Bangladesh squad joins ICL

[Trigger_Tiger]

BCB's Reaction!

This just in!:

Board's reaction to 'retirement' of BCB Contracted Players​

Letters from six (6) Board contracted players - Habibul Bashar, Aftab Ahmed, Shahriar Nafees Ahmed, Farhad Reza, Dhiman Ghosh and Musharraf Hossain were received at the BCB Office, Sher-e-Bangla National Cricket Stadium, Mirpur today (Sunday, 14 September 2008) morning wherein it was stated by the players that they intend to retire from all forms of international and domestic cricket.

The Board attaches great importance to the matter and expresses its concern at the abrupt decision by so many players to retire from the game.

However, the reasons for their intention to retire were not stated in their respective letters. As such the BCB has instructed the concerned players to appear in person on Tuesday, 16 September 2008 at 2:00pm (0800hrs GMT) at the Board's Sher-e-Bangla National Cricket Stadium office for explaining their retirement decision.

Media & Communications Department, BCB​

 

[Richard]

However, seeing as Boyd Rankin has played ODIs since ICL, that will have difficulty sticking.

This compromises the BCCI's position over the ICL, as demanding a Bangladesh third-string side will also do. This, IMO, can only be a good thing for the game.

I can't remember why it was that associate-country players were basically given clearance to play in the ICL. Anyone remind me?

 

[Craig]

According to my understanding, the BCCI has put the pressure on the ICC to make sure that ICC tells all its members nations that whichever player from their team participates in a non-ICC recognised tournament like the ICL should be banned from representing his national team, so this way BCCI are getting things done, without even getting its own hands dirty.

Countries like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and New Zealand should band together in an ideal world since they are going to be hurt most by the ICL. Or have been anyway. But it doesn't work like that and I am well aware of that.

Unfortunately for Bangladesh, 6 players have given to the BCB their letter of termination. They want to retire early to play for "Dhaka Warriors" in the ICL!

The six players are:

1. Shahriar Nafees
2. Aftab Ahmed
3. Farhad Reza
4. Dhiman Ghosh
5. Habibul Bashar
6. Mosharraf Hussain

The first four are a big loss to the National team IMHO. Just sad. Plain and simple sad.....!

Yeah it is sad, but who can blame them?

 

[Richard]

Countries like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and New Zealand should band together in an ideal world since they are going to be hurt most by the ICL. Or have been anyway.

They'd lose more by trying to fight the BCCI than they would by toeing the BCCI's ICL line. Quite a bit more.

And there's nothing they could do to stop their players signing for the ICL by banding together. There simply isn't the money in those countries to make international cricket a preferable alternative to ICL cricket, and unfortunately there's nothing anyone can do about that. Nothing. You can't magically magic an economically weak country (which in cricketing terms New Zealand is) into a strong one.

 

[Craig]

They'd lose more by trying to fight the BCCI than they would by toeing the BCCI's ICL line. Quite a bit more.

And there's nothing they could do to stop their players signing for the ICL by banding together. There simply isn't the money in those countries to make international cricket a preferable alternative to ICL cricket, and unfortunately there's nothing anyone can do about that. Nothing. You can't magically magic an economically weak country (which in cricketing terms New Zealand is) into a strong one.

What I meant by banding together was to let players sign with the ICL but still pick them for Tests, like Shane Bond etc.

Anyway since when has the BCCI given a crap about the NZCC when the black Caps are not Pakistan, Australia, South Africa or England in terms of TV money and from the gate as well?

 

[Uppercut]

However, seeing as Boyd Rankin has played ODIs since ICL, that will have difficulty sticking.

This compromises the BCCI's position over the ICL, as demanding a Bangladesh third-string side will also do. This, IMO, can only be a good thing for the game.

My initial thoughts on reading the thread. What players want to do when they're not playing for their countries is their business, so long as it does not interfere with their touring schedules. The BCCI's position over the ICL is horrific IMO. Either this development will put pressure on them to allow its parallel existence, or Bangladesh will be a test team no more. Both, IMO, are good for international cricket.

 

[Richard]

What I meant by banding together was to let players sign with the ICL but still pick them for Tests, like Shane Bond etc.

Yeah - in other words, deliberately sticking the fingers up to the BCCI. Bad idea. Very, very bad idea.

Anyway since when has the BCCI given a crap about the NZCC when the black Caps are not Pakistan, Australia, South Africa or England in terms of TV money and from the gate as well?

