ICC need to deal with India too.
- Thread starter andrew_nixon
- Start date
andrew_nixon
Chairman of Selectors
The BCCI say that they have the support of the PCB. But considering that the PCB have been nothing but supportive for Twenty20, I find that hard to believe.usy said:
vibs89
School Cricketer
andrew_nixon said:
What is people problem with BCCI anyway?
I support to BCCI and they are right as I agree with cricket God. The same question I can also ask you that what is people problem with BCCI just like you have a reasons, the same way I have reason to oppose the Twenty20.
andrew_nixon
Chairman of Selectors
And I have given my reasons for my problem with the BCCI. So what are your reasons for your problem with Twenty20?vibs89 said:
Cricket_god said:
I'm not a ICC supporter, any organisation that fails to throw out a country like Zimbabwe will not get my backing. I'm against the BCCI, they have no organisational skills nor do they have Crickets bests interests at heart imo.
20/20 is brilliant, it attracts more people to our great sport, which can result in producing better players.
sohum
Executive member
I read on Cricinfo, in fact, that Niranjan Shah and Shahrayar Khan presented a joint front against Twenty20. However, most of the article had Shah quotes, so I don't know if Khan was just being made a bunny. As for Twenty20--it's definitely exciting. As far as organizing an international Twenty20 competition, I feel that is unfair--especially since only about 4 countries have got actual exposure to it. The positives of a Twenty20 competition are, of course, that it will be over in a matter of days, instead of blocking up a major portion of the cricketing calendar.
The ICC may have the best interests of cricket (well, they should) when they are trying to make more development money. But they are definitely not using it intelligently. Startling examples are the crumbling of two decent cricketing nations (Zimbabwe and Kenya--made it to the Super Six and Semi Finals of consecutive World Cups) and one major cricketing nation (West Indies--double World Cup winners). Where does West Indies cricket development stand, in the eyes of the ICC? Are they putting money into that country? Apart from this, the ICC has also managed to long ignore the mess that is cricket in the US.
Also, there's no point trying to forcefully make cricket a global sport. Some audiences are just not made for cricket. Take the US audience, as an example. They have been bred on an appetite of short, flashy sports. Their attention span has been reduced to a minimum. The only way I see cricket being popular in the US is because of the huge financial gains that can be attained by showing advertisements every 6 balls. But to get that sort of sponsorship, you'll need an audience, which I doubt you'll get.
The ICC, thus, should not try to do more than they are able to. Globalising cricket sounds fancy, but why not make what we have better? In recent years, the series that have produced the most competitive cricket have come from a select few top-tier nations. Wait, no, even the Bangladesh-Zimbabwe test series was interesting because they were two well-matched opponents. This shows that the ICC's development goals are about as clear as a pot of mush. I wouldn't give them my money. The BCCI won't give them their money.
Where I and the BCCI differ is that I would actually try and invest that money to develop cricket regionally in Asia in a well-strategized way, whereas the BCCI use it to do I don't know what. For being the richest cricket board in the world, I really don't see where the BCCI spend their cash.
The ICC may have the best interests of cricket (well, they should) when they are trying to make more development money. But they are definitely not using it intelligently. Startling examples are the crumbling of two decent cricketing nations (Zimbabwe and Kenya--made it to the Super Six and Semi Finals of consecutive World Cups) and one major cricketing nation (West Indies--double World Cup winners). Where does West Indies cricket development stand, in the eyes of the ICC? Are they putting money into that country? Apart from this, the ICC has also managed to long ignore the mess that is cricket in the US.
Also, there's no point trying to forcefully make cricket a global sport. Some audiences are just not made for cricket. Take the US audience, as an example. They have been bred on an appetite of short, flashy sports. Their attention span has been reduced to a minimum. The only way I see cricket being popular in the US is because of the huge financial gains that can be attained by showing advertisements every 6 balls. But to get that sort of sponsorship, you'll need an audience, which I doubt you'll get.
