ICC News: Restructuring the ICC, BCCI Influence & more

[Satan666]

Wait a second, where did I mention Jadeja as a 'top quality spinner'? Jadeja's mention was more to do with how the Australian line up crumbled before spinners even as good (or as bad) as Jadeja. You need to read my post carefully, mate. But then, you can always post whatever you want, how does that matter? And on Ashwin, he is definitely good, very good rather. Just that he's not been around for much (made his debut in late 2011). Varies his pace, turns the ball both ways with the carrom ball & the regular off break. Definitely a great bowler in the making.

Talking of pace bowling, Srinath was definitely great in my view. And yes, Z Khan too. Now whatever your 'best pace bowler list' is, these two will always be one of my favourite pace bowlers.

It's more to do with you being over critical, more like you underlining & highlighting a few flaws while skipping all that's good. You can always do that, go on with this poor criticism, and I'll go on standing by what is true.

Ashwin is a very good bowler and the planet is flat, stand by that truth meh brother!

 

[vaibhavtewatia]

Some stat attack :

Zaheer Khan in Tests Nov 2006 - April 2011

Matches- 36
Wickets- 150
Average- 28.40

Same time span, at home
Matches- 17
Wickets- 60
Average- 30.76

and away
Matches- 19
Wickets- 90
Average- 26.82

His bowling improved during his stint with Worcestershire, though he also played for Surrey before. He was called for the tour in RSA , and earned his spot well after that.

Considering he is an Indian bowler, these stats speak for themselves. Bowling in sub-continent is already difficult, and when the team goes abroad, they are slammed for not using the conditions well.

Eng tour to India 2009, these were the words of KP:

Kevin Pietersen's words the other day about how the bowler "is currently the best in the world" came to mind.

"Whether it is the new ball or the old one, he's bowling magnificently,"

This is what Gary Kirsten had to say:
Gary Kirsten rates Zaheer Khan as the best fast bowler in the world ? Cricket News | bettor.com

Yeah, they are more or less talking about a particular time frame in which he excelled, but except a few fast bowlers, this is generally the case.

Zaheer Khan's performance in matches India won(same period):

Matches- 17
Wickets- 85
Average- 23.52

He has been the most influential fast bowler for India in Test cricket in the modern day era.

Since 2011, he's been out of action for a large part of the seasons due to injuries. And MSD has always given spinners the preference in first few overs over Zaheer since 2011, which has eventually minimised his role.

And now for your ranking thing, why would you rate Zaheer in the top 20's of bowlers since 90's, he made his debut in 2000.How many fast bowlers of this decade would feature in the 'since the 80's list' I doubt, it makes sense, though you can go on with 90's one. And he's definitely in top 10 bowlers for me for 2000-2010, and I'll stand by it.

 

[SaiSrini]

There is a massive upheaval going on within the BCCI. This could be good news for the anti-BCCI people, and it looks like N.Srinivasan will be forced to quit.

I am hoping something good out of this comes for Indian cricket. I don't want the likes of Pawar to come back into BCCI leadership. If the likes of Kumble can come forward and take up BCCI presidentship, it would be a good choice. I am not sure if even the IPL might continue into the next seasons. Right now, everything is hanging out there in a limbo.

 

[Satan666]

Judgement day is soon upon the Indians, BCCI must pay for their sins, their followers, supporters and accomplices would all perish.


Psalms 1:4
''The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.''

 

[vaibhavtewatia]

It is just your negative frame of mind that you think we all will perish.
We all have been waiting for the BCCI to be more accountable and abide by govt. laws . Change will only be for good.

 

[SaiSrini]

It is just your negative frame of mind that you think we all will perish.
We all have been waiting for the BCCI to be more accountable and abide by govt. laws . Change will only be for good.

Just...??? I thought you have been here long enough vaibhav to know what Untouchables is all about.

On topic - the BCCI going through this upheaval can be only good for Indian cricket. I seriously hope some sane and sensible head like Kumble or Dravid or Srinath, etc head the BCCI. Someone who knows cricket well, and yet who can be a good administrator and good head.

 

[Satan666]

^^I hope Dravid doesnt go there, he is an honest person, the BCCI may turn him. Kapil Dev at this time might be the best person to take over the reigns!

 

[vaibhavtewatia]

On topic - the BCCI going through this upheaval can be only good for Indian cricket. I seriously hope some sane and sensible head like Kumble or Dravid or Srinath, etc head the BCCI. Someone who knows cricket well, and yet who can be a good administrator and good head.

Just...??? I thought you have been here long enough vaibhav to know what Untouchables is all about.

My Bad.

The old guy has placed four conditions if he's asked to quit, otherwise he isn't willing to go. I feel that he still wants some sort of control in the board. The meeting is scheduled today at 2.30 pm IST , and other members might quit as well if Srini stands firm.


That is all we can wish for, keeping the political heads out, those who've never caught a ball or held a bat, or atleast we can have those politicians who can benefit cricket, likes of Sidhu, Azad, etc.

Although Shashank Manohar has odds in favour of him.

