Indian influence good or bad for cricket?

[Borges]

A magnanimous gesture underpinned by a sense of responsibility to the game and its expansion? I'm skeptical; past history does not suggest that.

A simple response to criticism and media pressure etc.? Partly, I would think. Even the BCCI is not impervious to widespread criticism, as it became clear when they were forced to hastily arrange a couple of test series.

Fear of the consequences that could arise from legal action that could have been brought by Ireland and other associates? That would have been the clincher, I would venture to guess.

On April 4, in Mumbai, the ICC Board was split between those who were happy to have a qualifying tournament to reach a 10-team World Cup and the rest who would have voted for a 12-team finals but with guaranteed participation for the 10 Full Members.

The only compromise they could reach was a Full Members tournament.

“It will be the same discussion (by the same people) but this time we hope that the only non-negotiable issue is there must be a qualifier,” added Deutrom. “We believe it is essential for a qualifying opportunity for the best of the rest. Whether that means we go up against two or three Full Members to get into a 10-team event or two Associates coming out of a qualifier for a 12-team event, we don’t mind."​

I think the BCCI would have been in the '12-team finals but with guaranteed participation for the 10 Full Members' camp. And that they would push for the same now.

​

​

 

[Blaze 18]

How does it matter if it's a magnanimous gesture or a response to media pressure?What matters is the decision is being reconsidered.

 

[bagapath]

On the pitch, brilliant - how could it be anything else?

Off the pitch, sports administrators are sports administrators. Whatever the sport or nationality they are either corrupt or incompetent or both.

India have at times come over like bling bling lottery winners and don't always wear their new wealth and power all that well, but probably preferable to the stuffy colonialists of the MCC.

While Test cricket retains its integrity I'm not sure it really affects me all that much.

Who are you? Where are you from? Why have you written exactly what I was thinking? I am spooked.....

Yeah. India is as arrogant with its twin peaks of financial and cricketing success as Pamela Anderson is with hers. It is embarrassing to be an Indian when the present players don't have the grace to acknowledge the opposition's abilities in post match presentations, or when the board organizes a private jet threatening to fly the players off if they were convicted in a court of law for racism or when they play bullies and get officials changed because they disagreed with Indians.

But, surely, it is not more indecent than the English board paying 1000 GBP/ player as "greivance allowance" after a tour of Pakistan. Or Trescothick choosing to blame "Bombay belly" to play the "Subcontinent is backward" card for withdrawing from a series in India while in reality he was hearing his dead grandmother's voice in his brain or the English accusing the Ws of ball-tampering whenever the ball reverse swung in 1993. If India were not being the bullies, someone else would be. That is how the ****ing world works.

Administrators are corrupt. And self serving. Their nationalities will change. Not their inherent nature. So no point in singling out anything "Indian" in the corruption and arrogance displayed by the present set.

On the other hand, without India cricket would be a minor sport. The sheer number of Indians and the financial muscle the country is slowly building have created a super sport out of an exclusive, elitist game. No other country could be better to run cricket at this juncture when other global sports can easily eat into cricket's fan base. Cricket needs India.

I just hope more honest people from other nations assume higher posts in ICC and keep the global balance right in big decisions. As for BCCI, someone like Anil Kumble should come to the top and set things right in the long run. I am still hopeful.

 

[Spark]

Dravid?

 

[Borges]

Who are you? Where are you from? Why have you written exactly what I was thinking? I am spooked.....

Yeah. India is as arrogant with its twin peaks of financial and cricketing success as Pamela Anderson is with hers. It is embarrassing to be an Indian when the present players don't have the grace to acknowledge the opposition's abilities in post match presentations, or when the board organizes a private jet threatening to fly the players off if they were convicted in a court of law for racism or when they play bullies and get officials changed because they disagreed with Indians.

But, surely, it is not more indecent than the English board paying 1000 GBP/ player as "greivance allowance" after a tour of Pakistan. Or Trescothick choosing to blame "Bombay belly" to play the "Subcontinent is backward" card for withdrawing from a series in India while in reality he was hearing his dead grandmother's voice in his brain or the English accusing the Ws of ball-tampering whenever the ball reverse swung in 1993. If India were not being the bullies, someone else would be. That is how the ****ing world works.

