Could the cricket world turn their back on the ICC?

[Sanz]

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

You need to get your bigoted opinion about sub-continent out of your mind.

 

[Sanz]

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

Why Single out Asians ? Would the SAffies support it ? How about WI ?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Why Single out Asians ? Would the SAffies support it ? How about WI ?

Well, in the rest of the post I did mention that SA and WI won't support the idea, and tried to explain that too.

OK, it was an oversimplification, but it doesn't change the main point: Zimbabwe are still a Test nation because they're an easily bought vote for Asian members. South Africa on its own would not have stopped a boycott of Zimbabwe.

 

[Richard]

You need to get your bigoted opinion about sub-continent out of your mind.

Hahahaha, bull****.

 

[Richard]

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.

Trés intéressant...

 

[marc71178]

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.

3 wins from their first 48 Tests - how exactly does that justify their status when you've decided other sides aren't deserving?

 

[Richard]

You need to look beyond victories. It's not simply about winning, it's about competing. It's also about having the players, which most sides have upon their elevation. New Zealand and Bangladesh did not.

 

[marc71178]

So how come the occasions that Bangladesh have competed can be ignored, but both SL and Zimbabwe don't suffer similarly?

 

[Richard]

They aren't ignored, they're simply far, far fewer in number than those for Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka.

 

[marc71178]

In other words it suits you to discount them and just look at the final result as a defeat, because you have decided they're not good enough, but when other sides have a similarly bad record, you look at individual games...

 

[LA ICE-E]

In other words it suits you to discount them and just look at the final result as a defeat, because you have decided they're not good enough, but when other sides have a similarly bad record, you look at individual games...

true

 

[LA ICE-E]

Why doesn't the Australia governments and other concerned governments do something other than telling a sports team to not tour Zimbabwe? Why doesn't these governments try to fix the situation by international pressure like we deal with North Korea and Iran? Why don't these governments issue international political pressure instead of getting a sport and its governing body?

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

Why doesn't the Australia governments and other concerned governments do something other than telling a sports team to not tour Zimbabwe? Why doesn't these governments try to fix the situation by international pressure like we deal with North Korea and Iran? Why don't these governments issue international political pressure instead of getting a sport and its governing body?

There's no real pressing need to, until Zimbabwe tries to obtain nukes like Iran and North Korea.

 

[Athlai]

There's no real pressing need to, until Zimbabwe tries to obtain nukes like Iran and North Korea.

North Korea has nukes.

Probably.

 

[LA ICE-E]

There's no real pressing need to, until Zimbabwe tries to obtain nukes like Iran and North Korea.

Really if you don't care enough to do that than what kind of **** is that? You'll stop a team from touring the country but you don't care enough to do anything politically to pressure some changes?

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

Really if you don't care enough to do that than what kind of **** is that? You'll stop a team from touring the country but you don't care enough to do anything politically to pressure some changes?

If the developed world really decided to go around and change every tinpot dictatorship on the planet, it would be impractical/impossible. The only reason we're intervening in Iran and North Korea is because they're going down the nuclear path, and when every crazy dictator can threaten your cities with ICBMs you're effectively screwed.

Nothing can be done about Zimbabwe anyway because Mbeki would hate to see his old pal Mugabe deposed.

 

[pup11]

Now its really turning into a political thread, the question is simple that do the cricket world need ICC and has ICC governed the game as well as it should have??



Now IMO every sports needs a governing body, but having said that i don't think ICC have shown enough guts to stamp their authority over other cricket boards.


Sub-continent boards have time and again pressurized ICC and they have bowed in front of them.

 

[Craig]

Pardon my ignorance why would South Africa support the Asian bloc over England/Australia/NZ then? With all due respect it has come across as though the BCCI is becoming bigger then the game itself.

And finally it is Cricket Australia not the Australian Cricket Board!

 

[silentstriker]

Pardon my ignorance why would South Africa support the Asian bloc over England/Australia/NZ then?

Since the re-admission, they've always supported India. As for exactly why, I couldn't really tell you other than the obvious reasons. West Indies usually hasn't, but in the last couple years it is beginning to.

With all due respect it has come across as though the BCCI is becoming bigger then the game itself.

That's what happens when you have more influence than everyone else. Same thing happened in the Imperial Cricket Council, when two countries held veto power and dished out tours at their own pleasure and dictated terms to certain other countries. People [rightly] got fed up, and the ICC was born. People [rightly] are getting fed up again, but I don't really see a workable solution.

 

[LA ICE-E]

would giving power to the president work? Like say all the boards passed or said no to something and then the president overruled it and then it went back to the boards again to votes and if the boards agreed with like more than 75 % than it would go the boards way. Than a country(india in this case) wouldn't be so powerful even if they had the votes it would be up to the president who would decide the final thing.

Well kind of like how it works with our system which works fairly ok.

'Cause Malcom Speed(Aus) and Percy Sonn (SA) aren't really biased toward to asian bloc.