Indian Premier League 2014

[marc71178]

More than them, I'm hoping for a kohli special, its a run chase on a good pitch, he needs to step up.

For me that was very special.

 

[Contra]

haha what a huge mess up that is, he defo nicked it but the umpire took ages to give it out. I genuinely think Kohli shouldn't be Indian captain for a while, somehow I feel his batting is suffering a bit as a result. His mind isn't totally on his batting.

 

[viriya]

haha what a huge mess up that is, he defo nicked it but the umpire took ages to give it out. I genuinely think Kohli shouldn't be Indian captain for a while, somehow I feel his batting is suffering a bit as a result. His mind isn't totally on his batting.

agreed. he seems a different batsman since they blew that run chase in UAE.

 

[viriya]

would it make sense for RCB to bench yuvi for a bowler.. say murali? prob won't happen after the crapload they paid him..

 

[G.I.Joe]

You think SL can't field one team that's better than a 9th indian team? I realize SL isn't a bowling giant but I find that hard to believe. Malinga, Mendis, Senanayake, Herath, Kulasekara, Mathews would beg to differ. They all have great T20I records:
cricrate | Best T20I Bowling Careers

The Dhaka team is more debatable but if the best Bangladeshis play in that team I would think the bowling couldn't be worse than an indian 9th team.

I'm not saying it will necessarily improve standards, but I find it hard to believe it would deteriorate them (assuming 4 internationals in those teams as well). Same/higher quality, more global reach.

if you divide up the Indian talent into 8 teams, but let the Sri Lankans or Bangladeshis field just one team each, then yes, they would probably have better teams than the Indian ones. You might as well stop pretending they're SL or Bong franchise teams when they'd basically be their national teams plus 4 overseas players to compensate for any lost talent.

 

[viriya]

if you divide up the Indian talent into 8 teams, but let the Sri Lankans or Bangladeshis field just one team each, then yes, they would probably have better teams than the Indian ones. You might as well stop pretending they're SL or Bong franchise teams when they'd basically be their national teams plus 4 overseas players to compensate for any lost talent.

The current rules would apply - SL players would be able to play in any team, just that if they play for their country's team it won't count towards the international player cap for that team. Even Indian players would be able to play for SL/Ban franchise teams.. Assuming a wealthy SL businessman creates the franchise, he will compete with everyone else in the auction for the top SL players (Malinga, Mathews etc).. It probably makes sense to have 2 SL teams (say Colombo and Kandy) to 1 Bangla team (Dhaka).. if Pak ever comes back into the fray (5-10 years from now I bet?), 3 teams for them (Lahore, Karachi and Faisalabad/Rawalpindi/Multan).. that way the teams won't just be mostly national players but spread out in talent.

 

[G.I.Joe]

The current rules would apply - SL players would be able to play in any team, just that if they play for their country's team it won't count towards the international player cap for that team. Even Indian players would be able to play for SL/Ban franchise teams.. Assuming a wealthy SL businessman creates the franchise, he will compete with everyone else in the auction for the top SL players (Malinga, Mathews etc).. It probably makes sense to have 2 SL teams (say Colombo and Kandy) to 1 Bangla team (Dhaka).. if Pak ever comes back into the fray (5-10 years from now I bet?), 3 teams for them (Lahore, Karachi and Faisalabad/Rawalpindi/Multan).. that way the teams won't just be mostly national players but spread out in talent.

If you have just 1 SL/Ban/Pak team, they are overpowered no matter how you spin it, purely because they would have a greater local pool to pick from. If you seek to compensate by increasing the number of SL/Pak/Ban teams, yeah, that's not happening. The BCCI would make more off Pune/Kochi/Kanpur/Guwahati/Ahmedabad......'n'th team than they would off these non-Indian franchises. By increasing the number of non-Indian teams, you also dilute the overall quality of overseas players playing for the Indian franchises.

 

[viriya]

If you have just 1 SL/Ban/Pak team, they are overpowered no matter how you spin it, purely because they would have a greater local pool to pick from. If you seek to compensate by increasing the number of SL/Pak/Ban teams, yeah, that's not happening. The BCCI would make more off Pune/Kochi/Kanpur/Guwahati/Ahmedabad......'n'th team than they would off these non-Indian franchises. By increasing the number of non-Indian teams, you also dilute the overall quality of overseas players playing for the Indian franchises.

