How would you run the ICC?

[Jono]

Not directly related to the ICC, but I'd really like to see Minnow teams be able to select two overseas players each on two year contracts.

Either players unlikely to play tests (Voges, Dave Hussey) or players finished in tests for their nation who want to remain in test cricket (Katich, Jaques, Andrew McDonald, White)

Would mark the minnows more competitive, allow them to get leadership from players coming from a better system, and would create significant interest from the stronger nations in the minnows.

insert england joke

 

[TNT]

Too much emphasis on the ICC being responsible for making the minnow nations competitive, it takes more than money to make a successful test team. Ireland don't have the infrastructure within its country to have a test team and the only way it can achieve that is by having interest from Irish people, not just the ICC throwing money at them.

 

[Prince EWS]

How I'd run the ICC and how I'd like the ICC to the run are pretty different questions to my mind. For them to be the same, one would have to assume everyone involved with running the ICC was benevolent and had the best interests of the game at heart.

Sports administration isn't (and shouldn't be) just about generating as much revenue as possible -- most people see generating revenue as a means to grow and improve the game, rather than other way around -- but this fact creates all sorts of perverse incentives, particularly when you consider that individuals will usually act according to rational self-interest and not as part of cogs in a machine with a solitary defined goal. To make it more efficient you'd have to manipulate the incentives for the cogs to make movement towards the goal of the association positive for them personally, and movement away from it always negative for them personally. If the goal is to grow and strengthen cricket, that's quite difficult.

Lots of people think it'd be good if the ICC wasn't such a paper tiger and had real, autonomous power rather than being a collective of member board interests. That sounds great in theory but it's hard to achieve as whoever ends up on the ICC board -- member nation based or not -- is going to have his or her own interests that might not necessarily align with growing or expanding the game.

 

[Cabinet96]

Nah that would be fairly awful.

Ireland will get test status after this World Cup though.

I'm not really sure why you think this. If you asked me in five years, or maybe even ten, how many test teams there are I'd be amazed if the answer wasn't 10.

England should play a FC game against Ireland before the Ashes IMO, like they did with Essex two years ago.

 

[Prince EWS]

Ireland have been given a direct path to Test status (even if temporary) by the ICC already. They'll just let them go through that process. If they do it and perform decently afterwards there will be a big push to make it permanent.

Given the ICC went to the point of doing all that though, they're not going to just give them Test status straight after the World Cup.

 

[Ryan19]

Regarding promotion/relegation there should be 5 teams in each tire and 3 year cycles. Home away tours of minimum 3 tests/fc games. If you want to play the Ashes and are in different tiers go ahead with it. A clear system for promotion and relegation for top 100 teams is important.

T20 should go go on only 4 months a year. Each two month period 6 month apart.

The administration should be handed over to ex greats. I would put in the likes of Atherton, Dravid. A core group of just 8 people. Put the people who have brought cricket to its popularity to improve upon it. While players may not be great administrators they can't be as bad as the Srinivasans of the world surely.

Divisions can't be a closed shop. I would like to see a division structure but I still think there should be some tours where division 1 teams play division 2 teams. It would make sense to me if, over a certain period of time, every division 1 side played each other home and away but they also had to play division two sides either home and away. Of course, divisions must be based on playing and not economic strength.

The problem now is that there is no realistic way for a country like Ireland, Afghanistan (hell even Bangladesh or Zimbabwe) to actually break into the top 8. Australia could easily play a FC game against Ireland or Scotland as a warm up for the Ashes. Instead Ireland only get one ODI against Australia which is relatively pointless even if they somehow manage to win.

 

[SJS]

here is a suggestion that should have been implemented long ago . . .

Time to restrict bat development

From the old Signature brand, through to the Magnum, Scoop and Jumbo, to the modern-day Kaboom: as with much else, it seems evolution is a given when it comes to cricket bats. We now are experiencing the Everest moment, the period when the technology and craft behind the batsman's tool of trade is at its absolute peak.

The manufacturer has produced a lethal weapon that authorities now need to rein in. Simple reason: the grounds, much like golf courses around the world, are struggling to contain the ball in the field of play. Sixes are struck now with ease. Mi****s for the maximum are common. The bowler is at his wit's end. Any more grand technology to the bat and the game will become alien. So let's take Kaboom and use that as the limit.

