Unpopular cricket opinions

[sayon basak]

Jadeja is basically a Hobbs level batsman and a Barnes level bowler in one though.

You should've concluded jadeja>kallis then. Also are we discarding Hobb's and Barne's number as a whole? Then everybody today is better than them.

 

[SteveNZ]

Honestly this doesn't really track considering the actions of the Pig 2/3 boards ****ing up Tests predate T20 and franchise cricket. The ICC of the 1900s (Eng, Aus and SA) basically ****ed up international cricket and are just now realizing the long-term ramifications.

Honest question, without influence - what did the ICC do in the 20th century that led to **** ups in the 21st?

The idea of having only Commonwealth teams as Test nations and basically locking out other decent cricketing nations during that period from joining the club. You know, the same sort of problems as now with smaller Test nations barely getting Tests against anyone, and the pathway to Test status basically being thrown out. Thought people would get it easily smh.

OK, read this now...so you blame the current malaise (if it exists) on the fact that nations outside the top 8, let's say, not being given opportunities? So if we'd heavily invested in Ireland, Scotland, Afghanistan, Canada, Nepal, etc from those days, international cricket would be thriving? And T20 would be no issue?

I can't say I agree, given that pre 2008, the accepted boom of T20, Test cricket and ODI cricket was in pretty rude health.

 

[Xix2565]

I don't think this is really true? There wasn't any concerted effort to attract more countries to the sport, sure, but when countries showed interest they were generally given test status fairly early on (so long as English imperialists saw the colony wanting to join as sufficiently de-attached from the empire) and played plenty tests, a large percentage against England themselves. Blaming Australia for that is also odd – while culpable for many things, they didn't have much of a say in these matters; the ICC was for a very long time the Imperial Cricket Council after all, and not that prominent.

Oh and I've implied that England suck multiple times in the above paragraph, but it's worth being explicit about the fact that England (the English state) are sucky bastards who suck big-time and their sucky paternalistic viewpoint still pervades their peoples' sucky and strangely insular outlook on (/ over) world cricket.

I disagree with the first paragraph, given that countries like the US and Argentina were basically ignored for no real reason despite having as much if not more cricketing talent than teams like early India and NZ. You can't really ignore a place for years and then blame it for not showing interest when it's your (the ICC trio then) fault things progressed that way. Especially when the reasons for SA wanting such a system (they were the reason the ICC became a thing) and the ICC later inviting NZ in weren't always about cricket. The 2nd paragraph is spot on tbh, but applies beyond England as well.

 

[Xix2565]

Honest question, without influence - what did the ICC do in the 20th century that led to **** ups in the 21st?



OK, read this now...so you blame the current malaise (if it exists) on the fact that nations outside the top 8, let's say, not being given opportunities? So if we'd heavily invested in Ireland, Scotland, Afghanistan, Canada, Nepal, etc from those days, international cricket would be thriving? And T20 would be no issue?

I can't say I agree, given that pre 2008, the accepted boom of T20, Test cricket and ODI cricket was in pretty rude health.

Used essentially by SA to guarantee games with England and Australia (all generally white teams at the time). And then the boards basically picked and chose teams to join 'the club' on reasons not really relevant to cricket, which doesn't seem like the greatest idea for a sport to grow or even for the boards to earn money in general.

I blame it more on the fact that the teams in question and others in the past weren't really part of the main circle and have since generally found the path to it being blocked and undermined by a bunch of BS. You can't really tell me that having more competitive teams in various formats isn't going to generate interest (and money) when they play with the main sides in series and tournaments. And I don't feel like T20s are the big boogeyman hurting Tests like some of the sentiment seen here and elsewhere. IMO it's more to do with the conservative mentality running the show.

 

[Starfighter]

I disagree with the first paragraph, given that countries like the US and Argentina were basically ignored for no real reason despite having as much if not more cricketing talent than teams like early India and NZ. You can't really ignore a place for years and then blame it for not showing interest when it's your (the ICC trio then) fault things progressed that way. Especially when the reasons for SA wanting such a system (they were the reason the ICC became a thing) and the ICC later inviting NZ in weren't always about cricket. The 2nd paragraph is spot on tbh, but applies beyond England as well.

