Ian Chappell has spoken.......

[Lillian Thomson]

................http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/334676.html

 

[bond21]

or just let Taufel umpire in Australia.

God the ICC is stupid its unbelievable.

 

[luckyeddie]

or just let Taufel umpire in Australia.

God the ICC is stupid its unbelievable.

I don't think it's a case of which umpire officiates where, although Simon Taufel is probably the only umpire who retains some semblance of authority and credibility.

However, I don't think that the ICC is entirely to blame for everything. The boorish oafs who masquerade as international cricketers nowadays crossed the line of what separates the acceptable from the intolerable years ago.

This also is down to a lack of discipline and authority within their own ranks

A solution to the situation?

Whenever a player is found guilty of letting his naturally moronic behaviour rise to the surface, punish the captain too - or the rest of the team, for that matter.

 

[James_W]

or just let Taufel umpire in Australia.

God the ICC is stupid its unbelievable.

Having 1 capable umpire is not the answer, training more umpires to handle situations is what needed.

 

[Matt79]

Thank God Chappelli has finally stopped biting his tongue and has been prepared to offer up an opinion at long last. Terrible how he normally keeps his thoughts to himself.

 

[Richard]

Actually agree with most of what Chappell says there but inevitably it'll seem somewhat hypocritical for him to be saying that, given that he was one of the biggest players in the rise of "chat" in the game.

 

[luckyeddie]

Actually agree with most of what Chappell says there but inevitably it'll seem somewhat hypocritical for him to be saying that, given that he was one of the biggest players in the rise of "chat" in the game.

I think the point he's been making consistently over the time since 'monkeygate' is that it's gone too far.

 

[archie mac]

Technology anyone?

 

[Burgey]

He makes some pretty good points. It seems that the erosion of umpires' powers may have undermined their confidence in stepping in to situations they really ought to.

 

[luckyeddie]

He makes some pretty good points. It seems that the erosion of umpires' powers may have undermined their confidence in stepping in to situations they really ought to.

Very good point.

The umpires now seem to be little more than automatons who count deliveries, check the front foot for no-balls and make LBW adjudications (of course, the last two are almost impossible to do properly together - if you concentrate on one, you cannot be doing the other thoroughly - the eyes won't focus that quickly)

 

[Son Of Coco]

I don't think it's a case of which umpire officiates where, although Simon Taufel is probably the only umpire who retains some semblance of authority and credibility.

However, I don't think that the ICC is entirely to blame for everything. The boorish oafs who masquerade as international cricketers nowadays crossed the line of what separates the acceptable from the intolerable years ago.

This also is down to a lack of discipline and authority within their own ranks

A solution to the situation?

Whenever a player is found guilty of letting his naturally moronic behaviour rise to the surface, punish the captain too - or the rest of the team, for that matter.

This is what happens in local cricket here. It's not a bad idea.

 

[_TiGeR-ToWn_]

This is what happens in local cricket here. It's not a bad idea.

Also in my league and it works well. As soon as the captain see's one of his players being a moron he will tell him to pull his head in, send him to the boundary to field to drag him from bowling.

But some players will always be morons.

 

[howardj]

The key to understanding Chappelli (who I actually think is a good bloke) is that he is very anti-authority. He bash, bash, bashes the authorities - it's a hang over from his days as a World Series Cup rebel. The problem with bashing the ICC is that, far from being a separate body, they are actually nothing more than the Chairmen of each respective cricket playing country.

They're not some self-appointed bunch of administrators who rule by divine right. It's so easy and lazy to bash the ICC - just remember that the ICC is actually each cricket playing country. Each country is to blame for ICC bungles, not some separate administrative body known as the ICC.

 

[SJS]

Its difficult to disagree with anything Chappell has said. In fact, I wrote this on another site three days before Chappell's article appeared :-

Ideally, on field umpires should be strong enough (with the backing of ICC) to put all nonsense starting from sledging/reaction to it/abuse(racial or otherwise) down with a firm foot. They should have the clout to tell the players to shut up and get on with the game and if they continue, should be empowered with further strong action including ordering a player off the field etc etc.

But for that to happen, all of us must agree on a few things.
1. That the game is bigger than the players. We all say that but dont mean it when our own favourite superstars are involved.
2. That sledging and abuse and tantrums have no place in the game and must be put down with a firm hand. We are all too happy to call it aggression ( a desired attribute it seems)/ mind games (something that is as important as the game itself to many), mental disintegration ( a skill to be acquired and cherished even more than a correct bowling action it appears) and let it be until it is aimed at our own players.
3. That pressurising the umpires is a subtle form of cheating since it is another kind of mental disintegration - this time aimed at those in charge of ensuring a fair game. But we revel in it. Its the 'charm' of the modern game to so many.
One could add to that list but this should do. Let all the stake holders in the game, the authorities, the players, former players, writers, supporters et al think hard about which way the game is headed and whether we are not all responsible for the mess that has been made by our overt or covert acquiescence of the gradual demise of the 'spirit of the game'. It is not to be mocked at as some medieval humbug sentimental bull****. If we want to call it that, then lets be prepared for all the other negatives that come in.

If abusing a player is okay, if targeting young immature kids for 'mental integration" is okay, if pressurising umpires on the field when one knows one is wrong is okay, then lets accept that using muscle power that comes from having the moolaah is okay as well. That joining hands of some countries in a block against the others is okay as well.

We cant keep diluting the standards, keep extending the limits of acceptable behaviour and then accept the umpires to do the job for us when the **** flies.

Even legal experts may not do a good job at this rate.

