviewing the way it operates. "There has been a growing amount of dissatisfaction amongst a wide variety of cricket stakeholders over the past 24 months, regarding the governance of our game.
"An independent review will determine what is the best and most applicable structure for cricket's international governing body. We strongly believe that the present structure is outdated and not in the best interests of the game."
May, who has not always seen eye-to-eye with Malcolm Speed, the ICC's chief executive, pointed the finger of blame at the committees which run the organisation rather than the individuals at the top. "It's these committees that are ultimately responsible for the performance of the organisation. These committees are mainly comprised of individual representatives of its full members.
"These committees' composition are more than likely to deliver outcomes that are decided on party lines and the self interest of its members rather than the overall good of the game. Affiliation and loyalty to other committee members constituencies must take second place to their duty to the international board and the best interests to the game as a whole.
"The review may well decide that the present structure is the most applicable - if so, all well and good, at least crickets' stakeholders will then know that it is the best structure for our game. But at the moment we don't know whether it is and increasingly stakeholders want to know if there is a better structure."
The World Cup was the subject of the most vehement thumbs-down from the players. "Despite the better than expected playing and venue conditions, the better than expected travel arrangements and other logistical arrangements, the players have returned a less than average rating of the event," May said. "The death of Bob Woolmer, the early exit of India and Pakistan, the long and laborious Super Eights, the lack of exciting matches, the rain-affected final, the unfortunate umpire/referee error at the final, and the long periods that players had at their disposal between matches all affected the players' opinion.
"The less than average rating for the event is consistent with general viewer experience ... small crowds, lack of enthusiasm, one-sided matches are not the recipe for a great report card."
Say something about this this now will ya???...CASE CLOSEDDDD
Ian Chappell has an opinion. And besides, he wasn't complaining about the structure of the ICC but the fact that they make a decision and then each member board doesn't follow through.
HAAAAA...DEAR GOD. THE FACTTTTT that when the memeber nations meet as the "ICC' to make decisions - but tend not to follow through ISSSSSSSSS him complainig about the structure of the ICC. Your crazy yo, interpretening it any other way is is unbelievably retarted. :doh
The purpose of bringing up the NBA is to demonstrate that the different aspects of any sports organization are managed by the same people. That's the point of a hierarchy. A GM doesn't handle day-to-day events, but everyone reports back to him.
But the NBA regardless is a local governing body. It is structured different from gloabl governing bodies.
As i showed you before the
FIBA, B-Ball's world governing body is structured very similar to FIFA, IOC, IAAF, IRB which is what the ICC should become like. Thus proving my point, theirfore your example with the NBA is falls flat on its face.
I admitted that you were right about the government extension part of my argument. The rest of my argument was you suggesting that the ICC go into every country and telling them how to act from the domestic level. For example, you suggested that the ICC should change the way the PCB works (or at least something to the effect that an organization like the PCB wouldn't be part of the FIFA).
*SIGHSSSSSSSS*
. Show me anywhere in this debate of ours where i said anything like this????..
Dude, you have a problem expressing your ideas. You say something like "Dogs like barking" and when I say "Chihuahuas don't like barking" you say "well I didn't specifically say that chihuahuas like barking... I just said dogs like barking :doh:doh STUFF IN LARGE LETTERS!!!". Any time you've come up against a point you can't defend you suggest that you didn't categorically say it.
Well obviously you don't say everything you mean, a lot of implications are made, and many of these implications are obvious.
You cant argue with someone based on implications you think they make especially in typed debate. We are not face to face, so if you are unsure of something i may have said, the best thing for you to do is ask me for clarification. Like what i did @ the start of this post when i asked you what you meant by
" The boards that are financially poor (such as New Zealand) and are losing players due to that..
But you instead have taken the idiotic approach by make long post misrepresenting what i said, thus dragging this argument out longer than it should be. :doh
But going back to this specific point of this portion of post here. Im the one here that watches football & rugby (especially). All you are doing as we debate is making quick internet searches to try to pick holes in my point, that aren't there. So lets be clear once & for alll here:
(A) Im well aware the SA government has laws that pushes for the implementation of quotas in sports. But in rugby it is limited to the domestic competitions.
(B) Its not in the national rugby team, since that would cause a banning from the IRB (although @ times in recent years political pressure has forced a few coloured players to be picked in the national team for the sake of image)
But since SA won the 2007 Rugby WC. Sensibly talk has moved away from implementing quotas into the national side, towards the government themselves improving the infastructure in black communities. So that in the future black/coloured players could make the team on merit.
