Markkkkk
I have waited 10 years for this!
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2011
- Location
- Southern Africa
- Profile Flag
- South Africa
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS4
General Cricket Discussion
- Thread starter aussie1st
- Start date
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Its an absolute farce. ICC told the world in their usual BS reasoning that they can't do play the world test championship, so they bring back the C-Trophy with this ridiculous stipulation that could see Windies or PAK not involved.
Last C-Trophy if i recall Bangladesh didn't play because of another stupid rule now this. The "Big Three" just carrying on the same foolishness administrative decision that the lame duck ICC would do.
I think you have totally missed the point here.
CT is s tournament where only the Top 8 in the ODI table upto the cut off point qualify. The cut off is Sept. So by winning the ODI series B'desh have ensured a top 8 finish and qualification for the CT. They missed out last one because they were not good enough to get into the top 8.
If one of WI or Pak are not good enough to get into the top 8, why are you dissing the ICC for it. The rules have been very clear. Also WI not having any more games till Sept, is neither here nor there. They may not have any games now, but the table takes into account matches over the past three years. So WI had plenty of time to have ODI matches and they did. If at the end of it they can't make the cut, the ICC is not to blame for it.
There is no inconsistency or "ridiculous stipulation" as you put it. Its a very straight forward rule - if you are in the top 8 you play in the CT, if you are not in the top 8 you don't get the ticket.
Blaming the ICC for Pakistan or WI missing out is nonsense.
themusketeer
ICC Board Member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2014
- Location
- Greater Noida
- Profile Flag
- India
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
Mustafizur has now more 5-fers than Warne, Zaheer, Kapil, Walsh, Imran, Holding etc.
Bowling records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
Bowling records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Excuse me what? I'm very much aware of what's going on my friend. So you just wasted post typing all that.
There was no reason now as they did in the last C-Trophy to set it up via the ridiculous rule to not allow all the top 9 nations involved. It was disrespectful to Bangladesh last time & many felt it was deliberate attempt by ICC to keep them out. Now that BANG have pulled off some surprise wins and jumped up in rankings a bit - it ludicrous to think WI or PAK could not be involved.
You could set up the C-Trophy structure in other ways to allow all teams - without limiting it to the top 8 teams.
The key point in this is not even this however. As i said before C-Trophy was a tournament the ICC on cricket logic of having one major tournament per format, decided to scrap after India won it in 2013 ICC news: No Champions Trophy after 2013 | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo, was only brought back because their main broadcast partners (mainly from Indian) were not convinced about test championship, which was suppose to start in 2017.
Its was ridiculous compromise based simply on money and another example of ICC/Big 3 administrative foolishness.
Are you kidding me? So you want CT to be an exact replica of the WC, where every team gets an entry automatically. So what is then the difference between the WC and the CT?
Also I find it amusing that setting up a qualification requirement, is "disrespectful" to the teams who fail to qualify. I mean just what?
Other sports also have their version of the Champions Trophy, most notably Field Hockey, where in their CT, only the top 6 qualify. Would you say that the Hockey CT is "disrespectful" to the teams who can't make the cut. Why do Pakistan or WI, or any team for that matter have a "right" to turn up and play the CT? If you qualify you make it, if you are not good enough you sit the tournament out. There is nothing disrespectful about that at all.
Is the UEFA Champs League being disrespectful to the 5th place team in La Liga, when they don't qualify for the CL? Some tournaments are not (and should not be), a no requirement everyone invited event, and require some sort of qualification. If last year B'desh and this year Pakistan or WI, and perhaps next year Ind or Aus or who ever are not in the Top 8 at the cut off period then they don't get in. Simple as that.
Lastly if you are complaining that some broadcaster (Indian or not) poured water on a test championship because it was not financially rewarding, or that ICC opted against having a test championship because of financial reasons, then just what exactly is the problem. Basic economic sense says that any event which is not financially viable, will not go ahead. Why should any governing body with any sense at all, spend resources on an event that ultimately is not going to work financially. Organising the test championship will cost resources and if ultimately the payoff is not going to be big enough, there is no financial sense in going ahead with it.
You seem to use "money" as if it were a dirty word (To quote - "Its was ridiculous compromise based simply on money ..."). I can't understand why decisions made for financial reasons is so baffling to you. Any body, be it a corporate or a governing body or government, everyone, with even half an ounce of sense takes into account the finances before going ahead with something. If the finances don't add up they put the event on hold till the event is more financially viable.
If the ICC feels a Test Championship is not financially possible right now, and needs to be put off till later, then fine. Its a sensible financial decision, that makes total sense. Yet you want to critcise the ICC for being financially prudent, I don't understand.
