General Cricket Discussion

[wasteyouryouth]

I've recently noticed a lot of agenda driven articles being written in the Anglosphere over the death of international cricket as we know it, the death of tests, the death of ODIs and a Gulf fuelled future of T20 cricket. Wonder what prompted all of it?

The agenda to marginalise international cricket and fill the calendar with T20 cricket.

 

[Bevab]

The agenda to marginalise international cricket and fill the calendar with T20 cricket.

I'm honestly buying this argument more and more, these authors just want to fearmonger the cricket audience into outrage and generate clicks whilst subliminally preparing them for what you've suggested. The administrators of cricket certainly seem to be either too apathetic or keen to push the game further into that way.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

I'm honestly buying this argument more and more, these authors just want to fearmonger the cricket audience into outrage and generate clicks whilst subliminally preparing them for what you've suggested. The administrators of cricket certainly seem to be either too apathetic or keen to push the game further into that way.

TLDR - I think that's where it's headed.

I would expect there's some insincerity in some of the articles (particularly from some of the publications), they want to generate clicks and stir up people's anger because that generates clicks (although the Indian cricketing environment is hardly free from that). There's some parochial thinking too, that 'cricket is the English game and those foreigners taking it away from us'. Some Australians publications can be guilty of that too. Still I think there's truth to where it's headed and there's a lot of people, me being one of them, that loves international cricket before other cricket and seeing that marginalised is sad. I do also think that international cricket is largely pointless but when you take out the best players because they're resting or playing franchise cricket, it exposes that pointlessness. Not every series can have the history and rivalry of the Ashes, so when you take out the best players why should people care?

I don't think the IPL owners and people like the Glazers are buying teams up around the world for the love of the game. The marginalisation of the international cricket is just collateral damage. It's already happening though. Sri Lanka, Ireland, New Zealand are all playing series with weaker teams. South Africa last year. West Indies & Pakistan (in different ways and reasons) for the last ten years. But for England and Australia it's largely had a smaller impact (although we have lost a month of international cricket to the IPL). But most people don't care when smaller nations are effected, but when they've all been impacted by expanding franchise cricket, it's going to hit us eventually.

The talk of players taking contracts with IPL teams instead of county cricket or central contracts (I've not read articles I've seen today but I posted on here that I see it heading that way a while back) seems like the next step. I expect plenty of 'backdoor' payments to players already happens and they might just do that. Jos Buttler gets his IPL contract, plus extra to make himself available for other leagues that RR are involved in because his presence will boost the profile (whether he plays for a Royals team or not) of that tournament.

The ICC basically does events management, the BCCI holds all the cards. The idea of the Big 3 seems a little silly to me. England and Australia might have more power than other teams but they would have nothing without regularly selling TV rights for home series against India. The administrators are there to negotiate TV deals and T20 is better return on investment for the TV companies so they will want more of it. So, ultimately they can't get off the gravy train cause they have to pay their central contracts and fund domestic cricket somehow.

I've felt for a while the T20 is really becoming it's own sport. What makes a good cricketer is not necessarily what makes a good T20 player. Tim David could end his career as one of the best earners with never playing a first class match. I could see that divide growing to a point where the most skilled players play franchise and short form internationals and more test teams end up looking like the West Indies - filled with players who aren't good enough to play T20 cricket.

There could be things done to slow this down, maybe reach a decent balance but I think a lot of what could have been done is probably too late. I think the powers that be are too in love with money to do anything. I think we will be headed to IPL year round - not all in the India - but basically the IPL roadshow with different tournaments around the world, different cultural flavours, but the money is going to the same dozen owners.

 

[Bevab]

TLDR - I think that's where it's headed.

I would expect there's some insincerity in some of the articles (particularly from some of the publications), they want to generate clicks and stir up people's anger because that generates clicks (although the Indian cricketing environment is hardly free from that). There's some parochial thinking too, that 'cricket is the English game and those foreigners taking it away from us'. Some Australians publications can be guilty of that too. Still I think there's truth to where it's headed and there's a lot of people, me being one of them, that loves international cricket before other cricket and seeing that marginalised is sad. I do also think that international cricket is largely pointless but when you take out the best players because they're resting or playing franchise cricket, it exposes that pointlessness. Not every series can have the history and rivalry of the Ashes, so when you take out the best players why should people care?

