• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

IPL criticisms

silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
GingerFurball said:
DWTA.

It is the fault of the ICC that too much cricket is being played.

Most Australian internationals skipped this season's IPL, because since last October, the FTP has seen Australia play:

  • A 4 Test series in India
  • A 2 Test Series at home to New Zealand
  • A 3 Test, 2 T20I, 5 ODI series at home to South Africa
  • A 5 match ODI series vs New Zealand
  • A 3 Test, 2 T20I, 5 ODI series in South Africa
  • A 5 ODI, 1 T20I series vs Pakistan in the UAE

That is an insane amount of cricket. Now let's look at what the next 6-9 months have in store:

  • Twenty20 World Cup
  • Ashes Tour of England (2 FC tour games, 5 Tests, 8 ODIs, 2 T20Is)
  • Champions Trophy
  • Home series vs West Indies and Pakistan (6 Tests, 10 ODIs, 3T20Is)
  • Away series vs New Zealand (3 Tests, 5 ODIs)

According to the FTP, they're also due to go back to India for a 7 match ODI series between the Champions Trophy and their home summer as well.

That's a ludicrous international schedule. If international cricket is going to survive, then the ICC needs to cut back the amount of cricket its members play. Otherwise, you're going to get a scenario where the top players either pick and choose with the consent of their boards which series they'll play in to avoid burn out (we're already starting to see this - MS Dhoni skipped the Test leg of last summer's Sri Lanka tour, Australia have been strategically resting players during ODIs this winter), thus devaluing international cricket, or worse, be so burned out with constant travelling and playing that they decide that they can't do it any more, and choose the easy life of playing for 6 weeks in the IPL for $1m, thus depriving international cricket of its top stars.

Twenty20 "super leagues" in the form of the IPL, P20 (done properly, not the nonsense that's been proposed), SPL, Champions League, whatever, will be the future of the game. It is the ICC which is destroying international cricket, not these T20 leagues.
Click to expand...
Actually no. That's Australian board's fault, not ICC. ICC only mandates two tests and 3 ODIs every six years home and away. Anything above that is done by the respective boards in a bilateral manner. India's schedule is just as bad, and its the BCCI's fault.
 
C

chris jones

Cricket Spectator
In my point of view, IPL is nothing but money and entertainment.Lot of players got injured in this series which is a big criticism.
 
aussie

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
ret said:
7. I want more international players in IPL so that I can enjoy IPL more
Click to expand...
Nope. Never was my argument based on any "personal enjoyment" of IPL. I said under a proper ICC structure, where the BCCI instead would have needed an approval to commence the IPL - i am sure a proper compromise between the international player restriction would have been made with the IPL executives.

If ATT in late 07, Modi & company didn't agree with hypotetically - the ICC as the TRUE governing body. The IPL should have never been established.



ret said:
11. IPL doesn't help Indian domestic players that much
Click to expand...
Never said that. I agree it does. But my point to you was i dont see why if the tournament was the MAIN global T20 tournament, why the Indian players as you rightfully claimed - wont be able help them bridge the "quality gap" when/if they get to international cricket.



ret said:
13. I don't make mountains out of molehills
Click to expand...
Lame sarcasm. Rather its you are underestimating the problems of the lack of contrrol of rise of T20s & the overall structural problems of the ICC


silentstriker said:
OK, so the carrot is the money. However, the boards don't see any money.....only the players do. What is the benefit to the boards?
Click to expand...
What relevance does the various cricket boards have to do with this?
 
aussie

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
silentstriker said:
Actually no. That's Australian board's fault, not ICC. ICC only mandates two tests and 3 ODIs every six years home and away. Anything above that is done by the respective boards in a bilateral manner. India's schedule is just as bad, and its the BCCI's fault.
Click to expand...
This is not a big deal though really is it. Of course we can't have 1 off tests, plus major nations at least have to play 3 tests n 5 ODIs for the sake of competitiveness.

Plus you look at the Australia not touring Pakistan for 10 years for honest reasons. That would have messed up the schedule a bit.

I am not sure how boards can limit tours TBH really, but somehow in a 12 month yea if they can limit it to 6-7 of cricket & 5 months off. That would be perfect for the players.


GingerFurball said:
Twenty20 "super leagues" in the form of the IPL, P20 (done properly, not the nonsense that's been proposed), SPL, Champions League, whatever, will be the future of the game. It is the ICC which is destroying international cricket, not these T20 leagues.
Click to expand...
Not behind the idea you need so much of them. One annual one for me, since the T20 WC every 2 years in terms of quality will already be there.
 
Furball

Furball

Evil Scotsman
aussie said:
Not behind the idea you need so much of them. One annual one for me, since the T20 WC every 2 years in terms of quality will already be there.
Click to expand...
It will happen though. Other boards will look at the revenues generated by the IPL and think to themselves "hey, we fancy a bit of that."

What needs to happen is that the players need to be regulated, so that you can only play in 1 league per season, so that you don't get cases such as Brendan McCullum, who represented Otago (iirc) in New Zealand, New South Wales in the KFC Big Bash, and Kolkatta in the IPL.

Twenty20 leagues are the future as that is where the money will be generated. The ICC Future Tours Program simply cannot continue in its present form.