What do we limit? We have a limit to the width, which is four inches, or 10.16cm. The thickness of the blade needs a limit too, and not just the edges but also the overall mass. Just as a driver in golf is limited to 460cc mass volume, the bat must be restricted. It can't go on getting bigger. No need to go backwards, but let's settle on a current size, before it gets out of hand and begins bordering on the ridiculous.

In layman's terms, bats these days are dried out completely. All moisture is removed - the absolute polar opposite to the grey old days, when bats were oiled. Removing the weight that moisture provides helps when you're looking to add extra mass to the edge and back of the bat. What would normally be a three-pound-plus bat 20 years ago, picks up at 2.9 (with up to 4cm edge thickness) today.

The bat is then compressed briefly to give it the punch and power it needs. But they don't last long. The willow snaps like a twig when put under the extreme pressure of being swung and connecting so hard so often. The weak points are the splice, where the handle is joined by glue to the main piece, and the bottom edge. Bats come and go in weeks. My trusty Duncan Fearnleys would last two full seasons each.

For the record, I got used to 2.6 pounds (1cm edge thickness) as a young pro and also carried a 2.4 for quicker conditions. When I saw others try heavier, thicker bats, I tried to follow suit and failed miserably. If I had done a full upper-body-strength programme, I might have prospered. I wasn't built like Viv Richards or Ian Botham, and I believed keeping my arms loose and light, not muscular and ripped, would help my last-second adjustment to aid my defence. And therein lies the issue: in the '80s, defence was required, for long periods.

The thickness of the blade needs a limit too, and not just the edges but also the overall mass. Just as a driver in golf is limited to 460cc mass volume, the bat must be restricted
For a time early in my career, I despised limited-overs cricket, as I tried to master occupying the crease. But when I saw Greg Chappell dismantle one-day attacks, I knew it could and should be done. Similar to Greg in build, I stuck to a light bat and kept the ball along the ground. Hitting a six was a rarity, normally attributed to a side boundary that was small enough (Eden Park was the obvious one). Never did I hit a six in Australia, except square in Adelaide, and in an ODI in Sydney. It never crossed my mind to do so, and with my light blade it was a huge risk to even attempt to hit over the top, except when advancing down to a spinner with the field up.

Times have changed, and rightly so, but we have now reached the threshold. It is time to acknowledge the great work by bat manufacturers, but we must give them boundaries. I say we stop at Kaboom, and no more.

****

Either the new turbocharged fast-moving bats are damaging the modern ball exponentially more, or the ball manufacturers have fallen asleep, but the ball has not improved at all. It simply doesn't last. Recently in the New Zealand-Sri Lanka Test series the red ball seemed to be replaced more frequently than drinks were brought out on the hour. While the white ball has gone nowhere in its evolution, to the point where we are using two balls to get through 50 overs.

Which brings me to the saddest thing of all. Bowlers are now cannon fodder. They were once the controllers, the scene setters. Alas, they have become poor cousins in a game where administrators want boundaries struck between every heartbeat.

Over time, the bowler has lost his confidence. With the small boundaries positioned, cruel field restrictions adopted, and the Kaboom in full force, the bowler hasn't a hope. To his credit, he has tried his best to produce multiple clever and skilful variations to compete. The overriding problem here is, most bowlers are now trying to use them all, and have become masters of none.

The bowler is dead, long live the bowler.

Martin Crowe, one of the leading batsmen of the late '80s and early '90s, played 77 Tests for New Zealand

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

 

[Gnske]

I'd completely abolish tests and reinvent the Ashes as a 25 match T20 series would be the first order of business.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Given the ICC went to the point of doing all that though, they're not going to just give them Test status straight after the World Cup.

I disagree. I think this current incarnation of the ICC is capable of changing their mind on things. They've seized issues which had been left to fester for a long time, so I suspect if they were given a good enough pretext that they could change their mind or at least offer some halfway house position.

