The Power of Hypocrisy - an anti BCCI rant

[paganpete101]

one thing i have learned in life is that most brown people in the world are hypocrites and cheat. No wonder our countries are so backwards

Saeed, you have described MOST people - we are not a perfect species :-)

 

[honestbharani]

I'm merely correcting your statement of BCCI having zero transparency, not mounting any across the board defense of the BCCI.

Appreciating one particular action of the BCCI isn't the same as giving them an internet carte blanche. I.e. I'm playing the ball not the bowler.

lol.. for SS, everything the BCCI does is wrong and that is why it is frustrating to have any kind of discussion with him on the matter.. And of course, his absolute refusal to believe that there are indeed sports bodies who are just as bad.. May not be in the same manner but in different ways, they are just as bad!!!!

 

[silentstriker]

lol.. for SS, everything the BCCI does is wrong and that is why it is frustrating to have any kind of discussion with him on the matter.. And of course, his absolute refusal to believe that there are indeed sports bodies who are just as bad.. May not be in the same manner but in different ways, they are just as bad!!!!

Huh? When did I disbelieve that? PCB is probably worse. And I'm sure other Indian sport bodies are worse.

That has nothing to do with who is the most professional and transparent out of all the cricket administrative bodies in the world.

I am not comparing BCCI to the Southern Uganda Football Association. I am comparing it to the ECB, and the ACB - you know - the boards it rallies against. Just because other boards which have nothing to do with anything are worse, doesn't say one iota about BCCI as compared to other international cricket administrations.

 

[jeevan]

Huh? When did I disbelieve that? PCB is probably worse. And I'm sure other Indian sport bodies are worse.

That has nothing to do with who is the most professional and transparent out of all the cricket administrative bodies in the world.

I am not comparing BCCI to the Southern Uganda Football Association. I am comparing it to the ECB, and the ACB - you know - the boards it rallies against. Just because other boards which have nothing to do with anything are worse, doesn't say one iota about BCCI as compared to other international cricket administrations.

Let's take an inventory of positive things BCCI has done wrt international cricket in the last decade or two:
- Took a lead in re-integrating SA, and bringing in BD.
- Took a lead in rotating the WC away from its England-exclusive home
- Bailing out SLC financially (which I think it did, certainly there was talk of it)
- Relations with PCB are probably among the best role models for other sectors of Indo-Pak contacts.(Yes, this Asia bloc thing can be helpful in many other spheres of life).
- IPL which has increased the fan base and also the financial outlook for many players, Indian or not.

When you take the big picture, it doesn't seem any thing like the shabby do-no-good group that you portray it to be. Can you tabulate all the good things CA has done for me, the joe six-pack international cricket fan.

 

[Debris]

Let's take an inventory of positive things BCCI has done wrt international cricket in the last decade or two:
- Took a lead in re-integrating SA, and bringing in BD.
- Took a lead in rotating the WC away from its England-exclusive home
- Bailing out SLC financially (which I think it did, certainly there was talk of it)
- Relations with PCB are probably among the best role models for other sectors of Indo-Pak contacts.(Yes, this Asia bloc thing can be helpful in many other spheres of life).
- IPL which has increased the fan base and also the financial outlook for many players, Indian or not.

When you take the big picture, it doesn't seem any thing like the shabby do-no-good group that you portray it to be. Can you tabulate all the good things CA has done for me, the joe six-pack international cricket fan.

Some of the reasoning here is flawed.

- SA took the lead in re-integrating SA. Once they had renounced apartheid, teams were scrambling over themselves to play them. Bangladesh was to India's credit, although it does increase India's powerbase.
- Taking the WC out of England was basically a cash grab by India. Not sure how it reflects much credit on them, tbh. They now seem to want to stage every WC in India.
- Bailing out SL is hearsay. We don't know what happened here. Even it is true, it is very much to the BCCI's advantage to rescue them.
- Relations with the PCB, hmmm. Isn't this a bit like saying "well, I might be a thief but at least I am not a murderer". BCCI relationship with PCB is not that great.
- IPL has certainly been a benefit to financial security of players and has possibly expanded the fanbase. But was it not introduced as a response to the ICL? The long-term benefits are also unknown as it could be seen to be hurting international cricket and other domestic competitions

It seems to me that most of these were introduced by the BCCI to benefit their cash flow and power base. As for CA, try these ones as a start

- Resisted racism in South Africa and Zimbabwe
- Played a large part in the improvement of the laws of the game
- Introduced the concept of cricket academies to help developing players among many other measures to help the professionalism of players
- Took a leading role in bringing India, Pakistan and WI into the game

 

[honestbharani]

Some of the reasoning here is flawed.

