Indian influence good or bad for cricket?

[hang on]

A simplistic title, indeed, but one that does have some currency, at least judging by the byline of the James article that appeared in the Telegraph yesterday --

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/india/8454144/Steve-James-India-primed-for-a-fall-after-reaching-the-heights-of-success.html#dsq-content

Would be interested in knowing what the members on here think about the role of India in cricket:

Unequivocally good
Mostly good
Mostly bad
Unequivocally bad

No fence-sitting (hence no undecided or average option above), please, and explanations for the choice made most welcome, even if not obligatory! Please propose a solution, if you can, assuming your choice is one of the last two options. Better for constructive dialogue, I would imagine.

Mods, could you please create a poll with the following choices? Thanks.

 

[Spark]

Need to think about this more (leaning towards the "less than brilliant" option due to the whole Zimbabwe fiasco, failure to properly tackle corruption, UDRS fiasco etc, but then by that measure no country can be seen as being "good for cricket") but this is also worth posting, even if it is Roebuck in typical overdramatic Roebuck form:

A worthless corrupt pursuit

 

[hang on]

remember reading it when it came out, spark. roebuck at his overblown shrillest!

perhaps i should also ask what people would propose as the solution(s) if they choose the 'bad' options. that would lead to a more constructive discourse. for example, less ipl focus or more transparency etc.

 

[smash84]

is Steve James a former England player?

 

[Borges]

Hmm... Is Indian influence good or bad for cricket? Unequivocally good, I would assert.

I think that it is vital for cricket that India, and every other country where cricket is a major sport has influence on the sport. Or we would be back to the dark days when only the founding members of the Imperial Cricket Conference had any influence. Don't think cricket will survive as a sport if that happens.

The interesting question, worthy of debate is: Is Indian dominance good or bad for cricket?

The catch is that the two parts of Indian dominance are inextricably tied to each other. India, as the dominant contributor to the finances of cricket, and BCCI as the dominant cricket board in the ICC. As long as the revenue model is lopsided, the level of influence will also remain lopsided. As in most sports today, we have to solve the economic problem first, before we attempt to find an answer to the political problem.

 

[Spark]

I don't necessarily think the IPL has undue focus, but I think that the amount of time it takes should be capped to what it does now. As it does, currently sitting quite neatly in a window well after the end of the Aus summer and before the English international summer starts, it's fine. Any more than that and it's an issue. My problems with the IPL are more to do with the standard of cricket played at times and that's hardly the BCCI's fault. I have concerns about players being drawn away from int'l cricket - and more specifically the techniques of batsmen, although bowlers aren't immune - due to the allure of easy money, but I don't really know what you can do about that.

 

[honestbharani]

Influence is a funny thing.. English influence IS the reason we have cricket in all these countries in the first place.. And generally, on the field of play, there is a very good influence due to Indians being dominant.. If Windies brought back batting and bowling with flair into the limielight, Aussies brought back playing aggressively and playing for results back into limelight.. And with India now, you are getting a certain amount of even more attacking batting back into the spotlight, as well as, I dare say, good defensive captaincy...


Off the field, there is no good or bad influence. Every board who has had control have tried to use it for their advantage and now it is BCCI's turn. Tomm. it will be someone else's turn. So I am not too bothered about it, coz it will always be tending towards the bad option, no matter who is calling the shots..

 

[four_or_six]

Poll done.

I think it's really good to have such a large country so passionately behind the sport. But at the same time from the administration point of view it makes things too unbalanced with one country having most of the power.

 

[Borges]

And generally, on the field of play, there is a very good influence due to Indians being dominant.

Any debate over 'influence' on the field of play is completely irrelevant. As long as outrageous things like umpires being bribed or the beast that substitutes for them these days being rigged, the team that plays the better cricket will win, and the team that plays better over a period of time will top the rankings. There is nothing any of us can do about it.

 

[vcs]

Refer to Teja's sig for my thoughts on this, please.

...seriously though, concentration of power and finances in any one country's hands, no matter which country it is, will be bad for the game in the long run. Don't know what can be done to fix that imbalance.

 

[amyswan]

A simplistic title, indeed, but one that does have some currency at least judging by the byline of the James article that appeared in the Telegraph yesterday --

Steve James: India primed for a fall after reaching the heights of success - Telegraph

Would be interested in knowing what the members on here think about the role of India in cricket:

Unequivocally good
Mostly good
Mostly bad
Unequivocally bad

No fence-sitting (hence no undecided or average option above), please, and explanations for the choice made most welcome, even if not obligatory! Please propose a solution, if you can, assuming your choice is one of the last two options. Better for constructive dialogue, I would imagine.

Mods, could you please create a poll with the following choices? Thanks.

Maybe the story is right about Indian media but i guess Indian team has nothing to do with it. They have sound quality players and they deserve to be chosen for awards. Although, i think Indian media shouldn't play such an biased role to dominate everything that comes in their way.

 

[Jono]

The only way to change India's post is if some other countries increase their population.

So all you English men, start getting some English women pregnant. Preferably with twins and triplets.

 

[GotSpin]

I wonder what would happen to Test cricket if the Indian team slipped a few places while the ODI team dominated

 

[Jono]

Probably something bad. So therefore India should just be #1 for the rest of time imho

 

[vcs]

Probably something bad. So therefore India should just be #1 for the rest of time imho

This.

 

[Blaze 18]

I don't like the BCCI too much, but they haven't done anything downright horrible to ruin the game. As regards BCCI flexing its muscle, it may not be "right", but it's no different to what the Australian and English boards did when they were the ones calling the shots.

 

[Spark]

Some of the above sentiments on the #1 ranking are good. I think it's bloody hilarious - and somewhat concerning - the way they've desperately manipulated the FTP to try and keep their #1 ranking but since it means more Tests, I'm not complaining.

EDIT: I have seriously got to stop editing in the middle of making posts, it's making some of my posts look downright strange.

 

[hang on]

borges,

by influence, i had dominance in mind. but i can understand that some might want to split the two.

 

[hang on]

Some of the above sentiments on the #1 ranking. I think it's bloody hilarious - and somewhat concerning - the way they've desperately manipulated the FTP to try and keep their #1 ranking but since it means more Tests, I'm not complaining.

is it for the number one spot or more to maximize the last years of tendulkar, dravid, laxman, in particular, the first? lots of money to be made from it. i imagine that playing series in lanka with a rubbish bowling attack is not the best way to hold onto the number 1 spot (they did play a series in lanka last august or september, didn't they? getting old.)

 

[hang on]

Poll done.

I think it's really good to have such a large country so passionately behind the sport. But at the same time from the administration point of view it makes things too unbalanced with one country having most of the power.

thanks for setting up the poll.