I don't think the IPL owners and people like the Glazers are buying teams up around the world for the love of the game. The marginalisation of the international cricket is just collateral damage. It's already happening though. Sri Lanka, Ireland, New Zealand are all playing series with weaker teams. South Africa last year. West Indies & Pakistan (in different ways and reasons) for the last ten years. But for England and Australia it's largely had a smaller impact (although we have lost a month of international cricket to the IPL). But most people don't care when smaller nations are effected, but when they've all been impacted by expanding franchise cricket, it's going to hit us eventually.

The talk of players taking contracts with IPL teams instead of county cricket or central contracts (I've not read articles I've seen today but I posted on here that I see it heading that way a while back) seems like the next step. I expect plenty of 'backdoor' payments to players already happens and they might just do that. Jos Buttler gets his IPL contract, plus extra to make himself available for other leagues that RR are involved in because his presence will boost the profile (whether he plays for a Royals team or not) of that tournament.

The ICC basically does events management, the BCCI holds all the cards. The idea of the Big 3 seems a little silly to me. England and Australia might have more power than other teams but they would have nothing without regularly selling TV rights for home series against India. The administrators are there to negotiate TV deals and T20 is better return on investment for the TV companies so they will want more of it. So, ultimately they can't get off the gravy train cause they have to pay their central contracts and fund domestic cricket somehow.

I've felt for a while the T20 is really becoming it's own sport. What makes a good cricketer is not necessarily what makes a good T20 player. Tim David could end his career as one of the best earners with never playing a first class match. I could see that divide growing to a point where the most skilled players play franchise and short form internationals and more test teams end up looking like the West Indies - filled with players who aren't good enough to play T20 cricket.

There could be things done to slow this down, maybe reach a decent balance but I think a lot of what could have been done is probably too late. I think the powers that be are too in love with money to do anything. I think we will be headed to IPL year round - not all in the India - but basically the IPL roadshow with different tournaments around the world, different cultural flavours, but the money is going to the same dozen owners.

This post is way better than all of the nutjob articles I’ve read on this brewing issue. Some of my thoughts and counterpoints to what you’ve already said…

I’ve definitely seen an element of xenophobia in those articles. It was the same with the football WC, the circumstances around and leading to the tournament were deplorable and should never happen in any country but the tournament was of higher quality than most world cups in a long yime because of it’s timing in the calendar. It was also funny seeing everyone clutch their pearls at their football season being disrupted midway when other continents had the same issue on every other WC occasion.

I think a lot of international cricket has become pointless because enough people started parroting the same alongside the overplaying of certain matchups. NZC is particularly guilty of this for one, they schedule two tests to go with seven T20Is and then say tests are not worth it several times to explain their lack of scheduling for it. This then keeps being repeated until it’s accepted as gospel. Players skipping on international tours is also not helping. It reduces the quality of cricket being played which in turn makes it worse to watch.

Most of the IPL owners wouldn't give a crap about cricket beyond it being entertainment for the masses. The CSK group that keeps getting praised for it's cricket sense and passion is the same one that didn't bid for a WPL side because they don't believe in women playing cricket. They're clearly not interested in catering to anyone other than themselves either with their innovative team names in every league they end up owning a team in. I don't think we'll see full scale implementation of the 'year long' contract system until there's a guarantee that said player turns out for their team in every league that they pay them for. These people are extremely egoistic, they wouldn't want their player turning up for someone else after receiving money for them even if it boosts the profile of the league that their fifth team participates in. It's all about brand recognition and marketability.

