ICC News: Restructuring the ICC, BCCI Influence & more

[War]

A CRICKETING VIEW: On Some Consequences Of The ICC's Position Paper

 

[War]

ICC news : Draft proposal could hit a snag | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | ESPN Cricinfo

----------

Gavaskar and Shastri might be toeing the line of the BCCI due to various other reasons. But both these guys in reality are known to be sensible and decent. Its the other goons who need to be evicted. If Gavaskar or Shastri can assume a position in the BCCI, they would actually do good. Right now, they are just used as mouthpieces for the BCCI where the BCCI throws money at them and asks to bark for them.

People like Ganguly, Dravid, Kumble, Srinath, etc need to get into BCCI administration. These guys can actually do good for Indian cricket. But how they can take on the current setup is something that no one knows. When Dalmiya was ruling, the Pawar group came in and gave a bitter fight to upstage the Dalmiya group. But right now, there is no rival group to challenge the current BCCI administration. Seems like they have done everything to trampoline on any idea of giving rise to a rival group.

Don't doubt Shastri & Gavaskar would be sensible in their cricket reasoning, but i'm not 100% convinced that they actually do oppose what the current BCCI does, regardless of the fact that they are payed mouthpieces. These two articles from Indian journalist a few years ago highlights this:

- Ramachandra Guha: The strange silence of Gavaskar and Shastri | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

- Jayaditya Gupta: Blame the BCCI, not Gavaskar and Shastri | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Do you think if Kumbe & those other former players were to become that rival group - they could challenge the corrupt Srinivasam cabal?

I was encourage by this Kumble speech a few months ago - http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/story/688269.html - Wear power lightly, Kumble asks BCCI

 

[War]

That's a nice schedule!

Personally, I think a 4-5 year running points table is too long if you are going to market it as a championship, and bring the prize down to one month of play in that cycle. It's a lovely idea in theory, but teams fluctuate too much within that time frame ie. winning a series for the Test championship in 2018 probably wouldn't have much relevance to past form, even from what happened in 2016. It might get problematic too late in the cycle when teams down the bottom can't make the semis. They will want to cancel series, maybe play their 2nd XI, an irrelevant series would be difficult to promote etc. There would be more anguish about big name players retiring mid-cycle too eg. if Michael Clarke retires in 2016/2017 and Australia starts a downward slide in the last year or two.

Other ideas? Just shorten the point scoring cycle and have a semi-final and final every 2 years. Make it more current in other words. Schedule won't be balanced, but it will NEVER be balanced anyway under the current political climate.
Maybe we just play the #1 and #2 ranked teams off with each other every March/April for 3 Tests. Don't have to make a big deal of it, but the cricket itself should be compelling enough to attract TV, sponsors etc.
Or if the #1 team is dominating every year, try the World XI concept again. Statisticians hated that 2005 'Super Series', but there was a lot of interest in the series. And that's what this championship idea is about at it's core, getting more interest in Test cricket.

Regarding test championship, I prefer the test championship every 2 years rather than 4 years. It makes sure the teams have not changed much over the course of the "season" due to retirements. Regarding how it should be scheduled, i believe the ranking system should be used to determine who will play who and where. For example no 1 team needs ro play away against the no 8 team giving the no 8 team an advantage.

Also I do think champions trophy should be brought back. It should include the top 8 team in nothing but knockout matches. People tend to like the "lottery" surrounding this format.

3 teams odi tournaments should be brought back too to generate interest back to the odi games. Also 3 teams tournament gives chances for associate teams to get invited to play with the the big teams. Better if ypthey can arrange the tournament in the associates country to generate interest. The first champions trophy was organized in BD where BD did not even play. But people flocked to the stadium to see the likes of waughs, dravids, rhodes etc

And lets just drop the internation T20. Shall we? Cricket wasnt dying before (correct me if I am wrong). The talk of odis and tests dying only came into the discussion once t20 got introduced in the international level.

If you came up with a decent solution to the problem of players who are on multiple teams (besides letting the IPL team keep everyone) and the extreme bias towards the IPL/Big Bash, the Champions League T20 really should be the pinnacle of that form of the game.

The players really don't seem to take international T20 matches with any degree of importance, especially as it seems to be 1 or 2 matches at the end of a tour when all the important matches are over; and is anyone really fussed if they don't win the World T20?

@ Sifter & isrararrafi - Its a interesting point you too make about the 4 or 5 years bein to long to have a champion due to reasons such a player retirements, etc.

You look at football or even the cricket 50 over world cups for examples that crown champions every 4 years, generally most teams have totally different squads every tournament. A lot players changes/squad form happens in the qualifiers for the football world cup. But of course in football during the pre/world cup years, they play qualifiers - which has a focus of qualifying the top 32 teams for the finals tournaments.

Cricket test championship would be taking 4 years to qualify just 4 teams for a finals.

