General Cricket Discussion

[PokerAce]

What I am saying may not be everyone's cup of tea, and may lead to a lot of dispute, but for the WI players, I kind of understand why they would pick IPL (or any tournament) over WI.

While in an ideal scenario, one would like sense to prevail, and naturally if there is a clash between the IPL and an International Tour, one would think the players would play for their national side. Having said this, playing for the WI is not exactly the equivalent of playing for their national side to the WI players is it?

I am not saying skipping WI matches for IPL or Big Bash is justified. They should appear for WI. At the same time though, at some level one could see it from the players' point of view. At one time I think it was Dwayne Bravo who said, he likes playing for T&T (his country), then MI and then WI.

West Indies come after T&T and MI - Hindustan Times

 

[grkrama]

Also it doesnt help when the the board in itself is not known for having reliable relations with players.

 

[War]

Interesting Article. I also Do Agree that the country come first because these IPL or any Domestic series. But But, Narine not playing against NZ was totally Stupid in my view.
According to what i have read, Narine would of join the Team 3- 4 days before NZ tour. Why couldn't he play.
I really dont know about how the New Selection Panel/ New WICB going to go about with there work, what i want is to be consistent, Show the player we really want you to play for WI cricket and than the player would be Loyal to you, IF you as an Administer dont show your Locality to player how can they show it to you.
Everyone MUST realize in this day and Age things have change. WI player are been mis used many time in the past, now they have something to go to , to Make there Livelihood Or want to play Cricket. Who know the way WI went about for the past few year, these same players Are been Drop for some reason or the Other, Imaging you skip IPL and plan just to dedicate your cricket for WI and next minute they drop you for an Odd reason, how can you trust the board and how could i keep hoping i wouldn't be drop. I am not saying Give these player the upper hand in everything, like if they consistently failing to keep them no, Drop them, but don't kick them out of the picture like what WI did with many players, still have these Stars in the Picture for selection. but treat these player in a different way. I have no solution, but WICB with the selection panel and these player who wanna play for IPL sit and talk about it.
What the Fans want is a Full strength WI side taking the field at all time, plus it's the only way for WI to go forward.
I Do believe International Cricket should be first, everything else after, but WICB need to give something to the player where they can be Loyal to WI Cricket.

It's going to be very tough that England Tour. I can see player leaning towards the IPL instead of the England tour.

Just WICB need to build that trust with the Players, so they can say we can trust West Indies Cricket for our Future.

Just wants to know did any past , say like last 2 year any Tour Clash with IPL/CLT20? if so how did those Board handle their players. Just want to know?

The elephant in the room regarding this issue to me is the IPL. Since IPL started in 2008, it affects the prime months of the windies home season (Jan-May) more than any of the 10 test playing nations. For the sake of windies cricket development in the future, that can't continue to happen.

Windies have 4 big test series coming up vs SA/IND/ENG/AUS. Given how dumb ICC scheduling without structure & certain literally have to beg the richer nations to play them - if Windies don't show improvement in those 4 series - it will be a long time 4 u guys play the those 4 big nations again. And that will affect the WICB financially even under the revamped ICC structure. WICB will not make money if they gotta play BANG/ZIM/PAK/SRI/NZ mainly.

So IPL needs to change its dates to a time in the year where it does not affect WICB or any countries prime home seasons months. This is why i've always felt the cricket champions should be scrapped & let IPL be played in Sept/Oct - most int'l teams home season aren't during those dates. C-League tournament serves no purpose in the cricket calendar & its not a "real" champions league when u consider it is not run by the ICC & look at how the football equivalents of the tournaments with the similar name is run.

 

[Aalay]

This is why i've always felt the cricket champions should be scrapped & let IPL be played in Sept/Oct - most int'l teams home season aren't during those dates.

We play Duleep trophy in the 2nd week of October and we also generally start our International home season in October.

 

[War]

We play Duleep trophy in the 2nd week of October and we also generally start our International home season in October.

Ye, i saw this article the other day on cricinfo, with a IND fan criticizing the IND domestic season etc - Blogs: Kartikeya Date: What the Indian calendar is doing to its bowlers | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo IND along wit prob SRI/PAK (when they used to could host games)/SA are one of the few countries who can host series at most months of the year.