If the ICC was throwing away money with both hands, holding tournaments that were causing the ICC losses, that is when I would worry.
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Are you kidding me? So you want CT to be an exact replica of the WC, where every team gets an entry automatically. So what is then the difference between the WC and the CT?
Also I find it amusing that setting up a qualification requirement, is "disrespectful" to the teams who fail to qualify. I mean just what?
Other sports also have their version of the Champions Trophy, most notably Field Hockey, where in their CT, only the top 6 qualify. Would you say that the Hockey CT is "disrespectful" to the teams who can't make the cut. Why do Pakistan or WI, or any team for that matter have a "right" to turn up and play the CT? If you qualify you make it, if you are not good enough you sit the tournament out. There is nothing disrespectful about that at all.
Is the UEFA Champs League being disrespectful to the 5th place team in La Liga, when they don't qualify for the CL? Some tournaments are not (and should not be), a no requirement everyone invited event, and require some sort of qualification. If last year B'desh and this year Pakistan or WI, and perhaps next year Ind or Aus or who ever are not in the Top 8 at the cut off period then they don't get in. Simple as that.
Lastly if you are complaining that some broadcaster (Indian or not) poured water on a test championship because it was not financially rewarding, or that ICC opted against having a test championship because of financial reasons, then just what exactly is the problem. Basic economic sense says that any event which is not financially viable, will not go ahead. Why should any governing body with any sense at all, spend resources on an event that ultimately is not going to work financially. Organising the test championship will cost resources and if ultimately the payoff is not going to be big enough, there is no financial sense in going ahead with it.
You seem to use "money" as if it were a dirty word (To quote - "Its was ridiculous compromise based simply on money ..."). I can't understand why decisions made for financial reasons is so baffling to you. Any body, be it a corporate or a governing body or government, everyone, with even half an ounce of sense takes into account the financesbefore going ahead with something. If the finances don't add up they put the event on hold till the event is more financially viable.
If the ICC feels a Test Championship is not financially possible right now, and needs to be put off till later, then fine. Its a sensible financial decision, that makes total sense. Yet you want to critcise the ICC for being financially prudent, I don't understand.
If the ICC was throwing away money with both hands, holding tournaments that were causing the ICC losses, that is when I would worry.
ICC & financially prudent haha. Ever sane cricket person knows the importance of having the test championship because we have the ridiculous scenario where test teams as we say in recent years with India & England being given #1 test status and a mace because of a faulty ranking system.
ICC has never sold the test championship idea properly & i have seen some good suggestion of how to run particularly by Martin Crowe a few years ago on Cricinfo. So from that POV i don't blame broadcasters for not wanting to invest in tournament that really has no plan.
So its a obvious failure on the ICC part for not convincing them to come on board, that incompetence that has nothing to do with being financial prudent or smart.
Also did I ever ever say or suggest that CT should be just like the WC?
My idea has always bee ever since they muted bringing back CT was to make it a knock-out like the ones in 1998 and 2000.
Instead of the 11 teams of 2000 edition, we could say use 12 (ALL 10 test playing nations + two associates in Ireland & Afghanistan for eg)
- 4 knockout games in the "play-off or pre-quarter final stage"
- 4 quarter finals
- semi's & final
The top 8 nations who would slip into to play in the play-off stage, depend on their ranking in their ODI table. So this might inadvertently help to give bilateral ODI series some context because the big sides would know they have such a tournament coming up & would surely want to avoid the play-off phase.
This would be a better penalty to a team like PAK or WI for poor ODI form instead of the current situation which could see one of them not involved in tournament at all.
Yes a test championship would be great, and I want one too. However I do understand the fiances will always dominate any decision in a global sports body, and that Test cricket is not the most sellable or commercial format there is in cricket. I am happy to wait till a test championship becomes more a more financially viable option.
Till then the ICC can just fix those Test tables, for the rankings to make more sense.
Look I am all for everyone being able to express their opinion, but in saying that you think ICC cannot sell the test championship, you are over-reaching a little bit. You may agree with Crowe's idea, the broadcaster's didn't. Or with whatever idea they pitched. The thing being just because you like Crowe's plan doesn't mean everyone must too. I don't know what format of Test Championship ICC wants to have, maybe it wants a more comprehensive test championship, than waht Crowe suggested, which I think was 4 team tournament (2 Sfs and 1 final), and they didn't reach and agreement on it being financially prudent right now.