I look at cricket's 3 formats like a football season where you had the league & two cup tournaments (Copa Del rey/Coppa Italia/FA Cup/Champions League).

Test cricket is like the league the you slog out to play everyone home/away & if you win that - you know you the clear best team for the year, cause you conquered all the various challenges.

While the league cups/C-League is the knockout competition (50 overs/T20 world cup/Champions trophy), that the best team around doesn't always win.

Do we really wan't to turn the test championship into a knockout format as Crowe suggested, instead of the hard slog?:

The concept is based on an annual competition, within the next five-year cycle of the Future Tours Programme (FTP), which starts from 2012. A knock-out open is drawn up, splitting the top eight nations into two tiers, so the top four play at home and the bottom four play away. This is a reward for consistent Test performance throughout the Future Tours Programme, say over the last year. Now these quarter-finals are played within a six-month period, and played by virtue of a one-off, say six-day Test match, so that you are looking to get a result. If the Test is drawn, then the home side will go through to the semis. The semis are then staged at some stage. Or there is already a schedule as part of the FTP; they can choose the Test match from a series that they are playing and nominate it as the semi-final. Another one-off Test match is played to determine the finalists. The final will then be organised, and the highest-ranked team at the time will host that six-day final. So in total, over the 12-month period, seven Tests are played and a champion is crowned.

To answer my own question, for reasons you guys stated & for commercial/promotional purposes, this may have to be done.

But i think most would agree the FTP has to revamped in a way that all the top 8 nations + Bangladesh ( (i'm deliberately ignoring Bangladesh ZIM because i don't believe they should be playing each other in a structure basis. Or else Crowe's idea would be useless.

We can't have the scenario continue in which the big 4, financial strong nations, are avoiding playing the the bottom 5 weak financially strong nations.

Under Crowe's logical idea, the winner of this knockout test champions may not always be the best test team. So just a side idea, i think the team under a revamped, FTP, with the best home/away win ratio, should also be rewarded for that consistency.

So even if we have a knockout test championship winner every 2 years - every 4 years also reward the team that wins the most series home/away with a Shield or something.


On the other formats, yes the Champions trophy should certainly be brought back, should never have been axed. But i would go back the the 2000 edition format & make it even more of a lottery:

- Use 12 (10 test playing nations + two associates in Ireland & Afghanistan for eg)

- 4 knockout games in the "play-off or pre-quarter final stage"
- 4 quarter finals
- semi's & final

The top 8 nations who would slip into to play in the play-off stage, depend on their ranking in their ODI table. So this might inadvertently help to give bilateral ODI series some context because the big sides would know they have such a tournament coming up & would surely want to avoid the play-off phase.

@ Matt - i don't believe we should drop international T20. I certainly believe all the 3 formats can co-exist, the reason people talk about dropping a format, is simply because the ICC has failed miserably to have a coherent FTP programme. This has been cruelly exposed since all these T20 leagues have come about.

Its the ICC's lack of leadership that teams play 1 off or 2 match T20 series or still play ridiculous 7 match ODI series. If every series was a minimum of 3 tests/3 ODIs/3 T20s - everything would be fine, i've always believed.

However i would conceed that the idea of axing 50 overs has a format could have merit.

One of the problems in world cricket is that countries like WI/NZ/PAK/SRI/BANG/IND standard of first-class cricket is not the same level historically as AUS/ENG/SA due to finances.

Of course once WI were strong they had a great system, but they don't have a finances now to have a long 3-4 month season like AUS/ENG/SA do. While IND obviously have the money to improve their domestic system - but they seem more focused on making IPL greater

Its no coincidence why only WI/AUS/ENG/SA have been the only legitimate # 1 test teams, throughout cricket history. But since 1975 all of the top 8 nations have at least won a world cup, champions trophy or T20 world cup. This shows how hard it is to be good a tests & those weak financial teams, generally use 50 overs performances of players - to pick them for test matches with mixed results.

So if the ICC helps WI/NZ/SRI/PAK/BANG get their domestic structures up to similar standard to AUS/ENG/SA, this will inevitably help their test match performances, then i believe 50 overs can be scrapped & we can go back to two having two formats again (test & t20s).

 

[War]

Switch Hit : Switch Hit Podcast | England cosy up to power | Cricket videos, MP3, podcasts, cricket audio | ESPN Cricinfo

Kimber & Hopps are essentially saying that the reason AUS & England especially joined forces with India to form this cabal, is because the BCCI actually threaten to breakaway from world cricket.

 

[blockerdave]

Switch Hit : Switch Hit Podcast | England cosy up to power | Cricket videos, MP3, podcasts, cricket audio | ESPN Cricinfo

Kimber & Hopps are essentially saying that the reason AUS & England especially joined forces with India to form this cabal, is because the BCCI actually threaten to breakaway from world cricket.

i say let them... better that than we are complicit in the destruction of test cricket and the betrayal of the less well off nations.

