Bangladesh squad joins ICL

[Uppercut]

As I say - the only other way the ICL is going to go away is if the BCCI give Zee Indian cricket (Test, ODI and IPL) rights. I suppose I wouldn't mind that too much either.

Indeed, i would be happy if the ICL were to bankrupt, but i think that hope is unrealistic and the BCCI policy towards it poor and unfair. What we're left with is a middle ground- if the ICL went bankrupt, no players are lost, if the BCCI accepts that it'll have to work with it, again, no players are lost to it. Forcing players to make a direct choice, and thereby robbing their own establishment of the talent of Bond, Inzamam and a lot of the Bangladesh side, is a horrid policy given that the league will not just "go away" as they seem to hope.

 

[social]

But they're not saying "we'd best not pick such-and-such because it'll upset the BCCI" (though there's no denying that too is indeed a risk and a viable reason not to do so) - they're saying "our best interests are served by supporting the BCCI's fight against the ICL, as we're best off without the ICL as well".

See? There is no picture bigger than the importance of removing the ICL completely.

That is absolute garbage

NZ Cricket were more than happy to let Bond play with the ICL, signing a legally binding document to that effect, as it would not interfere with his international commitments.

It was only after the BCCI threatened NZC that they rolled over and effectively banned Bond and any other player that signed with the ICL

In fact, prior to the interference of the BCCI, NZC and the ICL could not only have co-existed more than happily but the ICL would actually be doing NZC a favour as it would be topping up its' players' relatively meagre wages.

The BCCI is motivated purely by self interest and has done faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more to harm NZ cricket than the ICL ever will e.g. causing the ban of its best player (not to mention opening NZC up to damages) and encouraging players to opt out of the early stages of the England tour to play the IPL

 

[social]

I tend to imagine most of it goes to the top officials (if they were doing an excellent job I'd say quite fair enough too TBH) and a fair bit to the top players.

Certainly nowhere near enough goes into development of impoverished areas, which number about 80% of the population or whatever it is - who will probably never turn their arm over, never mind pick-up a real cricket ball. Whose only thought in life is where the next meal may (or much more likely may not) come from.

You cannot be friggin' serious

BCCI officials are elected/appointed to represent the REAL stakeholders in Indian cricket, i.e. the various cricket associations. It is NOT their company and they are NOT shareholders who should receive dividends

If they are earning more than a basic stipend (plus e few perks), then their arses should be kicked onto the street and criminal investigations mounted

 

[Craig]

That is absolute garbage

NZ Cricket were more than happy to let Bond play with the ICL, signing a legally binding document to that effect, as it would not interfere with his international commitments.

It was only after the BCCI threatened NZC that they rolled over and effectively banned Bond and any other player that signed with the ICL

In fact, prior to the interference of the BCCI, NZC and the ICL could not only have co-existed more than happily but the ICL would actually be doing NZC a favour as it would be topping up its' players' relatively meagre wages.

The BCCI is motivated purely by self interest and has done faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more to harm NZ cricket than the ICL ever will e.g. causing the ban of its best player (not to mention opening NZC up to damages) and encouraging players to opt out of the early stages of the England tour to play the IPL

I have to agree. For example it has lost Andre Adams who IMO should be in the Test team. I'm not saying he would of been an instant superstar, bu he was taking wickets for fun for Auckland and if that was not good enough to get recall, then what was? At least give him the opportunity to succed or fail in Test cricket.

 

[Flem274*]

It would be fun to pick Bond now. If the ICC puppet board cut our funding then OK, we'll just use to ICL to help pay our players wages.

We'd lose test status though probably, and that would be the only thing stopping me doing it, though if we lost our test status then other countries would proabbly start voicing disapproval and we could have a public outrage and basically just throw the toys out of the cot and why not sue while we're at it, just for fun?

Tbh there is no solution, the ICL won't **** off and the BCCI won't stop being ****s. The only solution is to assassinate both entities and then the world will be a better place.

 

[Craig]

Haha I would find losing Test status highly unlikely. Well for reason's that don't include the word "profit" or similar words that describe it I would be interested in.

 

[Richard]

You cannot be friggin' serious

BCCI officials are elected/appointed to represent the REAL stakeholders in Indian cricket, i.e. the various cricket associations. It is NOT their company and they are NOT shareholders who should receive dividends

If they are earning more than a basic stipend (plus e few perks), then their arses should be kicked onto the street and criminal investigations mounted

So then, you think the Lalit Modis, IS Bindras, Jagmohan Dalmiyas, Sharad Pawars, etc. are paupers do you?

 

[duffer]

BCCI aren't going to lose a key vote. No way Bangladesh are stripped of anything, they'll just start fielding younger and younger guys once they lose players to the ICL.

 

[Richard]

That is absolute garbage

NZ Cricket were more than happy to let Bond play with the ICL, signing a legally binding document to that effect, as it would not interfere with his international commitments.