If NZC are not acting against the ICL, that's a crucial clause in the anti-ICL movement. If the ICL is to be truly outlawed (which IMO is indeed the right way to go), all major cricketing countries have to be involved.

 

[duffer]

Nafees is the only real loss for mine but do agree that this isn't promising at all. More will follow unfortunately and the ICL actually grew in attendances and TV ratings in their last edition so has some legs in it yet.

 

[Richard]

My initial thoughts on reading the thread. What players want to do when they're not playing for their countries is their business, so long as it does not interfere with their touring schedules. The BCCI's position over the ICL is horrific IMO. Either this development will put pressure on them to allow its parallel existence, or Bangladesh will be a test team no more. Both, IMO, are good for international cricket.

There's no way the BCCI are going to endorse the ICL's parrallel existence - it's been specifically created in order to attempt to disrupt the BCCI's cricket.

Whether Bangladesh lose Test status - well, I'm dubious. As Sai says above this post, only Shahriar Nafees Ahmed is a particularly quality player and there've been any number of utterly useless players to play for Bangladesh - it's not like they're going to do a Zimbabwe and go from patently below Test and ODI-class (as they were between April 2003 and April 2004) to a standing joke (as they have been post-revolt).

The only way Bangladesh could conceivably lose Test status would be if the BCB tried fighting the BCCI, because if the BCCI (or anyone) wanted a ready-made excuse to have Bangladesh demoted from full-member status that's been there for years - their standard of cricket is not good enough for the formats played. And they would presumably invoke that if the BCB refused to toe the ICL party-line. But that is surely inconceivable?

 

[Uppercut]

There's no way the BCCI are going to endorse the ICL's parrallel existence - it's been specifically created in order to attempt to disrupt the BCCI's cricket.

I disagree, it's there to make money. The two can coexist- the clauses allowing for release for international cricket in the contracts of players like Shane Bond suggest that this is preferable to the ICL, although there is of course an element of propaganda in that. I don't believe they care about disrupting the BCCI so long as their business remains profitable.

Whether Bangladesh lose Test status - well, I'm dubious. As Sai says above this post, only Shahriar Nafees Ahmed is a particularly quality player and there've been any number of utterly useless players to play for Bangladesh - it's not like they're going to do a Zimbabwe and go from patently below Test and ODI-class (as they were between April 2003 and April 2004) to a standing joke (as they have been post-revolt).

The only way Bangladesh could conceivably lose Test status would be if the BCB tried fighting the BCCI, because if the BCCI (or anyone) wanted a ready-made excuse to have Bangladesh demoted from full-member status that's been there for years - their standard of cricket is not good enough for the formats played. But that is surely inconceivable?

Indeed, but that's presuming the exodus stops here. If more Bangladesh players prefer to play in the ICL, they could become every bit as much a standing joke as Zimbabwe. Although that would take a long chain of events, so it's not something i'd say i expect.

 

[brockley]

Bangladesh won't lose test status yet,they would just follow the path of zimbabwe thats all.
Bangladesh will be weaker but we will not notice it,they weren't winning anyway.
Charminda srilanka will follow,but that said 14 players are signed with IPL,yet to be seen what happens with the england tour yet.
Things looking bad for the weaker nations.
Do i blame them going no 200,000 thou a season vs what little they are paid,and little chance that they would be signed by IPL.
So i say to the players go for it,a better life i say.
The bangladesh board will do nought about,nor will they pick those players again as they are too scared of the bcci.
That said 6 players retiring theats just what elliot,maher,gillespie and kasperowicz did for their states last year.No fuss just retire then play ICL.If you retire what can a board do,or the icc.

 

[Richard]

I disagree, it's there to make money. The two can coexist- the clauses allowing for release for international cricket in the contracts of players like Shane Bond suggest that this is preferable to the ICL, although there is of course an element of propaganda in that. I don't believe they care about disrupting the BCCI so long as their business remains profitable.

You know why the ICL was formed, don't you? It was formed because the proprietor of Zee was annoyed that the BCCI didn't give his station broadcast rights for international cricket - exactly the same reason WSC was formed by Kerry Packer 30 years before. In 2007, official cricket was stronger placed to repel the chance of basically being completely gutted by such an enterprise - the game (and significantly the players) is financially much better-off now than in 1977. But had it not been, make no mistake the ICL would have WSC-ised cricket. We'd currently be looking at an India with no Tendulkar, Dravid, Sehwag, Kumble and many more. And probably Pakistan and Australia without their entire first-choice teams as well. And maybe others.

