ICC News: Restructuring the ICC, BCCI Influence & more

[War]

If the ICC really wanted a Test Championship then they would have one, despite the lack of revenue. Blaming the TV companies is only part of the story. When they blame TV companies, they are basically saying Indian TV is luke-warm on the idea. Fair enough I guess, if India has no guarantee of a spot, no one will advertise. If ICC listens to money, then it will be just like the Champions League which has become Indian dominated.


The problem with Tests is that the new teams haven't been competitive enough. Tiers doesn't really help those teams get any better. In theory it does, as there is incentive there to get to the top tier, but the reality is that they can't afford the development to consistently match it with the top teams. How can we help Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan etc. get better? From a cricket perspective, my preference is sending 'A' teams to those countries much more frequently.
.

Ye basically. The majority of major TV companies that broadcast cricket on a global scale such as ESPN Star, Ten sports, Willow TV are India & support the BCCI.

Cause the skysports of ENG/SA/NZ plus channel 9/Fox sports in AUS i'm sure would be behind the idea - but of course they just broadcast to a local audience.

But as i always say it all does come back to ICC incompetence as a governing body & BCCI manipulation in world cricket. If the powerless MCC cricket committee of former players: Mike Brearley (chairman), Jimmy Adams, Steve Bucknor, Rahul Dravid, Charlotte Edwards, Majid Khan, Anil Kumble, Rod Marsh, Tim May, Shaun Pollock, David Richardson, Kumar Sangakkara, Andrew Strauss, Michael Vaughan and Steve Waugh - can get behind the logic of this WTC - but the ICC executives bureaucrats of men, led by the most corrupt official in cricket history, N Srinivasam, who probably had as much cricket ability as my various women when they were young (except for Dave Richardson for S Africa keeper) can't get this idea up & running - that's the problem.

Glad you mentioned the A-team tours idea, been saying that for a long time. A-team tours cricket is very good way not just to help test the viability of associates, but it gives the major nations a chance to test its fringe player on a international level. Not every team has a strong FC system & many teams by default due to this pick players based on ODI form for tests.

----------

From the sounds of things cricket is already dying in the WI, most kids these days just play football or basketball.

Based on my life experience of actually going to the Caribbean i wouldn't say its dying - its just suffering from a lack of funding to develop its infrastructure, grounds, etc. Fan support & grassroot participation in the game is very high - even with football & athletics taking away some youths.

This is why they don't have the ability to have two rounds of 4-day & domestic one-day competitions. ICC doesn't help them enough financially, this is why that Caribbean premier league investment is so crucial to them.

----------

NZ is never going to get any better at playing spin if we only play two Tests in the subcontinent/WI a year, so we're never going to demand more than two Tests.

Yea two test series simply have no context, all those recent two test series that were drawn 1-1 not just left us wanting more - it was plain stupid. Teams have no ability win a series if they lose the 1st game.

Imagine if past great 3 test series like AUS vs IND 2001 for example ended at the second test.

The regularity of 2 tests, is a very recent phenomenon anyway under the modern BCCI control of world cricket.

Plus that's a next dumb thing about cricket scheduling, why should teams like NZ/SRI/WI/PAK have to demand or beg the likes of IND/AUS/SA/ENG to play cricket. Just like in football leagues teams should know they have to play each other every 2 or 3 years home/away in a set cycle.

These little obvious stupid faults are what make cricket such a bloody mess

 

[IceAgeComing]

Test Cricket isn't dying - the crowds that flock to tests in England, Australia and in some Indian venues shows that. Its also the main aim for most of the associate nations - ask why Boyd Rankin, Eoin Morgan or Ed Joyce moved from being "Irish" to "English"... The World Test Championship would make random little series actually relevent, and probably would help the game...

The key thing IMO is getting a clear "path" to Test Match cricket for the Associate/Affiliates. Currently, it seems like no one wants Ireland to be a part of the main form of the game, which is a real shame when you look at the talent there and the quality of team they are able to put out (ask Pakistan, who easily could have been whitewashed in the summer and have lost to them before, or England). The problem that you have is talented Irish players being offered Test Match cricket by England, and thus Ireland have lost Rankin and Morgan; and before he was dropped by England Ed Joyce. IMO they are better placed that Bangladesh were when they played their first test match, yet no one seems to want them...

The real issue is getting proper international level competition, which is comparatively easy for Ireland/Scotland who often piggy-back on the English tour; but harder for other strong associate nations like Afghanistan. THe fact that Ireland may only play 1 ODI next summer against a full member, if that, is a crime that people need to look closer at.