It was only after the BCCI threatened NZC that they rolled over and effectively banned Bond and any other player that signed with the ICL

In fact, prior to the interference of the BCCI, NZC and the ICL could not only have co-existed more than happily but the ICL would actually be doing NZC a favour as it would be topping up its' players' relatively meagre wages.

The BCCI is motivated purely by self interest and has done faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more to harm NZ cricket than the ICL ever will e.g. causing the ban of its best player (not to mention opening NZC up to damages) and encouraging players to opt out of the early stages of the England tour to play the IPL

Without the BCCI, NZC would probably no longer exist. All cricket boards depend on the BCCI to cause cricket's income, especially the financially weaker ones.

Without the ICL, everyone would be so much happier. No ICL would = no negative effects. Whatsoever. Cricket boards working with the ICL would be extremely ill-advised, and I'm glad the BCCI have pressured them out of doing it, because the game's best interests are served that way.

And will people stop going-on like Bond was some 25-year-old snatched with many years ahead of him. He's 33 and was planning on retiring from Tests even before the ICL offer came. He'd have been extremely unlikely to have played ODIs much longer either - certainly not until 2011.

Likewise Inzamam had basically been politicked-out of Pakistan's Test team pre-ICL and his time was very nearly up in any case, his form had been on the decline for a while. In some ways it's a shame he didn't retire earlier than he did, but World Cups must.

 

[GIMH]

It doesn't matter how old Bond was or is though, as he still would have been in the NZ side. This is the key point. I don't care what the ground are, the only reasons a player should not be banned are if that player's home board bans them for an indiscretion, or they get an ICC rubber-stamped ban.

I mean, I thought it farcical when Akhtar and Asif got off with their drugs bans, but I'd have found it even more farcical if the ECB had waded in and said, "hey, you can't pick those players!" one the ban was revoked.

 

[Richard]

The Bond matter is a separate one to the is-the-cause-of-the-bans-right-or-wrong one. As I said, it just mildly irks me that it's often made-out that Bond's loss was a colossal one, because in all likelihood it was in fact pretty minor.

 

[GIMH]

We will never know how big a loss it is or was, though.

 

[Richard]

We know these things:
1, Bond is aged 33;
2, he was planning to retire from Tests ICL or no ICL;
3, his body is a fragile one.

This means it's fairly logical to suggest that he'd not have played any more Tests anyway, and that his ODI career would have had little more to run, most of which would have been encompassed with games which the outcome in terms of result (IMO) doesn't really matter at all.

About all Bond has really been lost from is the Champions Trophy - and that might not even happen.

 

[GIMH]

That is presumptive though, he may well have played ODIs for a fair while for all we know. International Cricket has been deprived of one of its best bowlers, for however long he may have been about.

 

[Richard]

TBH, I think you're using hindsight and letting your pro-ICL feelings impact upon your thoughts there. If the ICL had never happened and someone'd asked you after Bond had announced his Test retirement in November 2007 "how much longer d'you reckon he's got left in ODIs?" I'd be surprised if you'd said more than 2 years.

And as I said - no ODI cricket that anyone's going to remember for long is going to be played between then and say March next year, if the Champions Trophy doesn't go ahead.

 

[Uppercut]

TBH, I think you're using hindsight and letting your pro-ICL feelings impact upon your thoughts there. If the ICL had never happened and someone'd asked you after Bond had announced his Test retirement in November 2007 "how much longer d'you reckon he's got left in ODIs?" I'd be surprised if you'd said more than 2 years.

How much he had left isn't relevant, is what I thought GIMH was trying to say. As of today, one of the greatest quicks in the world isn't playing international cricket.

 

[GIMH]

TBH, I think you're using hindsight and letting your pro-ICL feelings impact upon your thoughts there. If the ICL had never happened and someone'd asked you after Bond had announced his Test retirement in November 2007 "how much longer d'you reckon he's got left in ODIs?" I'd be surprised if you'd said more than 2 years.

And as I said - no ODI cricket that anyone's going to remember for long is going to be played between then and say March next year, if the Champions Trophy doesn't go ahead.

I'm not pro-ICL, as such, just don't think it matters what players do with their spare time.

How much he had left isn't relevant, is what I thought GIMH was trying to say. As of today, one of the greatest quicks in the world isn't playing international cricket.

Yeah, that

 

[Richard]

How much he had left isn't relevant, is what I thought GIMH was trying to say. As of today, one of the greatest quicks in the world isn't playing international cricket.

Is him playing a few here-today-gone-tomorrow ODIs really much of a loss? I don't think so.

 

[Richard]

I'm not pro-ICL, as such, just don't think it matters what players do with their spare time.

That's pro-ICL. There is no middle ground. If you're not against, you're with. If you don't think it damages cricket or could potentially damage cricket, you're happy for it to exist.

TBH, players hardly get spare time currently, and many (rightly) complain about that from time to time.

 

[GIMH]

No I'm not pro-ICL, I don't care if it exists or if it doesn't. It does though, and therefore players who choose to play in it should be allowed to still play for their countries, if that is what their countries want. I don't believe that that makes me pro-ICL, more pro-freedom of the individual boards to pick their best players