- WI got to play from Jan-June preferably. June-Sept is risky rainy/hurrican season.
- AUS Nov-Feb otherwise rest of year is A-league football
- ENG of course is only May-early Sept otherwise is football season
- NZ similar situation to AUS, then rugby takes over

If IPL is not going to be a proper "international league", let the BCCI compromise some of its own home domestic stuff during their season to fit it in. Don't affect other nations.

 

[PokerAce]

Ye, i saw this article the other day on cricinfo, with a IND fan criticizing the IND domestic season etc - Blogs: Kartikeya Date: What the Indian calendar is doing to its bowlers | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo IND along wit prob SRI/PAK (when they used to could host games)/SA are one of the few countries who can host series at most months of the year.

- WI got to play from Jan-June preferably. June-Sept is risky rainy/hurrican season.
- AUS Nov-Feb otherwise rest of year is A-league football
- ENG of course is only May-early Sept otherwise is football season
- NZ similar situation to AUS, then rugby takes over

If IPL is not going to be a proper "international league", let the BCCI compromise some of its own home domestic stuff during their season to fit it in. Don't affect other nations.

Playing IPL later in the year makes sense. For starters when IPL is played its heatwave in India and the peak of the summers, and temperatures go up the 40s and mid 40s especially in RR matches which are played in Rajasthan. The one advantage of playing in that time though is that its rainfree period all over India, so fewer matches are washed out. That is the only rationale I could think of.

IPL could fit in September to Mid Oct end, and the Home Series that happens in Oct-Nov can be pushed back by a month for sure. IPL runs for too long and the length needs to be reduced.

IPL could be restructured and the teams split in two groups, and have them play each other four times if required, but within the same group. It would lead to the total group matches being reduced by a quarter. Either that or have two matches a day most days and not just Weekends as is done. This could easily be done as its T20, and aim to reduce the length by a quarter of days.

A month and a half is a bit too long, and even the fans lose interest mid way though the IPL. The interest is high only at the start and towards the end when the playoff places are to be settled and the playoffs. Midway no one cares. If the tournament length is reduced it would help the popularity too, and take up less time in the calender which makes it less likely to run into Int'l calender fixtures.

This would then also allow the Home Series to start at the usual period

 

[War]

Playing IPL later in the year makes sense. For starters when IPL is played its heatwave in India and the peak of the summers, and temperatures go up the 40s and mid 40s especially in RR matches which are played in Rajasthan. The one advantage of playing in that time though is that its rainfree period all over India, so fewer matches are washed out. That is the only rationale I could think of.

IPL could fit in September to Mid Oct end, and the Home Series that happens in Oct-Nov can be pushed back by a month for sure. IPL runs for too long and the length needs to be reduced.

IPL could be restructured and the teams split in two groups, and have them play each other four times if required, but within the same group. It would lead to the total group matches being reduced by a quarter. Either that or have two matches a day most days and not just Weekends as is done. This could easily be done as its T20, and aim to reduce the length by a quarter of days.

A month and a half is a bit too long, and even the fans lose interest mid way though the IPL. The interest is high only at the start and towards the end when the playoff places are to be settled and the playoffs. Midway no one cares. If the tournament length is reduced it would help the popularity too, and take up less time in the calender which makes it less likely to run into Int'l calender fixtures.

This would then also allow the Home Series to start at the usual period

Even better, more reason to scrap the champions league then...

 

[PokerAce]

Even better, more reason to scrap the champions league then...

I am quite open to the idea of CL T20, and it could exist. If not as an annual event then a biannual one at least. The obvious space in the calender is to have CL T20 and scrap the World T20. I have always said that Int'l T20 makes no sense to me, and T20 should not exist at an International Level.

Domestic T20 is about the full extent to which T20 should exist, and CLT20 the culmination where champions of all domestic leagues come together and play.

While I acknowledge this would be an ideal scenario, but I don't see this happening.

Even so I think that CLT20 should exist. The space could then be made in May, for a 15 day event. Again play 2 matches everyday if required, but don't drag the tournament. The whole popularity of T20 is that its short and crisp, and thus there is little point in turning the tournaments into a long drawn soap opera. Both IPL and CL T20, could do with a shorter length in number of days. Its being t20, even three matches a day can be played.

