If India didnt play Cricket....

[srikarr12]

Seriously if India didnt play the game, Cricket wud be sum sort of street game played by bunch of randoms. Thats why India indirectly rules the world of cricket over ICC(example: india wanted a differnet umpire and they get it. wudnt be suprised if harbajan is cleared too.)

With IPL and ICL the in India the game is being taken a whole new level by the amount of money they generate. They at least make 5 times more revenue than Australia because of the interset in the game even tough Oz r the world champs. With so much advertising of cricket India the game is like a everyday business for the whole country.

Just wanted to know what r your thoughts on this issue.:onpc

 

[Sureshot]

First up, this thread will not descend into the filth that has happened in previous threads. We can make this an interesting topic, so I'll start...

The BCCI are big, they aren't bigger than the ICC though, I think Bucknor has had many chances, he's not good enough simple as, too many mistakes, without sounding ageist, he should retire. Money is a big thing, the BCCI thrive on it, International Cricket would cope without the BCCI though.

 

[Kev]

If India didn't play Cricket it wouldn't make the blind bit of difference to me.

 

[karnog]

Cricket would be seriously under funded and the players pay would greatly reduce all around the world.

 

[SaiSrini]

If India didn't play Cricket it wouldn't make the blind bit of difference to me.

That is, if you mostly watch one or two countries playing. If you ask me the same thing, I would say "I dont care if England or South Africa or West indies or Pakistan or Australia or any other country dont play cricket" because I follow only Indian cricket.

 

[Kev]

No it wouldn't. India not playing cricket would have no bearing on English cricketers or Australian Cricketers for example. We'd still have our county and state leagues, they'd still be as popular as they are and the Ashes would still bring in the money. The West Indies would still have a shambolic domestic structure but we'd still flock to see them tour the UK and we'd still enjoy going over there. There would still be NZ and SA doing what they do, I'd still be wanting to go to NZ to see the forthcoming tour but not being able to afford it. The world would keep turning, cricket existed before India played it and it would still exist if India didn't play it. In fact if India didn't play cricket it would solve the fixture congestion problem in one swoop.

That is, if you mostly watch one or two countries playing. If you ask me the same thing, I would say "I dont care if England or South Africa or West indies or Pakistan or Australia or any other country dont play cricket" because I follow only Indian cricket.

Yes, but I'm not so arrogant as to believe the ECB is the be all and end all.

 

[BONED!]

Seriously if India didnt play the game, Cricket wud be sum sort of street game played by bunch of randoms.

England and Australia's strong cricketing history would be the same. We would still have the Ashes. We would also still have the Chapel Hadley series in NZ and any other tournament in any other country. Cricket would survive, India isn't as important to cricket as you think.

Thats why India indirectly rules the world of cricket over ICC(example: india wanted a differnet umpire and they get it. wudnt be suprised if harbajan is cleared too.)

And you are wrong, India wanted Bucknor sacked/fired. And the ICC flat-out said No! They just replaced him so that you guys wouldn't be able to complain about him when you played, if he was still the umpire. No victory in that for you, the ICC made a decision to give the indian team NO reason to complain in the next test! simple as that!

 

[bowser]

Seriously if India didnt play the game, Cricket wud be sum sort of street game played by bunch of randoms. Thats why India indirectly rules the world of cricket over ICC(example: india wanted a differnet umpire and they get it. wudnt be suprised if harbajan is cleared too.)

With IPL and ICL the in India the game is being taken a whole new level by the amount of money they generate. They at least make 5 times more revenue than Australia because of the interset in the game even tough Oz r the world champs. With so much advertising of cricket India the game is like a everyday business for the whole country.

Just wanted to know what r your thoughts on this issue.:onpc

This shows a level of ignorance and misunderstanding of what happens in other countries is beyond belief. I don?t pretend to speak for the rest of the world but cricket is the number one summer sport in Australia. It is played by all states and receives major coverage from all the media. Every weekend in every town in Australia cricket is being played in junior and senior competitions, it is played in the bush, on the beach and in the city by kids and families. It is based on a based on a common theme rife on this forum and that money is the be all and end all of cricket. It belies the fact that cricket is played for love and the pleasure of the game by the vast majority of its participants. If money and a billion people was the answer to cricket greatness then India would be the world champions by a country mile. They are not and never have been and herein lays the fallacy of the thought. You need money, but you also need a strong grass roots. You then need an hierarchical competition that enables the cream to rise to the top and when they get there to be constantly challenged. You also need an administration at all levels of the game that is striving to broaden the skill levels and enjoyment of everyone, and it also needs to have the desire to achieve greatness. If India took its money it would affect the game as a whole in the short term but, like the ructions caused by WSC, the game would in time heal itself and move on, with or without India.