 

[Burgey]

Ban India, which is where the money in match fixing comes from

 

[Flem274*]

tiers would be the worst. we've only got ten test countries for goodness sake, and there is no way the big three would submit to being relegated.

rather than try and prevent teams from playing each other, why don't we make the crap teams better so it's worth everyone playing each other?

and ftr most of the teams in the game are pretty evenly matched right now so tiers are even more pointless.

 

[indiaholic]

The ICC has to find a way to function as an autonomous body that is long term greedy. This is basically impossible because of the financial prowess of the big three.

 

[Prince EWS]

tiers would be the worst. we've only got ten test countries for goodness sake, and there is no way the big three would submit to being relegated.

rather than try and prevent teams from playing each other, why don't we make the crap teams better so it's worth everyone playing each other?

and ftr most of the teams in the game are pretty evenly matched right now so tiers are even more pointless.

I agree that if we got a tier system, it would probably be even worse than the system we have now.. but I actually do think it'd be an improvement to what we have now in some forms.

The concept of an FTP has already been scrapped; teams are no longer required to play other Test teams if they don't want to. I'd like to see a tier system with promotion and relegation that actually compelled teams to all the other teams in their tier home and away in a set period (lets say four years) as it used to, while letting them play Test series against teams outside their tier if they wanted to as well (as they do now, through bilateral agreements). We could have three tiers of four teams each with league tables and promotion and relegation after each period. We could even have a couple of tiers below the top 12 that just didn't have Test status to give all teams a genuine pathway to get into the top 12 if they were good enough.

That's not how it'd work though, unfortunately. I'm opposed to most of the tier suggestions I've actually seen put forward.

 

[TNT]

Its one thing to fantasize about having tiers and playing minimum of 3 test series but reality is different. If for instance Zimbabwe played a three test series against Ireland home then away who is expected to cough up for the debt incurred. Do we expect India to provide millions of dollars every year to prop up these series that make losses. Most of what is proposed would bankrupt international cricket within a few years.

 

[Grumpy]

I'd run the game into more obscurity. Slowly phase the weaker boards out until I am left with India, Eng and Aus. The main marquee event would be Srini Trophy - where every two years, Eng/Aus play against India alternatively. The Ashes will be scrapped. In between the Srini trophies, there will be year long IPL, but rebranded as the IPL (International Premier League). Except for the name change, everything else would remain the same. I will be the head honcho of both the IPL and ICC at the same time. If Eng or Aus disagree, I will threaten to call of the Srini Trophy. Eventually, the Srini Trophy will also be scrapped.

Ultimately, the game would come to a point where only the Indian population would care about it. Once this goal is achieved, I can personally begin to invest in the betting underworld of the SC, without fear of any international investigation. Cos no one would give a **** about cricket. And any local investigation would be bribed off.

Once I am swimming in my crores and crores of rupees, I will affectionately retire and fondly reflect back on my career as a fine damn administrator.

 

[cnerd123]

I think that in order for the ICC to decide the promoting or growing cricket around the world is a priority, it has to be shown to them how doing so can lead to financial benefits for the members of the ICC (basically more money for the Big 3)

The main argument would be that, if there more people in the world actively interested in cricket, then there would be more money to be made. That's fairly obvious.

However I'm sure the ICC has done the cost/benefit analysis, and they must have come to the conclusion that the time and money they would need to invest in order to develop a passionate following of the sport in new nations is too high compared to the potential returns.

Instead, they have clearly decided to further focus on establishing a stronghold in their existing markets. Ranked in order of importance, I'm guessing it goes India, England, Australia, the rest of the Test nations, and expats of these nations in other parts of the world.

 

[GIMH]

I'd abolish ODIs. And then to fill the gap left by the World Cup being eradicated by this move, I would award the winners of each Ashes series the World Cup.

 

[Cabinet96]

Mate stop posting like the last Ashes wasn't ten times worse than what this will turn out to be.

 

[GIMH]

Mate stop posting like the last Ashes wasn't ten times worse than what this will turn out to be.

Yeah but we win it from time to time too

 

[GirtBySea]

More world fixtures in Australia would be my first step. Obviously the third Test World Championship in Australia in 2025 and not a ring-around-the-rosy everywhere else gets it or another tournament before Australia thanks.