IPL criticisms

[Sanz]

Sure, but it would be nice if players could earn more of it by playing real cricket for their country rather than a disgraceful, over rated, baseball-like abheration for some Indian city they have probably never even been to before..

So it is disgraceful because it is played for some Indian city. But it was okay as long as the Lords of the world organized it and invited players to play in Tents like Kent and Yorkshire.

 

[Shri]

Sure, but it would be nice if players could earn more of it by playing real cricket for their country rather than a disgraceful, over rated, baseball-like abheration for some Indian city they have probably never even been to before..

Its fair enough that the IPL is a disgraceful, over rated, baseball-like abheration in your opinion. You are entitled to have that opinion. How does the T20 tournament played in England which also has foriegn players in teams become better? We took an idea from England and are organizing it in a richer and better way where players play for a month and go home happy with loads of cash. Whats bad about it?

 

[Richard]

So it is disgraceful because it is played for some Indian city. But it was okay as long as the Lords of the world organized it and invited players to play in Tents like Kent and Yorkshire.

Nope, there wasn't so much as a single implication of that anywhere.

 

[aussie]

Yea, I'll find it, I think it was in a cricinfo magazine or something.

Haha, somehow that sounds a bit too convenient. But looking forward to you finding that link shotta....

 

[Edged&Taken]

where's the real money in "real cricket" ?

 

[silentstriker]

Haha, somehow that sounds a bit too convenient. But looking forward to you finding that link shotta....

I do have a scanner....

I'll find it. In any case, its not in question that they got a move on as soon as ICL was announced.

 

[G.I.Joe]

To clear a misconception that has been doing the rounds since the IPL started

Hardly. The ICL came up with the idea, BCCI copied it.

Would be pretty naive to think they both independently came up with the same idea and plan at the exact same time.

Not a go at Pasag specifically by any means, I've just quoted him since it is the most recent post I've come across on this issue. This is for all those who think the BCCI are nothing more than money-grabbing copycats. Just wanting to put an end to the chicken and egg argument that seems to crop up so often in ICL-IPL comparisons.

The basic premise of the IPL has been in existence in the BCCI corridors for a long time. Jagmohan Dalmiya's ouster and his struggles to hold onto power in the BCCI meant the idea was put on the backburner. All the ICL did was fast-track the implementation of Dalmiya's idea by the BCCI, in the form of the IPL. And it could be argued that the BCCI might even have looked to cash in on the concept after the 2007 T20 WC win regardless of the existence of the ICL. All Lalit Modi has had to do is dust off the old files and claim complete credit for Dalmiya's idea.

Cricinfo - Dalmiya looks to transform Indian cricket

In conclusion, the BCCI are not money grabbing copycats. They're just money grabbers. And Lalit Modi is a smellier skunk than generally believed.

 

[Goughy]

That appears to relate to 50 overs cricket rather than T20, though the idea of franchises (corporate teams) is certainly there.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yeah, T20 hadn't taken off back then, 50 over cricket would have been the format of choice, but the basic structure with privately owned teams and 4 overseas players remains.

 

[pasag]

Not a go at Pasag specifically by any means, I've just quoted him since it is the most recent post I've come across on this issue. This is for all those who think the BCCI are nothing more than money-grabbing copycats. Just wanting to put an end to the chicken and egg argument that seems to crop up so often in ICL-IPL comparisons.

The basic premise of the IPL has been in existence in the BCCI corridors for a long time. Jagmohan Dalmiya's ouster and his struggles to hold onto power in the BCCI meant the idea was put on the backburner. All the ICL did was fast-track the implementation of Dalmiya's idea by the BCCI, in the form of the IPL. And it could be argued that the BCCI might even have looked to cash in on the concept after the 2007 T20 WC win regardless of the existence of the ICL. All Lalit Modi has had to do is dust off the old files and claim complete credit for Dalmiya's idea.

Cricinfo - Dalmiya looks to transform Indian cricket

In conclusion, the BCCI are not money grabbing copycats. They're just money grabbers. And Lalit Modi is a smellier skunk than generally believed.

That's fair enough, and more than happy to be proven wrong. But the insinuation wasn't that they're money grabbing copycats - there's nothing wrong with copying other strategies in the market place especially if you can do it better.