In the USA cricket was dying long before 1900 and was largely restricted to Philadelphia by that time. It was comprehensively outcompeted by baseball, which notably also happened in Canada. In Argentina it was largely restricted to the English population. Without a professional structure and cachet amongst the wider population it had little chance of lasting against football.

I blame it more on the fact that the teams in question and others in the past weren't really part of the main circle and have since generally found the path to it being blocked and undermined by a bunch of BS. You can't really tell me that having more competitive teams in various formats isn't going to generate interest (and money) when they play with the main sides in series and tournaments. And I don't feel like T20s are the big boogeyman hurting Tests like some of the sentiment seen here and elsewhere. IMO it's more to do with the conservative mentality running the show.

The IPL's swallowed most of the WI home season and its export offshoot's now taken part of SA's. We already see players don't commit to the WI side, reducing their competitiveness, and this'll likely spread. And ICC money that might be invested in, say, east Africa instead goes elsewhere. The current financial incentives are pulling towards an NFL-like structure, which won't help make more competitive teams. Bellyaching about bad decisions made before WWII, no matter how morally repugnant their motives, doesn't excuse deleterious decisions being made in the game today, nor does your country being the main beneficiary.

 

[Xix2565]

In the USA cricket was dying long before 1900 and was largely restricted to Philadelphia by that time. It was comprehensively outcompeted by baseball, which notably also happened in Canada. In Argentina it was largely restricted to the English population. Without a professional structure and cachet amongst the wider population it had little chance of lasting against football.


The IPL's swallowed most of the WI home season and its export offshoot's now taken part of SA's. We already see players don't commit to the WI side, reducing their competitiveness, and this'll likely spread. And ICC money that might be invested in, say, east Africa instead goes elsewhere. The current financial incentives are pulling towards an NFL-like structure, which won't help make more competitive teams. Bellyaching about bad decisions made before WWII, no matter how morally repugnant their motives, doesn't excuse deleterious decisions being made in the game today, nor does your country being the main beneficiary.

You didn't really respond to my points tbh. It wasn't like they couldn't have alleviated some of the issues now by acting differently then. It's worth bringing up as much as the current circlejerks if not just to show how the current boards shouldn't behave.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You can debate whether it's better or worse for cricket as a whole, but claiming that the rise of T20 hasn't hurt Test cricket is wild

You didn't really respond to my points tbh. It wasn't like they couldn't have alleviated some of the issues now by acting differently then. It's worth bringing up as much as the current circlejerks if not just to show how the current boards shouldn't behave.

Learning from the past is important, but I think most would agree that the current issues are a lot more relevant

 

[Starfighter]

You didn't really respond to my points tbh. It wasn't like they couldn't have alleviated some of the issues now by acting differently then. It's worth bringing up as much as the current circlejerks if not just to show how the current boards shouldn't behave.

Your post was dismissing current issues because of something that happened before any of us, even JBMAC, were alive. Those actions simply don't excuse mistakes being made now.

You can debate whether it's better or worse for cricket as a whole, but claiming that the rise of T20 hasn't hurt Test cricket is wild

Yeah, I don't see how this is even debatable.

 

[Xix2565]

It isn't totally dismissive to say the T20 format is being overrated as the big monster at the moment. Just feels like you don't want to hear that tbh.

 

[ataraxia]

It isn't totally dismissive to say the T20 format is being overrated as the big monster at the moment. Just feels like you don't want to hear that tbh.

I mean, I'm absolutely open to that view, but make some sort of coherent argument please with at least a morsel of evidence to back it up because you're losing by miles.

 

[Xix2565]

I mean, I'm absolutely open to that view, but make some sort of coherent argument please with at least a morsel of evidence to back it up because you're losing by miles.

Really don't get where this is coming from, the people responding to me are just acting like I said something else entirely. How is that losing by miles or making incoherent points? Starfighter just decided for some reason I was acting like it's nothing and went on a tangent.

 

[ataraxia]

Really don't get where this is coming from, the people responding to me are just acting like I said something else entirely. How is that losing by miles or making incoherent points? Starfighter just decided for some reason I was acting like it's nothing and went on a tangent.

Ok we can either talk about that or we can talk about the stuff that happened in the 20th century that you know comparatively **** all about. You choose.

Apologies for misleading you re the quality of your argument; it isn't that the argument consists of incoherent points but rather not very many actual points at all.