I agree that T20 is it's own thing now. I don't buy the argument that older players were better in the past due to the lack of T20s and being pure blooded test cricketers that many old timers espouse but those players knew the value and importance of patience and concentration more than the ones today simply because it demanded it from them. Today's cricketers aren't likely to go in that direction because it pays less and is honestly more work for even less reward. Mastering all three formats is also a ridiculously tough skill... anyone who you can claim as to have been great in all three is likely to have had a slump somewhere in their recent past in at least one format due to how demanding each one is in it's specific skills. We're already seeing certain elements of the West Indian test side in other teams too... fifteen years ago you wouldn't have expected that the successor to Dravid (the latter let's not forget was selected as an icon player for a team no less at the IPL's start) in the test team would have been a meme in the IPL auction that got sarcastic applause from other team owners, analysts and coaches because someone was foolish enough to buy them as a reward for said player's accomplishments in historic series victories. The Sri Lankan test captain and the current plus former test captains of South Africa are never getting an IPL bid. Hell, the latter two didn't even get bids in their own country's league did they?

The same set of people getting rich off the backside of the same carousel with a different box of paint applied is going to get tiresome after a while... the SA20's first season may disagree with me but the CPL was similar in it's early years... it was the local, 'fresh and authentic' league in contrast to other leagues. In the end though? Two of it's more popular teams have already been renamed to IPL counterparts for no reason and the league is now planning to have matches at 10 AM local time to get subcontinental audiences watching. It's embarrassing. There's simply too much cricket that isn't of enough quality in most of these leagues and if you thought international fixtures were meaningless... why would you care about two made up teams competing? This brings to the next biggest issue I have with the proliferation of these leagues... the players and their lack of attachment. The same familiar faces turn up in differently coloured jerseys and go through the motions, talking about how such leagues and knockouts teach them skills to deal with pressure. Club sport works in other sports because a player is attached to one club in said sport for the most part at least for the better end of a year. If they do switch it is for a completely new season. You have Rashid Khan turning up in everything possible in the same calendar year every two months, it's jarring after a point.

This carnival of T20 cricket for the entire year shtick will ultimately only prove to be a bookie's dream in most places with some succeeding in having fan interest because there's enough quality on show to make people watch with an emphasis on providing the best fan experience and they plan it well around holidays (like in the IPL or BBL). I also think it's inevitable if it already isn't the reality I haven't woken up to yet and I don't think the ICC or anyone with a modicum of power to make even a small difference cares enough to do it in the first place. It'll ultimately only hurt domestic cricket pathways in the long run in many countries and change the type of people entering the sport as cricket is already an expensive sport to enter in the first place.

 

[CerealKiller]

 

[pillowprocter]

Quite possibly the only person born in the 2010s to play international cricket so far

Heal Theara Profile - Cricket Player Cambodia | Stats, Records, Video

Read about Heal Theara cricket player from Cambodia profile, stats, rankings, records, videos, photos at ESPNcricinfo

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[wasteyouryouth]

Saw this, thought it was interesting in respect to discussions on here about the future of cricket.

 

[CerealKiller]

 

[SaiSrini]

Moving this from IPL thread since this is a General Cricket Discussion

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)


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.


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.

I have mentioned many times here in this forum that I do not agree with Dhoni's idea of "national duty" and how he romanticized it. This discussion is not a new one and has happened in the past in this forum and this is deja vu for me I have a grouse with MSD that he further romanticized this notion. The toxic hate that Kohli got (and remember - I have been a big critic of Kohli the captain in this forum and ppl here know that I have not posted glowingly about him most times) was ridiculous and it changed my perception w.r.t international cricket. I have always wondered why do ppl take a game of cricket so seriously, when I read of physical incidents of hate on players or losing lives over it....

I am not trying to change your perception here, but for me when franchise cricket came in and became popular, I did not find the need to follow international cricket. Before that, I didnt have that option (I love cricket the sport). Now I have the option of following cricket in a way that de-links it from the country name and is just entertainment, which is what international cricket is all about. Its just entertainment. When the international team wins an ICC tournament, everyone in the country feels happy. If we lose, everyone is sad but in a few days they brush it off and move on and wait for the next one. It doesnt hurt the country at all if we lose an ICC tournament. And who draws up the plan for all these tournaments? ICC and its private member boards. They now have a freaking ICC tournament every year. Its either the ODI WC or the T20 WC or the WTC. They have ensured that there is an ICC title to play for every year. Earlier ODI WC's were valued because they came once every 4 years. But now there is no value because if BCCI international team loses the WTC final, they have a shot at the ODI WC this year. If they lose that too, they have a shot at the T20 WC next year.

