ICC need to deal with India too.

[Adarsh]

Yeah, I agree with most of what has already been said. It seems to be a debate between the Indians and the rest. I agree with the fact that cricket does not have to be played in as many nations as possible. If the other countries want to join, fine. The ICC does not have to go out of the way to lure people from Lapland or Uzbeghistan to play cricket.

 

[puddleduck]

What i find highly hypocritical from the Indian based fans is that they keep mentioning things like "wouldn't it be better to see two teams locked in a test match" or "why should we encourage other people to play". Funnily enough it is not the way they think of things in India. ODI cricket makes them money, so they play far too much of it. 7 of the damn things v England in the upcoming series alone! The whole point here is that when ODI cricket was introduced India were against it, yet now they find it makes them money, packs their stadiums and does a wonderful job of filling their pockets. Now they have benefitted from it, they show in every way that they in no way want anything to change. They like being in the position they are now in, and god forbid anyone else should stand a chance at displacing them.

In my opinion they are scared that if a country like the USA caught on, they in turn could find themselves no longer making more money than anyone else, would lose their "all-mighty" voice and once again things would be on a more level playing field.... What you guys are forgetting is that cricket either way does not appeal to the masses in most countries, but through things like one day cricket and 20-20 it could feasibly bring in more fans from around the world, see an increase in test-playing nations, and an increase in the talent that gets introduced to the game. Funny that India in no way want to see this.. scared of competition perhaps?

 

[SaiSrini]

What i find highly hypocritical from the Indian based fans is that they keep mentioning things like "wouldn't it be better to see two teams locked in a test match" or "why should we encourage other people to play". Funnily enough it is not the way they think of things in India. ODI cricket makes them money, so they play far too much of it. 7 of the damn things v England in the upcoming series alone! The whole point here is that when ODI cricket was introduced India were against it, yet now they find it makes them money, packs their stadiums and does a wonderful job of filling their pockets. Now they have benefitted from it, they show in every way that they in no way want anything to change. They like being in the position they are now in, and god forbid anyone else should stand a chance at displacing them.

In my opinion they are scared that if a country like the USA caught on, they in turn could find themselves no longer making more money than anyone else, would lose their "all-mighty" voice and once again things would be on a more level playing field.... What you guys are forgetting is that cricket either way does not appeal to the masses in most countries, but through things like one day cricket and 20-20 it could feasibly bring in more fans from around the world, see an increase in test-playing nations, and an increase in the talent that gets introduced to the game. Funny that India in no way want to see this.. scared of competition perhaps?

The Indian fans are not as intelligent as you to think that india might lose money power if cricket gets caught on with other nations! : when we speak abt it, we think more on the cricket side, less on the other sides!

 

[ZoraxDoom]

@Puddleduck: I don't care what the BCCI thinks and wants, I am more concerned that the ICC is ready to lower the standard of cricket (Supersubs, Powerplays, Super Series, and now a Twenty20 World Cup) just to attract countries and people who never were interested in cricket in the first place. Why don't they instead invest and develop cricket in Zimababwe, Kenya, UAE, Bangladesh, Nepal, Holland and other ODI-only countries which are actualyl intrested and hold bucket loads of talent.

And on the point - What makes you think that their are special skills to be talented in cricket? You have to have Hand-eye co-ordination, speed, agility and strength, which are also required in other sports. What we have to do is take counries which have people with all these skills (UAE, USA, Bangladesh, Zimababwe, Kenya and Nepal to name a few) and steer them towards cricket instead of other sports, and the way to do this is to invest in facilities in those countries and not have bloody Twenty20 matches!!!

 

[puddleduck]

The Indian fans are not as intelligent as you to think that india might lose money power if cricket gets caught on with other nations! : when we speak abt it, we think more on the cricket side, less on the other sides!

Yeah sorry I didn't mean that to refer to the Indian fans, was referring more to the BCCI itself there. Obviously Indian cricket fans just want to watch cricket... but gate receipts and attendences clearly confirm that it is the shorter 50 over form of the game that really brings their crowds in, so to claim that it is Test Cricket that Indian fans want to see, as I have seen mentioned is just plain wrong, and only looking at it through their own eyes.

