Could the cricket world turn their back on the ICC?

[James]

With the Australia / Zimbabwe tour issue becoming a bigger issue day by day, what could/would happen if the ICC end up fineing the Australia Cricket Board US$2 million and the ACB refuse to pay?

There's no way the ICC would have the guts to take major action against Australia, and along with the Asian nations having had issues with the ICC over the past couple of years, could we end up seeing countries break away from the ICC?

Is there a future for the ICC in its current state?

 

[luffy]

I believe if they can keep everyone happy they do have a future, but after the WC fiasco not long ago, i believe they are a bit unsure about themselves. If they do fine Australia, the government are talking about paying it for them, but if they don't end up paying it, the ACB won't pay it IMO.

 

[Craig]

Well the Howard Government has said they will cover the fine so I don't think it is an issue for CA.

 

[social]

The ICC is corrupt, incompetent and gutless - the world is your oyster

 

[James]

Well the Howard Government has said they will cover the fine so I don't think it is an issue for CA.

I wouldn't be so sure, what they say and do are two completely different things.

I would wonder what if all the Test nations came out in support of Australia and their opinion on Zimbabwe? Where would the ICC go then.

 

[Fiery]

The ICC sucks ass...Asian countries will continue to bow to them but it's about time the rest of the world broke away and formed their own governing body...(of course the Asian countries would be welcome to join it * bats eyelids in the sub-continent's direction*)....whatever happens, the ICC is doing a **** job

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Nah, the Asians won't support Australia in this one.

As far as I understand it, the ICC is largely a collection of what their 10 full members want (plus a couple of Associates who'd probably vote for anything as long as it meant money for their cricket progams). Now India want to protest for other reasons than Australia, but in order to get it their way the voices of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka aren't enough, and they need a willingly-bought Zimbabwean vote on the panel to get things their way. South Africa won't do anything against Zimbabwe because they think they risk being seen as white imperialists in their own country.

Politics in action.

The worst thing is that there is no way to solve it, because the system is, theoretically at least, democratic...(just horribly corrupt)

 

[Craig]

Wipe the board and slate clean and start again I say. How you would do it is anothert thing...

 

[silentstriker]

I don't really know what would replace it.....

 

[silentstriker]

I wouldn't be so sure, what they say and do are two completely different things.

I would wonder what if all the Test nations came out in support of Australia and their opinion on Zimbabwe? Where would the ICC go then.

But they wouldn't. If they were all against ZImbabwe, then Zimbabwe would already be banned as a test playing nation. The ICC is governed by its board, and they could easily strip Zimbabwe of its Test playing rights. The fact that they haven't says a lot.

In the past, Zimbabwe has been a free vote for the Subcontinent agenda. With Zimbabwe, and West Indies or South Africa voting with the Asian bloc, they can have the majority when issues pertaining to them come up. They are going to be very very reluctant to shut out a member whose vote can be vital. Sad, but that's how politics is.

Malcom Speed and Sonn (or whoever it is now) may be the administrative heads, but they really only get that power from the governing board (made up of the ten Test playing countries).

Forming another body with the same countries will result in the same problems. Unless someone is arguing for a return to the Imperial Cricket Council with the veto votes and such, I don't really see a ready solution.

 

[Richard]

Haha. The veto for England and Australia caused plenty of problems in itself, and was arguably an even worse system. Who's to say England automatically have the game's best interests at heart? (And even if we do, who are The ECB to stop The BCCI's juggernaut?)

The simple truth of the matter is that I$C$C is - as Hakon and Manan describe - irreparably, vicious-circlely fixed (not corrupt, but fixed and rigid and unable to be shifted). The true power of the executives is limited, while more powerful than it was before the changes caused by the Condon report (remember the Speed-Dalmiya showdown of 2001? Had that happened before the Condon report the BCCI would, in the words of Graeme Wright, "have headed of the ICC well before the impasse").

And let's face it - even if Malcolm Speed and Percy Sonn\Ehsan Mani\Malcolm Gray\etc. are in unequivocal charge - is there seriously any evidence we'd be better off?

 

[social]

Bottom line is that the ICC without India is short of cash (70 - 80 % of revenue) and without Australia is short of playing credibility (by light years the world's best team)

Hopefully Australia will take the last opportunity they may well have in quite some time (due to retirements) to influence matters.

If they dont, we'll have a sham dedicated to the welfare of BCCI cronies

 

[stumpski]

Wasn't England the only full member of ICC that opposed full membership for Zimbabwe back in 1992? It caused a lot of resentment at the time, but in a funny way we've been proved right all along. Only for a couple of years in the late 90s (when they had Johnson and Goodwin on board, and Andy Flower at his peak) have they really been competitive at Test level. The rest of the time they've been only slightly better than an Associate team, and lately not even that. Hard to see how they can have Test status restored when the've slipped below Ireland in the ODI rankings.