Thus using this example with rugby. My suggestion that if the ICC was strong & independent. The overblow quota situation that the SA cricket team has implemented since readmission would not have occured - or else being banned would have been a strong possibility. Like Rugby it may have just been limited to the domestic cricket. Simple.
So what you're saying is the ICC should alienate any national teams that they please, understanding that only about 8 teams take the game seriously?
I doubt it would come to that. Pakistan may have alot of government bureaucrats influencing the cricket on all levels in PAK. But they are still soft.
Look at the last 6 monthts comedy show, with them banning players but then reinstating them back in no time. If they fold like that to player selection pressure, much less if a strong ICC where to threaten their cricket existence with strict rules.
I do have a problem with your lack of prowess while typing. It's hard enough to wade through your massive posts without having to mentally correct three typos in every sentence and a bunch of unneeded punctuation marks.
Equally i aslo have a problem with you lack of prowess while comprehening & responding to my posts. Its hard enough to wade through your massive posts of your misrepresenting my points & having correct you in every other posts. So it seems we have a mutual problem, what are we going to dooooo :laugh
You are confused. The ICC didn't mandate the UDRS. If the Cricket Committee tomorrow decided that UDRS is mandatory in ICC-sanctioned Test series, then all boards would have to provide that service. The reason the ICC can't do that is:
(a) Some boards aren't rich enough to afford the technology
(b) The television producers don't have a motive to invest in the technology
(c) The ICC isn't rich enough to afford the technology
If the ICC makes it the law, all boards will have to follow suit. When the ICC decided to mandate the Super Sub and the Power Play, everyone followed those rules. When the ICC required third umpires, everyone followed those rules. When the ICC requires the UDRS, everyone will follow that rule. They have to figure out how to pay for it before they make it mandatory.
I've said this a million times and I still don't think it registers in your head.
Points A,B,C are the facts. But as i've continuously said, the fact that the ICC has got into the predicament of not being able to find a way to pay for the URDS - thus having various test series going on & one has the URDS & one doesnt - is a insult to test cricket.
Thats poor administration. You would never see such things in other sports. What should have been happening is the URDS just been implemented in ODIs & T20s, make sure they are 100% comfortable with the technology & have found a way make sure every test series can have - then implement it in tests.
But instead its been implemented in tests - been adjusted twice now & yet not every test series has it. Utterly ridiculous & is another clear example why the ICC needs revamping into a more independent body, since these kind of administrative flaws should not be happening.
This is the second time you have made a dig at India as a football nation. I guess you have trouble with metaphors, so I will abandon this part of the argument for the sake of my sanity.
Ahh shut upp..stick to the bloody point. You where the once that made the ridiculous statement that:
you said:
You obviously missed/ignored the point about India since it contradicted your statements. The Indian football federation is about as useful an organization as the PCB. There are approximately two good football teams (Mahindra United and Mohan Bagan--of course I don't follow Indian football at all so I don't really know). The former of these teams decided to shut up shop last year (as far as I remember). So football in India is definitely in an implosive state. You make a point earlier pretending that FIFA maintains totalitarian control over all its member organizations to make sure that all of them fit a standard. If such a standard exists, then it is certainly questionable that the Indian football federation can squeak through. And if it doesn't, then all your huffing and puffing is actually just smoke without fire. FIFA happens to mask its ineffectiveness in dealing with crappy member boards by having enough really well-run boards that control the majority of the power share
Trying to stupidly critique FIFA as a independent governing body because of the state of Indian football. A stupid notion which i fundamentally rebutted.
So dont try to twist the portion of argument to make is sound as if im taking any digs @ Indian football, dont be giving poster no impressions. If i'm taking any digs, its @ your foolishness in this debate. In which your futile attempt to defend the lack of proper ICC & questioning of FIFA as a governing body, has been an utter joke.
This is the second time also you have tried to accuse of being anti-Indian in this debate also.
It isn't the BCCI's fault that the New Zealand and Bangladesh players prefer to play for money than for their country. I think most everyone would follow in their footsteps.
HAAAAAAAAA...what kind of disrespectful statement is this. You better hope NZ & BANG poster dont see this post. Since this is total misrepresentation of what occured with those two nations players, during the inital outbreak of ICL/IPL circa 2007/08.
Those players dont prefer money of playing for their country. No international cricket has taken that route for to date. What occured in the outbreak & confusion of IPL/ICL circa 2007/08 after everyone suddenly took a liking to T20 cricket after the success of the 1st WC in South Africa. Players especially from the less fortunate nations (although ICL mainly comprised of past/retired international players) saw a good oppurtunity to play in ICL -earn a quick extra money ANDDDD continue to play for their countries.