The ICC, thus, should not try to do more than they are able to. Globalising cricket sounds fancy, but why not make what we have better? In recent years, the series that have produced the most competitive cricket have come from a select few top-tier nations. Wait, no, even the Bangladesh-Zimbabwe test series was interesting because they were two well-matched opponents. This shows that the ICC's development goals are about as clear as a pot of mush. I wouldn't give them my money. The BCCI won't give them their money.
Where I and the BCCI differ is that I would actually try and invest that money to develop cricket regionally in Asia in a well-strategized way, whereas the BCCI use it to do I don't know what. For being the richest cricket board in the world, I really don't see where the BCCI spend their cash.
I think they are correct in trying to limit 20/20 cricket and also the champions trophy - they are both a heap of garbage. what is wrong is their requests to pick and choose exactly who they play, when they play, and how often they play them. from all accounts the australians are on the BCCI's side, which is a little worrying - but i'm 100% sure the aussies will do the right thing by world cricket in the end, and without the aussies I don't think the indians can continue to dictate terms. what you have in australia and india is cricket that draws massive crowds year in, year out - they have no need for 20/20 cricket to bring people through the turnstyles. but it's obvious that 20/20 has breathed new air into english cricket, and could possibly do the same for lesser nations. you get rid of this, and test series between the bigguns and the littluns, and you'll see no development. but what you have in india and australia is a business model that needs no changing, not in the slightest - and pesky hit and giggle competitions and meaningless matches against zimbabwe and bangladesh are just a pain in the butt. i understand both sides of the argument, but being a massive fan of the game, i'd prefer we went without 20/20 and meaningless test series.
It wouldn't be that bad if we lost the sub continent nations....we could have like a tri-series between aus, eng and sa (or maybe a quad series if NZ lift their game) - an annual ashes series would be superb!
It wouldn't be that bad if we lost the sub continent nations....we could have like a tri-series between aus, eng and sa (or maybe a quad series if NZ lift their game) - an annual ashes series would be superb!
cricket_lover
International Cricketer
Sureshot said:
I agree with BCCI/ICC part...
but 20-20 produces better players? In what form of cricket?
May be ODI's...but not many in test cricket.
People who do not know cricket may not enjoy a test match, even an ODI. But for now, we have more than enough people watching the sport (among the highest).
You don't want cricket to end up like Baseball...where the only goal is to hit the ball, while cricket relies more on technique and skills.
PS: nothing against baseball though, its a game on its own, so is cricket.
andrew_nixon
Chairman of Selectors
Just a thought I had.
If you were the head of the ICC, and a country was really annoying you, completely undermining your authority and refusing to participate in your events, what would you say if they came to you and asked to host your biggest event?
India's attitude towards the ICC could well damage their chances of hosting the 2011 world cup.
If you were the head of the ICC, and a country was really annoying you, completely undermining your authority and refusing to participate in your events, what would you say if they came to you and asked to host your biggest event?
India's attitude towards the ICC could well damage their chances of hosting the 2011 world cup.
ronny_kingsley
Club Cricketer
Sureshot said:
This very organisation with "no organisational skills" is the richest sporting body in the whole world.
20-20 is needed for countries like England and USA for promoting cricket.Here in India we already have fullhouses for matches involving top players unlike the UK.
20-20 doesnt help cricket in any ways.Batsman are taught to slog ,bowlers to restict runs (rather than take wickets).Fielding isnt different cos one needs good fielding to win even the Test matches.
20-20 is good for soccer loving people who want quick action.FOr us cricket fans (all the PC members) "TESTS ARE THE BEST".
Also BCCI would have supported 20-20 if all it's intentions were to make quick bucks
cricket_lover
International Cricketer
Well, if i was the head of ICC, before looking at what India or any other board has done...i would look at what ICC has done, for all the cricket boards and for cricket itself.
There is no point in blaming others when ICC itself isn't doing much.
Accept the fact, ICC has been quite ineffective in adminstration of cricketing matters. I've seen ICC in headlines for few reasons,
a) bowling tests...for Bhajji or Murali or Akthar.....etc
b) the new ODI rules
c) WC bids
d) "spirit of the game"/warning the players to play the game in right spirit (which, can be argued...is also quite ineffective)
It could not deal with Zim issue. Nor could it improve cricket/adminstration in countries like Kenya, WI, few other African countries.