CLT20, I don;t know organises it right now, perhaps its BCCI and CSA and CA, or some permutation of those three, but if ICC handled it would be even better.

 

[War]

I am quite open to the idea of CL T20, and it could exist. If not as an annual event then a biannual one at least. The obvious space in the calender is to have CL T20 and scrap the World T20. I have always said that Int'l T20 makes no sense to me, and T20 should not exist at an International Level.

Domestic T20 is about the full extent to which T20 should exist, and CLT20 the culmination where champions of all domestic leagues come together and play.

While I acknowledge this would be an ideal scenario, but I don't see this happening.

Even so I think that CLT20 should exist. The space could then be made in May, for a 15 day event. Again play 2 matches everyday if required, but don't drag the tournament. The whole popularity of T20 is that its short and crisp, and thus there is little point in turning the tournaments into a long drawn soap opera. Both IPL and CL T20, could do with a shorter length in number of days. Its being t20, even three matches a day can be played.

CLT20, I don;t know organises it right now, perhaps its BCCI and CSA and CA, or some permutation of those three, but if ICC handled it would be even better.

Well that's my issue with the C-league, its not really a "champions league" like we see in football, when all the top players go and play for their IPL/Big bash/CSA teams, given the tournament is not ICC controlled & is run by 3 boards.

Simple question i always ask all those who has followed the champions league since its inception in 2009. Other than the fact that the winning team gets a big pay day, what use does this tournament have in the international calendar other than to clog it up with more unnecessary T20 cricket?


I look at the former trinidad team & the fact that Bravo, Pollard, Cooper is playing for their IPL teams instead in the recent C-league. Is it a case where those guys rejected the chance all these years to play for trinidad or is it as i've heard that the IPL teams outside have sort of used bully boy tactics to keep them (although i know there is a contract saying if they play for local team instead of IPL teams a certain % of their money would be cut short).

A next dumb thing about the champs league as i mentioned above is the very strange situation where we have notable T20 players like Pollard, Narine, Bravo, A Morkel, Gayle, Malinga, De Villiers etc etc etc who globe trot worldwide, play in all the T20 leagues and in some cases help different teams qualify for the champs league.

If we were to use football for comparison that is like all top football stars like Messi, Ronaldo, RVP, Rooney, Robben, Ribery, Xavi, Falcao, Iniesta etc etc jumping between La Liga, Bundesliga, Serie A, BPL etc in a season - help different clubs win their respective domestic leagues and qualify for a champs league placing - then at the end chose which teams they going to represent in C -League.

Now that would be stupid dumb & that is what the is cricket champs league. Makes no sense and it really shouldn't be in existence.

The T20 world cup, IPL, plus every country wanting to have its own T20 league is enough T20 cricket for the game which has to juggle between 3 formats and a ridiculous FTP.

 

[PokerAce]

Well that's my issue with the C-league, its not really a "champions league" like we see in football, when all the top players go and play for their IPL/Big bash/CSA teams, given the tournament is not ICC controlled & is run by 3 boards.

Simple question i always ask all those who has followed the champions league since its inception in 2009. Other than the fact that the winning team gets a big pay day, what use does this tournament have in the international calendar other than to clog it up with more unnecessary T20 cricket?


I look at the former trinidad team & the fact that Bravo, Pollard, Cooper is playing for their IPL teams instead in the recent C-league. Is it a case where those guys rejected the chance all these years to play for trinidad or is it as i've heard that the IPL teams outside have sort of used bully boy tactics to keep them (although i know there is a contract saying if they play for local team instead of IPL teams a certain % of their money would be cut short).

A next dumb thing about the champs league as i mentioned above is the very strange situation where we have notable T20 players like Pollard, Narine, Bravo, A Morkel, Gayle, Malinga, De Villiers etc etc etc who globe trot worldwide, play in all the T20 leagues and in some cases help different teams qualify for the champs league.