But then IPL broke out early 2008 & caused ICL to be banned & the likes of Bond, Yousuf, Razzaq & top BANG players were caught up in the confusion. Bond was probably the biggest casualty, so dont talk BS man.
Secondly, the IPL is a domestic tournament. As you have already said earlier, not even the FA has a say in how the Premiership is run. How could the ICC possibly have a say in how the IPL is run? The only thing they could preempt is the salaries and put a salary cap on it. But otherwise, it is a free market for labor so anyone can play wherever they want, which is usually the place that pays more money.
IPL although technically its a domestic tournament, its being fronted as a major global tournament. It would be nothing without the international players, so throwing the millions at the players was only way to get them. Which was effective because of the poor ICC structure.
The IPL the football equivalent, to the one of the rich arabian oil-men creating a football league in UAE in the aim of "developing asian football". Thus telling the star players they will offer them 10-20 times more than their clubs & they all go rushing.
BCCI has we basically know is the defacto leader of world cricket. ICC is so messed up administratively that T20 explosion crica 07/08 exposed how bad it is. So Modi in his IPL vision didn't need a "governing body's" approval to sanction the tournament - they didn't need to create NOC contracts - and didn't have to form an alliance with the MCC to promise to uphold to rules and spirit of the game during the IPL. The IPL could have been just as renegade as the ICL.
The IPL needed international players, so the the carrot (the big bucks) was first offered. The stick (4-international rules restriction) was then applied, so that the idea of an "Indian tournament" could be upheld, which illustrated the shocking power the BCCI has in the game since that should have never been allowed to happen
The fact that is was established with such a strong pretence to appeal to the Indian base. Is not in the interest of the global cricket community.
Under a proper ICC structure - India being the inventors of this tournament bringing the idea to the games governing body. A compromise should have been made.
If IPL & Modi did not want to change to rule, the IPL should have never been established (at least in its current form).
Consider the fact that several Australian and English cricketers decided to play for their country instead of running off to the IPL. They made an informed decision to forego more cash for patriotism. That was a decision they made.
Thats because the established AUS & ENG players get payed well, thus they wont feel the need to play in the IPL like SRI, PAK, NZ, WI players. Thats fairly obvious...
Here are a few:
1. Banning the IPL thereby: affecting India.
The IPL doesn't need to be banned. Just get rid of the 4 international player rule restriction. Make IPL the one annaul global T20 tournament.
I dont see how India would be affected in any case, if what i suggested happens. More paranoia on your part..
2. Requiring players play for their country of birth: affecting mainly England.
:laugh. Stupid point & stupid dig @ England. England is multi-cultural society that many people from around the world come for a better life. So technically foreign born/british adapted people will always be involved in sports, business etc.
To use FIFA as an example. If you already represented your country @ under 21 level you cant play for another nation. FIFA has this strict rule since the game is so global you dont want lesser nations losing good players to elite countries.
But cricket isn't that big so i dont think, this sport needs to be so strict. What could happen is for the test playing nations (10), if you already playeed for your country @ the Under19 WC, you cant switch - unless your are from an associate memember.
3. Requiring UDRS but not paying for it: affect poorer boards like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, etc.
The ICC would not do something so stupid.
4. Make a window for the IPL: affecting the regular cricket season for all countries that play during that window.
If as i suggested above. The IPL has made as the main "T20 competition in the world & the ICC sets out a month long window for it to be played annually. I dont see how it would affect regular cricket season for all countries.
The best period for a window is probably Septemeber-October. I think most nations are free then.
What this point does prove is that we cant have both the IPL & Champions League. One has to go. The T20 WC every 2 years plus one of the IPL or Champions League is all the global T20 cricket thats needed.
I can think of more if you want.
Please do...
The problem is that with a sport played by only 10 countries, even if you alienate one country, you are affecting 10% of the game. If you alienate any of the Asian countries who tend to stick together, you are probably alienating almost half of the playing countries.
Comparatively, with FIFA there are 207 (I believe, at last count) members of FIFA. One quick example I can think of is the 1950 FIFA World Cup. India qualified to that World Cup but didn't participate because FIFA didn't allow them to play barefoot. While the rule itself makes a lot of sense, it affected a few of the poorer countries, India being one of them. The number of people it affected was marginal compared to the benefits the decision reaped.
If one of the 10 cricketing countries couldn't afford shoes (hypothetically), and the ICC required you to wear shoes at World Cups, that's 10% of the playing population that you are alienating. Now just replace shoes with UDRS.
Although the obvious pretence that in the small cricket community if one country is aliendated - you would aleint alot of countries as well. I highly doubt that situation would ever come to pass if the ICC is proper governing body.
