ICC News: Restructuring the ICC, BCCI Influence & more

[War]

Tim Wigmore: Why a two-division structure could do Test cricket good | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

Hmm timely article refering to exactly what has been discussed here in the last few pages @IceAgeComing @StinkyBoHoon @Untouchables666 @grkrama @PokerAce

 

[War]

Olympic movement exposes old faultlines | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[PokerAce]

Tim Wigmore: Why a two-division structure could do Test cricket good | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

Hmm timely article refering to exactly what has been discussed here in the last few pages @IceAgeComing @StinkyBoHoon @Untouchables666 @grkrama @PokerAce

I agree a great deal with most of what has been said, however not with everything thats been said.

While I cannot agree more that bilateral tours (ODIs way more than tests), need a meaning. Bilateral ODIs have bee compared to int'l football friendlies, I would say they are even less meaningful than that.

The one thing I don't entirely agree with is the window outside of the event itself in which to hold even more bilateral series, like Ashes. Personally I think I disagree with this. Great rivalries can exist within a competition framework, and are actually even bigger for that. Like El Classico, exists within the La Liga, and is richer for it. If Madrid and Barcelona faced off outside the La Liga, as a two leg grudge match, it would not quite be the same. So I am not sure I agree with Ashes and other rivalries existing outside the Test League.

That being said, what if England and Australia are not in the same tier. That is a possibility as no side can have immunity to relegation, for this test league to work. So what happens to the Ashes in those seasons. I dont have all the answers but I would definitely prefer the big rivalries to exist in the Test League and not in a window outside it.

I do also think that a 6 team tier one and a 6 team tier two, leaves too many teams in tier 2 vulnerable. In the sense that I agree with Ehsan Mani that tier 2 will hardly get any viewership or TV money. Test cricket is hard enough to preserve and in tier 2, it would take a big hit. So I would suggest an 8 team tier 1 or perhaps even a 10 team tier 1 and a 5/6 team tier two where all teams are eligible for promotion/relegation. This way atleast the 10 nations who do have test cricket, they start off in tier 1 and with a chance to improve, and with test cricket not immediately taking a hit at the start in #7 ranked side for no reason.

ODI cricket I think can be made more ruthless, as it will find enough popularity in both tiers, and so a six team tier 1 could work.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I don't think a two tier will work for a number of reasons. making the top tier 6 is trying to ensure that the big three don't slip down to tier 2 (though that actually isn't quite guaranteed, england lie 5th in the rankings, was this a league there would be a very real possibility of sri lanka over-taking them and should their be a relegation system that would be them down)

the knock on effect of that is two of NZ/Pak/Sri Lanka/WI are definitely going to be there (SAF are not one of the big three but are too good to be anywhere near 6th for the forseeable future), and in having to play bangladesh, ireland, zimbabwe constantly are going to struggle to make money unless revenue is better distributed and they may even see their cricket dip if they stuck there for a few seasons. in particular this would sign the death warrant on the west indies future.

the other reason though is that grouping the teams doesn't seem to improve competitive cricket, more often than not the ashes have been one sided drubbings. india have been destroyed when they've travelled away to better teams and yet are titans at home. the test championship makes far more sense.

 

[War]

Manohar replaces Srinivasan as ICC chairman | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[War]

ICC chairman Manohar criticises Big Three revamp | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

Wow what a statement, loving this guy Monohar - amazing to hear him saying this just one year after BIG Three revamp, its actually what most media and observant fans have been saying why the Big Three revamp should never have occurred.

 

[War]

PCB wants FTP to be in ICC's control again | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

Daniel Brettig: Why we need a Test championship series | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

'Enormous delight' with Manohar's words - CSA | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[War]

Interviews : ICC NEWS | Brearley welcomes Manohar comments | Cricket videos, MP3, podcasts, cricket audio | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[War]

'There must be a middle way' - Niranjan Shah | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo


Debate on quality of pitches overhyped - Thakur | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

Thakur also clarified that Manohar's views on the ICC's restructuring were personal. Manohar recently said the revamp was tantamount to bullying, and that he didn't agree with the revenue-sharing formula that guaranteed India a significant chunk of the revenue. While his thoughts were endorsed by a section of the board's members, there has also been considerable resistance. Thakur said there was nothing wrong in India receiving a larger slice of the financial pie.

"The [BCCI] president said this in his personal capacity. He made it very clear that it was his personal opinion," he said. "The Indian subcontinent contributes close to 70% of the ICC's revenues. To take 21% of that is not much. That was the position with Australia and England earlier, and no one objected to it then. If this happens to India today, we shouldn't object to it.

"You have to understand that India plays a very, very important role in world cricket. It's only India which has a stadium in virtually every state. The money we have been generating in the last so many years has been spent on the ground."

Thakur also said the larger interest of BCCI's units would have to be looked into before arriving at a decision on Manohar's proposals, which have already received support from boards like Cricket South Africa and Sri Lanka Cricket. The BCCI, however, will be keen to not ruffle the feathers of its own units. Senior administrator and Saurashtra Cricket Association president Niranjan Shah, who is known to be close to Manohar, had advocated a "middle path", which would strike a balance between extending a helping hand to financially weaker boards and securing the monetary rewards the BCCI deserved.

"We have to look at the overall picture and individual opinions could be different," Thakur said. "I may disagree, but the final call has to be taken by the BCCI because it is not only in the interest of one association, it is in the interest of 30 units of the BCCI."

 

[War]

For West Indies Test cricket to be saved from extinction, major reform is needed | Tim Wigmore | Sport | The Guardian

ICC's well documented structural failure is tied in perfectly Windies cricket problems

 

[War]

Olympic chiefs tell ICC they won't accept a watered-down version of cricket | Daily Mail Online

 

[PokerAce]

^ Neither will we to be honest. While T20 is the most likely solution, I would still prefer it to be ODIs. T20 itself is a greatly watered down, one dimensional version of cricket to begin with.

 

[War]

Shah endorses Manohar's call for ICC democracy | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

The noises coming out of people of administrative influences in the BCCI since Manohar took over have been superb. They are essentially making the arguments the critics of the big 3 and general bad ICC strucuture has been saying all along

@PokerAce @grkrama @IceAgeComing @StinkyBoHoon @SpitfiresKent

 

[PokerAce]

^ I didn't know that the big three had veto rights ... if they do, then naturally that needs to go. Also while they are at it, if they can still get the World Cup to be more than 10 teams, that would be great.

 

[grkrama]

yup everything from tour planning to other bossy privileges, the whole name of BIG3 has to go apart from revenue sharing, I still think its fair to take 21% of 70% you bring in, especially considering the fact you have to feed 28 states n boards of it, of now india is hardly getting sportsman from other than the main metros, there is a lot of potential in the country and the underdeveloped facilities in these areas can hardly tap this potential! There is a lot development in infrastructure and pay scale to do in these areas!