If we were to use football for comparison that is like all top football stars like Messi, Ronaldo, RVP, Rooney, Robben, Ribery, Xavi, Falcao, Iniesta etc etc jumping between La Liga, Bundesliga, Serie A, BPL etc in a season - help different clubs win their respective domestic leagues and qualify for a champs league placing - then at the end chose which teams they going to represent in C -League.

Now that would be stupid dumb & that is what the is cricket champs league. Makes no sense and it really shouldn't be in existence.

The T20 world cup, IPL, plus every country wanting to have its own T20 league is enough T20 cricket for the game which has to juggle between 3 formats and a ridiculous FTP.

Yes I think we both agree that it should hosted by ICC, However if for whatever reasons they cannot host it, then I am fine with three boards hosting it, as long as all teams get a fair shot at it, which I think they do. I would like the CL T20 to be hosted by nations besides Ind and SA as has been the case so far. However within the tournament itself I think I am fine with how it is run.

What does CLT20 serve, then the answer is it should ideally serve as the pinnacle of T20 glory and Int'l T20 should be scrapped, including World T20. Its pointless cricket. As it exists though, CLT20 is suppose is meant to decide global Domestic T20 champs. Which I think is a noble idea. Its Int'l T20 that makes no sense to me.

No one really cares for Int'l T20 anyway. As meaningless one may think the matches in this tournament are, but they still matter more than say the T20 Ind and Eng played earlier in the year. What was the point of that. Here atleast there is some interest in terms of the result mattering, in an overwhelming number of Int'l T20s none what so ever.

The unusual scenario is indeed that some players play for multiple teams, however the solution is naturally to have an over-riding contracts. Like say IPL contracts could say in all events, in case of a clash the player will represent the IPL side. If he likes it he signs, if he doesn't he moves on. However all leagues must have an over-riding contract clause, on a rakning basis. So if 1st right in case of a clash is with IPL, then Big Bash, or CPL or whatever could then have the 2nd over-riding clause, that in case of a conflict the player will play for BB or CPL side, except when there is a clash with IPL side too, because IPL has 1st over ride. This way 1st and 2nd and 3rd over-rides could be given to the sides. As he signs, for a new side, the new side gets the next available over-ride. Sides cannot come in between, unless all parties agree.

So suppose, BB team has 1st over-ride on a player, and then 2nd over-ride is CPL and then an IPL side signs him, then IPL side can only get 3rd over-ride. The player cannot invalidate the over-rides to BB and CPL side in favor of IPL. If the IPL side is not happy with getting 3rd over-ride on the player, then don't sign the player, as simple as that. Similarly if a player would rather play for his home T20 side then IPL, then get that over-ride into the IPL contract, that IPL can only have 2nd over ride on him. If IPL and the player don't agree then no deal.

In the aforementioned scenario, where 1st over-ride is with BB side and 2nd over-ride with CPL side, then the only way IPL side gets 1st over-ride on the player is if both the BB and CPL side agree. How this agreement is reached, I don't know. Perhaps some cash fee is given the sides holding the prior over-rides (openly, not in an under the table kind of manner), in a loose transfer fee kind of way. However hte over-ride must flow like this.

I think this would take care of the clash issue, and this would be more concrete and not upto to player to decide based on how he feels at the time. f he as contract to honor he must honor it. Also this way both the sides signing him, will exactly what number they are on in regard to over-ride, and whether they want to sign him or not.

 

[abhi_jacko]

I think International T20 cricket still holds a fair bit of significance for the viewers - way more than CLT20 ever has. While individual International T20s may not hold a lot of significance, they still pull in huge crows. And viewers actually do care about who wins the World T20 even if it is not considered as prestigious as ODI World cup.

Besides, World T20 is an invaluable platform for the associate teams to taste the international level on an almost level playing field. As it is they have limited representation in the ODI World Cup. Robbing them of World T20 will not do them any favors - both financially and experience wise.

Also, I don't have the figures, but I am pretty sure a T20 involving the big international teams will generate a lot more revenue than a CLT20 game. CLT20 had very mediocre viewership from the beginning and has only improved a little. Airtel broke their 5 year contract after 2 years, then Nokia broke their 4-year contract after 1 year. Says something about what its market value is. And again, the bottomline is - the tournament has absolutely no significance whatsoever. Just personally speaking, I have followed/watched BBL and CPL, and even SLPL. But I really cannot be bothered with following CLT20 even though it is at a very convenient time for me. Because there is literally no point to it.