The ICC although it will be a firm governing body, it doesn't have to be radical in its implementation of certain rules. Once the ICC has is house in order - the boards (like a Pakistan) will have its house in order as we have discussed above, since it wont want alienation - it would have a cascading effect.
Your example with URDS as i said above is ridiculous & the ICC in the curren ineffective state not a potentially improved state would never do that.
You would have a small - but disciplined world governing body, just like other small governing bodies like the IRB (Intl Rugby Board) for example.
Going back to your whole tirade against developing cricket, perhaps the ICC could use some of the budget from developing cricket and move it to UDRS. However, how does the independence of the ICC cause this budget to move. An independent ICC could just as well decide that the development of cricket is more important.
Its possible it still would, since every governing body wants to spread the popularity of its sport to some degree. But it has too much importance in cricket ATM & i highly doubt if the ICC becomes independent, if the importance of globalization isn't fundamentally reduced.
You are basically drawing gray lines and assuming that an "independent ICC" will do your bidding. It is not the independence of the ICC that is affecting most of the problems, it is just the plausibility of the decisions. It is much easier to write on paper "fund a separate operation to pay for UDRS" than to actually direct the budget towards that operative.
No grey lines whatsoever. As i've painstakingly explained above & showed in articles. The ICC not being independent is the clear root problem of all the foolish admimistrative problems it has currently.
How does it hurt by having more people interested in the game? Test cricket has survived for centuries... why are you paranoid that it will cease to exist just because of the influx of Twenty20 fans? When ODIs started becoming popular in the 70's, people predicted an untimely death of Test cricket yet here we are with so many teams competitive in Test cricket. Most young cricketers still grow up with ambitions of playing Test cricket for their country.
Hello, rest your bloody self. Dont be trying to mock my post. Where the hellll is anything i said above emotional???
- Is it emotional that that black british folks of caribbean descent dont have interest in cricket or a fact????. Please tell me how many british black people play country cricket in England currently???
- Is is emotional that since the decline of West Indies cricket that many youngsters in that region have been attracted by other sports such as Baskeball, football, athletics???. Emotion or fact????
Although ODI outbreak did have intially worries of killing test cricket in the late 1970s with the Packer stuff. The T20 beast is far uglier, youngsters outside of the established nations like AUS, ENG, IND, SA given their teams lack of success may very well prefer T20 big bucks to test cricket unless the amount of T20 cricket tournament worldwide is controlled. Of that im convinced & evidence backs up my claim.
Test cricket has always been a sport that has a very select group of followers. Kind of like baseball, I guess. Not everyone watches it and nor should everyone be required to enjoy it to be considered a fan of cricket.
Personally, I find all forms of cricket equally entertaining.
The Twenty20 boom will inevitably bust. For someone who doesn't have any interest in cricket, you are more likely to hook them through Twenty20 cricket rather than through Test cricket.
And you can always convert a new Twenty20 fan into a Test cricket fan.[/quote]
The T20 boom wont burst if we too much T20 cricket is played. Its form a cricket that needs muzzled.
Plus i dont which new T20 fans you have met. But the majority of them i have met & seen just like that form of cricket because its short. The find test cricket absolutely boring...
Representatives do represent the point of view of the underlying organization. That's the definition of the word. You can't weasel your way around that. Each board sends a representative to the nomination process.
Technically that is the job of the representatives of the
ICC EXECUTIVE BOARD & IDI BOARD OF DIRECTORS. But given that part of the ICC is basically lame-duck, its obvious the real decision making in the appointment of Howard came from the
ICC CHIEF EXECUTIVES' COMMITTEE (whhich is basically the 10 nation boards heads).
Since when the majority of the media quesitonied the ICC what where the reasons Howard was rejected, all we got was 'their was not enough support".
But given the ICC EB is so lame duck compared to FIFA EB as you researched below. The real influence in Howard not being dominated did come from one board which was the BCCI. Then again as i've continously said, i'm not a fan of people like Howard who has no playing or organsational background in cricket to become ICC president.
By the way, I did some research into the FIFA process and the FIFA Congress nominates a President. The Congress consists of all members. Each member has one vote. The Congress makes decisions about the following:
FIFA.com - Things to know
So you see, the members do vote to elect the next FIFA president. And in the last election, Blatter received 66/207 nominations (
BBC SPORT | Football | Blatter secures third Fifa term). Since he was running uncontested, he got the post (I'm also not sure how majority rules work in the FIFA).
Q.E.D.
AHHHH very good research. FIFA is struggled better than i thought then, everyone really does have a say. So inversely this research has helped my argument on why the ICC becomes more independent & could still involve all its main & associate countries.