- SA took the lead in re-integrating SA. Once they had renounced apartheid, teams were scrambling over themselves to play them. Bangladesh was to India's credit, although it does increase India's powerbase.
- Taking the WC out of England was basically a cash grab by India. Not sure how it reflects much credit on them, tbh. They now seem to want to stage every WC in India.
- Bailing out SL is hearsay. We don't know what happened here. Even it is true, it is very much to the BCCI's advantage to rescue them.
- Relations with the PCB, hmmm. Isn't this a bit like saying "well, I might be a thief but at least I am not a murderer". BCCI relationship with PCB is not that great.
- IPL has certainly been a benefit to financial security of players and has possibly expanded the fanbase. But was it not introduced as a response to the ICL? The long-term benefits are also unknown as it could be seen to be hurting international cricket and other domestic competitions

It seems to me that most of these were introduced by the BCCI to benefit their cash flow and power base. As for CA, try these ones as a start

- Resisted racism in South Africa and Zimbabwe
- Played a large part in the improvement of the laws of the game
- Introduced the concept of cricket academies to help developing players among many other measures to help the professionalism of players
- Took a leading role in bringing India, Pakistan and WI into the game

And India took a leading role in bringing Bang and SL into the game.. What's the point? Every major nation at some point or the other tries to bring in other teams.


And FTR, the English did a LOT more for cricket in the countries you mention than the Aussies ever did. Aussies didn't open any friggin academies in INdia.. They simply had one at their home to help them build a better cricket side and other teams have followed suit.. And they took that model from other countries and other sports where the same thing has happened... It is not as if Australia invented academies and somehow preached it to the world as messiahs...


They didn't play a large part in improving the rules of the game... That was England again.. But if you mean stuff lilke getting the underarm banned, then yes...



Seriously, India is not great as a role model for other countries as a cricketing powerhouse and neither was Australia.... That's that.

 

[honestbharani]

Huh? When did I disbelieve that? PCB is probably worse. And I'm sure other Indian sport bodies are worse.

That has nothing to do with who is the most professional and transparent out of all the cricket administrative bodies in the world.

I am not comparing BCCI to the Southern Uganda Football Association. I am comparing it to the ECB, and the ACB - you know - the boards it rallies against. Just because other boards which have nothing to do with anything are worse, doesn't say one iota about BCCI as compared to other international cricket administrations.

ECB and CA ? Seriously? And your only beef is about transparency and the fact that the BCCI honchos make money when they keep saying they hold honorary posts? Is that it?


What about what has actually been done for the game? I think it is BECAUSE of the BCCI that many of the smaller boards are getting a voice in the ICC.. The ECB and CA were dominating with scant respect for the other members and now they are being forced to give these boards the respect they deserve. Maybe the BCCI are not doing it for the best reasons but the ends matter here, not why it is being done...


IF it weren't for the BCCI, we would still be putting up with the Conn and Speed types. I know what I prefer.. And I personally don't give a hoot about the corruption and zero transparency in the BCCI... As long as they can get something good done for the game, that is all that matters, no matter for what reason. And the posting of a few Aussie posters here should tell you EASILY why the BCCI being what it is is a good thing for world cricket...

 

[jeevan]

As for CA, try these ones as a start

- Resisted racism in South Africa and Zimbabwe
- Played a large part in the improvement of the laws of the game
- Introduced the concept of cricket academies to help developing players among many other measures to help the professionalism of players
- Took a leading role in bringing India, Pakistan and WI into the game

- No more than BCCI & PCB, and quite possibly - less. There were no rebel tours from these countries, and hence no question of if 3 years ban was too light or not on the players involved. WICB for e.g. life banned players I think, something that ECB, CA did not.
- Somewhat fuzzy, isn't it? Some rules cut both way, but I'll grant you this one thing - that some technical matters have imrpoved thanks to CA.
- If you say so. I believe MRF pace academy started at about the same time (mid 80's) as the Australian Cricket Academy. I realize MRF is private, point is it's not like CA was that unique in this aspect.
- India, Pakistan,WI have been playing for more than 10-20 years time frame that we're talking about. I thought we agreed in this thread (over the Eng-Aus hold on cricket) not to go deeper than that.