 

[War]

Yes I think we both agree that it should hosted by ICC, However if for whatever reasons they cannot host it, then I am fine with three boards hosting it, as long as all teams get a fair shot at it, which I think they do. I would like the CL T20 to be hosted by nations besides Ind and SA as has been the case so far. However within the tournament itself I think I am fine with how it is run.

What does CLT20 serve, then the answer is it should ideally serve as the pinnacle of T20 glory and Int'l T20 should be scrapped, including World T20. Its pointless cricket. As it exists though, CLT20 is suppose is meant to decide global Domestic T20 champs. Which I think is a noble idea. Its Int'l T20 that makes no sense to me.

No one really cares for Int'l T20 anyway. As meaningless one may think the matches in this tournament are, but they still matter more than say the T20 Ind and Eng played earlier in the year. What was the point of that. Here atleast there is some interest in terms of the result mattering, in an overwhelming number of Int'l T20s none what so ever.

The unusual scenario is indeed that some players play for multiple teams, however the solution is naturally to have an over-riding contracts. Like say IPL contracts could say in all events, in case of a clash the player will represent the IPL side. If he likes it he signs, if he doesn't he moves on. However all leagues must have an over-riding contract clause, on a rakning basis. So if 1st right in case of a clash is with IPL, then Big Bash, or CPL or whatever could then have the 2nd over-riding clause, that in case of a conflict the player will play for BB or CPL side, except when there is a clash with IPL side too, because IPL has 1st over ride. This way 1st and 2nd and 3rd over-rides could be given to the sides. As he signs, for a new side, the new side gets the next available over-ride. Sides cannot come in between, unless all parties agree.

So suppose, BB team has 1st over-ride on a player, and then 2nd over-ride is CPL and then an IPL side signs him, then IPL side can only get 3rd over-ride. The player cannot invalidate the over-rides to BB and CPL side in favor of IPL. If the IPL side is not happy with getting 3rd over-ride on the player, then don't sign the player, as simple as that. Similarly if a player would rather play for his home T20 side then IPL, then get that over-ride into the IPL contract, that IPL can only have 2nd over ride on him. If IPL and the player don't agree then no deal.

In the aforementioned scenario, where 1st over-ride is with BB side and 2nd over-ride with CPL side, then the only way IPL side gets 1st over-ride on the player is if both the BB and CPL side agree. How this agreement is reached, I don't know. Perhaps some cash fee is given the sides holding the prior over-rides (openly, not in an under the table kind of manner), in a loose transfer fee kind of way. However hte over-ride must flow like this.

I think this would take care of the clash issue, and this would be more concrete and not upto to player to decide based on how he feels at the time. f he as contract to honor he must honor it. Also this way both the sides signing him, will exactly what number they are on in regard to over-ride, and whether they want to sign him or not.

I see where you are going with this my friend, but having looked at this issue over the last 5 years myself, I still don't think its a good enough reason to keep the cricket C-League.

The champions league concept that football invented, that cricket is now copying that i've known in 18 years of watching football is for in the top club teams in each nation of the various confederations (mainly UEFA, S America, Africa, CONCACAF) playing in tournament, to see if they can replicate their domestic dominance on international club level.

In Europe for example this 2014/15 c-league, fans want to see how the styles, trends & dominance the star players of various domestic champions Manchester City, Bayern Munich, Atletico Madrid, Juventus etc will cope when facing the continental counterparts.

A key facet in this is having the same players who won you the domestic title in the C-league. As i mentioned doesn't happen in cricket, Messi, Ronaldo & co don't help more than one domestic teams win tournaments in football like cricket stars do. This is why i mentioned that Trinidad team because the only time they were able to filed the majority of stars in C-league they got to the final, but since then every season they end up choosing the IPL team. That TT team full strength might have won the C-league many times if it wasn't for this.

So the idea of player overide, 1st to 3rd choice team is crazy to me. In football the best players sign for the top club (mainly Europe) & you stay their forever. You don't play for multiple clubs at various points in the year.