Administrators are corrupt. And self serving. Their nationalities will change. Not their inherent nature. So no point in singling out anything "Indian" in the corruption and arrogance displayed by the present set.

On the other hand, without India cricket would be a minor sport. The sheer number of Indians and the financial muscle the country is slowly building have created a super sport out of an exclusive, elitist game. No other country could be better to run cricket at this juncture when other global sports can easily eat into cricket's fan base. Cricket needs India.

I just hope more honest people from other nations assume higher posts in ICC and keep the global balance right in big decisions. As for BCCI, someone like Anil Kumble should come to the top and set things right in the long run. I am still hopeful.

Agree by and large with this.

Though I have a different view point with respect to the highlighted part. I think it would be in the long-term interest of cricket if efforts are made (now) to position it away from being an exclusive and elitist game which the rest of the world mostly ignores; see if is possible to globalize it to some extent. Which would imply giving the associates more say in the decision-making of the ICC. Which would mean that India tour the cash-starved smaller cricket nations far more often than it does now. Perhaps that players from the associate nations should be freed from quota restrictions for playing in the IPL

I'm not at all convinced that we can assume that this huge support that cricket enjoys in India currently will be automatically sustained for ever. I fear that when we slip from the peak of cricketing success, as we inevitably will, it would become extremely difficult to stay atop the peak of financial success.

 

[hang on]

How does it matter if it's a magnanimous gesture or a response to media pressure?What matters is the decision is being reconsidered.

quite simple: reactive as opposed to proactive decision making.

 

[Furball]

I don't think the sport can be in a healthy position when one nation is responsible for generating so much of the revenue in the game. That much influence being wielded by one nation or board can't be healthy for the future of the game.

 

[Spark]

The revenue thing is a fact of life, not much point complaining about it IMO.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I can understand the Mike Dennis/Steve Bucknor (not admirable btw) incident being a bad thing but one can hardly blame India for voting with the Asian Block considering how Eng/Aus/NZ vote. India's rise as the world cricketing power wasn't without the help of Pakistanis, who helped bring the first WC in subcontinent in 1987.

I don't blame India for siding with the Asian nations; the barbarous dictator I had in mind was Mugabe. Zimbabwe generally vote with the Asian bloc.

That they weren't thrown out of international cricket whilst his regime was imprisoning, assaulting, raping and killing political opponents was a disgrace.

 

[Furball]

The revenue thing is a fact of life, not much point complaining about it IMO.

I'm not complaining about it, I just don't think it's healthy.

European football has been ruined by the way television revenue is distributed. Scottish football has been destroyed by the dominance of the big 2. Cricket will go the same way because of the inequalities in revenue generation.

None of that is India's fault, and I've not once pointed any finger of blame in India's direction. I just don't think a situation where one party dominates revenue generation to such an extent is healthy for the sport.

 

[hang on]

the zimbabwe governments dictatorial mores and general moral turpitude as the reason to kick them out of cricket argument is not an easily justifiable one, despite being an attractive one, since, in many people's eyes, not least a large section of the british population, the iraq war was a completely illegal war started under false pretexts; meaning that england shouldn't be playing. i seem to recall imran khan making writing an article along those lines at the time of the 03 worldcup. and, i'm sure that, if china were to suddenly get interested in cricket, the persistent and blatant human rights abuses in china wouldn't quite be used as the rod to beat/keep them out of the fold with.

if anything, it's the financial mismanagement of icc funds by the zim cricketing board that really needed to be questioned.

 

[BoyBrumby]

the zimbabwe governments dictatorial mores and general moral turpitude as the reason to kick them out of cricket argument is not an easily justifiable one, despite being an attractive one, since, in many people's eyes, not least a large section of the british population, the iraq war was a completely illegal war started under false pretexts; meaning that england shouldn't be playing. i seem to recall imran khan making writing an article along those lines at the time of the 03 worldcup. and, i'm sure that, if china were to suddenly get interested in cricket, the persistent and blatant human rights abuses in china wouldn't quite be used as the rod to beat/keep them out of the fold with.

if anything, it's the financial mismanagement of icc funds by the zim cricketing board that really needed to be questioned.

