How would you run the ICC?

[Pratters]

The ICC is ****ed up.

Let us say you were given a charge of things to run it with best interests of cricket in mind. How would you do it?

My main areas of concerns are -

1) Disbalance in the game with T20s and tests not being the goal for more players every year.

2) Promotions/Relgation in cricket not clearly chalked out.

3) Distribution of wealth and power issue which is now resting with India, Australia and England.

Just some things which looks like a big worm eating away on our game.

 

[Howe_zat]

The ICC is ****ed up because it isn't really a body in its own right, it's just a platform for the individual member boards. It needs to be an independent organisation in order to do the job it professes to do.

 

[TNT]

Remove the boards that cant even run their own organisations properly. That would be WI, SL and PAK, how can three corrupt boards be involved in the running of international cricket.

 

[Pratters]

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.

 

[Athlai]

India tier 2 is never going to happen. Keeping in mind they are currently 7th.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah we'll see how any of the other **** nations are ranked if they play a billion matches in a row away from home

#BleedBlue

 

[Daemon]

Tier systems are usually meant for addressing one sided matches along with giving sides something to work towards, but it's really hard in cricket because of the huge disparity in playing conditions. Teams like India and Australia that can be really good in certain conditions and horrible in others.

Pakistan are 4th atm. I'd bet good money on them losing to every single one of the other top 5 nations away and yet put up good performances at home. Most of those away series (and some home ones) are much less competitive than if they played in Sri Lanka for example, who would be in the next tier.

The planning part is also probably going to be another issue. You have to take the rankings at a certain point in time, and plan the next few years worth of series using those static rankings while in reality over the years teams will get stronger/weaker. It's not just a one season thing like domestic cricket, a lot can happen over a couple of years.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Do you think those 3 are the only corrupt boards.

LOL

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

How would I run the ICC? Better. That is all.

 

[Furball]

****ing Heef stealing my posts.

 

[Jono]

I'd close it down.

 

[G.I.Joe]

The ICC is ****ed up.

Let us say you were given a charge of things to run it with best interests of cricket in mind. How would you do it?

My main areas of concerns are -

1) Disbalance in the game with T20s and tests not being the goal for more players every year.

2) Promotions/Relgation in cricket not clearly chalked out.

3) Distribution of wealth and power issue which is now resting with India, Australia and England.

Just some things which looks like a big worm eating away on our game.

Found the communist. FFS Pratters, you'd figure someone living in Bengal would have an idea of what happens when you brute-force a wealth redistribution. Those generating the revenue will simply pack up and leave.

The ICC will necessarily stay a Council and not a Federation body as long as cricket remains a niche sport in the majority of it's constituents.

This will be an extremely unpopular opinion, but I'll air it anyway. The ICC needs to get more autocratic, not less. They can't dictate terms to the major bodies for obvious reasons, but they can take a bottom-up approach. Look at the American cricket body. The ICC mustn't keep pouring in money into the developing countries and permit them to play around with it no strings attached. Screw democracy. Tie investments to performances. When you get more teams playing well to a good standard, the issue of concentration of power in a few hands gradually resolves itself.

 

[andmark]

I'd like to see more matches or even tours from the lesser teams with the bigger ones. I guess one of the world wide appeals with football is that virtually any side can play on the world stage against the big nations. To take one example, a few years ago England faced San Marino despite the fact that SM has a population which could all fit into many Premier League stadiums, and England subsequently won by something like 5-0. About the only way I can see cricket expanding/ maintaining its position is by having matches like that whenever financially possible to give other nations a chance to get somewhere and potential players from those countries something to play for. That would of course require large changes to the ICC.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It's not even the lesser nations, I think the existing top 8 need to have mandatory proper test series. None of this 2 test "series" rubbish which South Africa, West Indies, Sri lanka, NZ get. It's got to be 3 tests minimum or bust. Ideally it'd be 4, but I can settle for 3.

 

[Red]

More poetry, both in the boardrooms, and at the grounds.

 

[silentstriker]

Found the communist. FFS Pratters, you'd figure someone living in Bengal would have an idea of what happens when you brute-force a wealth redistribution. Those generating the revenue will simply pack up and leave.

The ICC will necessarily stay a Council and not a Federation body as long as cricket remains a niche sport in the majority of it's constituents.

This will be an extremely unpopular opinion, but I'll air it anyway. The ICC needs to get more autocratic, not less. They can't dictate terms to the major bodies for obvious reasons, but they can take a bottom-up approach. Look at the American cricket body. The ICC mustn't keep pouring in money into the developing countries and permit them to play around with it no strings attached. Screw democracy. Tie investments to performances. When you get more teams playing well to a good standard, the issue of concentration of power in a few hands gradually resolves itself.

Except they're doing the autocratic part and yet also not helping teams (e.g Ireland) who are doing well, improve while tolerating the likes of Zimbabwe.

 

[Red]

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.

 

[Pothas]

Nah that would be fairly awful.

Ireland will get test status after this World Cup though.

 

[silentstriker]

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.

There would be a bidding war and the top players would cost so much that they would suck up a lot of funding from the rest of the squad. IMO, I don't think it's necessary to artificially prop up the minnows like that. I think encouraging ex players and coaches to spend time around minnows, possibly as coaches and mentors, should be enough.

 

[silentstriker]

Nah that would be fairly awful.

Ireland will get test status after this World Cup though.

While I wish that were true, I just don't see any way at all that this will happen.