How come the Pune Warriors and Kochi Tuskers Kerala are no longer around then? If the BCCI had a more long-term growth vision they should look to expand it outward instead of inward..

Also, adding 2-3 more teams hardly dilutes the international talent - if the tournament becomes big enough and England + Pak players start playing, there will be enough talent to go around.

Honestly if the BCCI played their cards right they could challenge the ICC and influence them enough to set a window of say 3-4 months of a year for the league. So even English county cricket would be postponed and no international tours would happen during that time. The IPL would morph from being a 2-month sideshow to a proper international behemoth (and likely biggest sport franchise league in the world).

 

[G.I.Joe]

How come the Pune Warriors and Kochi Tuskers Kerala are no longer around then? If the BCCI had a more long-term growth vision they should look to expand it outward instead of inward..

Pune and Kochi are no longer around for legal reasons. The Indian market is capable of supporting more than the number of teams presently playing. Saturation point has not been reached. There are plenty of Indian cities and corporate houses vying for their own teams. The BCCI would also make more off Indian franchises than they would off non-Indian franchises because there is no way the PCB and SLC wouldn't want a piece of the pie if their countries were also involved.

Also, adding 2-3 more teams hardly dilutes the international talent - if the tournament becomes big enough and England + Pak players start playing, there will be enough talent to go around.

Or you could add England and Pakistan players to the current setup without bringing in non-Indian franchises, thus increasing the quality of the existing product. The very fact that you see the need to involve England and Pakistan players in an expanded format means that you accept the inevitability of the dilution of the player pool.

Honestly if the BCCI played their cards right they could challenge the ICC and influence them enough to set a window of say 3-4 months of a year for the league. So even English county cricket would be postponed and no international tours would happen during that time.

2 months is long enough as it is. Why exactly would England postpone county cricket? The BCCI is not the only cricket board that can afford to **** a snook at the ICC.

 

[viriya]

Pune and Kochi are no longer around for legal reasons. The Indian market is capable of supporting more than the number of teams presently playing. Saturation point has not been reached. There are plenty of Indian cities and corporate houses vying for their own teams. The BCCI would also make more off Indian franchises than they would off non-Indian franchises because there is no way the PCB and SLC wouldn't want a piece of the pie if their countries were also involved.



Or you could add England and Pakistan players to the current setup without bringing in non-Indian franchises, thus increasing the quality of the existing product. The very fact that you see the need to involve England and Pakistan players in an expanded format means that you accept the inevitability of the dilution of the player pool.


2 months is long enough as it is. Why exactly would England postpone county cricket? The BCCI is not the only cricket board that can afford to **** a snook at the ICC.

I'm not saying that the BCCI won't make more $ if they kept to new franchises in India, but it won't be an expansive approach. There is no reason to not have both - new local franchises as well as international.

I think you are missing the point of all this. I'm proposing a way for the IPL to get bigger globally as a brand, not on how to keep the quality at 100%. If the quality drops to 90% of the current standard (whatever that means), but the IPL brand value doubles to ~$10B and becomes comparable to other sport franchises in the world (think European Premier League, NBA, NFL, MLB), wouldn't that be a worthwhile tradeoff?

The reason more England and Pak players would play would be because with the added global reach the BCCI would have more influence over the ICC and the other cricket boards. It pays to get other boards involved sometimes. Delayed gratification and all that.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I'm not saying that the BCCI won't make more $ if they kept to new franchises in India, but it won't be an expansive approach. There is no reason to not have both - new local franchises as well as international.

Yes, it will be. If expanding within the current market yields more than expanding outside, it is indeed an expansive approach. You're fixated on the idea that including PCB and SLC would make the BCCI more than if they retained sole control. I disagree.

I think you are missing the point of all this. I'm proposing a way for the IPL to get bigger globally as a brand, not on how to keep the quality at 100%. If the quality drops to 90% of the current standard (whatever that means), but the IPL brand value doubles to ~$10B and becomes comparable to other sport franchises in the world (think European Premier League, NBA, NFL, MLB), wouldn't that be a worthwhile tradeoff?

