The ICC News Thread

[cnerd123]

I've done some digging around and couldn't find a thread dedicated to the ICC and their shenanigans, so I've made one.

Latest news out today:

ICC wants 15-16 teams playing top-level cricket, says David Richardson | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

The ICC is keen to increase the number of teams playing cricket at the highest level to "15-16", and is working towards that under the leadership of Shashank Manohar, according to chief executive David Richardson.

"The ICC has a strategy to have more competitive teams playing at the highest level," Richardson said in Sri Lanka, where he was at the invitation of SLC and Asian Cricket Council (ACC) president Thilanga Sumathipala to discuss the global development of the game. "For too long we had 10 Full Members. If we are honest with ourselves, there are eight, probably nine, teams that can play cricket at the highest level.

"We like to increase that number to 15-16 countries [with] the likes of Afghanistan, Nepal, Malaysia and various other countries in the Asian region. It's very important that we can develop their cricket to a level where they can play against the big boys on an equal basis."

 

[Magrat Garlick]

They also want a unicorn.

And cake.

 

[Daemon]

It needs to start with the olympics. There's an incentive for greater funding the minute they do that.

 

[S.Kennedy]

I've done some digging around and couldn't find a thread dedicated to the ICC and their shenanigans, so I've made one.

Latest news out today:

ICC wants 15-16 teams playing top-level cricket, says David Richardson | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

Recent ICC ruling, Ireland's three day Inter-Provincial Championship will be regarded as first-class, commencing 2017: a push towards Ireland's much desired Test status.

 

[cnerd123]

Test, ODI leagues approved by ICC Board - ESPNcricinfo

 

[jimmy101]

Looks like they might go through with this after their aborted "Test championship" idea. It looks promising, I just wish they'd opt for three Tests and three ODIs per series.

 

[cnerd123]

I really like the idea of an ODI League. It gives these otherwise meaningless ODIs some relevance. The fact that it extends out to 13 teams now is also great news for whoever the Associate nations who make the cut - opens up a lot of doors for sponsorship, broadcasting revenue, and also in just professionalizing the game in those countries in general.

ODIs are also a pretty good way of promoting the game to people who are already semi-casual fans of the sport. The ones who already enjoy the game beyond the occasional T20. I think the newer nations could draw out really good crowds for them and in general the league could increase the number of people following the sport.

 

[vcs]

Test Championship looks complete crap. How can you decide any sort of Champion in a league with 9 teams, where each team doesn't even play everyone else home and away over the cycle (leaving aside the India-Pak issue for the moment)?

6 series (3 home, 3 away) is nothing. Heck, everyone doesn't even get to play everyone else once. Imagine if India became Champions after playing Australia, England, NZ at home and SL, Bangladesh and WI away.

 

[cnerd123]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...20-test-cricket-west-indies-england-australia

To that end, the chief executives of the full member national boards will come together at the next ICC meeting in Kolkata in April to debate a discussion paper on the possible future landscape for domestic Twenty20 cricket within the world game, and recommendations that include:

Virat Kohli’s passion for Test cricket could be saviour of five-day game
Rob Smyth
Read more
• Restricting players under 32 to three domestic T20 leagues per year

• Regional T20 windows that leave six months of the year clear for international cricket from 2023 onwards

• All leagues to pay 20% of a player’s contract value to their home board as mandatory compensation

• Capping the number of overseas players in each domestic T20 league

• Standardised conditions that guarantee player welfare and payment

I think limiting how much T20 a player can play is a terrible idea, mainly because it's addressing a symptom as a cause. Players are playing T20s because the wealth distribution of world cricket is centered within the Big 3, with every nation outside of that trying to do whatever they can to get a slice of the pie instead of focusing on growing their own market. Furthermore players are constantly being mistreated by administrators and boards who see them as components of a cricket 'product' rather than athletes in a sport.

I mean this is so telling:

West Indies, for example, estimate that for every junior cricketer who reaches international level, around $1m has been invested. But once they get there, a number disappear into the domestic leagues – of which five fall during the traditional Caribbean season from October to March.

They are people, not investments. Instead of regulation trying to curb how and where these cricketers play cricket -as though they were cattle- maybe try making a career playing local domestic leagues and International cricket more appealing. if the only thing that is keeping them playing is T20 Leagues, banning them from said T20 Leagues won't make them play domestic cricket. It will make them quit the sport and find a new career.

 

[Prince EWS]

To that end, the chief executives of the full member national boards will come together at the next ICC meeting in Kolkata in April to debate a discussion paper on the possible future landscape for domestic Twenty20 cricket within the world game, and recommendations that include:

Virat Kohli’s passion for Test cricket could be saviour of five-day game

That ad placement in the copy/paste omg

 

[harsh.ag]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...20-test-cricket-west-indies-england-australia

1) Restricting players under 32 to three domestic T20 leagues per year

2) Regional T20 windows that leave six months of the year clear for international cricket from 2023 onwards

3) All leagues to pay 20% of a player’s contract value to their home board as mandatory compensation

4) Capping the number of overseas players in each domestic T20 league

5) Standardised conditions that guarantee player welfare and payment

I think limiting how much T20 a player can play is a terrible idea, mainly because it's addressing a symptom as a cause. Players are playing T20s because the wealth distribution of world cricket is centered within the Big 3, with every nation outside of that trying to do whatever they can to get a slice of the pie instead of focusing on growing their own market. Furthermore players are constantly being mistreated by administrators and boards who see them as components of a cricket 'product' rather than athletes in a sport.