If the boards and ICC manage things properly, it could actually enhance Test cricket, as with the money generated from IPL etc. there will be less need for boards to schedule so many ODIs, and as players will be earning large sums of money playing for whatever franchise in whatever league, they'll be less willing to embark on meaningless ODI series. This would free up space in the calendar for longer, more traditional Test series.

Of course, the big danger is that the smaller cricketing nations get marginalised, which is why some form of Test Championship is essential to take the game forward. Otherwise, you'll get India, England, Australia and South Africa playing endless series against each other, as for the individual boards, they're the most lucrative ones (throw in India v Pakistan once the political tension between the two nations eases.)

The recent example of Australia splitting their tour to India (playing 7 ODIs in 2007/08, then returning a year later to play a Test series) is the way forward IMO.
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
GingerFurball said:
It will happen though. Other boards will look at the revenues generated by the IPL and think to themselves "hey, we fancy a bit of that."

What needs to happen is that the players need to be regulated, so that you can only play in 1 league per season, so that you don't get cases such as Brendan McCullum, who represented Otago (iirc) in New Zealand, New South Wales in the KFC Big Bash, and Kolkatta in the IPL.
Click to expand...
I think the players would have a bit of a case against that. It's easy to say for Indian, Australian and English players, where they don't need the money. But players from countries like NZ and SL don't make that much money, and it would not be fair to them to limit their earning opportunity like that. Cricket is a very short career, and you can't begrudge anyone taking as much as they can while they are at the top of their game.
 
Furball

Furball

Evil Scotsman
silentstriker said:
I think the players would have a bit of a case against that. It's easy to say for Indian, Australian and English players, where they don't need the money. But players from countries like NZ and SL don't make that much money, and it would not be fair to them to limit their earning opportunity like that. Cricket is a very short career, and you can't begrudge anyone taking as much as they can while they are at the top of their game.
Click to expand...
Footballers can't play for AC Milan for a couple of months, move to Real Madrid, then move to Manchester United etc in the space of the same season.

Same would apply here. The T20 leagues would be the equivelant of domestic football leagues.
 
aussie

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
GingerFurball said:
It will happen though. Other boards will look at the revenues generated by the IPL and think to themselves "hey, we fancy a bit of that."

What needs to happen is that the players need to be regulated, so that you can only play in 1 league per season, so that you don't get cases such as Brendan McCullum, who represented Otago (iirc) in New Zealand, New South Wales in the KFC Big Bash, and Kolkatta in the IPL.

Twenty20 leagues are the future as that is where the money will be generated. The ICC Future Tours Program simply cannot continue in its present form.

If the boards and ICC manage things properly, it could actually enhance Test cricket, as with the money generated from IPL etc. there will be less need for boards to schedule so many ODIs, and as players will be earning large sums of money playing for whatever franchise in whatever league, they'll be less willing to embark on meaningless ODI series. This would free up space in the calendar for longer, more traditional Test series.

Of course, the big danger is that the smaller cricketing nations get marginalised, which is why some form of Test Championship is essential to take the game forward. Otherwise, you'll get India, England, Australia and South Africa playing endless series against each other, as for the individual boards, they're the most lucrative ones (throw in India v Pakistan once the political tension between the two nations eases.)

The recent example of Australia splitting their tour to India (playing 7 ODIs in 2007/08, then returning a year later to play a Test series) is the way forward IMO.
Click to expand...
You know i guess your right TBH. With the EPL the only its going to work is transform the current T20 competition into the EPL & not create a new one, that nonsense.

While one ODI tournament that needs to go is Champions Trophy fo sure...

EDIT: The problem that could arise with having the SPL, P20 etc is the money factor. Who in a potential P20 or SPL is going to pay the players like the IPL?
 
Last edited:
aussie

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
silentstriker said:
So you'd rather they pay them less? What's the incentive for the boards to follow around?
Click to expand...
Yo son i dont understand where you are going with your point. I have

The consistent basis of my argument and i'll repeat again. The erudite "Carrot & Stick" policy - big money to attract the players - and the stick introducution of the 4 international player restiction, to uphold "Indian" image of tournament which illustrated the shocking power BCCI has in the game.

All the respective international boards have done over the past 2 IPLs - is try to allow their players to go. Plus now are trying to create such tournaments of their own, i.e the p20 & SPL.
 
vic_orthdox

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
If it were to be expanded, would have rathered a few more games in a form of a finals series, or a best of three grand final.
 
vic_orthdox

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Pigeon said:
Without a window allocated to it? That's just disaster.

On the other hand, good news for the franchises as they get more matches to "utilise" the overpriced players. Their salaries are fixed cost but they get to earn more income from the additional matches played.
Click to expand...
Hope it sees a bit more of a "rotation" of squads, and that we see more combinations of players used.
 
Pigeon

Pigeon

Banned
vic_orthdox said:
Hope it sees a bit more of a "rotation" of squads, and that we see more combinations of players used.
Click to expand...
I am not sure it would make life easy for top guns though. Especially if the tournament is a closely fought one, they'll find themselves playing almost all of the (perhaps) 20+ games in the span of 2 months.
 
aussie

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Oh christ, the tournament ends 5 days for the T20 WC *facepalm*. Will the real ICC please stand uppp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top