General Cricket Discussion

[Bevab]

Carrying on from my previous post on the topic of BCCI being an evil dictator... to recap...

...that I would prefer the BCCI to be the benevolent dictator which looks out for everyone, nurtures the game globally and grows it all over the place since it is intent on being the dictator anyway. But hey if it decides to screw all of that like you said it would and if the only way for a form of cricket to have a long-term future is for it to be evil... then at least be a competent evil dictator if that makes sense? Turn Indian cricket into something that is truly special in domestic cricket, private league cricket or international cricket whichever one you want it to be! Make it something special among all sports! Make the sport more accessible to supporters (to their credit Jio has been doing stellar work on it since they got some of the rights). What's the point of building these 'world class' stadiums if the supporter experience when you actually go to them and watch games is miserable?

• If you wanna make the domestic cricket system special, start by generating interest in domestic cricket across the country. As @wasteyouryouth mentioned in the other thread, the SMAT is an untapped well of potential that they're neglecting out of fear of it cannibalising the IPL. And as you and @Verified Enigma pointed out our fans don't care much about these domestic sides because their attachment is not to them but to individual star names. Well... start by building platforms for said attachments to form. I'm yet to see a single Indian person say that they were happy that their domestic or local side won a domestic trophy this season at any point in real life or online. Where as I saw multiple people be joyous when Somerset won the Blast, I've seen Aussies cheer when their state side won the Sheffield Shield. Heck.. I've seen Kiwi fans be happy when their domestic team won the Ford Trophy or the Super Smash and this is supposed to be in a country where cricket is a niche sport!
• People in our country are quite regional, let's be honest. It is shocking that we have nothing of that sort matter with the state cricket sides because they don't have an attachment to said sides... these sides could have had a community aspect around them... I'm pretty sure they did in the past to an extent from what I know. The BCCI has done some work by getting the Plate sides involved despite criticism to grow the game in those neglected regions and having them play against the bigger teams but there is so much more it can do in this regard.
  
  
  
• If you're going down the private league route... then fully embrace the T20 carousel or festival across the globe that is linked to your main product?!?! The BCCI have an absolute golden goose already and now have the opportunity to develop multiple offspring of said goose with how IPL owners are trying to branch out in other countries. The reason for this is because they want a CSK fan to follow their JSK side in SA and their TSK side in the US. What is being forgotten by many of us is that this system also works in the opposite direction. Your South African cricket fan based in Johannesburg who went and watched the JSK team because the tickets for the SA20 were cheap, got impressed with his team's play is now much more likely to follow the main CSK team in the IPL given that it should be of higher standard of play. It's the hub and spoke model with the IPL teams being the hub. To make it easier, you can have the overseas players be consistent across the same franchises in multiple leagues and allow certain Indian players to play in some leagues alone if you're still worried about them drawing attention from the main league (so Chahar turns up for JSK but isn't allowed to participate in TSK where as Rayudu does play for TSK). I would ideally allow everyone to play wherever they want but I get the argument of exclusivity in a world where teams can be the same in each country with just different city names per country.
• If you're rather not interested in such a model and want cricket to be the NFL/NBA/MLB equivalent in India... then grow the IPL to the same level as those leagues? Ten teams is shockingly low for such a popular product. Expand the league significantly with new teams in popular cities/regions. Maybe get the locals involved in forming the identity of said teams with some attachment/community aspect to it so that you can call it a club without being sneered at. Make the league run longer without asking everyone in the country to pause for the summer holidays and cram more than two months of the existing drivel into their brains and eye sockets by forcing them to follow on the actions of every team non-stop. Get a couple of divisions set up with a promotion/relegation system so that each team has something to play for and matches at both ends of the table remain relevant throughout the season. And as mentioned in the last point for the love of God... keep the player turnover lesser so that teams can organically form and remain for a while and so that talent spotting is a viable venture and not something that only certain sides can indulge in.
  