 

[jeevan]

Some of the reasoning here is flawed.

- SA took the lead in re-integrating SA. Once they had renounced apartheid, teams were scrambling over themselves to play them. Bangladesh was to India's credit, although it does increase India's powerbase.
- Taking the WC out of England was basically a cash grab by India. Not sure how it reflects much credit on them, tbh. They now seem to want to stage every WC in India.
- Bailing out SL is hearsay. We don't know what happened here. Even it is true, it is very much to the BCCI's advantage to rescue them.
- Relations with the PCB, hmmm. Isn't this a bit like saying "well, I might be a thief but at least I am not a murderer". BCCI relationship with PCB is not that great.
- IPL has certainly been a benefit to financial security of players and has possibly expanded the fanbase. But was it not introduced as a response to the ICL? The long-term benefits are also unknown as it could be seen to be hurting international cricket and other domestic competitions

- Well BCCI apparently did a better job of befriending the new South Africa. Australia played them a full year later. At the time, 1990, BCCI most certainly did not have the financial leverage it appears to have today.
- The WC rotates among all continents now, why is it an India-specific cash grab?
- So helping others (liek BCB,SLCB) makes you strong, what stops CA from doing it?
But is helping others a bad thing, because it makes you strong? (Works that way in real life too - you help someone and most times, you have one more ally).
- Are you kidding on Indo-Pak? Google cricket diplomacy, it is one of the best confidence building measures we (as the world) have in that hotspot.
- Modi, as an Indian cricket official, actually had been trying to get an IPL league. ICL moved quicker, and then IPL really moved very decisively. The long term benefits to cricket players and the popular base are more important than to the 'connoisseur' class.

 

[jeevan]

And just to be clear, no one's going off on a rant about how the CA is racist, imperialist, or whatever other ism epithet that happens to be in fashion amongst the chattering classes. I'm sure they take care of their business well enough most of the time. The whole Howard thing was only a misstep on their part, funny how that turned into a rant on the BCCI.

 

[Debris]

- No more than BCCI & PCB, and quite possibly - less. There were no rebel tours from these countries, and hence no question of if 3 years ban was too light or not on the players involved. WICB for e.g. life banned players I think, something that ECB, CA did not.
- Somewhat fuzzy, isn't it? Some rules cut both way, but I'll grant you this one thing - that some technical matters have imrpoved thanks to CA.
- If you say so. I believe MRF pace academy started at about the same time (mid 80's) as the Australian Cricket Academy. I realize MRF is private, point is it's not like CA was that unique in this aspect.
- India, Pakistan,WI have been playing for more than 10-20 years time frame that we're talking about. I thought we agreed in this thread (over the Eng-Aus hold on cricket) not to go deeper than that.

Ok, did not see the restriction to the last 20 years but you did bring up the WC which was longer than 20 years ago. You can't really blame CA for rebel tours. They did everything possible to stop international cricket in SA, including banning these players. And of course there were no rebel tours from India or Pakistan, that was the whole point of apartheid. The BCCI response to Zimbabwe was poor, to say the least. A country had a policy in place only to play black players and BCCI was doing everything in their power to stop them being banned from test cricket.

 

[Debris]

- Well BCCI apparently did a better job of befriending the new South Africa. Australia played them a full year later. At the time, 1990, BCCI most certainly did not have the financial leverage it appears to have today.
- The WC rotates among all continents now, why is it an India-specific cash grab?
- So helping others (liek BCB,SLCB) makes you strong, what stops CA from doing it?
But is helping others a bad thing, because it makes you strong? (Works that way in real life too - you help someone and most times, you have one more ally).
- Are you kidding on Indo-Pak? Google cricket diplomacy, it is one of the best confidence building measures we (as the world) have in that hotspot.
- Modi, as an Indian cricket official, actually had been trying to get an IPL league. ICL moved quicker, and then IPL really moved very decisively. The long term benefits to cricket players and the popular base are more important than to the 'connoisseur' class.

SA played India and WI first to demonstrate that they really were over apartheid. It would have been a bit tactless to play Australia or England first.

Funny how India have hosted 3 out of 7 times since then. Note that by rotational policy it should have been Australia/NZ in 2011 but somehow ended up in India.