Look at the new caribbbean premier league, they trying to rival IPL etc, so they have all the star windies players as franchise icon players. Technically that wrong, because lets say Brazil & Argentina leagues wanted to rival Europe big leagues, they can ask Messi & Neymar to come back to play for Santos or River Plate to help draw crowds. They are Barcelona players for good now. These are the rules FIFA set in.

Cricket though unlike football main format is international cricket, club domestic cricket is second. Unlike football which is the other way around. So the globe trotting situation is fine, but when you want to incorporate a champions league context to cricket, it exposes the many holes of star player globe trotting renders the tournament insane.

Just like the IPL with the 4 player starting XI restriction rule, C-league cricket started up so fast their was no cricket sanity behind how things & rues were done. Classic case of money (India money) taking in the cricket world & colossal BS walking.

International T20 cricket is also fine. In fact when international teams play in the T20 world cup, the standard of T20 cricket is way above all T20 leagues in the world. Most T20 leagues tend to carry average domestic players & you get some crappy games.

The reason why that one-off T20 with ENG/IND the other day was useless was just why one-off tests, 2 test series are useless, dumb ICC scheduling in the FTP. National boards stupidly treat T20 as a one-off marketing match to pull crowds, the tournament has a world cup, so if international teams are going to build proper chemsitry in the format like they do in 50 overs, each bilateral tour should have a minimum of 3 T20s in order to constitute a proper series.

Cricket can be such a stupid sport when you think about it ha smh

 

[PokerAce]

I think International T20 cricket still holds a fair bit of significance for the viewers - way more than CLT20 ever has. While individual International T20s may not hold a lot of significance, they still pull in huge crows. And viewers actually do care about who wins the World T20 even if it is not considered as prestigious as ODI World cup.

Besides, World T20 is an invaluable platform for the associate teams to taste the international level on an almost level playing field. As it is they have limited representation in the ODI World Cup. Robbing them of World T20 will not do them any favors - both financially and experience wise.

Also, I don't have the figures, but I am pretty sure a T20 involving the big international teams will generate a lot more revenue than a CLT20 game. CLT20 had very mediocre viewership from the beginning and has only improved a little. Airtel broke their 5 year contract after 2 years, then Nokia broke their 4-year contract after 1 year. Says something about what its market value is. And again, the bottomline is - the tournament has absolutely no significance whatsoever. Just personally speaking, I have followed/watched BBL and CPL, and even SLPL. But I really cannot be bothered with following CLT20 even though it is at a very convenient time for me. Because there is literally no point to it.

Ppl care about winning T20, because ones national side is plaiyng in it. I remember in the early 90s one variation called the Super 6s or Hong Kong Super 6s, format was tried out, where only 6 players, a side used to play and each side batted 6 overs only. I remember watching that on TV and even then wanting India to win. That is the point of being a fan. Whatever format you still care about your side winning.

Fans will always care about their side winning, but just because fans care about their side winning, doesn't mean a pointless format should be promoted at the Int'l level. T20 is not cricket enough. Cricket is the most multi dimensional sport, and T20 really works only a few levels. Hit some 6s, hit some 4s, go home. Thats not cricket. Swing your bat around, get out playing the most ridiculous of shots, put no price on your wicket whatsoever. I mean T20 is beyond ridiculous. T20 infacts mocks every basic tenet of cricket. On commentary in T20 I heard Gavaskar of all ppl, talk about a genuine edge, going for a 4 to third man and say "Well Played". Its ridiculous.

Naturally everyone was excited when T20 came around, but a decade on, T20 has failed to be cricket, let alone worthy of Int'l cricket. Fans will care about whatever format their side plays, but that is no reason to serve up drivel at the highest levels. We may as well restart Hong Kong Super 6s just because the fans will care.

This year Ind were in the final to World T20, did it ever remotely feel on the same level as being in the final of a world Cup. Looking back even the World T20 win feels hollow, or well nothing that big a deal. I mean India have some ODI triangular series, which looking back give me more pride as a fan, then winning the World T20. Hero Cup, Titan Cup, Nat West, and VB series in Australia 2008, all of them, rather pointless tournaments in isolation, mean more than winning the World T20. They are not even real tournament, like World T20 aims to be and still mean more.