  
  
• If we're going Mr. Worldwide with an international cricket based domination plan... I guess we're doing a decent job there already? But the team's lack of success is a terrible look. Ensure that the team always remains in a position to compete with anyone and always turns up as the favourite by focusing on building a ruthless side with the best preparation possible. Make international cricket relevant with more tri-series' and all of that stuff that everyone seems to have a nostalgic yearning for... and at the same time ensure that the fan interest in the national side is high with success in all aspects. Honestly, this just sounds like a version of the benevolent plan without necessarily looking to globalise cricket but to just maintain the status quo whilst significantly bolstering the Indian side's success and making international cricket with the existing teams extremely relevant.
  
  
  
• Amidst all of this... the key is to make cricket something that every young person in India dreams of. Whether that's by making the domestic structure more relevant and prestigious... by opening up opportunities via the IPL's expansion or simply by making the Indian side something of an even bigger milestone to get to... there's options. The end result should be that you have parents wanting their kids to be a cricketer instead of an engineer in India because it is as 'viable' at the entry level. Maybe getting those IPL salaries bumped up is a good start to this?

Alright that's enough rambling for one sleep deprived brain in one day.

 

[icyman]

What do you actually want from cricket? What is the global game you'd like to see? And do you think India taking money they don't need from the ICC revenue is a way of achieving that? You have suggested if a team can't compete in one test match against India you think they should be disbanded, so I guess this will accelerate this likelihood.

The game can grow,but it isn't the BCCI's responsibility to do so. I have merely responded to the point where the role of the BCCI was being questioned.

The global game needs more nations to embrace cricket. This can happen only if the ICC has proper development pathways in each region. Full members are struggling to host tests and hence the equilibrium needs to tilt towards the limited overs formats for development of the game.

As for India taking revenue away-Why don't we have a year full of cricket without the Indian team and see the revenues? I'm pretty sure that TV rights ,sponsors etc won't flow in at all. We had a similar situation back in 2002 when the BCCI-ICC standout risked the team's participation in the ICC CT. Intervention from broadcasters, hosts and TV channels ensured an arbitration then.

Let us, for the same of this conversation,assume that the BCCI doesn't take any money and that it is equally divided amongst the members. Who will you hold accountable for the game development then? I believe your personal hatred of the BCCI reeks through most of the posts that you make against the board. People tend to target the BCCI for simply being the richer one.

In the above light, no one seems to be battling an eyelid that Usman Khawaja and his 'friend' made changes to the ICC rules almost overnight.

Lastly, my point over disbanding of the WI wasn't based on their performance in the 1st test. I have advocated this based on the WI failure to qualify directly for 2 consecutive World Cups, failure to make the cut from the 1st T20 round and an poor domestic structure.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think BCCI has accepted the fact that rather than providing much impetus on the 'local domestic' tournaments, they can improve the 'local international' tournament called IPL since it will have all the big names of not just Indian players but international ones as well. And use it as a platform to grow and nurture local talent as well.

They know that their audience has found a liking for IPL so they will make it more lucrative and dense, more cricket friendly as well as audience friendly. But refrain from doing the same for the domestic tournaments because they, 1. Do not generate as much revenue. 2. Garner less support and viewership. 3. MUCH difficult to operate and manage than a 8-10 team IPL.

So BCCI will look more and more to monetize and develop IPL and use it as a means to scout, develop and skim through the young talent. As is already seen in the national team selections where IPL performances are given utmost priority over domestic ones. Even the red-ball selections now are being influenced by it.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

The game can grow,but it isn't the BCCI's responsibility to do so. I have merely responded to the point where the role of the BCCI was being questioned.

I don't disagree. It's not their responsibility but they are the only board that could help it grow.

The global game needs more nations to embrace cricket. This can happen only if the ICC has proper development pathways in each region. Full members are struggling to host tests and hence the equilibrium needs to tilt towards the limited overs formats for development of the game.

How is this achieved without money that is swallowed up by full members (over 1/3 by the BBCI).

