As noted in my previous posts (and under my false impressions), if one were to consider Test Cricket as a contest in which the following definition applies: "activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another", then the act of an outside person being entertained, is of no relevance to the actual contest. The mere fact that you perceive this contest as entertainment only seeks to affirm that entertainment, is in the eye of the beholder.
-
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
- Thread starter Fusion
- Start date
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Okay well, I'm a cricket fan, a pretty big one. I watch cricket to be entertained, of course. The entertainment for me comes from the contest between bat and ball. I want to see the best bowlers in the world bowling to the best batsmen and trying to get them out while the batsmen try and score runs. If I had to watch Chris Gayle bat three times I'd just turn the game off. It wouldn't be entertaining at all, it'd be ridiculous. I wouldn't watch it for the same reason I wouldn't watch Michael Clarke practice his forward defence facing a bowling machine.
Not to say there's anything particularly bad about watching Chris Gayle bat, but the entertainment comes from the fair contest, not watching someone hit the ball a long way. Completely absurd argument.
Yes. Agreed. But if I change my words:
But by the same definition, we should not be arguing about implementing entertainment orientated features in test cricket simply for the reason that it the players themselves insist that negatively affects the competitive contest between 2 teams. Both day-night cricket and 2 tier cricket should be implemented because it increases entertainment value.
Last edited:
Debris
International 12th Man
You seem to be mistaking cricket purists for the general public.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
2 Test series are crap, but the alternative is either to just tell Sri Lanka not to bother coming over next summer and we'll have 5 Tests v India, or give Sri Lanka an extra Test and squeeze a ridiculous schedule even further.
A 2 Test series vs Sri Lanka >>>>>>>> a 0 Test series vs Sri Lanka.
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
What?
Debris
International 12th Man
I think the general public does equate hitting sixes with entertainment. Did I really need to spell that out? Surely it was obvious from the context.
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well I just thought to myself that you couldn't be so obtuse.
So the millions of people who watch test cricket don't count? So you either watch limited overs cricket or test cricket, not both?
**** I'm doing it wrong then.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
BCCI, the organization with more politicians than cricketers, with no paid professional staff to speak of, who didn't have a website until approximately last week, and still uses a gmail account will have even more billions to play with and disappear down its black hole of un-accountability. I'm totally with Fusion here. The current #1 team in the world is locked out FFS....while three mediocre teams can't be relegated. Goes against everything sport stands for.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Not rumors, cricinfo is pretty much reporting this. They usually have decent standards.
theegyptian
International Vice-Captain
A big problem at present is boards like the WICB, Zim, SL board have so many problems running themselves let alone taking part in global decision making. The BCCI probably are no better but they have the power because the money is there.
Obviously the 3 big countries (who have shown throughout time that they are more concerned with their own interests rather than the overall game) having all the power is a bad idea but there is no easy solution. India, Eng, and Aus are the teams that are making all the revenue for the ICC. They're the teams that sell the big tv deals. It's inevitable that they're going to want to take some more control over other boards who are corrupt and/or incompetent and/or don't make as much money.
Some of these boards don't publish accounts. How do we know what they're doing with the ICC revenue? Zimbabwe seems to be in dire straights and there is no accountability for any of the money they get from the ICC as one of the member nations. Just handing out equal revenue to these countries indiscriminantly without any oversight or accountability seems to be a good way of increasing corruption and misuse of funds.
Of course cricket dies in these countries without ICC money but it's dying anyway. There needs to be proper structures in place to make these countries accountable and to make sure they're using the money on cricket development.
Some of this stuff was recommended in the woolf report. The Woolf review : The Woolf review: ICC's model of funding and revenue distribution needs overhaul | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | ESPN Cricinfo
Obviously the 3 big countries (who have shown throughout time that they are more concerned with their own interests rather than the overall game) having all the power is a bad idea but there is no easy solution. India, Eng, and Aus are the teams that are making all the revenue for the ICC. They're the teams that sell the big tv deals. It's inevitable that they're going to want to take some more control over other boards who are corrupt and/or incompetent and/or don't make as much money.
Some of these boards don't publish accounts. How do we know what they're doing with the ICC revenue? Zimbabwe seems to be in dire straights and there is no accountability for any of the money they get from the ICC as one of the member nations. Just handing out equal revenue to these countries indiscriminantly without any oversight or accountability seems to be a good way of increasing corruption and misuse of funds.
Of course cricket dies in these countries without ICC money but it's dying anyway. There needs to be proper structures in place to make these countries accountable and to make sure they're using the money on cricket development.
Some of this stuff was recommended in the woolf report. The Woolf review : The Woolf review: ICC's model of funding and revenue distribution needs overhaul | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | ESPN Cricinfo
Last edited:
Shri
Mr. Glass
ICC news : Big three eye more share in ICC revenue pie | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | ESPN Cricinfo
South Africa to lose its full member status.
Its time for the MCC to start their own test cricket organization again. Scrap all this ****. Start over. Leave pajama cricket to the ICC.
South Africa to lose its full member status.
Its time for the MCC to start their own test cricket organization again. Scrap all this ****. Start over. Leave pajama cricket to the ICC.
Spark
Global Moderator
I don't think it's losing full member status, but it is being specifically locked out financially of the revenue fund they seem to be setting up.
I always thought Giles Clarke in particular would make a fine Bond movie villain but this is just absurd.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
"Agree to our demands which will destroy cricket in your country within 10 years or go bankrupt tomorrow."
It's hilarious how opposite these recommendations are from the Woolf Report....it's like they specifically looked at the good governance recommendations from the Woolf Report (such as an independent body governing instead of member boards) and said, "right, let's do the exact opposite."
It's hilarious how opposite these recommendations are from the Woolf Report....it's like they specifically looked at the good governance recommendations from the Woolf Report (such as an independent body governing instead of member boards) and said, "right, let's do the exact opposite."