See you are in a rush here to nail the ICC. Have you any details on what the ICC proposed as the test championship, the format, the venue, the prize money etc. Have you any idea what the sponsor suggested, or the broadcaster suggest. Have you any idea, exactly what part was the point where the negotiations broke.
There is no info on all this. You are simple in a hurry to nail the ICC, and in the absence of all this info, nothing is obvious as you put it. How do you know that the negotiations didn't break down, because the broadcaster simply want to pay too little for the rights, or that the sponsor wanted to pay too little.
See thats your opinion. You think this will be a better format and want to diss the ICC for not having the ICC in this format. Don't you see how lame and ridiculous that is.
You have a format which you think works best, and the ICC is instead having another format where some form of qualification is required, and where every team doesn't automatically get to participate, and you can't blame the ICC for not agreeing with whatever format you think is best !!
I mean its nonsense of the highest order. ICC how dare you have the CT in a format different from what I think will be the best. Just grow up man, seriously.
ICC has chosen a format where only top 8 teams qualify and frankly its great, because this is the first time that the useless ODI ranking table has any real use and meaning. Are you in the top 8, who cared before, but now that table matters.
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Yes a test championship would be great, and I want one too. However I do understand the fiances will always dominate any decision in a global sports body, and that Test cricket is not the most sellable or commercial format there is in cricket. I am happy to wait till a test championship becomes more a more financially viable option.
Till then the ICC can just fix those Test tables, for the rankings to make more sense.
Look I am all for everyone being able to express their opinion, but in saying that you think ICC cannot sell the test championship, you are over-reaching a little bit. You may agree with Crowe's idea, the broadcaster's didn't. Or with whatever idea they pitched. The thing being just because you like Crowe's plan doesn't mean everyone must too. I don't know what format of Test Championship ICC wants to have, maybe it wants a more comprehensive test championship, than waht Crowe suggested, which I think was 4 team tournament (2 Sfs and 1 final), and they didn't reach and agreement on it being financially prudent right now.
See you are in a rush here to nail the ICC. Have you any details on what the ICC proposed as the test championship, the format, the venue, the prize money etc. Have you any idea what the sponsor suggested, or the broadcaster suggest. Have you any idea, exactly what part was the point where the negotiations broke.
There is no info on all this. You are simple in a hurry to nail the ICC, and in the absence of all this info, nothing is obvious as you put it. How do you know that the negotiations didn't break down, because the broadcaster simply want to pay
All of this is essentially one point so I will group it. As far as i know & you should too based on all available reporting online since the ICC mooted the idea of a test championship they have never publicly articulated a format which is the most important thing.
This is last statement the ICC made about WTC that I know of:
'Big Three were more likely to make progress' - Alan Isaac | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo
'Struggled to find Test Championship format'
David Richardson, the ICC CEO, has said the inability to find a suitable format led to the World Test Championship failing to get off the ground.
"I think we were always struggling to find a format for WTC that could be completed within a relatively short space of time and that would not lead to more damage than good," Richardson said. "As we know draws are such an important part of Tests and you've seen numerous formats tried in various countries where you have a final for your domestic competitions and those finals always tend to be damp squibs really because one team is playing for a draw on first-innings lead."
Richardson said the lack of a Test Championship was not a setback for the format as the ICC's rankings were becoming significant. "If you look at it the way the board has looked at it now, we have the ranking system which is becoming more and more prominent, more and more people taking note of it, more teams are trying to end the year as No. 1 and earn the financial prize money that goes with that. There's prestige involved in being No. 1 and holding the mace."
For world cups and champions trophies ICC is usually quick to tell us what format will be used. For the next world cup unless something chances drastically we already know that associates will be less.
Broadcasters are quick to jump on board that while many cricket people feel in light of associates good showing in W-Cup 2015 that change is not needed.
You are correct as i myself mentioned that ICC has not told the public/media what were the WTC idea that they told broadcasters. However the suggestion ive read from most media since then & some i spoke to was the what Richardson said was just a smoke screen to real fact that the broadcasters simply didn't want a test championship & ICC didn't put up a real effort to convince them otherwise.
This is where the influence of broadcasters in cricket & all sports is has its dangers.
There is really no way ICC can fix those mathematical tables to get proper accuracy. Rankings should be a guide not the absolute truth.
I accept the reality that test cricket has its marketing issues - but cricket has created so many bad series, tournament concepts i.e consistent two test series, latest champions trophy, some world cup formats over the years - that they should try harder to get some version of WTC off the ground, whether its what Martin Crowe suggested, Mark Nicholas or whoever -
- Time Out : Time Out with Harsha Bhogle | How will a Test championship work? | Cricket videos, MP3, podcasts, cricket audio | ESPN Cricinfo (listen this)
- Mark Nicholas: We need to make a Test championship work | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo
- http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/426001.html
If they stumble along before they get it right, its better than using the ranking system and getting another incorrect # 1 test teams like IND & ENG were in recent years.