I re-read that twice just to make sure I hadn't missed the gist.

You're comparing the Iraq war to wholesale repression and murder of a country's own citizens?

Whatever the rights and wrongs about the Iraq war there is literally no comparison.

Besides the fact using support of the Iraq war as a mandate for international exclusion would mean Australia, who also supplied troops to assist in the invasion, being ejected too.

 

[hang on]

not quite sure how invading another country and pretty much murdering its citizens, taking over their assets - oil - etc. under a false pretext - wmds - is not comparable! both are pretty despicable.

but the gist is essentially "where does one draw the line?" all countries have major dirty linen. does one draw the line when there is brutal repression in one region of a country, for whatever historicocultural reason - indian kashmir, or pakistani balochistan? or if there is an insurgency in a significant section of a country - sri lanka? or does it have to extend to the whole country? or if there is a disturbing lack of democracy in the whole country with complete censorship - china? or perhaps if 50percent of the country are effectively second class citizens - saudi arabia? too many shades of grey.

 

[Blaze 18]

quite simple: reactive as opposed to proactive decision making.

I'm more interested in the end result to be honest. As long as the likes of Ireland and Netherlands get a fair deal, I am happy.

 

[Uppercut]

You need to state the alternative more explicitly if you want to ask people whether something is "good" or not.

If the alternative is "no India", then obvz it would suck for cricket, but if the alternative is "a more equitable distribution of the same levels of support" then obvz it would be good for cricket.

I love the fact that there exists a country so obsessed with the sport, but obviously I'd rather the people who ran cricket there weren't so ****ing stupid and corrupt.

 

[hang on]

i prefer to let the people responding to the options outline their version of the good.

in terms of the indian administrators being stupid, not too sure about that, given their stranglehold on the global game and the amount of moolah that they bring in. seem pretty shrewd to me. in terms of venality, well, i guess that they are corrupt. how much more or less than those in other countries, i really wouldn't venture to guess.

 

[shankar]

I love the fact that there exists a country so obsessed with the sport, but obviously I'd rather the people who ran cricket there weren't so ****ing stupid and corrupt.

How have they shown themselves to be ****ing stupid?

 

[Jacknife]

I re-read that twice just to make sure I hadn't missed the gist.

You're comparing the Iraq war to wholesale repression and murder of a country's own citizens?

Whatever the rights and wrongs about the Iraq war there is literally no comparison.

Besides the fact using support of the Iraq war as a mandate for international exclusion would mean Australia, who also supplied troops to assist in the invasion, being ejected too.

I agree,Mugabe ruled the ZCU with a iron fist and politicized the sport for his own ends, in the process he politically cleansed the Zimbabwe team and ruined cricket in the country for years.

 

[Sanz]

not quite sure how invading another country and pretty much murdering its citizens, taking over their assets - oil - etc. under a false pretext - wmds - is not comparable! both are pretty despicable.

but the gist is essentially "where does one draw the line?" all countries have major dirty linen. does one draw the line when there is brutal repression in one region of a country, for whatever historicocultural reason - indian kashmir, or pakistani balochistan? or if there is an insurgency in a significant section of a country - sri lanka? or does it have to extend to the whole country? or if there is a disturbing lack of democracy in the whole country with complete censorship - china? or perhaps if 50percent of the country are effectively second class citizens - saudi arabia? too many shades of grey.

The gist is invading countries, sucking all their resources for years, mass murdering their citizens for years is preferable to what Mugabe is doing.

 

[Bun]

the zimbabwe governments dictatorial mores and general moral turpitude as the reason to kick them out of cricket argument is not an easily justifiable one, despite being an attractive one, since, in many people's eyes, not least a large section of the british population, the iraq war was a completely illegal war started under false pretexts; meaning that england shouldn't be playing. i seem to recall imran khan making writing an article along those lines at the time of the 03 worldcup. and, i'm sure that, if china were to suddenly get interested in cricket, the persistent and blatant human rights abuses in china wouldn't quite be used as the rod to beat/keep them out of the fold with.

if anything, it's the financial mismanagement of icc funds by the zim cricketing board that really needed to be questioned.

excellent post.