TV-station owners don't tend to care about much other than themselves, and will do anything to get as much money as possible. Even if there would initially have been room for the two to coexist (which is debateable in itself), that'd have changed rapidly as soon as Subhash Chandra realised how much power he had at his fingertips, and how much more money he'd make with much more regular ICL.

Indeed, but that's presuming the exodus stops here. If more Bangladesh players prefer to play in the ICL, they could become every bit as much a standing joke as Zimbabwe. Although that would take a long chain of events, so it's not something i'd say i expect.

That would depend, of course, on the ICL wanting more Bangladeshis. If that happens, you might well be right - but it's quite an if. They've already got Adam Parore and others playing.

 

[GIMH]

My initial thoughts on reading the thread. What players want to do when they're not playing for their countries is their business, so long as it does not interfere with their touring schedules. The BCCI's position over the ICL is horrific IMO. Either this development will put pressure on them to allow its parallel existence, or Bangladesh will be a test team no more. Both, IMO, are good for international cricket.

Yeah, spot on. This is an interesting situation though.

 

[TT Boy]

Fairly alarming news, particularly when it concerns players who are still active members of the national side and are ridiculously young. Aftab Ahmed is a talented cricketer who in my opinion has the ability to make a name for himself at international level for his a wondrous player to watch even if he lasts for mere minutes. But even losing Reza is a blow and he was one of the select few of Bangladeshi players that the usually highly critical Chappelli gave the time of day to in the recent one day series against Aus

 

[Richard]

Yeah, spot on.

The ICL's existence is far more horrific than the BCCI's position over it IMO.

 

[Uppercut]

You know why the ICL was formed, don't you? It was formed because the proprietor of Zee was annoyed that the BCCI didn't give his station broadcast rights for international cricket - exactly the same reason WSC was formed by Kerry Packer 30 years before. In 2007, official cricket was stronger placed to repel the chance of basically being completely gutted by such an enterprise - the game (and significantly the players) is financially much better-off now than in 1977. But had it not been, make no mistake the ICL would have WSC-ised cricket. We'd currently be looking at an India with no Tendulkar, Dravid, Sehwag, Kumble and many more. And probably Pakistan and Australia without their entire first-choice teams as well. And maybe others.

I disagree on the grounds that ICL contracts have been specifically designed since (as in the aforementioned case of Shane Bond) to allow players to be released for all international cricket. So if the BCCI international cricket takes preference, the two aren't in competition- a player can play for his country when needed, and work for whoever he likes for the whole time in between. What gives anyone, the BCCI included, the right to say which cricket organisations a player can play for in his spare time?

 

[four_or_six]

I disagree on the grounds that ICL contracts have been specifically designed since (as in the aforementioned case of Shane Bond) to allow players to be released for all international cricket. So if the BCCI international cricket takes preference, the two aren't in competition- a player can play for his country when needed, and work for whoever he likes for the whole time in between. What gives anyone, the BCCI included, the right to say which cricket organisations a player can play for in his spare time?

Thing is, you want only one competition. Can you imagine two Premierships going on at the same time in football? How do the fans know who is the best team in the country?

 

[pup11]

I think its BCCI' ego problems that has worsened the situation this much, had they kept ICL under their wings and controlled it accordingly no problems would have have popped up, but they tried to squash ICL from the very beginning because they felt insecured due to it.

In order to get an upper-hand over each other the ICL owners and BCCI have damaged international cricket pretty badly, and had some common sense prevailed from BCCI' side than all these hassles could have been avoided.

 

[Uppercut]

Thing is, you want only one competition. Can you imagine two Premierships going on at the same time in football? How do the fans know who is the best team in the country?

I'd much rather see Bond and Inzamam back playing international cricket than that, though. How do we know what country is the best at cricket when some of the best players aren't allowed to play?

 

[Richard]

Thing is, you want only one competition. Can you imagine two Premierships going on at the same time in football? How do the fans know who is the best team in the country?

I'm not entirely sure this is an accurate analogy - and this is separate from my indifference to Twenty20 which causes me to not give a damn who wins the IPL or the ICL - because the idea isn't really to find who's best, but simply to put-on a razzmatazz and make as much money as possible.

The reasons for hoping the ICL is removed from the scene is purely to do with its disruptional potential, not because anyone involved is terribly interested in trying to make it clear who's the best. The BCCI would quite happily, doubtless, run two separate Twenty20 competitions if they thought they'd make more money that way. Likewise I'm sure Zee would.