The problem is, I can't think of a solution. Tiers are dumb, especially if they protect the "lesser" test nations. The smaller nations aren't going to improve with only 2 game series against the big nations; its going to take a lot more than that to actually see improvements. There is a limit to the number of teams that you can give test status too (probably 12 or 14 IMO); but after you do that, you need to fix the FTP to ensure that the smaller nations (Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, and say Ireland if they ever get test status) get a fair shot against the larger nations. The problem is that is never going to happen while you have the BCCI dominating decision making on the ICC board; which is why they should remove the "full members" and "associates" distinction for all voting matters and have the votes of all cricket-playing nations matter the same amount. It works for FIFA; and its the only fair thing to do!

 

[War]

^^

Ye if Morgan & Rankin were still playing Ireland, they could have a decent little team. As much as i & other ENG fans are happy to have them, it does look bad. In football you could never imagine a Irishman or even a Northern Irishman (which a part of the UK) trying to qualify for ENG.

That is a next major faux pas with the ICC, they don't have a clear criteria over how players switch nationalities, especially from associate nations.

ZIM too , if you add all their defected player to their current set-up they look would have looked quite solid

Sean Ervine has been at Hampshire for years & his brother recently started playing club cricket in ENG, Anthon Ireland & Kyle Jarvis retired to county cricket, Colin de Grandhomme over in NZ & of course ENG have Gary Ballance. While Taibu retired from cricket for religious purposes & a bit of frustration with the ZIM problems.

So something like: Mowoyo/Sibanda, Masakadaza, Taylor, Ballance, S Ervine, De Grandhomme, Chingumbura, Taibu, Jarvis, Ireland, Cremer/Utseya.

 

[War]

ICC news : ICC plans to delink from FTP, make it bilateral | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | ESPN Cricinfo

The ICC idiots strike again, so not only does the ICC want tiers system, they want to do this crap along with "centralizing power in the hands of three member boards: Cricket Australia, the BCCI and the ECB".

NZ/WI/PAK/SRI just got another kick in the balls.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

The problem with Tests is that the new teams haven't been competitive enough. Tiers doesn't really help those teams get any better. In theory it does, as there is incentive there to get to the top tier, but the reality is that they can't afford the development to consistently match it with the top teams. How can we help Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan etc. get better? From a cricket perspective, my preference is sending 'A' teams to those countries much more frequently.

I agree with the idea of sending A teams, it's something I've wanted to see happen as well. however, I sometimes think when we say 'competitive' we mean 'marketable'.

I mean bangladesh played against SL, NZ and zimbabwe, all 3 series were far more competitive than either ashes or australia in england, but while the performances of the teams have been criticised and created running debates it hasn't come down to anyone suggesting those series were not worth playing or going on for 4 or 5 tests in light of the mismatches. at the same time, people are still uninterested in bangladesh cricket, with sri lanka going the same way (in fairness one swallow doesn't make a summer and bangladesh can't rest on their laurels)

So I think we have to ask if there's a problem when teams like bangladesh and sri lanka can play out a close series and yet both nations are still deemed not succesful enough, whereas australia/england/india have all played out one-sided series and yet their marketability or competitiveness isn't under question.

one of the reasons I think is they way test cricket ends up being promoted in the media and consumed by the fans. I mean, I get sick of hearing the phrase "a great advert for test cricket." following a really good match, because it's not really, if you spend 10 minutes browsing cricinfo, or a papers sports section or even these boards it's obvious what test cricket fans are obsessed with is placing players in all-time lists, and pouring over someones ability to play on a seaming track. it's like the opposite of that phrase can't see 'the forest for the trees' no one really gives a stuff about the trees anymore, we're all too worried about a context that spans 150 years of matches. does any other sport harp on as much about a player that played 80 years ago as cricket fans do?

when the context is this vast who's going to get a look in? only the most powerful, important and best nations. which is why cricket is lurching towards this scenario where the whole sport is built around a narrative concerning the successes india, england or australia. while I agree the weaker teams being better would enhance the sport I'm less convinced by it being their lack of competitiveness that holds them back.

one of the real achievements of twenty20 is that's made peole so focused on the moment of the match, people watch cricket for crickets sake, and for all T20s faults, it's one major advantage it's got over tests. ODIs to and extent too. in some way, people not caring about their future is what's helping keep them alive. they're free from the constraints of a century of context, people want to change them to make them more exciting, but don't touch test cricket because we need to be able to legitimise and categorise the form of some guy playing for england in 2025.

there will always be one in last place in cricket, whether it's 10th like bangladesh or 12th like afghanistan may be one day in the future, but the ICC needs to find ways to incorporate lower levels of competition into the marketability of the test format.

