• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

India, Australia, England attempt to take control of Cricket

honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Isn't he the big boss of ECB and soon, the ICC? I mean to say that even if one of the big 3 lose that footing, they will be saying the same things about development of the game etc. etc. and trying to get a share of that pie from the big 2 that is left. I used ECB and Giles Clarke as its head honcho as an example. You can easily replace it with BCCI and Pawar or CA and Wally Edwards.
 
vic_orthdox

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
honestbharani said:
Isn't he the big boss of ECB and soon, the ICC? I mean to say that even if one of the big 3 lose that footing, they will be saying the same things about development of the game etc. etc. and trying to get a share of that pie from the big 2 that is left. I used ECB and Giles Clarke as its head honcho as an example. You can easily replace it with BCCI and Pawar or CA and Wally Edwards.
Click to expand...
He got given the job he wanted by the ECB, but those actually in charge of the ECB now sound like they are more and more against a lot of the Clarke-led initiatives.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Also empty grounds or half empty grounds etc. are not always the best measure. Its rather complex and you have to consider the population, the size of the stadium and the actual number of people that turned up etc. There are a few grounds around the world that have like less than 10K capacity and then you have grounds which can hold like 40 to 50 K people. It becomes difficult to judge just based on how full/empty the ground or stands are.
 
Shri

Shri

Mr. Glass
Black_Warrior said:
No it is absolutely mutually exclusive when Bangladesh haven't toured England since 2010 and India and Australia have played in England twice in the same period.
Bangladesh have only played Australia twice ( 1 home and 1 away) since gaining test status.

Sri Lanka have played in Australia only twice in the last 10 years.

When test playing nations barely get games against Australia, what makes you think Afghanistan will get a game?



I have already stated clearly the causes for this situation. I have stated how cricket is on a decline in Australia and England and I have NOT blamed the Big 3 for that. It's just that there always were more popular sports in these nations and in today's time, cricket...................waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.
Click to expand...
No one hands anything of value to anyone. Take it if you want to and if you are able to. India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka didn't beg for handouts while being ****ty cricketing nations with ****ty cricketers. They clawed their way in by winning world cups and by making themselves a challenge for other teams to beat. The little guys can either step up or **** off tbh. Sick of their cries for help when they don't deserve it.

Countries like Ireland, Afghanistan and others who have shown they can compete deserve all the help they need. Bangladesh, Zimbabwe etc are a waste of resources. Should be relegated until they become serious about competing instead of being happy with handouts without improving themselves.
 
Black_Warrior

Black_Warrior

Cricketer Of The Year
Cevno said:
BCCI chief Manohar criticises Big Three revamp | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo
Click to expand...
Why is Mr Manohar picking on the easy target instead of blaming market factors? :ph34r:




Anyway, all jokes aside, the is the full explosive interview.

Major countries should not bully the ICC? - The Hindu

What about the revenue-sharing formula that gives 22 per cent to the BCCI straightaway?

I don’t agree with the revenue-sharing formula, because it’s nice to say that India (BCCI) will get 22 per cent of the total revenue of the ICC, but you cannot make the poor poorer and the rich richer, only because you have the clout. The ICC runs cricket throughout the world. Secondly there is another angle to it which nobody has thought of. India generates money because the other countries come and play in India. If you do not have a fierce competition, the broadcasters are not going to pay you and the sponsors are not going to sponsor your events. So whatever you generate through bilateral series is because there are good teams playing against you. If all teams are of the standards of the low placed ninth and tenth team and India is a good side, who is going to pay you; what interest would be left with the spectators to watch a game, if it’s a one-sided game always. So if you reduce their corpus, their development is going to be hampered and ICC has to think from that point of view. According to me there is a conflict now at the ICC level also which I have to sort out.


Thank you sir. It takes a lot of courage to go beyond jingoism and look at a matter objectively. The sad news is though, Giles Clarke replaces him in 6 months time.
 
Black_Warrior

Black_Warrior

Cricketer Of The Year
marc71178 said:
Remember how I called this out as bull**** at the time?

Cricket hails record domestic crowds | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo
Click to expand...
Well that's indeed great news. My original comment was based on the level of interest and awareness in England and Australia. The World Cup 2015 for example, hardly anyone in these countries cared (other than the diaspora fans) and this was reflected in the lack of any real media attention or hype.

As per anecdotal evidence, 9 out of 10 British people I have met have absolutely no interest in the game. Sports starts and ends with Football for them and when I asked them about the state of cricket and interest level, they always tell me that other than the Ashes (if England is winning) they don't really care.
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
Black_Warrior said:
Well that's indeed great news. My original comment was based on the level of interest and awareness in England and Australia. The World Cup 2015 for example, hardly anyone in these countries cared (other than the diaspora fans) and this was reflected in the lack of any real media attention or hype.

As per anecdotal evidence, 9 out of 10 British people I have met have absolutely no interest in the game. Sports starts and ends with Football for them and when I asked them about the state of cricket and interest level, they always tell me that other than the Ashes (if England is winning) they don't really care.
Click to expand...
Where are you meeting these people?

A lot of the British people I meet here in HK tend to be the kind of people who think visiting HK on exchange/holiday/to be relocated for work is a good idea, This could be due to a fascination of the culture, or being really into their career path and recognising this region of being of importance to that. These interests do not overlap strongly with an interest in Cricket; or indeed, sports in general. Likewise the Americans and Australians that I meet here arent really interested in stereotypical things like Baseball or AFL.

Not really relevant, just food for thought.
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
So lets talk about Shashank Manohar

There are two catalysts to the changing mood of an ICC board who, only a few months ago, appeared to have little concern for any interests beyond their own. The first is the election of the new chairman, Shashank Manohar, who seems genuinely committed to growing cricket as a global game and running the ICC as a governing body for the good of all 105 members rather than a favoured few.

The second is the diminishing financial value of bilateral series to the Full Member boards, which has allowed Manohar fertile ground on which to plant his ideas.

The combination has offered the prospect of unprecedented opportunities for Associate nations in the next few years.

"The new chairman has gone out of his way to reverse the sense that the 'Big Three' are in control," Richardson said. "There is a bigger desire to regard the ICC as an organisation with 105 members, not just 10 Full Members who are a select, secluded club with no one else allowed in. We want to be more encompassing and allow opportunities for Associate Members to graduate.
Click to expand...
ICC planning two Test divisions amid major overhaul | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

Is he the hero cricket desperately needs?
 
G.I.Joe

G.I.Joe

International Coach
Wish he'd demonstrated some of that egalitarianism on his home turf by allocating matches to centres that deserved it instead of Nagpur.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top