CA doesn't do it because they don't have the enormous pool of funds that BCCI does, that is the point of this thread. BCCI is using the power this money generates to take over cricket. Or are you arguing that might makes right?

I am not arguing that Indo-Pak cricket is a bad thing. It has obviously done a lot of good under very tense circumstances. But were not all Pakistani players recently left out of IPL auction? Hardly a ringing endorsement of relations with Pakistan.

I will take your word for it on IPL, although I have no idea what you mean by 'connoiseur' class. People who liked longer forms of the game?

 

[honestbharani]

SA played India and WI first to demonstrate that they really were over apartheid. It would have been a bit tactless to play Australia or England first.

Funny how India have hosted 3 out of 7 times since then. Note that by rotational policy it should have been Australia/NZ in 2011 but somehow ended up in India.

CA doesn't do it because they don't have the enormous pool of funds that BCCI does, that is the point of this thread. BCCI is using the power this money generates to take over cricket. Or are you arguing that might makes right?

I am not arguing that Indo-Pak cricket is a bad thing. It has obviously done a lot of good under very tense circumstances. But were not all Pakistani players recently left out of IPL auction? Hardly a ringing endorsement of relations with Pakistan.

I will take your word for it on IPL, although I have no idea what you mean by 'connoiseur' class. People who liked longer forms of the game?

Watched an episode of Cricket Up Close just this afternoon.. Ian Chappell was going on about how Aussie administrators tried to put a stop on the no. of bouncers because their side were just not good enough against it.... Another example CA or ACB having the good of the game over their and their teams' own welfare at heart, huh?



The point is, no one is questioning Australia has done a lot of good for cricket but that is how it goes in everything in life... By your reasoning, I should be telling all and sundry that if it weren't for the fact that Indian ancestors inventing zero, there would have been very little development in the world till now.... And yes, afaic, no matter how corrupt and selfish BCCI guys are, they still do quite a bit that helps cricket. Their reasons may not be good but there are quite a few moves that has and does help cricket. And let us not pretend that ECB and ACB/CA were angels who never thought of helping themselves at the cost of other teams.. Coz they so obviously did so many times...

 

[honestbharani]

SA played India and WI first to demonstrate that they really were over apartheid. It would have been a bit tactless to play Australia or England first.

Funny how India have hosted 3 out of 7 times since then. Note that by rotational policy it should have been Australia/NZ in 2011 but somehow ended up in India.

CA doesn't do it because they don't have the enormous pool of funds that BCCI does, that is the point of this thread. BCCI is using the power this money generates to take over cricket. Or are you arguing that might makes right?

I am not arguing that Indo-Pak cricket is a bad thing. It has obviously done a lot of good under very tense circumstances. But were not all Pakistani players recently left out of IPL auction? Hardly a ringing endorsement of relations with Pakistan.

I will take your word for it on IPL, although I have no idea what you mean by 'connoiseur' class. People who liked longer forms of the game?

ACB/CA and ECB had TAKEN OVER cricket because they were making the most money for the game.. And now BCCI are doing it. What is wrong with that?

 

[honestbharani]

And just to be clear, no one's going off on a rant about how the CA is racist, imperialist, or whatever other ism epithet that happens to be in fashion amongst the chattering classes. I'm sure they take care of their business well enough most of the time. The whole Howard thing was only a misstep on their part, funny how that turned into a rant on the BCCI.

They are no angels mate.. They hushed up Mark Waugh and Shane Warne's bookie contacts... And their umpires have been just as bad as ours reg. decisions in home tests... And they went to change the rules when they realized their team was being found out... Lets face it.. We don't live in a perfect world. The men with power will ALWAYS try to do something good for themselves and their ilk... It happened with them in charge and it will happen with us in charge and it will continue to happen whoever else is in charge.. The whole thing of "my board > ur board" is extremely foolish and only continues to live because SS lives in this bubble where BCCI are the worst and the other boards never do anything wrong... Maybe it is becoz he is American..

 

[jeevan]

SA played India and WI first to demonstrate that they really were over apartheid. It would have been a bit tactless to play Australia or England first.

Funny how India have hosted 3 out of 7 times since then. Note that by rotational policy it should have been Australia/NZ in 2011 but somehow ended up in India.