I would love to see more test cricket played, I mean why on earth are England only playing 3 test series v India and Pakistan, yet 7 and 5 ODIs respectively? Because in those countries it is ODI cricket that makes money.

And on the point - What makes you think that their are special skills to be talented in cricket? You have to have Hand-eye co-ordination, speed, agility and strength, which are also required in other sports. What we have to do is take counries which have people with all these skills (UAE, USA, Bangladesh, Zimababwe, Kenya and Nepal to name a few) and steer them towards cricket instead of other sports, and the way to do this is to invest in facilities in those countries and not have bloody Twenty20 matches!!!

The point is that it is far easier to produce those facilities to cater for short 20-20 matches, far easier to find slots on their television, that as has been mentioned, does not then take up an entire day. The point of 20-20 is that it attracts people to the basics of cricket, then as they begin to understand the pretty complex rules and nuances that are compressed into a short form of the game, they begin to branch into the longer form. I can only go by what I have seen first hand, and that is a couple of mates not interested in Cricket, now prepared to come to an entire day of County Cricket with me just because they enjoyed a 20-20 game. So already it has worked within my circle of friends by attracting a few people to at least explore the longer form.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

But the thing is it isn't helping the smaller nations - just promoting it more in the bigger ones. The average kid in Nepal is going to get a small chance to watch cricket on TV, even smaller that it will be a Twenty20, and even smaller the kid would be watching it if he wasn't interested in the sport. And take note that kids in Nepal don't own a TV, so if they are gonna watch it, it will be 100 or so people on on TV watching Tendulkar bat. Thsi is how they will gain interest, and if the Facilities are there, they could become the next Bradman or Sobers. Twenty20 is a waste of funds which could be utilized better.

 

[puddleduck]

Fair enough it might not Work in Nepal... but what about Holland? Or Germany? or the USA? Ireland? I could go on Are you honestly telling me that people in those countries might not benefit? Fair enough it's not helping the small nations in terms of geographical size, but it's certainly helping the nations that can be considered small in cricketing terms. If 20-20 cricket then helps them to bring in more money then it is another step towards being able to initiate facilities into countries like Nepal, Kenya etc... My own personal opinion is that far too much ODI cricket is played, but it makes money for the various nations, that they all claim they could not live without, is it not reasonable to assume that 20-20 cricket could well do the same, except without taking up quite as much time, or leading to quite as many injuries?

Another major plus for 20-20 cricket, certainly here in England, I do not know about the rest of the World, is that is what all kid's play. Most matches are 20-20 games as that is all there is time for after school. In my opinion that only enhances the games reputation at youth level as they now see the professionals playing the same format.

Another point about 20-20 cricket, is that due to it's truncated form, it encourages specialist batsman and bowlers, however OD cricket due to the need to make sure you use all 50 overs, often encourages bit-part players who can do a bit of everything.

Fair enough if you disagree, not everyone shares the same opinion, if they did life would be boring Just going by most of your posts, I do value your opinion Zorax.

 

[sohum]

I disagree. The sport has to grow worldwide. Really the same 10 teams playing each other all the time will eventually get boring.

Take football as an example. Greece winning the European championship, Senegal making it to the Quarter finals of their first ever World Cup. Even in cricket, Kenya entering the semis of the Cricket World Cup in South Africa. It all adds to the excitement and growth of the game.

Sohum and Zorax will come and go, however, cricket has to survive and grow. And the key to that is Twenty20.

It is your opinion that it has to grow. If it does grow, that does not mean that we go for short-term results. What is the point of having a country having a minor flirt with cricket and then disappearing back into the gloom? I guess there will always be people like m_vaughan who would prefer a short period of many cricketing countries.

Cricket is not like other sports. What other sport has two countries playing against each other for 2-3 months? This is exactly why we do not NEED to have more countries than we do already. Even with 10 countries, there is such a large turn-around period that we won't be seeing the same countries playing cricket too often. Even if you have just 6 top-tier nations, the permutations are such that each country won't be able to play each other in home and away in fewer than 3-4 years.