SHould T20 exist at Int'l level, no. The whole point of T20 is to generate money for Boards and players, and domestic T20 does that. I want players to earn a good living, and T20 allows them to do that, and this is the only reason I want T20 to exist even as a domestic event. T20 should be kicked out altogether, but it does get the players to earn a good living, and so for that reason alone, I am okay with T20 leagues. But T20 at int'l level, Just No.

 

[PokerAce]

I see where you are going with this my friend, but having looked at this issue over the last 5 years myself, I still don't think its a good enough reason to keep the cricket C-League.

The champions league concept that football invented, that cricket is now copying that i've known in 18 years of watching football is for in the top club teams in each nation of the various confederations (mainly UEFA, S America, Africa, CONCACAF) playing in tournament, to see if they can replicate their domestic dominance on international club level.

In Europe for example this 2014/15 c-league, fans want to see how the styles, trends & dominance the star players of various domestic champions Manchester City, Bayern Munich, Atletico Madrid, Juventus etc will cope when facing the continental counterparts.

A key facet in this is having the same players who won you the domestic title in the C-league. As i mentioned doesn't happen in cricket, Messi, Ronaldo & co don't help more than one domestic teams win tournaments in football like cricket stars do. This is why i mentioned that Trinidad team because the only time they were able to filed the majority of stars in C-league they got to the final, but since then every season they end up choosing the IPL team. That TT team full strength might have won the C-league many times if it wasn't for this.

So the idea of player overide, 1st to 3rd choice team is crazy to me. In football the best players sign for the top club (mainly Europe) & you stay their forever. You don't play for multiple clubs at various points in the year.

Look at the new caribbbean premier league, they trying to rival IPL etc, so they have all the star windies players as franchise icon players. Technically that wrong, because lets say Brazil & Argentina leagues wanted to rival Europe big leagues, they can ask Messi & Neymar to come back to play for Santos or River Plate to help draw crowds. They are Barcelona players for good now. These are the rules FIFA set in.

Cricket though unlike football main format is international cricket, club domestic cricket is second. Unlike football which is the other way around. So the globe trotting situation is fine, but when you want to incorporate a champions league context to cricket, it exposes the many holes of star player globe trotting renders the tournament insane.

Just like the IPL with the 4 player starting XI restriction rule, C-league cricket started up so fast their was no cricket sanity behind how things & rues were done. Classic case of money (India money) taking in the cricket world & colossal BS walking.

International T20 cricket is also fine. In fact when international teams play in the T20 world cup, the standard of T20 cricket is way above all T20 leagues in the world. Most T20 leagues tend to carry average domestic players & you get some crappy games.

The reason why that one-off T20 with ENG/IND the other day was useless was just why one-off tests, 2 test series are useless, dumb ICC scheduling in the FTP. National boards stupidly treat T20 as a one-off marketing match to pull crowds, the tournament has a world cup, so if international teams are going to build proper chemsitry in the format like they do in 50 overs, each bilateral tour should have a minimum of 3 T20s in order to constitute a proper series.

Cricket can be such a stupid sport when you think about it ha smh

One cannot really compare a full football season, to a cricket T20 season. Football clubs is a full time employment. A cricket league lasts barely two months. Why should a player be denied the right to earn, in December, because the league he played for finished in May. There is no conflict at all. So for the 20 days where a conflict can arise (CLT20), I think that an over-ride clause is a good enough solution to it.

Think of Over-ride as a loan concept in football. Where the team with Over-Ride 1, loans the players to team with Over-ride 2, with the option to recall. The player can play for Over-Ride 2 team, when Over-Ride 1 is not playing, but once Over-Ride 1 matches get underway, whether or not there is a conflict (CLT20) with Over Ride 2 team, the player is then effectively recalled to his original side. Once Over-Ride 1 matches finish, he is then free to go back on loan and play for Over-Ride 2 team (not in the same competition of course).

I think even with football analogy with Over-Ride as effectively a loan, scenario works.

On a bilateral tour regardless of how many T20s are played, 1, or 2, or 3 or 5 or 7, that series is still irrelevant in the context of a tour, and the outcome of the T20 series on the tour would still be utterly pointless.