---
As we discuss this, hot news from the oven of franchise cricket taking over -

Mumbai Indians set to offer Jofra Archer year-round deal at IPL giants

MATT HUGHES: The fast bowler left the IPL earlier this week for treatment on an elbow injury in the hope of being fit for the Ashes, much to Mumbai's frustration over his lack of game-time.

www.dailymail.co.uk

This news has been in big headlines this past week and looks like its getting closer to fruition.

BCCI will switch off IPL? They couldn't even suspend the tournament for a year when the COVID pandemic was raging and they played it with empty grounds. You think they can pull the plug on this billion dollar entity that is fast approaching the target of being the richest sporting league in the world?

Players when they play with the country name on their jersey and in front of a huge crowd that chants the country name, its an entirely different level of pressure. That is why Sachin Tendulkar is considered such a legend because he played in front of non-stop pressure of surmounting expectations. He had many failures in his career too and tons and tons of criticism (you must be knowing it; I think you have been a cricket fan for long). My reply to Fenil was for his comment about "Dhoni playing like a beast for CSK but playing meek for BCCI intl team in T20I's" As you said, Dhoni was the one who romanticized the term 'national duty' in 2015 where he didnt go for his child birth. You think he intentionally shows more passion for CSK than his intl team?

---
The feeling of "India beating Australia/Pakistan" is an unhealthy feeling according to me because its not true that the countries lose to each other. I dont care about that feeling. I would be more than happy with the feeling of a CSK beating MI or a franchise side beating another. Far more healthier and doesnt give anyone a false notion that the whole country won or a whole country lost.

Bring it on! I can keep going on with this...

 

[asprin]

BCCI will switch off IPL?

Sorry to swerve from the topic, but this had me burst out laughing. Does that article you tagged in your post insinuate that? No way BCCI will let go of its treasured baby called IPL.

 

[SaiSrini]

Sorry to swerve from the topic, but this had me burst out laughing. Does that article you tagged in your post insinuate that? No way BCCI will let go of its treasured baby called IPL.

No, not to that article. If you see the quoted post of icyman that I was replying to, there is a line in it where he says ".....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.". I was responding to that comment of his.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

Moving this from IPL thread since this is a General Cricket Discussion



I have mentioned many times here in this forum that I do not agree with Dhoni's idea of "national duty" and how he romanticized it. This discussion is not a new one and has happened in the past in this forum and this is deja vu for me I have a grouse with MSD that he further romanticized this notion. The toxic hate that Kohli got (and remember - I have been a big critic of Kohli the captain in this forum and ppl here know that I have not posted glowingly about him most times) was ridiculous and it changed my perception w.r.t international cricket. I have always wondered why do ppl take a game of cricket so seriously, when I read of physical incidents of hate on players or losing lives over it....

I am not trying to change your perception here, but for me when franchise cricket came in and became popular, I did not find the need to follow international cricket. Before that, I didnt have that option (I love cricket the sport). Now I have the option of following cricket in a way that de-links it from the country name and is just entertainment, which is what international cricket is all about. Its just entertainment. When the international team wins an ICC tournament, everyone in the country feels happy. If we lose, everyone is sad but in a few days they brush it off and move on and wait for the next one. It doesnt hurt the country at all if we lose an ICC tournament. And who draws up the plan for all these tournaments? ICC and its private member boards. They now have a freaking ICC tournament every year. Its either the ODI WC or the T20 WC or the WTC. They have ensured that there is an ICC title to play for every year. Earlier ODI WC's were valued because they came once every 4 years. But now there is no value because if BCCI international team loses the WTC final, they have a shot at the ODI WC this year. If they lose that too, they have a shot at the T20 WC next year.

---
As we discuss this, hot news from the oven of franchise cricket taking over -

Mumbai Indians set to offer Jofra Archer year-round deal at IPL giants

MATT HUGHES: The fast bowler left the IPL earlier this week for treatment on an elbow injury in the hope of being fit for the Ashes, much to Mumbai's frustration over his lack of game-time.

www.dailymail.co.uk

This news has been in big headlines this past week and looks like its getting closer to fruition.