I think test cricket has completed a successful comeback into the cricketing limelight--why would you want to pollute that atmosphere by holding a Twenty20 world cup. I find it hypocritical that everyone claims that test cricket is the truest form of cricket, yet we should play other forms more.

As for the BCCI's tour organization, they will always have money in their mind. I, for one, always prefer test matches to ODI cricket. Perhaps because ODI cricket is so much more flukish, whereas you need to win test matches. Besides that, if you're gonna be stereotyping a group of people, you should probably make sure that group doesn't consist of near a billion individuals.

It is not like cricket is lacking in fan following. And if it is, then we should make sure we get the fans back into the countries that are already playing, rather than trying to expand what we already have. India doesn't have problems with getting fans into the stadium. And with the Indian future looking bright, I doubt they'll have any problems in the coming years. Twenty20 may be the way to go, but how long-term will that development be? Also, if we are all into shortening the game, why don't we just instate the Hong Kong sixes internationally? And force every country to send their top teams to it? just about 8 overs of slam-bang action--isn't that what we want?

All in all, this is how I stand on a variety of topics, regarding the ICC:
1. The ICC's development plans are bullshit.
2. The ICC need to fix what they already have before expanding.
3. Twenty20 is an exciting prospect--implement it domestically first.

As for the BCCI, they recently ordered a probe into the Dalmiya management, and misuse of funds. In this article, I also heard of a fund that was specifically created to aid for cricket between India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. So it is not like the BCCI is completely oblivious of their neighbors.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Fair enough it might not Work in Nepal... but what about Holland? Or Germany? or the USA? Ireland? I could go on Are you honestly telling me that people in those countries might not benefit? Fair enough it's not helping the small nations in terms of geographical size, but it's certainly helping the nations that can be considered small in cricketing terms. If 20-20 cricket then helps them to bring in more money then it is another step towards being able to initiate facilities into countries like Nepal, Kenya etc... My own personal opinion is that far too much ODI cricket is played, but it makes money for the various nations, that they all claim they could not live without, is it not reasonable to assume that 20-20 cricket could well do the same, except without taking up quite as much time, or leading to quite as many injuries?

Places like Holland, Ireland, etc. are recieveing finance from the ECB. Its places like China, Bermuda, Nepal, Bangaldesh, Uganda, UAE and Kenyw which will not benifit from Twenty20s in England, India and Australia.
An alternate solution - Play Twenty20s in the countries that are willing to develop in world cricket and need the finance (Like the ones I mentioned). Helps both sides.

Another major plus for 20-20 cricket, certainly here in England, I do not know about the rest of the World, is that is what all kid's play. Most matches are 20-20 games as that is all there is time for after school. In my opinion that only enhances the games reputation at youth level as they now see the professionals playing the same format.

Fine, but its only in England (Read my above statement).
Also, a kid gets hit for twenty in an over, don't you think he will be discouraged and quit the game all toghether?

Another point about 20-20 cricket, is that due to it's truncated form, it encourages specialist batsman and bowlers, however OD cricket due to the need to make sure you use all 50 overs, often encourages bit-part players who can do a bit of everything.

Bit-part players then eventually turn to allrounders, somethign Twenty20 might cause a loss in...

Instead of a Twenty20 WC, ODI series should be held in Neutral venues. Teams concerned earn from ticket sales from developing countries who want to be competitive in cricket, TV rights will bring in cash, and some money can be used to finance these countries. Win-win. Maybe someone should give the ICC these ideas?

 

[m_vaughan]

I still disagree. Roll back down a few years, and people would have said the same thing about ODI cricket. But the fact is ODI cricket has popularised the game a lot more. And even though test cricket is still the best and the most complete form of the game, ODIs draw more crowds.

It is way too early to dump Twenty20. Give it a few years, and I am pretty sure you will see why so many people see a good future for Cricket in it.