Any bilateral tour is about the tests. The ODIs for the side losing the test series serves as consolation in atleast we won something kind of a way. If the side winning the tests also wins the ODIs then it re-affirms its dominance. T20 regardless of 2 or 3 or 5, will still not fit in the picture at all.

If a side loses the test series, and then the ODI series, but wins T20s series is it adding anything to the tour in anyway. Will this side go, well we are sh!t at Tests and ODIs but we won the T20s, so YAY Party !! T20s on a bilateral tour are not even a proper side show, let alone a series to aspire to win. I mean yes a side is playing it so it may as well try and win it, but thats about the only motivation to win a T20 bilateral series.

Int'l T20 just don't fit. They are not cricket enough to be played at the Int'l level. Play them at the domestic level, get the players to earn money have a good living, and that is welcome and quite frankly T20s only use. I am fine with Domestic T20 for this reason alone. Players earn well, and we all want that, administrators earn good money, so the infrastructure can improve, again a welcome step.

This can be achieved by just playing T20 at the domestic level, no purpose is served playing T20 internationally. T20 doesn't make some a better player, and if you leave the finances aside, the impact on players in purely cricketing terms of T20 is largely negative. Bowlers become negative in their thinking, wanting to just restrict runs instead of taking wickets, batsmen learn that its okay to hit a senselessly ambitious shot and get out. How is T20 improving anyone as a player.

The art of defense one of the most valuable tools to any complete batsman is actually looked down upon in T20s. Play a good defensive shot and everyone goes what the hell is wrong with the batsman. I mean T20 makes sense financially but not in cricketing terms. No one can say T20s leagues are so popular because the quality of cricket on display is very high. Its just the finances. Int'l T20 doesn't even add much financially, so why play it at all.

Any board earns much more from their T20 league, than the odd Int'l T20 here or there. Let T20 exist for financial reasons but only at the domestic level. CLT20 though it brings conflicts, does make more sense with the Over-Ride loan system.

If CLT20 doesn't work still, then scrap it by all means. However Int'l T20s all kind and manner, must definitely be stopped immediately.

 

[abhi_jacko]

Ppl care about winning T20, because ones national side is plaiyng in it. I remember in the early 90s one variation called the Super 6s or Hong Kong Super 6s, format was tried out, where only 6 players, a side used to play and each side batted 6 overs only. I remember watching that on TV and even then wanting India to win. That is the point of being a fan. Whatever format you still care about your side winning.

Disagree. The Hong Kong Sixes was not just in the 90s. It went on until last year, and finally was cancelled for this year. Since you claim that it was an early 90s phenomenon, I will assume that you did not follow the series in the past 3-4 years even though it had India playing in it. So, it is actually a clear example of an inconsequential tournament unlike the World T20 (and very much like the CLT20).

Naturally everyone was excited when T20 came around, but a decade on, T20 has failed to be cricket, let alone worthy of Int'l cricket.

I know I am going to get a lot of flack for this - but T20 is the evolution of cricket and it is critical for cricket to stay alive. Here is why T20 will/must stay international and T20 World Cup will not be scrapped:

1. Money - the revenue generated from the last T20 World Cup was phenomenal. Even the revenue generated from one-off International T20s is huge.

2. Viewership - again phenomenal viewership for the 2014 Cup. It was reportedly 23% higher than 2012 and 57% higher than 2010 editions, clearly showing that the demand is there and more and more people are willing to watch it.

3. Casual fans - cricket cannot survive on the "purists" and T20 pulls in the casual fans like no other format. And I am sure, at least some percentage of those fans trickle over to the other formats as well, which is invaluable for the sport.

4. Associates - like I said, it is a great platform for Associates to compete with the big boys on an even keel. And it helps them financially as well. It will be beyond stupid to rob them of this experience.

5. IPL will fall flat if T20 is scrapped as an international format - don't forget, IPL was born to cash in on India's success in WorldT20 2007. T20 existed before IPL for a long time but did not take off until it went international. Take out Intl T20 and the viewership for domestic T20 will definitely take a big hit (if it isn't already).