BCCI will switch off IPL? They couldn't even suspend the tournament for a year when the COVID pandemic was raging and they played it with empty grounds. You think they can pull the plug on this billion dollar entity that is fast approaching the target of being the richest sporting league in the world?

Players when they play with the country name on their jersey and in front of a huge crowd that chants the country name, its an entirely different level of pressure. That is why Sachin Tendulkar is considered such a legend because he played in front of non-stop pressure of surmounting expectations. He had many failures in his career too and tons and tons of criticism (you must be knowing it; I think you have been a cricket fan for long). My reply to Fenil was for his comment about "Dhoni playing like a beast for CSK but playing meek for BCCI intl team in T20I's" As you said, Dhoni was the one who romanticized the term 'national duty' in 2015 where he didnt go for his child birth. You think he intentionally shows more passion for CSK than his intl team?

---
The feeling of "India beating Australia/Pakistan" is an unhealthy feeling according to me because its not true that the countries lose to each other. I dont care about that feeling. I would be more than happy with the feeling of a CSK beating MI or a franchise side beating another. Far more healthier and doesnt give anyone a false notion that the whole country won or a whole country lost.

Bring it on! I can keep going on with this...

 

[asprin]

It simply takes 10 seconds for them to devalue the entire league if they feel their own powers are being curtailed."

Oh that. I thought it referred to other leagues encroaching in on their territory.

 

[icyman]

I have always wondered why do ppl take a game of cricket so seriously, when I read of physical incidents of hate on players or losing lives over it....

And again, as if CSK fans dont abuse MI fans and vice-versa? I havent heard of physical hate on cricketers/ losing life over it in international games. The last hate monger incident was when someone slapped Greg Chappell outside an airport.

I am not trying to change your perception here, but for me when franchise cricket came in and became popular, I did not find the need to follow international cricket. Before that, I didnt have that option (I love cricket the sport). Now I have the option of following cricket in a way that de-links it from the country name and is just entertainment, which is what international cricket is all about. Its just entertainment. When the international team wins an ICC tournament, everyone in the country feels happy. If we lose, everyone is sad but in a few days they brush it off and move on and wait for the next one. It doesnt hurt the country at all if we lose an ICC tournament. And who draws up the plan for all these tournaments? ICC and its private member boards. They now have a freaking ICC tournament every year. Its either the ODI WC or the T20 WC or the WTC. They have ensured that there is an ICC title to play for every year. Earlier ODI WC's were valued because they came once every 4 years. But now there is no value because if BCCI international team loses the WTC final, they have a shot at the ODI WC this year. If they lose that too, they have a shot at the T20 WC next year.

Mate, isnt it the same with franchisee as well? If you lose this year, dejected fans will go back and start all over again the coming year? If not, then please explain why 'Ee Saala Cup Naamde' chant keeps growing louder?

In your 1st line, you mentioned that it is a personal choice- so be it. I wouldnt then try and prove my faith to anyone with regards to my team winning or losing. If you believe in not following international, that is up to you. However, my concern lies with the fact that you've extended this personal fantasy world to the players' performances as well. You seem to be insinuating that the players too are hooked on to playing exclusively for the franchisee and have no relation with the national team.

This theory is quashed by the recent interview of Trent Boult, who still believes turning out for New Zealand in the World Cup would be the pinnacle of his career.

---
As we discuss this, hot news from the oven of franchise cricket taking over -

Mumbai Indians set to offer Jofra Archer year-round deal at IPL giants

MATT HUGHES: The fast bowler left the IPL earlier this week for treatment on an elbow injury in the hope of being fit for the Ashes, much to Mumbai's frustration over his lack of game-time.

www.dailymail.co.uk

This news has been in big headlines this past week and looks like its getting closer to fruition.

BCCI will switch off IPL? They couldn't even suspend the tournament for a year when the COVID pandemic was raging and they played it with empty grounds. You think they can pull the plug on this billion dollar entity that is fast approaching the target of being the richest sporting league in the world?