 

[Sureshot]

3. Twenty20 is an exciting prospect--implement it domestically first.

How could the International Cricket Council implement 20/20 Domestically?

 

[puddleduck]

Places like Holland, Ireland, etc. are recieveing finance from the ECB. Its places like China, Bermuda, Nepal, Bangaldesh, Uganda, UAE and Kenyw which will not benifit from Twenty20s in England, India and Australia.
An alternate solution - Play Twenty20s in the countries that are willing to develop in world cricket and need the finance (Like the ones I mentioned). Helps both sides.

My point is that 20-20s need to be played globally, which includes trying to introduce them into places like China, Bermuda, Nepal, Bangladesh etc...

Are you honestly trying to say that they should play the game in their countries but not in India or England? The point of it is to increase cricket on a global scale, which includes the minor countries. I fail to see how playing in only one or the other gives any encouragement. As has been seen Bangladesh stand no chance beating Australia in a test match, yet in a 50 over game they beat them! If you go to 20-20 there is a massive chance that the minor countries (I am of course referring the Cricket ability) will spring shock results and as such increase their profile on their domestic scene.

You are assuming that people all over the World have the time to devote entire days to cricket, in the real world this is not the case, and as such 20-20 allows people to partake in cricket matches despite having to study for school. Your point about kids turning away from cricket if they get hit for 20 off an over is unfortunately a load of rubbish If that's the case they are/were never mentally strong enough to play cricket anyway. I myself have had bad overs when I was still playing youth cricket, for example getting hit for 16 by an U15 South of England batsman, It never stopped me from finishing leading wicket taker every season, and in the end failing Middlesex trials.


The whole point behind introducing 20-20 to the World, and firstly getting India to agree, is that if the big teams play it, and the little sides get involved, they will be mixing it with the top sides in the World in money making matches that can attract crowds due to the ability to hold matches in hours that do not interfere with Work or Schooling. The knock on effect is that it is easy to introduce to grass-roots level cricket, and that it is very easy to help developing nations get involved, I fail to see that the negatives outweight the positives.

 

[sohum]

How could the International Cricket Council implement 20/20 Domestically?

That's true, considering most of the ICC's recommendations are considered hogwash.

And if we are all for shortening the game and making it exciting, (for the third time) why don't we have an international competition modelled on the lines of the Hong Kong Sixes? That's perfect for the fans! No need to pick bowlers--since they'll get slaughtered anyway. Just an 8 (or is it 12?) over-a-side runfest. What's more, a whole tournament can be played over the weekend.

 

[cricket_lover]

You have seen what happened in the recently concluded India-Pak test series.
If it is only a batsman's game, people are not interested.
20-20 is very much a batsman's game, more than ODI. You do not want to end up with 100 batsmen and 5 bowlers.
In 20-20 you do not gain as much skill, compared to ODI and tests.
Promoting cricket in other countries is a good idea, but before that..there are many issues that need to be settled.
You cannot ride on two boats at the same time. You either want the current, important issues to be dealt with and then concentrate on "promoting" the game.

 

[icyman]

Are the Indians afraid that their players cannot cope up with the 20-20 ?
I don't think so cause they have some great players like sehwag ,yuvraj and others who can really whack the ball a long way.
I really don't see what the BCCI is playing at by not agreeing to a twenty 20 world cup.
True ,if India does not agree the ICC will not have its sponsors and the tournament would lose its value.
But what is it that the BCCI exactly wants?

It does not want to take part in the Champions trophy,no Asia cup ,no Twenty 20 and on top of it they want their own itinerary so that the TV right holders get their worth.
In short they do not want to take part in a competition started by Jagmohan Dalmiya.

Also if Twenty 20 is to be introduced people would actually take to it.
Indians like me and many others who are involved in sports can tell you that the Premier Hockey League that was started a year ago ( Power Hockey ) has been a success.
One more thing is,people would enjoy a 20-20 match rather than a 5 day ranji trophy.The Ranji in India has been forgotten by the public and it does not have anby value.Its not the same as the English county.