Instead of promoting cricket in non-cricketing countries, like Sohum said...improve the conditions in the present cricket playing countries.
Regarding India,
1) Yea! BCCI is dominated by filthy politics, and they are mostly money-minded people. Where there is money, there is BCCI.
They are some valid reasons though, for denying to take part in Champion's trophy and even 20-20.
a) It decreases the interest in test cricket. Unless there is an Ashes or India-Aus, or India-Pak. or Aus-SA, there is not much interest among other countries. Even that little interest is going down signficantly.
Both BCCI/ICC have valid points, from their POV. Let ICC do their job first, and then they can control BCCI.
There is no point in blaming others when ICC itself isn't doing much.
Accept the fact, ICC has been quite ineffective in adminstration of cricketing matters. I've seen ICC in headlines for few reasons,
a) bowling tests...for Bhajji or Murali or Akthar.....etc
b) the new ODI rules
c) WC bids
d) "spirit of the game"/warning the players to play the game in right spirit (which, can be argued...is also quite ineffective)
It could not deal with Zim issue. Nor could it improve cricket/adminstration in countries like Kenya, WI, few other African countries.
Instead of promoting cricket in non-cricketing countries, like Sohum said...improve the conditions in the present cricket playing countries.
Regarding India,
1) Yea! BCCI is dominated by filthy politics, and they are mostly money-minded people. Where there is money, there is BCCI.
They are some valid reasons though, for denying to take part in Champion's trophy and even 20-20.
a) It decreases the interest in test cricket. Unless there is an Ashes or India-Aus, or India-Pak. or Aus-SA, there is not much interest among other countries. Even that little interest is going down signficantly.
Both BCCI/ICC have valid points, from their POV. Let ICC do their job first, and then they can control BCCI.
andrew_nixon
Chairman of Selectors
Really? How many people attended the final of the Ranji Trophy?ronny_kingsley said:
Batsman taught to slog? Rubbish. Twenty20 has shown that batsman with orthodox techniques play better.ronny_kingsley said:
Mark Ramprakash has a technique so orthodox, it's almost worthy of a place in a museum, yet he is one of most consistent performers in Twenty20.
sohummisra said:
Erm, the demise of Zimbabwe is out of the ICCs hands imo, the ZCU is run by Mugabes Thugs (Government) and it doesn't help that the country is in genocide. Agreed they could do better, but ICC don't mix with politics.
I meant like, someone could be watching it and go:
"Yeh I like that I think I'll go and play some cricket"
He/She then could turn out to be a Cricket Legend.
I doubt it's richer than FIFA.
jkartik
Chairman of Selectors
andrew_nixon said:
so what if people dont attend or there are no fullhouses for ranji trophy finals !!
here, even a mentally retarted person would know the basics of cricket..
such deep is the sport here.
andrew_nixon said:
instead of arguing about twenty20 with techniques ans skills...
why do you think twenty20 should be started in india ??
please dont tell me that it will increase the popularity !
cricket_lover
International Cricketer
Players like Sachin, Lara, Ponting, Gilchrist,Dravid...did not become legends (or on verge of becoming one) by watching 20-20 or anything of that sort.
The first four are as destructive as you can get, more destructive than 20-20.
20-20 does require some skill..more like strong, fast reflexes than technique.
You cannot judge a tournament by one player. Mark Ramprakash indeed has a good technique but whats the proportion like..when you look at all players.
Is it a necessity for 20-20 in the sub-continent, i don't think so. ODI and even test cricket is still famous.
The first four are as destructive as you can get, more destructive than 20-20.
20-20 does require some skill..more like strong, fast reflexes than technique.
You cannot judge a tournament by one player. Mark Ramprakash indeed has a good technique but whats the proportion like..when you look at all players.
Is it a necessity for 20-20 in the sub-continent, i don't think so. ODI and even test cricket is still famous.