From my reading of IPL contracts:
1. The player concerned needs to get an NOC
2. The player concerned needs to pay his parent board a % of his earnings as facilitation fee
3. If the player concerned refuses to turn out for his own board, the board may revoke the NOC which will prohibit him from playing further in these leagues.
4. If the player retires, even in that case, he still needs a NOC for 2 years

Now, coming specifically to Jofra-in my opinion, he is finished. He has hardly turned out for England since the CWC 2019. England too, have shown that they can do without him. The plethora of pacers that have come up within the English ranks can put any other team to shame.

The deals that you mentioned above will more or less likely be signed by Caribbean persons who have no future cricketing life. For Jofra, it is basically an easy road to retirement. Anyhow that's not the point of our discussion here. However, the pointers mentioned above should give a clear indication of whether these deals can be worked out.

The BCCI point- they have done a stellar job in protecting their league and will continue to do so. Should a tide of players rise up, they will not hesitate in using their clout and banning these players from the IPL- even if it is someone like Virat Kohli. Remember what they did to Kapil Dev and the ICL, right? If such players join secondary high value ones like ILT20, Canada T20, Saudi upcoming league, I am prepared to bet that these leagues will end up getting banned by the ICC.

Players when they play with the country name on their jersey and in front of a huge crowd that chants the country name, its an entirely different level of pressure. That is why Sachin Tendulkar is considered such a legend because he played in front of non-stop pressure of surmounting expectations. He had many failures in his career too and tons and tons of criticism (you must be knowing it; I think you have been a cricket fan for long). My reply to Fenil was for his comment about "Dhoni playing like a beast for CSK but playing meek for BCCI intl team in T20I's" As you said, Dhoni was the one who romanticized the term 'national duty' in 2015 where he didnt go for his child birth. You think he intentionally shows more passion for CSK than his intl team?

Dhoni performs better for CSK than he did for India(in his latter years).

The feeling of "India beating Australia/Pakistan" is an unhealthy feeling according to me because its not true that the countries lose to each other. I dont care about that feeling. I would be more than happy with the feeling of a CSK beating MI or a franchise side beating another. Far more healthier and doesnt give anyone a false notion that the whole country won or a whole country lost.

This is your outlook. Don't think it changes for a majority of cricket followers to be honest. When the IPL expands, and it will to about 14-16 teams. I do not see city based loyalty ever replacing countries, unless, say a city breaks away from India(least likely scenario). Also, with the expansion in the IPL, expect that the IPL will embrace the T10 format to cram in more games and avoid player fatigue.

 

[Bevab]

There's an interesting discussion awaiting underneath the weird Dhoni bashing that seems to have been the focus. I have no idea why out of all players Dhoni is the one to be catching strays in the first place, the bloke was a fine test keeper (less said about his captaincy the better), an ODI ATG and an underachiever in T20Is. But given that he was also the captain for three ICC tournament wins, none of which have been replicated since despite the relatively increasing depth in quality between India and other teams I'd be willing to excuse his mediocre test captaincy and T20I record.

Some of my own thoughts about franchise cricket that I've probably echoed in previous posts of mine on the same topic...

• First, most of the players do not give a crap about 'representing' any franchise. All they see is the loads of money they earn in a short period and the chance to further establish their reputations and grow it. This is even more true in the case of overseas players. Finch's comment on playing for nearly every IPL side and not remembering half of them, Buttler's rather racist mocking of the English vocabulary of Indian fans, the way in which several players underperform for years or teams before magically performing well for their international sides... there's numerous such examples. Teams having to rotate players every three years is also a reason, there's no attachment to any team with a core of players. The 'loyalty' of blokes like Bravo or Faf towards the Super Kings or Polly to the Indians is because of their ownership groups, not because they like the city the team is based in or the club itself and there's no doubt that it's the same for most Indian players too.
  
  
  
• It's also why I hate the cliche of 'IPL has trained players to perform better under pressure'. Sure they're not going to be as raw or inexperienced when they play international cricket due to the IPL's standard of cricket but those silly knockouts do not train them in any way for real pressure that you get when playing for your country. It's why the Indian side has wilted multiple times under pressure with both bat and ball in the knockouts for so long, the IPL's simulation of 'pressure' is an absolute sham.
  