 

[punterpupnroy]

If India didn't play cricket. Australia would not be playing them in this tour. It probably would be a team like south africa

 

[pal]

I don't even understand why anyone would make a topic like this. Cricket had a great deal of tradition and history before India came into the cricketing fray and it will continue to do so. The sport is not all about the money, regardless how true that may seem with the current state of the ICC.

I would think that almost every single Indian, except for the short-sighted few, would disagree with the OP.

 

[jordox]

Seriously if India didnt play the game, Cricket wud be sum sort of street game played by bunch of randoms. Thats why India indirectly rules the world of cricket over ICC(example: india wanted a differnet umpire and they get it. wudnt be suprised if harbajan is cleared too.)

With IPL and ICL the in India the game is being taken a whole new level by the amount of money they generate. They at least make 5 times more revenue than Australia because of the interset in the game even tough Oz r the world champs. With so much advertising of cricket India the game is like a everyday business for the whole country.

Just wanted to know what r your thoughts on this issue.:onpc

I'm sick of the bloody rubbish, stop acting like the sun shines out of the BCCI's backside, they aren't above the game. Cricket would be 'sum sort of street game played by a bunch of randoms' What? I stopped reading with a clear head after that sentence.

I don't even understand why anyone would make a topic like this. Cricket had a great deal of tradition and history before India came into the cricketing fray and it will continue to do so. The sport is not all about the money, regardless how true that may seem with the current state of the ICC.

I would think that almost every single Indian, except for the short-sighted few, would disagree with the OP.

Good post, I'm glad not all of you share the same views as him

 

[sohum]

The thing that would be different about cricket would be the amount of money in the game. That is not even something that can be contended with--3 of the 4 main sponsors for the 2003 World Cup were Indian companies or Indian franchises of global corporations.

Whether the game would be as popular is another question altogether. Cricket was going down a pretty rocky road, or at least Test cricket was, until Steve Waugh/Mark Taylor's Australians came up with the modern, aggressive way to play Test cricket. I feel that, and not the money in the game, is what revived interest in cricket.

However, one must also consider that money is required to sustain anything. Countries do get a lot of revenue from hosting India. Probably the only thing that rivals the gate receipts from an India series is The Ashes. This money is used to develop the game domestically, so to suggest that the presence of India as a major financial power in the game of cricket has no effect whatsoever on national cricket boards is shortsighted. I wouldn't go as far as to suggest the game would be down in the doldrums, though.

 

[SaiSrini]

The thing that would be different about cricket would be the amount of money in the game. That is not even something that can be contended with--3 of the 4 main sponsors for the 2003 World Cup were Indian companies or Indian franchises of global corporations.

Whether the game would be as popular is another question altogether. Cricket was going down a pretty rocky road, or at least Test cricket was, until Steve Waugh/Mark Taylor's Australians came up with the modern, aggressive way to play Test cricket. I feel that, and not the money in the game, is what revived interest in cricket.

However, one must also consider that money is required to sustain anything. Countries do get a lot of revenue from hosting India. Probably the only thing that rivals the gate receipts from an India series is The Ashes. This money is used to develop the game domestically, so to suggest that the presence of India as a major financial power in the game of cricket has no effect whatsoever on national cricket boards is shortsighted. I wouldn't go as far as to suggest the game would be down in the doldrums, though.

Perfect! Nothing to add to it (for me)

 

[harishankar]

Wow... what a great thread. Giving all the wonderful India haters we have on this forum another chance to insult us... very smart.

My take is that any board of a major test playing nation is strong enough to influence the ICC's decision making, because the ICC is nothing but the sum total of the member nations... is that really surprising?

The clear fact for everybody to see is that the major sponsors of cricket come from the subcontinent (esp. India) because naturally we generate the maximum television revenue with the population of cricket lovers.

 

[SciD]

We would have been champions in Football



I really mean it.