I wonder if an overall test championship can't be arranged then perhaps dividing the countries into sectors and playing an asian championship and non-asian championship (type thing, someone think of a better name) at some point in the FTP, just for something different, something to put the eyes somewhere else for a bit rather than on the calendar for when Aus/Eng/India are rolling into town. I don't know, Like @IceAgeComing says, I can't think of a solution either but I think we'll find merely increasing the competitiveness of bangladesh isn?t getting to the root of the problem. There has to be a way of making test cricket sustainable, interesting and attractive to sponsors outside the involvement of three teams.



----------

ICC news : ICC plans to delink from FTP, make it bilateral | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | ESPN Cricinfo

The ICC idiots strike again, so not only does the ICC want tiers system, they want to do this crap along with "centralizing power in the hands of three member boards: Cricket Australia, the BCCI and the ECB".

NZ/WI/PAK/SRI just got another kick in the balls.

lol, this was essentially what I just spent about an hour typing out in stints at work.

could have saved my self a load of time.

 

[War]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/710723.html - Big Three could control revamped ICC

Ye SBH. I don't necessarily have a problem with how cricket is advertised in the media, I think its pretty balanced with regards to all teams.

I think the reasons why although the likes of AUS/IND/ENG have had whitewashes, but yet it is represented in the same way as the technically more competitive series the lesser nations have played, is because we know that AUS/IND/ENG have talent & we won't scenario such a scenario often, in which top teams are such poor tourist as we say in 2013.

I am terribly disappointed in the ECB & CA though - they don't want to stand up to the BCCI, they are colluding with them for their own benefit ridiculously. If those two nations stand up to the BCCI, i'm convinced other nations would rise against India, even if cricket goes into a standstill for a few years or India decide to create a breakaway league. Sense would prevail by the players just like it did during the Kerry Packer years.

As the above article shows, this is just a return to the old 20th century system in which ENG/AUS ran things, but now it will include the third member India.

Interestingly & shockingly i actually see a smart suggestion, which is a big problem with cricket that i always speak about:

The proposal, drafted by a "working group" of the ICC's Finance & Commercial Affairs (F&CA) committee - in which the BCCI, CA and ECB are key members - recommends wide-ranging changes in the ICC's revenue distribution model, administrative structures and the Future Tours Programme (FTP), questions the relevance of Test rankings and suggests the reinstatement of the Champions Trophy over the World Test Championship.

Asian test championship would be a good tournament - that 1998 tournament produced some interesting cricket. Realistically with the Asia Cup ODI series being played every 2 years - so should this test match version really.

Such a tournament could work perfectly under a sane FTP programme, but of course results wouldn't count towards the WTC.

 

[CG123]

That is such a load of crap, someone needs to stand the fearsome tweak up to these bigger boards and forfeit some short terms monetary gains for the long term good of the game. The only tours most people care about here are Australia, England, and India, and we're now going to pretty much get fed the shit who none of them want to verse. I don't want to be harsh but who can actually get excited for a NZ - Zim series? I remember last time they were here they had a total of two people and their dogs at the grounds.

 

[sifter132]

Glad you mentioned the A-team tours idea, been saying that for a long time. A-team tours cricket is very good way not just to help test the viability of associates, but it gives the major nations a chance to test its fringe player on a international level. Not every team has a strong FC system & many teams by default due to this pick players based on ODI form for tests.

A-Team tours are where it's at Just has so many benefits for both sides. As you say, Touring A teams expose their next generation to foreign conditions and just being in a touring team. Minnows that host get to play more cricket against players who are close to Test standard.

I think if the ICC said to the rich boards, 'hey guys you don't have to tour Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Ireland etc. if you don't want to, but in return you must send your A team every 4-5 years', I think the boards would jump at it. It would be a great way of filling up the FTP programme for the weak nations.

I agree with the idea of sending A teams, it's something I've wanted to see happen as well. however, I sometimes think when we say 'competitive' we mean 'marketable'.

Agree with that, there is a perception that the little guys are awful. And these days perceptions lead to marketability. That perception may not be accurate as you've pointed out, often the gap is not as wide as it's made out to be. Heck if England can lose 5-0 just 3 months after winning 3-0, it shows that you can't be sure of who is truly good or not.

And perhaps in a strange way, all the white ball and franchise cricket that happens these days helps these smaller cricketing countries to get more marketability eg. West Indies become more marketable because of their T20 stars, Shakib Al Hasan has become known largely through white ball stuff, NZ has McCullum and now Corey Anderson, etc. etc. Fans might now go to Tests involving these teams because they've seen that these countries can produce players of quality. The issue is that TV sees the white ball stuff and says 'wow we need more of that', where we want them to be saying 'wow these minnow guys have talent, imagine what they could do in Test cricket'. Using 'minnow' very loosely here

 

[asprin]

"centralizing power in the hands of three member boards: Cricket Australia, the BCCI and the ECB".