CA doesn't do it because they don't have the enormous pool of funds that BCCI does, that is the point of this thread. BCCI is using the power this money generates to take over cricket. Or are you arguing that might makes right?

I am not arguing that Indo-Pak cricket is a bad thing. It has obviously done a lot of good under very tense circumstances. But were not all Pakistani players recently left out of IPL auction? Hardly a ringing endorsement of relations with Pakistan.

I will take your word for it on IPL, although I have no idea what you mean by 'connoiseur' class. People who liked longer forms of the game?

- India, by itself, has never hosted an ODI world cup and are not scheduled to do so in the forseeable future. It's always been the subcontinent (first India+Pak, then SL was added, and now BD is added) - 4 out of 10 members claiming 3 out of 9 chances to host the WC (3 out of 12 if you count the first three in England).

- Actually, multiple countries co-hosting a WC is an administrative innovation now adopted by Aus+NZ, and SA+ZC+Kenya too. To be credited to BCCI+PCB who started it.

- BCCI didn't have much money except in the last 5 or 10 years. From 2000 to 2010, disposable incomes in India, especially expendable for entertainment have probably done a 10X, as incomes have done a 2-3X . The power of BCCI's wallet is a very recent thing.

- Heard of 11/26 and it's political aftermath? It was a sort of 9/11 for India. We are just about starting a recovery from that, the recent Asia cup was the first time Indian & Pakistani players met after that.

- Appears to be so. There's John Q Public (At least in India thrilled to bits about T20), there's a majority of cricket players and there might be a small third class of people, some on these boards.
I don't see how the first two groups of people can view IPL as not good.

- BTW if you did want to go back further , wrt Pakistan - it was India who sponsored Pakistan as a full member in ~ 1952, and also hosted their first tests ever. CA didn't veto it, agreed.

 

[silentstriker]

The whole thing of "my board > ur board" is extremely foolish and only continues to live because SS lives in this bubble where BCCI are the worst and the other boards never do anything wrong... Maybe it is becoz he is American..

If you're just going to flat out lie about what I say, there is no point in me having a discussion with you.

 

[jeevan]

They are no angels mate.. They hushed up Mark Waugh and Shane Warne's bookie contacts... And their umpires have been just as bad as ours reg. decisions in home tests... And they went to change the rules when they realized their team was being found out... Lets face it.. We don't live in a perfect world. The men with power will ALWAYS try to do something good for themselves and their ilk... It happened with them in charge and it will happen with us in charge and it will continue to happen whoever else is in charge.. The whole thing of "my board > ur board" is extremely foolish and only continues to live because SS lives in this bubble where BCCI are the worst and the other boards never do anything wrong... Maybe it is becoz he is American..

I don't have a problem with this.My only point is BCCI is actually responsible for some good in internaitional cricket - and even before it had power. I'm not one to write BCCI blanket certificates of conduct here (e.g. I myself was fairly disappointed when Pakistani players were left out of IPL 3).

But when I did a simple thought experiment of the positives BCCI has contributed to world cricket - there actually was a reasonable list.

 

[honestbharani]

If you're just going to flat out lie about what I say, there is no point in me having a discussion with you.

yep.. overstatement.. but having arguments with you does that to me, mate.. Sorry. But I still don't agree with this. So lets' agree to disagree on this one, just like the Spinners Vs Fast bowlers junk..

 

[jeevan]

Ok, did not see the restriction to the last 20 years but you did bring up the WC which was longer than 20 years ago. You can't really blame CA for rebel tours. They did everything possible to stop international cricket in SA, including banning these players. And of course there were no rebel tours from India or Pakistan, that was the whole point of apartheid. The BCCI response to Zimbabwe was poor, to say the least. A country had a policy in place only to play black players and BCCI was doing everything in their power to stop them being banned from test cricket.

No one's blaming CA or ECB for the rebel tours. That's different from crediting CA with resisting apartheid. Everyone did that.

There was a rebel tour, or 2 don't recall, from WI consisting of non-white players. Ditto one from SL. So it was ot only whites who played in SA.

So for whatever reasons, India & Pakistan (perhaps NZ) were the places to really have no formal or rebel tours. (Btw, I don't know if you're aware or not that MK Gandhi started his civil disobedience approach against apartheid in SA where he was practicing law before moving back to India and really developing that approach as a political tool. So there is a deep anti-apartheid link with India, which was one of the first countries Mandela visited upon being freed.)