 

[Bevab]

Untouchables, your hatred for your own country is incredibly pathetic.

 

[cricket_icon]

Untouchables, your hatred for your own country is incredibly pathetic.

I'm not sure if he's indian but I don't think he hates his country. The fact that he has criticised recent decisions by the BCCI and the way they control Indian cricket is the only way the system can improve. If you can't criticise what is yours, what else can you criticise?

 

[SaiSrini]

I'm not sure if he's indian but I don't think he hates his country. The fact that he has criticised recent decisions by the BCCI and the way they control Indian cricket is the only way the system can improve. If you can't criticise what is yours, what else can you criticise?

Nope. He has gone beyond that. He has blamed the Indian people and their inherent personalities and their way of reacting to things. His avatars also point to the sarcastic potshots at Indians, Indian gods and Indian heroes.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

debating users nationalities is massively off topic so can we stop this, please?

 

[War]

no, I mean way back. it's not a new thing zimbabwe supporting india, it's been going on for years.

though I don't see why they are irrelevant if they are a full test nation. how would you like to see power distributed? by whoever makes the most money?

Power should in the cricket should be centralized in at the ICC and no cricket board who may have a strong financial might should be able to manipulate the way the BCCI does to the ICC and the rest of the world.

You dont see UEFA or England who are the strongest federation and individal federation respectively manipulating FIFA executives.

well that's sort of exactly the problem. england were quite happy to run the world of cricket out there back yard when they could. which is how this situation was able to happen.

but there are some examples, like the 7 years the ICC fought to retain apartheid africa after olympic council banned them and I don't imagine the first three world cups being held in england sat well with anyone at the time. also rebel tours were dealt with differently, west indies players got a life ban for a rebel tour, english players got a 3 year one.

england and australia are percieved to have held back nations while india supported them. it was india that fought for sri lanka's inclusion and bangladesh's, this is still happening as pawar was the guy that removed the limit on associate nations.

Yes ENG ran cricket from their backyard & i've always said ENG and the entire cricket community are at fault for not making the ICC strong since the Packer ordeal away from English power. The same way FIFA under Joe Havelange in the 70s became a stronger governing body after England FIFA president Stanley Rous left. But ENG never bullied or tried to manipulate, frustrate and corrupt the cricket world to their benefit like the BCCI has done in recent years.

With regards to ICC keeping S Africa for those 7 extra years for aparthied, that was clearly bad, no defense. But those were years where in every facet of life racialism was slowly being torn down. FIFA didn't formally ban them until 1976 either. So the fact that ICC did ban them was good enough, so that not really a real criticism.

On the first 3 world cups i never heard or read any past players or historians view ENG hosting those first 3 cups as a sign of them being bullies. Let not forget during the 70s and 80s much of cricket world really didn't have the facilities and infrastructure to host the world cup matches. The first 3 world cups being played in ENG just happened like that, no bully boy intentions were meant by the MCC.

Many players up until the mid 90s used to complain about food poisoning in India for example. West Indies grounds were not up to scratch up until 2007 either.

ICC never banned the windies players for going on rebel tours. The then WICB did. But some of those players bans were lifted for example fast bowler Ezra Moselely, who eventually played vs ENG in 1990.

ENG treated their players differently as you mentioned, but the ICC never had a role in how individual countries treated their players who went on rebel tours to SA in the 80s. I recall Sri Lanka also banned a few of their pre-test match days players after the went on a rebel tour in 1982-83 also.

I'm not sure how you could say England & AUS were perceived to have held back nations, that is furthest from the truth ENG played a role in every nation up to zimbabwe getting a test debut in 1992.

India had no power in the 1980s so their is no way they could have pushed or had much of a serious influence in Sri Lanka's inclusion a test nation. Sri Lanka played their first test vs ENG in 1983 in case you forgot.


India probably fought for BANG inclusion yea, but they have done a great job of repaying them but never yet inviting Bangladesh to India for a test series.

Not sure what limits on associates you speaking of that were removed.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I'm not taking this down a tit for tat arguement. you can happily read many cricket historians condem the introspection and lack of democracy the ICC was run with prior to the 1990s. a large proportion of them english. it's widely accepted as fact.

you are swinging in defense of allowing apartheid while calling blocking the DRS and IPL window corruption and manipulation. I just can't have an arguement along those lines because to me, it's utterly self-evident which is worse. the ICC represented 7 nations, 3 non-white, and those 3 had a much larger combined population than the other 4. the FIFA comparison doesn't hold water because south africa were a footballing irrelevance, in cricket they were a world power and if the ICC was acting democratically then it should acknowledge the significant ethnic diversity of it's members by blocking racist states.

food poisoning? boo hoo. weren't we sending soldiers, governers, traders for like a century before when we were colonising the place? seemed to manage ok then.

 

[LegBreakGoogly]

Surely eradicating the influence of the BCCI is as immoral as them having as much influence as they do.

It should be about ensuring that all full ICC members have equal influence over the decision the ICC makes.

No one nation should have as much influence as the BCCI have.