Also, I reckon this thread should be moved into the other thread as there was a fair amount of discussion on this in there.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yeah, sorry about that. Have no idea how that post ended up in off topic.

 

[Steulen]

I don't dispute one part of that, but I do dispute that most England Test players view anything other than vs Australia as meaningless. I'm finding it hard to get that enthused about the current vs West Indies series (which is most unusual for me) so I'm hardly surprised if there are others doing similar. But most other series', well, that's a different matter.

I plead guilty to using hyperbole there.

 

[pasag]

Merged with the main thread on the topic from last year.

 

[Shri]

I have a question. The stadiums around the world have started drying up and less people come to watch test matches these days all over the world. When enough people are not showing interest in a thing, the sponsors also dont show interest in that thing. Now, all cricket boards' primary objective is to make money(Disagree all that you want on this point. This is my view and I can't change it). If the boards start losing a lot of money hosting test matches, they will stop hosting them at some extreme point. They host 2 test series quite frequently these days anyway. The purists are the only ones who love this format of the game so much these days. So, my question is, will test matches survive when the crowds and the sponsors completely dry up?

 

[pasag]

Now, all cricket boards' primary objective is to make money(Disagree all that you want on this point. This is my view and I can't change it).

No, their primary objective is to facilitate cricket in the country. One of the strategies to accomplish and support that is making money. It's a vital part to their survival, but they're non-for profit entities and all the money goes back into cricket (you'd hope!).

 

[Shri]

No, their primary objective is to facilitate cricket in the country. One of the strategies to accomplish and support that is making money. It's a vital part to their survival, but they're non-for profit entities and all the money goes back into cricket (you'd hope!).

*cough...Dalmiya...cough*

Its inevitable that the boards depend on money. The reasons for their dependence may be different. But, money making is the most important thing for all boards. Where the money goes after they get it may differ. Infrastructure developement in countries like Australia, RSA etc and it goes to a lot of people's pockets in the sub-contienent. If the people are not interested, the sponsors are not interested. If the sponsors are not interested, the board is not interested since they will lose money. The 2 tests, 5 ODIs and 3 T20s tours are a good example of this atm.

 

[Goughy]

No, their primary objective is to facilitate cricket in the country. One of the strategies to accomplish and support that is making money. It's a vital part to their survival, but they're non-for profit entities and all the money goes back into cricket (you'd hope!).

Absolutely. Cricket boards are to promote and invest in grass roots cricket and provide the structure to provide the greatest opportunies for the most people to play the game and a structure for the elite to compete in high level competition.

The money helps those aims but the money isnt the reason for their existance.

 

[Smith]

Not a go at Pasag specifically by any means, I've just quoted him since it is the most recent post I've come across on this issue. This is for all those who think the BCCI are nothing more than money-grabbing copycats. Just wanting to put an end to the chicken and egg argument that seems to crop up so often in ICL-IPL comparisons.

The basic premise of the IPL has been in existence in the BCCI corridors for a long time. Jagmohan Dalmiya's ouster and his struggles to hold onto power in the BCCI meant the idea was put on the backburner. All the ICL did was fast-track the implementation of Dalmiya's idea by the BCCI, in the form of the IPL. And it could be argued that the BCCI might even have looked to cash in on the concept after the 2007 T20 WC win regardless of the existence of the ICL. All Lalit Modi has had to do is dust off the old files and claim complete credit for Dalmiya's idea.

Cricinfo - Dalmiya looks to transform Indian cricket

In conclusion, the BCCI are not money grabbing copycats. They're just money grabbers. And Lalit Modi is a smellier skunk than generally believed.

Who invented test cricket? ODIs an T20s?

 

[honestbharani]

Who invented test cricket? ODIs an T20s?

who hasn't won even a single world cup?

 

[Glacier]

The worst thing about the IPL is the commentary and all the other cringeworthy nonsense that goes on during games. I'm sure someone has pointed this out in this thread but there you go..

I mean the incessant plugging of sponsors by the commentators is bad enough but then you add imbeciles like Ramiz Raja, Ranjit Fernando and Sivaramakrishnan into the equation and it becomes truly hard to listen to the IPL.

The games themselves have actually been fairly good to be honest, though.