The reason more England and Pak players would play would be because with the added global reach the BCCI would have more influence over the ICC and the other cricket boards. It pays to get other boards involved sometimes. Delayed gratification and all that.

You're proposing a preposterous set of circumstances - brand value doubling with only a 90% drop in quality. Let's keep it real. The brand value of the IPL matters to the BCCI only as long as they benefit proportionally. If expansion comes at the expense of sharing control with the PCB and SLC and BCB, that is not a favourable situation for the BCCI. The BCCI will do what benefits them the most, which is not necessarily what benefits the IPL. You're forgetting that the IPL is not an independent entity. Growth of the IPL within the domain of the BCCI benefits them more than growth outside the country with shared ownership, which is the determining factor. Besides, the BCCI already retains 50% control of the CLT20, a tournament that is the closest approximation of what you seek to attain with your idea of a borderless expanded IPL.

And take it from me - there is no way that England will postpone their county season just because the ICC wants the IPL to involve everyone for 3-4 months.

 

[viriya]

Yes, it will be. If expanding within the current market yields more than expanding outside, it is indeed an expansive approach. You're fixated on the idea that including PCB and SLC would make the BCCI more than if they retained sole control. I disagree.



You're proposing a preposterous set of circumstances - brand value doubling with only a 90% drop in quality. Let's keep it real. The brand value of the IPL matters to the BCCI only as long as they benefit proportionally. If expansion comes at the expense of sharing control with the PCB and SLC and BCB, that is not a favourable situation for the BCCI. The BCCI will do what benefits them the most, which is not necessarily what benefits the IPL. You're forgetting that the IPL is not an independent entity. Growth of the IPL within the domain of the BCCI benefits them more than growth outside the country with shared ownership, which is the determining factor. Besides, the BCCI already retains 50% control of the CLT20, a tournament that is the closest approximation of what you seek to attain with your idea of a borderless expanded IPL.

And take it from me - there is no way that England will postpone their county season just because the ICC wants the IPL to involve everyone for 3-4 months.

Agreed, adding 2-3 more franchises from India would benefit BCCI more than one in Sri Lanka. But say that do that in the next year or two. Once that is done, the only expansion possible is outward. And of course, they would only do something that is financially beneficial for them. If they keep to the setup as it is, it would just be the indian franchise revenue that they will take a cut off. They get 0% of the revenue from a non-existent Colombo franchise. Now say they decide to allow a Colombo-based team. Now they get X% revenue added (most likely they could negotiate and get a higher cut than the indian franchises). They will not lose control of the IPL to the SLC. The SLC will only have part ownership of the newly created franchise in Colombo. They would not have any voting rights in IPL decisions (or if any, minimal). How is this not financially more beneficial for the BCCI? It just added a new revenue stream without relinquishing any ownership.

Like I said before the CLT20 is pretty much a farce now - the IPL team has always won except once when a South African team did. The rules are stringent enough that international players would prefer to play for the IPL team. There is no meaningful expansion possible with that league.

England postponing the county season is the end game. Something like that would only happen once the IPL becomes an established global Premier League that is an unavoidable revenue stream for any cricket board. The ECB would cave once the financial options make the decisions for them or become irrelevant.

Keep in mind this is my attempt to make an IPL strategy for BCCI - it's not necessarily good for cricket, it's just how they could go about maximizing their profit long term.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Agreed, adding 2-3 more franchises from India would benefit BCCI more than one in Sri Lanka. But say that do that in the next year or two. Once that is done, the only expansion possible is outward.

Your conclusion does not follow. You can continue to expand within. You underestimate the demand for Indian franchises.

And of course, they would only do something that is financially beneficial for them. If they keep to the setup as it is, it would just be the indian franchise revenue that they will take a cut off. They get 0% of the revenue from a non-existent Colombo franchise.

They also get 0% revenue from a non-existent Ahmedabad/Kanpur/Kochi/Guwahati/Vizag/Pune/Lucknow/Bhopal.....n franchise.

Now say they decide to allow a Colombo-based team. Now they get X% revenue added (most likely they could negotiate and get a higher cut than the indian franchises).

