Yeh, the above = 'bad'. Bad meaning hard. Hard meaning hard to score quickly on for T20. Was just taking the accepted meaning of the word, of course, for a bowler like myself, it is very much a 'good' pitch.Not 'bad', just tough to bat on.
Lalit Modi. He is very keen to keep it mostly Indian, and the CL committee didn't want sides that looked significantly differently to the ones that actually won the respective domestic competitions.What forces IPL sides to only play four internationals in the Champions League?
But are they forced to or just put pressure on? If the former it's a bit unfair for them to have these restrictions when others teams don't.Lalit Modi. He is very keen to keep it mostly Indian, and the CL committee didn't want sides that looked significantly differently to the ones that actually won the respective domestic competitions.
I don't see why they'd do this really, especially getting rid of one of the Indian teams!I wonder where they are going to play it next year and whether they will think about making it an even two sides from every country, and making it three weeks or something?
That'd be interesting to see.
Forced, part of the rules. BCCI still effectively controls and 'owns' the franchises, and BCCI is the one who participates in the CL, and 'invites' the IPL teams. The owners can be thought to have leased the teams, in a practical sense. That is not to say they don't have say or influence in the BCCI, but BCCI pulls the strings.But are they forced to or just put pressure on? If the former it's a bit unfair for them to have these restrictions when others teams don't.
I think they added a 3rd Indian team only because one from Pakistan wouldn't be coming. From what I've read, it was supposed to be two from each of the four main countries and one from WI, NZ, SL and PAK.I don't see why they'd do this really, especially getting rid of one of the Indian teams!
You know views on this - the rule is dumb. It looks even more worse when the IPL teams that have played in the CL have clearly had more freedom when they could pick all their best players.Forced, part of the rules. BCCI still effectively controls and 'owns' the franchises, and BCCI is the one who participates in the CL, and 'invites' the IPL teams. The owners can be thought to have leased the teams, in a practical sense. That is not to say they don't have say or influence in the BCCI, but BCCI pulls the strings.
With that said, as far as I know, the rules are the same for everyone. I don't think any side can add a player that wasn't on the roster during their domestic campaign.
Presume it's trying to level the playing field - the other sides are limited in their overseas players as well aren't they?What forces IPL sides to only play four internationals in the Champions League?
Yea that's what I thought to, the tournament would be rather boring and one-sided (maybe) if the IPL teams were allowed to play more then the four internationals per game.Presume it's trying to level the playing field - the other sides are limited in their overseas players as well aren't they?