 

[isrararrafi]

Lol break away from the rest and do what alone? Tendulkar (or any other popular batsman int the team) wouldnt be tendulkar without facing the likes of akram, mcgrath,warne, murali and steyn. And without tendulkar there wouldn't be an audience to watch the game in india.

 

[War]

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

i say let them... better that than we are complicit in the destruction of test cricket and the betrayal of the less well off nations.

it's obviously trying to salvage their image rather than anything close to the truth. Giles Clarke has been cooking a deal like this for ages.

england are the only nation that could stand up to the BCCI financially and indeed have with their stance on the IPL. The idea that they would be intimidated into following them is ludicrous, especially if australia were complicit, while they've got the ashes they're the only nation that doesn't need the money. indeed, if the BCCI broke away that would hand them back almost complete control of the ICC.

not to mention the utter pointlessness of the BCCI breaking away, what lunatic would believe they'd actually go through with that?

 

[Aalay]

India Cricket News: BCCI puts ICC events on the line | ESPN Cricinfo

Even though BCCI has said that they will not take part in ICC events, it can't actually happen. I mean if they do it, people will burn these BCCI members alive and stone them to death because the game is so popular in India. Majority of people in India don't even know the full form of BCCI but people love the players and the team that is playing out there representing our country. So If BCCI does not allow the team to play than it will create a riot in the country. We can't just keep playing IPL for the whole year.

 

[War]

not to mention the utter pointlessness of the BCCI breaking away, what lunatic would believe they'd actually go through with that?

Jarrod Kimber has done a lot of writing on this BCCI issue & he said sources close to the negotiation told him that, which i don't doubt.

It was only a couple months ago famous cricket historian Gideon Haigh mentioned that people in the upper echelon's of the BCCI have been insinuating talk of a breakaway quite openly:

Gideon Haigh: The sovereign republic of the BCCI | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

One of the most fascinating passages in Astill's book is an interview with BCCI vice-president Niranjan Shah, the board's longest-serving member, who runs cricket in the region of Saurashtra, thanks to a membership populated with friends, relatives and cronies that has not changed in 20 years. From his secure vantage point, Shah regards the cricket world simply as an irritation. Why does India have to send cricket teams abroad anyway? The IPL lights the way: all should come to India as supplicants.

At the moment we are getting money only when there is an international game. So I think IPL is the first step on this issue. Like in baseball, America is not worried whether other country is playing or not. Because cricket is a major game here, so we should not depend on whether England or South Africa come to India to get money?
ICC is trying to control us. That's my feeling. Most of the other boards do not like that we make so much money and that their revenue depends on whether our team goes to play them. So the whole thing has been reversed. For cricket the only market in the world is India. The market is here. So we will control cricket, naturally.

 

[asprin]

^ Ok. Gotta say that doesn't look good and is scary too. I certainly wouldn't enjoy that.

 

[War]

WICB to argue against ?relegation? before ICC - Sport - JamaicaObserver.com

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

Jarrod Kimber has done a lot of writing on this BCCI issue & he said sources close to the negotiation told him that, which i don't doubt.

It was only a couple months ago famous cricket historian Gideon Haigh mentioned that people in the upper echelon's of the BCCI have been insinuating talk of a breakaway quite openly:

Gideon Haigh: The sovereign republic of the BCCI | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

have to say that I still don't buy it. you're talking about such a huge deviation from the establishment that it's impossible to imagine.

a breakaway would have reulted in a unilateral ban on players joining the IPL from all other boards, it would essentially be trying to pedal the ranji and a domestic twenty20 league with only indian players.

maybe india have had their eye on the idea of loads of franchises playing in tournaments like the MLB or NFL, but it would be impossible to implement in a breakaway. there is no way in hell the ECB and CA were worried about this in the immediate future.

 

[abhi_jacko]

I love my Indian cricket team dearly, but I hope every board boycotts BCCI because BCCI is out to ruin cricket. They are clearly being run by a bunch of mentally challenged nincompoops who cannot see that this will actually hurt them in the long run.

Here is to hoping that someone in BCCI will wake the fk up and knock some sense into the rest of the lot.

 

[used2bcool]

I have to say I'm not particularly surprised by this latest threat, and there is nothing in the history of the BCCI that doesn't suggest that they wouldn't go through with it.

If they do, though, then there will be a huge public backlash when the next India-less ICC event rolls around. The IPL can work but I'm not sure it is sustainable without international cricket. Also if other boards hit back and stop sending players to the IPL, its star value will be seriously diminished.

Another facet is that if any one of the recently retired stars takes a stand against this, it will greatly hurt the BCCI's case. If Tendulkar/Dravid/Laxman/Kumble/Srinath/Ganguly come out of the woodworks and deride this proposal as rubbish (especially Tendulkar), then the public will automatically side with them.