If the BCCI can negotiate a higher cut from the Colombo franchise, they can negotiate a higher cut from any new Indian franchise.

They will not lose control of the IPL to the SLC. The SLC will only have part ownership of the newly created franchise in Colombo.They would not have any voting rights in IPL decisions (or if any, minimal). How is this not financially more beneficial for the BCCI? It just added a new revenue stream without relinquishing any ownership.

The SLC would not own the Colombo franchise. The Indian state associations do not own any of the existing franchises, and neither does the BCCI. There exists a stumbling block - either legislated or financial - that has ensured private corporate ownership of the franchises. It would be reasonable to assume that this would extend to Sri Lanka too. The SLC would exercise control by virtue of being the governing body for control of cricketing rights in the nation. You can't have a Colombo franchise in the IPL without the blessings of the SLC, unless you wish to have them retaliate by barring their players from participating. The SLC would most likely demand a price for permitting a Colombo franchise drawing from a local pool of players.

An Indian Franchise does not have to cross this hurdle.

Like I said before the CLT20 is pretty much a farce now - the IPL team has always won except once when a South African team did. The rules are stringent enough that international players would prefer to play for the IPL team. There is no meaningful expansion possible with that league.

England postponing the county season is the end game. Something like that would only happen once the IPL becomes an established global Premier League that is an unavoidable revenue stream for any cricket board. The ECB would cave once the financial options make the decisions for them or become irrelevant.

Keep in mind this is my attempt to make an IPL strategy for BCCI - it's not necessarily good for cricket, it's just how they could go about maximizing their profit long term.

England will not postpone county cricket. You can relinquish that thought. Most cricket boards, BCCI included, recognise the sanctity of their domestic competitions. There is a reason the IPL takes place in the heat of summer rather than in the proper Indian home season.

 

[Dan]

Like I said before the CLT20 is pretty much a farce now - the IPL team has always won except once when a South African team did. The rules are stringent enough that international players would prefer to play for the IPL team. There is no meaningful expansion possible with that league.

What? Basic fact checking here.

2009 - NSW Blues (AUS) def. Trinidad and Tobago (WI)
2010 - Chennai Super Kings (IPL) def. Warriors (RSA)
2011 - Mumbai Indians (IPL) def. Rajasthan Royals (IPL)
2012 - Sydney Sixers (AUS) def. Highveld Lions (RSA)
2013 - Mumbai Indians (IPL) def. Rajasthan Royals (IPL)

2010 and 2012 tournaments being held in South Africa. Yeah, it's IPL-biased, but not to the extent you're suggesting.

 

[marc71178]

With the ridiculous bias* in favour of IPL teams I'd argue that they haven't performed as well as they should've done.


* 4 of the teams getting direct entry when other champions have to pre qualify
* allowing them 4 overseas players when others are only allowed 2
* allowing Mumbai a 5th overseas player one year just because they wanted to
* forcing overseas players to represent their IPL team in case of conflict

With all those in place they really should've won and had all the losing finalists in all editions of the competition so far.

 

[YankeeAlpha]

What has happened to Irfan Pathan?! Couple of years ago was India's strike bowler now he's bowling a few overs her and there in T20's! Quite a shame really always struck me as an exciting player. Seems like he's lost his way with the ball.

 

[GGG]

Dehli have no idea, why would you bat your best batsman at number 6?

 

[Arjun]

No way should Rayudu be batting anywhere above seven. He has T20 strike rate under 120, with 8 fifties out of 88 innings. Makes far more sense to send in Pollard or Harbhajan ahead, once they lose their openers and Rohit.

 

[Shri]

****ing **********s. No way was that out. Blatant homeground cheating.

 

[Arjun]

Mumbai Indians need to get their Kieron Pollard act together. Part One- Bat him at three, instead of the slow-scoring Rayudu. I don't care if Rayudu got a half-century at a strike rate of 137- he's no match-winner. Keiron Pollard batting turns the match Mumbai's way.

Part Two- as primetime news editor Doorknob Go-Somewhere would say- "Never ever ever never ever"- hand him the ball. Keiron Pollard bowling turns the match the other way.