However again due to ICC weak position, they probably don't have the leverage to be to forceful with broadcasters.
See thats your opinion. You think this will be a better format and want to diss the ICC for not having the ICC in this format. Don't you see how lame and ridiculous that is.
You have a format which you think works best, and the ICC is instead having another format where some form of qualification is required
I mean its nonsense of the highest order. ICC how dare you have the CT in a format different from what I think will be the best. Just grow up man, seriously.
ICC has chosen a format where only top 8 teams qualify and frankly its great, because this is the first time that the useless ODI ranking table has any real use and meaning. Are you in the top 8, who cared before, but now that table matters.
Ha you are quite dramatic. Last I checked as a fan I have no access to the ICC decision makers, so by no means am i suggesting my opinion of an alternative CT format be used is the best & ICC not implementing it is a cause for a world war
I am quite certain my idea has not been seen by any ICC member.
Since back in last CT in 2013 had kept Bangladesh out due to current format, many other people I have discussed this with on planetcricket and away from site dont like set-up. In fact you are first person or media that I have actually heard say that they agree with it.
If anyone else can suggest another CT format idea where test playing teams are involved I'd support that too.
Are you then saying that if your India team in next CT is possibly finds themselves in a similar position to PAK & WI you could possibly accept a CT without India? I know broadcasters wont ha...
Last edited:
S
Satan666
Guest
Felt obliged to share this video with the community, sadly most of the pride in cricket is not present anymore instead everything is about commercialism.
Are u fking kidding me. You are actually trying to tell me you have no role in how the ICC is run. What next, the sky is blue, or that the sun is hot.
What you are ranting about is that the ICC CT requirements will see Pak or WI miss out and in your opinion that is "disrespectful" to Pak or WI. All teams should make it to the CT.
So basically get over yourself.
ICC has a different plan for the CT, and you can't complain about ICC not (by some co-incidence) having CT in the exact same format that suits your whims.
Talking with you is a total and utter waste. This is probably that last time I am doing this.
Top 10 of 21st century: fans' vote | cricket.com.au
Cricket Australia has conducted a Poll listing the top 100 cricketers of the 21st Century. The Top 5 are -
5. Kallis
4. Ponting
3. Gilchrist
2. Sangakarra
1. Tendulkar
I have to say Gilchrist is an interesting inclusion there. The others in the top 5 are more or less interchageable and depending on your point of view, one could make a case for each of them being the #1. However Glichrist is an unexpected inclusion there. No one is denying that Glichrist was one of the most destructive batsman of the era, but top 5 greatest cricketer is a bit unexpected.
But ah well, over 16000 voters took part in the poll, so I guess he deserves his place, even if I disagree (just a little bit).
Cricket Australia has conducted a Poll listing the top 100 cricketers of the 21st Century. The Top 5 are -
5. Kallis
4. Ponting
3. Gilchrist
2. Sangakarra
1. Tendulkar
I have to say Gilchrist is an interesting inclusion there. The others in the top 5 are more or less interchageable and depending on your point of view, one could make a case for each of them being the #1. However Glichrist is an unexpected inclusion there. No one is denying that Glichrist was one of the most destructive batsman of the era, but top 5 greatest cricketer is a bit unexpected.
But ah well, over 16000 voters took part in the poll, so I guess he deserves his place, even if I disagree (just a little bit).
IceAgeComing
Retired Administrator
- Joined
- May 26, 2013
- Location
- Brussels, Belgium
- Profile Flag
- Scotland
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS3
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
You all are forgetting the worst part in all this: why are they deciding who qualifies for the competition a year and a half before it is held? Not only do they have a terrible system for deciding who qualifies for the thing, but they are deciding way too far in advance so if Pakistan or the West Indies suddenly improves in 2016, they would still be cut out of qualifications
Is that CA thing the one that rated bloody Shane Watson incredibly highly? Because lol at that, he's not a good player
Is that CA thing the one that rated bloody Shane Watson incredibly highly? Because lol at that, he's not a good player
I agree that the cut-off is too soon. They could have cut it off with 6 months to go to the CT. However I do think that top 8 playing the CT makes sense and finally gives some meaning to the ODI ranking.
As for the CA thing, I don't know what list you are referring to, but Watson doesnt feature on list I posted till #40 atleast (I haven't looked beyond #40)
