If India didnt play Cricket....

[King Pietersen]

If England and Australia didnt invent and make cricket popular, then India wouldnt even be playing it, so i fail to see how the rest of the world would feel a massive loss if India didnt play cricket.

 

[sohum]

didnt once mention india in that post??

Then your post wasn't on topic, was it?

If England and Australia didnt invent and make cricket popular, then India wouldnt even be playing it, so i fail to see how the rest of the world would feel a massive loss if India didnt play cricket.

Because India brings most of the investment money into the game. You could hypothetically suggest that someone else would step in with the money, but the sheer amount of financial support India brings is crazy.

 

[Zaibatsu22]

I was played in 7 other countries before India, it wouldnt make the slightest bit of difference. You have over a billion people and are still ranked 6th anyway, big whoop.

 

[usy]

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

Pakistan India made made many changes to the actual game, for example 3rd umpire etc..

But all together makes no difference to my cricket, with all respects.

 

[Energizer]

If india didn't play cricket the cricket world would be in better shape. Look at the mess they've now created with their crying and dummyspitting over one bad test.

 

[ivanvdm15]

that's the problem India thinks they rule cricket , but their not even the best at it , Australia and South Africa is , so maybe India should stop pretending they rule cricket .... Just my opinion ( please don't neg rep me Indian fans , its just my opinion )

 

[pal]

India doesn't think it rules cricket. A statement like yours is equally stupid as the OP. There's no point in equating the exception with the majority.

 

[Kev]

Because India brings most of the investment money into the game. You could hypothetically suggest that someone else would step in with the money, but the sheer amount of financial support India brings is crazy.

I'm just looking at my copy of Kent's accounts and I fail to see the line that mentions "Massive Injection of cash by BCCI" so sorry, it makes bugger all difference to me, we'd still be playing the same cricket we are now without India and I'm pretty confident that the same can be said for most cricket clubs.

 

[sohum]

I'm just looking at my copy of Kent's accounts and I fail to see the line that mentions "Massive Injection of cash by BCCI" so sorry, it makes bugger all difference to me, we'd still be playing the same cricket we are now without India and I'm pretty confident that the same can be said for most cricket clubs.

Are you seriously going to throw up such a weak argument? Do you think the BCCI personally supports every damn club in England? Obviously not! The fact is, and you may not like it, a series involving India brings in more money than a series against most any opponent (the obvious exception being the Ashes). The home board makes a ton of money which they can then disburse into whatever their domestic structure is.

You can use your "doesn't matter to the small person" argument but if you think the money isn't all connected in some way, you're taking quite an ignorant view of the situation.

 

[Kev]

Well I dont have access to the ECB's accounts but I doubt that they make any more or less out of hosting India than they do any other decent opponent.

 

[sohum]

Well I dont have access to the ECB's accounts but I doubt that they make any more or less out of hosting India than they do any other decent opponent.

To start with, they host India for a 7-match ODI series. If they make a profit on each game, even if that profit is equal regardless of the opponent (something I don't agree with), they're already making more money. Apart from that, they're going to make a killing with international telecast rights. Indians are all over the world and they all want to watch India play.

 

[Kev]

But only 3 tests.

To us you are just another opponent, we dont place any special significance on a series with India.

 

[svijay]

BCCI has lately been showing some of the more tasteless attributes of the nouveau riche. As far as I know, they didn't have much leverage until the mid-1990s, so at worst finances will drop to whatever used to be the norm during those days, and frankly that doesn't scare me much. Given that Tendulkar, Dravid and Kumble are likely to retire in the next 12-18 months anyway, I doubt the team will be missed a whole lot outside India if they
were to collectively kick the ICC bucket. There will be about as much impact as the recent fall of the dollar had on the global economy. Bent, yes; broken, no.

 

[sohum]

But only 3 tests.

To us you are just another opponent, we dont place any special significance on a series with India.

To you, a fan. But financially it is a different matter. Test matches--I'll give England the benefit of the doubt. But in most any country ODI's are more popular than test matches.

Also, lately the tour matches are being televised on India tours. This makes some money for the host country and association as well.

 

[Energizer]

Lol seems Indian fans think they are the backbone of international cricket. Australia are the best in the world but we don't say the cricketing world can't be without us. In fact, if we weren't around, international cricket would be allot more tightly contested. Stop living in fairy la la land, no one team is bigger than cricket itself.