If doesn't have follow this FIFA set-up totally since its not as big, but is a lovely blueprint.
You haven't shown me anything to suggest why the ICC should change, at least not in this argument. In fact, I've probably got more ammo against the ICC than you have:
1. Improper umpire review system (the promotion/relegation of umpires is very dealyed)
2. Illogically-designed international calendar.
3. Flawed ranking system.
4. Organization of too many multi-lateral tournaments (they should stop at the just the World Cup and the Twenty20 World Cup).
5. Lack of determinism in how to deal with weather-affected games (although they've taken a step to solving that with the new weather rules).
None of these have anything to do with the independence of the organization and everything to do with stupid people in strong positions.
Excuse me whattt??...Who are these stupid people in strong positions then??. Isn't it the ICC CEC??. If it is then quite obviously AFAICS, making the ICC independent would eradicate most of those 5 problems:
1. I have not done much research about the umpire review system. But i dont see a problem with the main crop of 'elite" umpires that officiate in most tests.
2. The ICC doesn't design the international calendar last i checked. ICC only mandates two tests and 3 ODIs every six years home and away. Anything above that is done by the respective boards in a bilateral manner.
I can defiantely see if the ICC become independent, they can control that.
3. Yea the ranking system is flawed. All sports ranking system is flawed, so cant blame ICC in its current format for that. We dont need a ranking system in cricket AFAIC.
4. I dont see why the Champions trophy needs to be scrapped. Those 3 gloabl tournaments dont neeed to go. What needs to go is either one of the IPL or Champions League.
5. Am this is weird criticism. Admittedly not everyone is fan od Duckworth-Lewis, but it has worked fine in ODIs for years & everyone accepts it. What i would say is that they probably need to tweak if for T20s, as highlighted by some of the rain affected games England where involved in the last 2 T20 world-cups.
You are strongly mistaken. The vast majority of cricket fans couldn't care less about the ICC. If you visited a gully in Mumbai, you would likely know the score for the latest day of cricket, but no one would be able to tell you that John Howard's nomination for President failed.
People who worry about how the ICC is structured are clearly not spending enough time watching cricket.
So you got Ian Chappell and the ex-ICC President concerned about the ICC. Bravo! How about people who actually play and watch the game? Is Tendulkar having trouble sleeping at night today because he's worried that the ICC is not independent enough? Is Salman Butt thinking more about John Howard than the upcoming Test against England? Are the thousands of cricket fans in Pakistan worried stiff if the ICC will implement the UDRS or are they celebrating in the afterglow of their tied series against Australia?
Right...
Survey shows players lack faith in the ICC | Cricket News | Global | Cricinfo.com
This survey descridits that boring rant..
How are these names going to be chosen? Are they just random people, ex-cricketers, representatives from each country, etc.? Would you be eligible to be elected to this executive committee, for example?
You see the flaw, right? All you're doing is adding another level of indirection. The member boards would obviously look to choose someone who would represent their interests--that's the whole purpose of a representative.
Your very good research of how FIFA is structured as i said above, should answer this question for you.
And you suggest that these same guys who've been voted in by each board would suddenly decide, "Oh well, screw those guys who voted me into power since I'm a completely neutral person" and vote against the interests of the boards when necessary?
HAAAA...this is complete crazy paranoia. Only god knows why you think a potential president of an independent ICC would suddenly become so radical. JESUSS :doh
It would stop, only to be replaced by an equally ridiculous process.
Yes ALLLLLL the major sports governing body are structured this way to some degree. While many respect cricket journalist & ICC insider like David Morgan & Tim May have also suggested such a change.
Only in your deluusional world would such a process be deemed ridiculous.
This is the first time you actually put it clearly into words in a manner that I could clearly point out how nothing would change. Thanks, that's all I really wanted you to do, since it has proven impossible for me to otherwise show why what you are suggesting is no different from what exists right now!
If by the time you reach this point of the argument & still believe the bolded. This argument can cease to exist.
I guess you need to check your definition of peak again.
If you think that one team dominating (Australia) and all the other teams battling for second place and only being able to be consistent at home (like it was in the last decade) is more competitive than there being no clear top team (like it is now), then you're blind.
Of course i dont think that dumb dumb, haha DEAR GOD. Test Cricket is not @ peak competition.
- We have 3 nations in AUS, SA, IND that will always be competitve againts each other home & away.
- While ENG & SRI on occassions could upset those 3 nations if they slip up.
- The we have the bottom pile of PAK, NZ, WI, BANG who are woefully inconsistent.
Under no circumstances is this PEAK compeition in test cricket.:doh