Let us, for the same of this conversation,assume that the BCCI doesn't take any money and that it is equally divided amongst the members. Who will you hold accountable for the game development then? I believe your personal hatred of the BCCI reeks through most of the posts that you make against the board. People tend to target the BCCI for simply being the richer one.

If all countries had an equal share then you would hold those countries accountable because they are being given the means to develop the game. I dislike the BCCI just as much as I dislike the ECB, CA because they are all complicit in the greed that is preventing the growth of the sport. These boards should be focussed on growing the game in their countries and as a collective growing the game globally. As it is the focus is on maintaining their status.

Lastly, my point over disbanding of the WI wasn't based on their performance in the 1st test. I have advocated this based on the WI failure to qualify directly for 2 consecutive World Cups, failure to make the cut from the 1st T20 round and an poor domestic structure.

So it's 12 months of poor performance not just one test. Not a huge difference really. There's a reason West Indies are struggling and while the board is partly responsible disbanding them would probably kill the game in the region.

In the above light, no one seems to be battling an eyelid that Usman Khawaja and his 'friend' made changes to the ICC rules almost overnight.

I've no idea what you're talking about.

As for India taking revenue away-Why don't we have a year full of cricket without the Indian team and see the revenues? I'm pretty sure that TV rights ,sponsors etc won't flow in at all. We had a similar situation back in 2002 when the BCCI-ICC standout risked the team's participation in the ICC CT. Intervention from broadcasters, hosts and TV channels ensured an arbitration then.

Sport isn't purely about money and profit, as much as most sport is being driven that way. If India stopped all involvement in cricket the landscape would change, revenues would go down, player pay would reduce but people would still play cricket. People would still watch cricket. Other sports exist without India's involvement. Rugby is a pretty good example of sport that has similar countries playing it but still maintains large audiences and participation without a behemoth country that brings in majority revenue. I'm not a rugby fan so I'm sure there are criticisms of how that sport is run but it's also a sport that has expanded into non-traditional regions, which I'd say has been crickets consistent failure.

 

[pillowprocter]

Do you guys watch most of your cricket through TV or live scoring? Do you feel the TV experience is better?

For me, live scoring and past scorecards have been where I have followed 90% of my cricket, as opposed to TV and highlights. It's due to a mixture of being able to follow a match while performing other tasks, lack of cricket broadcast in the Middle East and the feeling that spending 4 hours infront of the TV is a waste of time.

 

[Till Valhalla]

4 hours infront of the TV

Same I don't think I can sit in front of PP for 4 hours

 

[pillowprocter]

in front of PP

What?

 

[icyman]

If all countries had an equal share then you would hold those countries accountable because they are being given the means to develop the game. I dislike the BCCI just as much as I dislike the ECB, CA because they are all complicit in the greed that is preventing the growth of the sport. These boards should be focussed on growing the game in their countries and as a collective growing the game globally. As it is the focus is on maintaining their status.

The Big 3 have been growing the game in their respective arenas. In terms of the collective, I still feel the onus in on the ICC to create tournaments in upcoming areas. Another thing the ICC could focus on is the FIFA way of allotting World events- bidding mechanisms.

So it's 12 months of poor performance not just one test. Not a huge difference really. There's a reason West Indies are struggling and while the board is partly responsible disbanding them would probably kill the game in the region.

2 consecutive World Cups,mate. They have been going downhill ages- if I recollect, they stopped being competitive circa 2011. They've been mocked in World Cups post that by Ireland, Afghanistan, etc(not undermining these nations). They have had to qualify for the CWC 2019, missed out on CWC 2023. The case is compelling enough to disband. The game in the Caribbean isles is already dead, bar the entertainment quotient that T20 brings.

The WICB can hardly afford to host those 5 match test series they did in the past. At best, you could compare them with an Associate board who can do with the limited overs formats entirely.

I've no idea what you're talking about.