Can't decide whether to laugh at this or worry about it. I feel for the other boards. Don't they get a vote in this?

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

they do but the ECB, BCCI and channel 9, I MEAN CRICKET AUSTRALIA HOW SILLY OF ME, get to veto it.

 

[asprin]

I don't know how could they even contemplate this? It's rubbish. Way to demean the other cricket playing nations.

 

[surendar]

If they really think about this 2 division system way of working, they should have an innovative points system like loosing in home different from loosing away, winning against top 3 given additional points compared to winning bottom 3 within division, whitewash in series getting bonus points etc. This might give more chances, especially Asian teams might have consistent jumps between those 2 divisions.

 

[War]

Martin Crowe: Two-tier Test system, my foot | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Here are some questions I need to ask. Why can't the four Test series that invariably take place every November to February between the top eight teams count as the quarter-finals of a competition that culminates in two semis and a grand final? Why can't those with the better ranking go through to the semis or the final, if the game is drawn? Why can't it be mixed up with the top four playing away against the four lower-placed teams (knowing they have a higher ranking and need to be beaten outright to not go through) to create a true challenge and encourage unpredictability? Isn't this what will captivate the watching audience? Is it not worth a go, and as it unfolds, can't adjustments be made as the purpose becomes clearer?

Martin Crowe has always been a thinking man, he lets not forget was the man the created cricket max format in NZ, that lead to the idea of T20 cricket starting in England.

I like this basis of this idea of having a 4 quarterfinals knockout test matches that leads to a semi's & finals.

But of course i would suggest this happen at the end of the 2 or 3 years cycle, where by every team plays each other home/away in a minimum 3 tests series (Ashes could obviously stay as 5 & a few other series could be 4 tests).

Then as Crowe suggested if the game is drawn/rain in the quarters/semi's, the idea of the team with the higher ranking based on results during the home/away contest, or even better head to head, can move on.

I think that a good idea instead of suggestions about the ICC of playing a timeless test or 6-day test to ensure a result. Don't believe we need to go returning to the pre WW2 days, when those kind of strange games happened. That just wouldn't work for the modern fan & broadcasters.

----------

they do but the ECB, BCCI and channel 9, I MEAN CRICKET AUSTRALIA HOW SILLY OF ME, get to veto it.

Ye as i mentioned before, it just brings us back to the 20th version of ICC (then MCC) when ECB & AUS ran cricket - it now will just include the new money cash cow of the BCCI.

I'm absolutely appalled at the ECB & AUS - i always thought they inherently wanted to fight the BCCI, but just didn't want to because they realized not enough of the other member countries would have the balls to fight them. They probably could only depend on NZ or S Africa.

From a historical context, the modern ECB/AUS & the old ECB/AUS are at more blame for the current messy ICC structure & the rise of BCCI in the last 15 years.

When the Packer ordeal occurred & exposed ICC, since then the AUS/ENG should have brought all the members boards should have tried to formulate an ICC independently, just as how FIFA became independent away from central control of England.

ICC was never a financially viable institution before Jagmohan Dalmiya became president in the mid 90s, i read once that the champions trophy was formed in 1998 to save the ICC from being bankrupt. So India has played a MASSIVE role in helping the ICC have money.

But now that India financial power has grown exponentially & their horrendous bully boy tactics, its sad to say cricket administration is literally in black hole that their is now way out. It seems that AUS/ENG rather sleep with the BCCI monster, than try a fight them - even if it means India potentially breaking away & forming its own cricket league like the NBA.

People complain about FIFA being corrupt, they aint got nothing on cricket. This is some (curse-word inserted) i'm a stop following cricket - i can't deal with this BS anymore.

 

[War]

Jarrod Kimber: Tell the administrators you're watching them | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

What can I do?
Contact them. Don't be rude, don't abuse the people who are answering the emails, calls or letters, but contact them. Tell them what you think of all this. CA can be contacted here, the ECB here , the BCCI here. We have no vote in cricket. All we have is our passion, which is what makes the money that gives these men their power.

I encourage all the planetcricket community to do what Kimber says & email these boards & curse out. I'm a email next week...

 

[ferg512]

ICC | NZC Slammed For Support Of Takeover | Stuff.co.nz

Wow this sounds really concerning, its sad that we just have to do everything the big dogs say but thats like most of life I guess..