I mean this is so telling:

They are people, not investments. Instead of regulation trying to curb how and where these cricketers play cricket -as though they were cattle- maybe try making a career playing local domestic leagues and International cricket more appealing. if the only thing that is keeping them playing is T20 Leagues, banning them from said T20 Leagues won't make them play domestic cricket. It will make them quit the sport and find a new career.

3) is a decent idea imo.

There is some truth to the viewpoint that they are investments to their boards because the boards have to cough up the money to develop and run the system where they acquire their skills. It's not like education where costs are diffused over your entire population and benefits are diffused likewise.

 

[SeamUp]

This was bound to happen.

The Lawyer Swinger Richardson

https://www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/651800

 

[cnerd123]

https://www.news18.com/cricketnext/...icket-inclusion-at-2028-olympics-1730841.html

ICC Chief Executive David Richardson said is all goes well cricket will be a part of the Los Angeles Olympics. Cricket has not been played at the Summer Games since it featured only once in Paris 1900.

In a bold decision to globalise cricket, the ICC on the final day of its five-day long meetings decided to give international status to all T20 matches played by its 104 members.

"I think this decision can only help us in our move or application to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) for the right to participate in the Olympics going forward," Richardson told reporters here.

The deadline for submitting bids to the IOC for the inclusion of new sports at the 2024 Games is over and Richardson said they are hopeful of cricket's inclusion at Los Angeles 2028.

The BCCI isn't keen though:

Incidentally, the Indian Cricket Board (BCCI) is reluctant on cricket's inclusion in the quadrennial showpiece event for the apparent reason that it will have to go under the aegis of the Indian Olympic Association (IOA), which mean loss of its autonomy.

Basically they're worried joining the Oympics means they will suffer at the hands of the corrupt IOA, instead of being left to be corrupt of their own accord.

 

[GotSpin]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...20-test-cricket-west-indies-england-australia



I think limiting how much T20 a player can play is a terrible idea, mainly because it's addressing a symptom as a cause. Players are playing T20s because the wealth distribution of world cricket is centered within the Big 3, with every nation outside of that trying to do whatever they can to get a slice of the pie instead of focusing on growing their own market. Furthermore players are constantly being mistreated by administrators and boards who see them as components of a cricket 'product' rather than athletes in a sport.

I mean this is so telling:



They are people, not investments. Instead of regulation trying to curb how and where these cricketers play cricket -as though they were cattle- maybe try making a career playing local domestic leagues and International cricket more appealing. if the only thing that is keeping them playing is T20 Leagues, banning them from said T20 Leagues won't make them play domestic cricket. It will make them quit the sport and find a new career.

Don't quite entirely agree.

Why should a country spend millions of dollars in coaching, infrastructure and development just for that player to **** off and play in random leagues. There's basically no benefit to the host country. The popularity of cricket is often determined by the strength of the national team and its domestic competition. No one gives a **** about random domestic competitions in the UAE or even the IPL (more or less). If all our players decided to pack up and play random leagues like Eoin Morgan the game would be rooted here.

It's why I get a little grated when players talk about financial security and stuff as an excuse to pick up sticks and wander around. ****, who has been paying for your development for the past sixteen years?

 

[GotSpin]

Adding to my above point is the situation with County cricket and England in general. What the hell benefit do they get for their players prioritising the IPL over county cricket? The domestic competition is weakened which produces less interest and theres literally no bonus in exposure in exchange

 

[S.Kennedy]

Adding to my above point is the situation with County cricket and England in general. What the hell benefit do they get for their players prioritising the IPL over county cricket? The domestic competition is weakened which produces less interest and theres literally no bonus in exposure in exchange

I do not think the eighteen counties agree with it but the ECB did an u-turn on the IPL, and the counties fall in line; most of the players are on ECB central/one-day contracts regardless so it is not as if the counties have a say in the matter.

 

[GotSpin]

There's basically zero benefit for the counties from players participating in the domesticT20 comps

 

[S.Kennedy]

There's basically zero benefit for the counties from players participating in the domesticT20 comps

Especially that, as it turns out - and the counties only discovered this two weeks ago - that the ECB have been secretly pocketing IPL money for every player who goes there!!

 

[GotSpin]

I mean the IPL compensation might turn the bitter pill a little sweeter, but I think it's quite an overwhelming loss anyway

 

[Borges]

The view from the other (primarily, non big three) side. This is what AB has to say:

That he was prepared to sacrifice Tests but continue playing in the IPL, where he picks up £1.3m a season with RCB, did not sit well among traditionalists. The time off meant six series missed, including trips to Australia and England, but De Villiers is in no doubt it has prolonged his time in the sport.

Would an innings like the one witnessed in Port Elizabeth have been possible without the breather? “Maybe not. Maybe I would have been done. Retired. All I know is when I came back, it was like I was 23 again. It was a dream. That’s how I want to play. You’re not supposed to be going through the motions. I had been in a bad place and needed the time away. It’s difficult to explain and probably others wouldn’t understand but everyone’s story is different. Playing for 14 years, having a family, saying goodbye for months – I struggled.
...
And of continuing in the IPL during this time? “I got nailed for that. It was horrible but this is a tournament I cannot miss. I’m not going to sit here and lie to you; financially it is just too good for us as a family. Seven weeks away is not easy and they will come out at some stage. It’s not ideal but it has to be done. English and Australian players are paid well, so it’s not always a must to come over. For the rest it is something you have to fit in. If you’re working in South African rands, it’s nice to get a few dollars in the bank.”

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...outh-africa-australia-ball-tampering-sympathy