Khawaja referred to calling up ICC GM Wasim Khan, who amended the over rate penalties

Khawaja reveals role in amendment of over-rate penalties

The Australian opener spoke to ICC's General Manager of Cricket Wasim Khan about the existing steep pay cuts

m.cricbuzz.com

Seems he can get away with this? Had it been Virat Kohli and Ganguly, all hell would have broken out by now.

Post automatically merged: Jul 19, 2023

Do you guys watch most of your cricket through TV or live scoring? Do you feel the TV experience is better?

Depends upon the time of the day and the match in question.

If at work, it is easy to follow the game via live scoring. TV experience is definitely better as it bring about a visual element to the game.

 

[Khan Sahab54]

What if India comes first from group A

 

[pillowprocter]

What if India comes first from group A

I'd assume they swap the Sep 6 and Sep 16 matches

 

[CooldiPargi]

Queries answered below.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

2 consecutive World Cups,mate. They have been going downhill ages- if I recollect, they stopped being competitive circa 2011. They've been mocked in World Cups post that by Ireland, Afghanistan, etc(not undermining these nations). They have had to qualify for the CWC 2019, missed out on CWC 2023. The case is compelling enough to disband. The game in the Caribbean isles is already dead, bar the entertainment quotient that T20 brings.

The WICB can hardly afford to host those 5 match test series they did in the past. At best, you could compare them with an Associate board who can do with the limited overs formats entirely.

Since 2011, there's been seven ODI and T20 World Cups. West Indies has won two (same number as Australia and England). They also reached the semi-finals of one. Sri Lanka are the only other side to win one.

This is the record of the West Indies women since 2011 - I assume they would also be disbanded for not being competitive. Like the men, they are second only to Australia and England in terms of success.


If West Indies 'stopped being competitive' then what are the rest of the teams playing at for the last decade?

 

[USA33]

PillowProctor

Thank you, sir.

 

[CerealKiller]

Do you guys watch most of your cricket through TV or live scoring? Do you feel the TV experience is better?

The lack of broadcast in continental Europe means that looking for a "totally legal" stream is a pain in the backside, so i only watch live when it’s a match i really want to watch. Otherwise live scores and then highlights

 

[icyman]

Since 2011, there's been seven ODI and T20 World Cups. West Indies has won two (same number as Australia and England). They also reached the semi-finals of one. Sri Lanka are the only other side to win one.

This is the record of the West Indies women since 2011 - I assume they would also be disbanded for not being competitive. Like the men, they are second only to Australia and England in terms of success.
View attachment 280997

If West Indies 'stopped being competitive' then what are the rest of the teams playing at for the last decade?

Being successful in one format until 2016 has got nothing to do with the overall decline that's been plaguing them.

I don't under the obsession with sticking to 'WI won 2 WT20s in the last decade'. Their last win came in 2016. Post that, have they challenged any team consistently? They haven't even been able to challenge the Associates in ODI and T20. Also, winning an ICC event isnt a mark of success/competitiveness. If that was a parameter,they fall way behind in terms of ODIs by not winning anything and also not being able to win the ICC Qualifiers. They don't even show up in Test cricket, have lost the ability to challenge teams in their backyard as well.

Riding on top of their past laurels, in a specific format isnt a valid enough reason to 'not disband'. As I've mentioned before, the team performances, the inability of players to commit to the conglomerate, the WICB reforms and management are some of the things that have contributed to the mess. Expectations were great from Kishor Shallow and Ricky Skerritt after toppling the previous regime, but their decline is beyond repair. Probably,even a Lalit Modi/Jay Shah won't be able to revive them now.

The women's team- honestly,how much revenue do you think they bring to the table? Not a valid case to keep running them as a team. Furthermore if the WI is disbanded, they cannot simply keep running a women's team, as per the ICC regulations. The individual islands doing that would make more sense.

Lastly, they aren't a country. I don't see you crying over the individual Caribbean islands playing on their own in the Olympics. Would you stand up for the inclusion of a conglomerate then?