 

[Poker Boy]

What I want to know is where were the Howard Government in 2004? If Australia had backed us up on Zimbabwe back then, and both the ECB and CA said "we ain't touing, and we ain't paying any fine" would the ICC have dared take action against Englamd AND Australia? It's easy to threaten one country (remember they might have took the 2004 CT away from us if we hadn't caved in. I wish we hadn't - the event was crap anyway) not so easy to threaten two or three.Mind you we didn't help ourselves back then - both England and Australia had hosted Zimbabwe the year before so we could be accused of being two faced.(IMO we should both have stopped them from touring as the NZ Government did in 2005) What would I like to happen? Well since we can't go back in time and veto Zimbabwe's application for Test staus (which we should have done back in '92) I wish Australia, England and NZ would threaten to break away from the ICC and form thier own body if the subcontinent don't stop backing Zimbabwe. Since apart from Pakistan, India are most keen on playing Australia and England the loss of money if these games did not take place might just make them abandon their support for Zimbabwe and then we can get rid of them (I'm sure the BCCI care more about money than principles and would sell Zim down the river) .I can understand no one wants a split but the threat of one might concentrate minds. But since the ECB and CA have all the backbone of a jelly there is no chance of it happening.

 

[pup11]

I think you need a body to govern the game otherwise world cricket would be in mess, every cricket board would start dictating its own terms.


So rather than turning our backs to ICC, the cricket world should look at ways to make ICC a stronger and useful governing body.

 

[Richard]

Wasn't England the only full member of ICC that opposed full membership for Zimbabwe back in 1992? It caused a lot of resentment at the time, but in a funny way we've been proved right all along. Only for a couple of years in the late 90s (when they had Johnson and Goodwin on board, and Andy Flower at his peak) have they really been competitive at Test level. The rest of the time they've been only slightly better than an Associate team, and lately not even that. Hard to see how they can have Test status restored when the've slipped below Ireland in the ODI rankings.

That's not true. Zimbabwe were always justified of Test and ODI status all the time they had it. They just ceased to merit either after WC2003.

 

[Richard]

What I want to know is where were the Howard Government in 2004? If Australia had backed us up on Zimbabwe back then, and both the ECB and CA said "we ain't touing, and we ain't paying any fine" would the ICC have dared take action against Englamd AND Australia? It's easy to threaten one country (remember they might have took the 2004 CT away from us if we hadn't caved in. I wish we hadn't - the event was crap anyway) not so easy to threaten two or three.Mind you we didn't help ourselves back then - both England and Australia had hosted Zimbabwe the year before so we could be accused of being two faced.(IMO we should both have stopped them from touring as the NZ Government did in 2005) What would I like to happen? Well since we can't go back in time and veto Zimbabwe's application for Test staus (which we should have done back in '92) I wish Australia, England and NZ would threaten to break away from the ICC and form thier own body if the subcontinent don't stop backing Zimbabwe. Since apart from Pakistan, India are most keen on playing Australia and England the loss of money if these games did not take place might just make them abandon their support for Zimbabwe and then we can get rid of them (I'm sure the BCCI care more about money than principles and would sell Zim down the river) .I can understand no one wants a split but the threat of one might concentrate minds. But since the ECB and CA have all the backbone of a jelly there is no chance of it happening.

I'm honestly not sure that'd work. No-one truly knows how The BCCI would respond, and one thing's for sure, The ECB and CA are worse off without The BCCI than the other way around.

 

[Langeveldt]

With the Australia / Zimbabwe tour issue becoming a bigger issue day by day, what could/would happen if the ICC end up fineing the Australia Cricket Board US$2 million and the ACB refuse to pay?

There's no way the ICC would have the guts to take major action against Australia, and along with the Asian nations having had issues with the ICC over the past couple of years, could we end up seeing countries break away from the ICC?

Is there a future for the ICC in its current state?

We can but dream hey... Won't happen though

 

[silentstriker]

The BCCI can't play against themselves, and after Pakistan, the biggest money maker for them are Australia and England respectively. If England and Australia want something done badly enough, they can definitely force the BCCI's hand.

I am not sure if it's accurate to say that the ECB and the ACB need the BCCI more than the other way around. Perhaps individually, they do. But together, they make a very strong and compelling front. The 'problem', depending on your point of view are West Indies and South Africa.

If such a thing came up, BCCI would obviously gain support of the other Asian countries, but a worrying thing for the ECB/ACB is that their traditional supporter in West Indies is being pried away to vote with BCCI on most matters (big example was the WC rights). South Africa, to a much lesser degree also fall into this category, though since their re-admission they've always been very pro-BCCI (they played their first match against India) and generally vote with them.

Basically, the worst fear would be that England and Australia would be stranded alone with only New Zealand as the support, and that they cannot afford. On the other hand, even if the BCCI gets everyone but the ACB and the ECB, they too would lose a huge chunk of their income, and all sides would be much worse off than they are now. And if the worse case scenario for the BCCI comes up (they lose everyone but the Asian countries plus South Africa), that would pretty much destroy whatever money is going into the Indian domestic game, and make it even more terrible than it is now.

It is not really in anyone's interest to break apart. It's sort of like the UN. Far from perfect and a whole lot of petty bickering goes on, but the alternative of having no united organization to at least try to get along is much much worse, and for everyone.

I know certain people, such as Rich (and I think Neil too) think it may not be a bad idea if there was a split, but I firmly believe it would really destroy the international game or at the very least be a massive massive step backwards, and the effects of that would reach every level (down to the playground) eventually.

 

[Sanz]

I would wonder what if all the Test nations came out in support of Australia and their opinion on Zimbabwe? Where would the ICC go then.

If all the test nations had supported Australia/NZ stand, this situation wouldn't have come. I dont think India/Pak/SA/SL/BD/WI are with Aus/NZ/Eng on this one. If they were, ICC would have banned Zimbabwe by now.