Look at the nationalism/parochialism that abounds on the internet. Why do you think it would be any different for the players ? If the better run forums have stronger moderators, there is a purpose behind it. Why should it be any different on the cricket field.

You want the moderators (umpires) to do a good job? Strengthen their hands with some strict codes of conduct and give them complete authority to run the game.​

AND

I must be in a miniscule minority from the sub-continent who supported Darrel Hair. Pakistan conceded the game by Inzy's fouling up and the lousy advise he seemed to be receiving from a plethora of Pakistani officials and former players in the pavilion.

ICC was wrong in dumping Hair and wrong in throwing out Bucknor even though Bucknor should really retire. If Gilly can realise he is not up to it any more, surely Bucknor should realise the same.

But thats digressing.

Having acted so spinelessly in Hair's case and then having messed it up further by entering into a side-deal with him involving money to quietly fade away, ICC showed how terribly it is run and that they are not just spineless but morally bankrupt as well.

But once they did that, Bucknor and Sydney were waiting to happen. ICC could have recovered some lost ground, learnt from the error of their ways in the Hair case and stuck to Bucknor but no. They are not men enough for that.

BCCI are no better. Any one can see what my opinion is of BCCI but who is in a position to call the BCCI pot black without the colour of their own kettle being so horribly exposed? Not ICC and not CA. That is a fact and we should all lament that fact instead of just taking a holier than thou attitude where everyone involved has only unholy sides to them.​

 

[Andrew Pollock]

Good article by Chappelli

Lets bans sledging!

 

[Slow Love™]

I think the point he's been making consistently over the time since 'monkeygate' is that it's gone too far.

Yeah, he actually first raised the topic during the Herschelle Gibbs "f-ing Pakistanis" affair, IIRC. He was actually derided for being hypocritical at the time, as Richard suggests, but I thought it was a bit of a pointless criticism as he was quite open in dealing with his own history when he raised it (not justifying it, quite the opposite). In any case he believed it had become much more incessant in recent years, and IMO, that's the case, including through the period where stump mikes were introduced.

Though I don't want to debate this all over again, I happened to agree with the Darrell Hair "sacking", and it's important to remember that, though people didn't like some of the politics involved, it was a meeting of the ICC members that removed him from the Elite panel, and there are certainly accounts (accounts have differed to a small degree) that there was only one country in support of Hair, and there was clearly a framework for taking action. The Bucknor decision is quite different, IMO, and seems completely ad-hoc and on the spot with no pretence at any framework at all, just the ICC executive instantly taking action (a day after they insisted they would do no such thing, it must be added).

Anyhow, the umpires clearly feel disempowered - part of it no doubt rightly or wrongly due to declining public trust, but some umpires seem to control proceedings better than others. I agree with the idea that a captain be punished for players under them transgressing, and I think it would actually clean up behaviour pretty quickly. Better be prepared for some bush lawyer hijinks when it gets pushed, though. I do agree completely that the ICC can't carry all the blame here and the players (and player groups) must take some responsibility at some point.

 

[Slow Love™]

The problem with bashing the ICC is that, far from being a separate body, they are actually nothing more than the Chairmen of each respective cricket playing country.

They're not some self-appointed bunch of administrators who rule by divine right. It's so easy and lazy to bash the ICC - just remember that the ICC is actually each cricket playing country. Each country is to blame for ICC bungles, not some separate administrative body known as the ICC.

I know you've been saying this for a while now, but it doesn't seem evident from what we see. It appears very clear that there is an ICC executive branch that makes decisions and sets policy direction. Clearly they hire "groups" (for want of a better word) of ex-players/officials to research possibilities and make reports, and clearly some aspects of policy are voted on by the member nations (and some movements tabled - the Hair situation clearly is an example of this) but I think it's silly to assume that it's not run the same way as many companies. It's obvious that some (perhaps many) decisions are made on the spot by the chief executives (like Speed, Richardson, Morgan et al).

And then there's decisions made by the officials, ie Procter, and the appointment of those officials, the running of tournaments (WC07), the various "proclamations" by men like Speed on Zimbabwe... It seems fine to me to criticize the ICC as a body, even including matters where the member countries have had their say.

 

[Richard]

The key to understanding Chappelli (who I actually think is a good bloke) is that he is very anti-authority. He bash, bash, bashes the authorities - it's a hang over from his days as a World Series Cup rebel.

That's one of the biggest things that annoys me about him. Sometimes he seems more keen on being anti-authoritarian than doing the right thing.

 

[silentstriker]

I know you've been saying this for a while now, but it doesn't seem evident from what we see. It appears very clear that there is an ICC executive branch that makes decisions and sets policy direction. Clearly they hire "groups" (for want of a better word) of ex-players/officials to research possibilities and make reports, and clearly some aspects of policy are voted on by the member nations (and some movements tabled - the Hair situation clearly is an example of this) but I think it's silly to assume that it's not run the same way as many companies. It's obvious that some (perhaps many) decisions are made on the spot by the chief executives (like Speed, Richardson, Morgan et al).

And then there's decisions made by the officials, ie Procter, and the appointment of those officials, the running of tournaments (WC07), the various "proclamations" by men like Speed on Zimbabwe... It seems fine to me to criticize the ICC as a body, even including matters where the member countries have had their say.

But that's the thing. The ICC executive branch is impotent without the board being behind it. Whatever decision Speed makes, it can easily be overruled by the board.

ICC is simply the Test playing countries. When people attack the ICC, they're just calling out each of the boards. Speed is just a punching bag.