  
  
• Reducing sport to mere entertainment is frankly ludicrous. It simply is not, that is not the point of sport. If you need just entertainment there's plenty of other avenues like shows or movies where you know everything is 'fake' or acted. Heck, there's even entertainment masquerading as sport these days like with the WWE. Sport is above entertainment because you know that those athletes participating are putting their bodies and minds on the line to gain an extra inch of performance for victory, it's what has made the entire thing compelling since time immemorial. People watch it because they know everyone is giving it well above what most humans are capable of and sometimes beyond even what the participants are normally capable of. I'm not even bringing in the other aspects of sport like the political, communal/social sides of it. If cricket is reduced one day to mere entertainment where people just go through the motions for the sake of putting on a show, I'll definitely stop watching it and I doubt I would be the only one.
  
  
  
• Franchise cricket has no place for tests or even a first-class format. Despite not being an old timer fan, I adore test cricket and hold it as the best format of this sport. There's no other equivalent in other sports that I can think of which brings something similar to the table and I feel that's what most of these morons in cricket administration are missing when they keep chasing the T20 dollars which has loads of equivalents in other sports. In a world where international cricket is almost dead and franchise only cricket prevails, there may not be any tests and I doubt I'd stick around if that is the case.
  
  
  
• One thing I fiercely dislike about all the people wanting franchise cricket to be the dominant force henceforth is the absolute lack of consideration for cricket in other parts of the world. Once you have franchises signing players onto year long contracts, most cricket boards have no incentive to invest in cricket pathways in their respective countries to bring up players as those projects are fundamentally loss makers on average that is subsidised by the few who make it to the top. This will just lead to an erosion of said pathways and the absolute dwindling of cricket as a sport of interest in many countries. There's already a lot of competition in such countries from other sports for cricket, the football leagues in Australia usually pay more and have better security compared to cricket, West Indian athletes are better off these days pursuing the American sports and England has it's own competition from football and rugby. In places like NZ where the sport is already a niche, cricket may just simply collapse.
  
  
  
• Now the counter argument is the subcontinental interest keeping the game alive and the franchises investing in said pathways instead. The former will keep the sport alive in this region, however it will still be very India-centric which already significantly hampers one other passionate country in said region. We may well have a NFL or NBA like situation in that case. Franchises will also not be incentivised to invest into pathways when they know that their chances of acquiring players via an auction are nebulous. Nobody wants to invest a lot of money into developing players you don't even have a surefire guarantee of signing. I don't think the BCCI will abolish auction anytime soon given the lucrative viewership and interest it brings and I don't see a world where every owner mutually agrees to not bid for other team's academy players (hell, you had Nehra making a troll counter-bid for Arjun Tendulkar when everyone knew he wasn't worth any bid in the first place because he knew MI would want him for other reasons) when they know they might be missing on the next Bumrah or Sachin if they do so.
  
  
  
• This will be even worse in other countries. The mostly India/America based ownership groups have no incentive to try and establish pathways in countries elsewhere unless they have equally profitable leagues running in said countries. Given the notorious difficulty in generating profits from T20 leagues, that is quite an arduous task. This just means that once those leagues start running out of talent to showcase, the owners will shut up shop and move elsewhere as they notice their margins falling. These morons like every other capitalist out there are fundamentally interested in generating money and not improving the sport or making long term plans for sustainability. I don't see a world where primarily India based teams will set up academies in other countries with current overseas player limits restricting their ability to sign players already. Besides, if you're a talented young athlete in Sydney with a sports scholarship to go to Uni and a contract to be a part of an AFL team, why the fearsome tweak would you try and grind it out in KKR's Sydney academy to earn a shot at immigrating to Kolkata at a young age to try and break into the IPL unless you have a desi dad who really forces you to get into cricket?

I can keep going on for more and more length but honestly I'd just hit the character limit for a single post on this forum so I'll just stop here and leave everyone to mull on these thoughts.