 

[Starfighter]

Really don't get where this is coming from, the people responding to me are just acting like I said something else entirely. How is that losing by miles or making incoherent points? Starfighter just decided for some reason I was acting like it's nothing and went on a tangent.

You said:

And I don't feel like T20s are the big boogeyman hurting Tests like some of the sentiment seen here and elsewhere.

Between teams not playing tests for chunks of their season to fit in their T20 tournaments, WI practically losing their original home season (hence now playing in the wet season) and players choosing T20 over international, it's pretty clear T20s are hurting test cricket.

 

[Daemon]

Test cricket has been saved by bazball, which is a direct result of T20 aggression. Therefore T20s saved Test cricket.

 

[SteveNZ]

It isn't totally dismissive to say the T20 format is being overrated as the big monster at the moment. Just feels like you don't want to hear that tbh.

I'm open to hearing it, I'm waiting to hear what actually is the issue. I don't buy the original issue lying with associate nations not being given opportunities

 

[peterhrt]

Used essentially by SA to guarantee games with England and Australia (all generally white teams at the time). And then the boards basically picked and chose teams to join 'the club' on reasons not really relevant to cricket, which doesn't seem like the greatest idea for a sport to grow or even for the boards to earn money in general.

I blame it more on the fact that the teams in question and others in the past weren't really part of the main circle and have since generally found the path to it being blocked and undermined by a bunch of BS. You can't really tell me that having more competitive teams in various formats isn't going to generate interest (and money) when they play with the main sides in series and tournaments. And I don't feel like T20s are the big boogeyman hurting Tests like some of the sentiment seen here and elsewhere. IMO it's more to do with the conservative mentality running the show.

There is some truth in this. South Africa were behind the formation of the ICC in 1909, wanting fixtures as part of a Big 3. Australia were opposed. Britain was keen to mine for South African gold and other minerals. The South African government needed British investment. This was the sole reason behind The Triangular Tournament of 1912. No cricketers thought it was a good idea. It was also the reason why early SA v E matches were wrongly awarded Test status in retrospect.

MCC limited the ICC (Imperial Cricket Conference) to the empire to maintain control. India, New Zealand and West Indies joined in 1926. Nobody outside the empire was interested anyway. The Australians toured North America in 1932 with Bradman averaging 100. Locally the tour was viewed as a curiosity, nothing more.

The three ICC founder members received two votes each, other members one. Ceylon were refused membership in 1946, Pakistan belatedly accepted in 1952. Pakistan railed loudest against the status quo, supported by India and West Indies. New Zealand supported the founder members. The main objection was the Test fixture list, still monopolised by England, Australia and South Africa playing each other.

Sharpeville in 1960 and South Africa's subsequent withdrawal from the Commonwealth widened the gap between white and non-white cricket administrations. Under the ICC constitution, South Africa were expelled from the organisation and from official Tests. But the white nations kept playing them as if nothing had happened, until forced to stop by protests within their own countries.

Today's Big 3 exercise a similar monopoly on power to the 3 of the first half of the 20th century. India has replaced South Africa, and has also replaced MCC as the major power-broker. The IPL has replaced the County Championship as cricket's bread and butter.

 

[LangleyburyCCPlayer]

Over rate penalties are necessary and good.

Rather in-game punishments than WTC points deducted

 

[SteveNZ]

Rather in-game punishments than WTC points deducted

It befitted us, but Australia not making the inaugural final on run rates was unnecessarily harsh. I loved it though, because Tim Paine is a ****wit.

 

[swede]

You said:

Between teams not playing tests for chunks of their season to fit in their T20 tournaments, WI practically losing their original home season (hence now playing in the wet season) and players choosing T20 over international, it's pretty clear T20s are hurting test cricket.

T20 is a threat to cricket, but t20 not existing would be an even bigger threat. In most countries, there would be very little money in cricket without t20, meaning young talent would choose other sports.

The biggest threat to test cricket is not getting rid of one-day cricket at the highest level and not organising a world cup or similar tournament for test cricket. Bilateral series are not going to do it for new countries. or most of the old.

 

[SteveNZ]

T20 is a threat to cricket, but t20 not existing would be an even bigger threat. In most countries, there would be very little money in cricket without t20, meaning young talent would choose other sports.

The biggest threat to test cricket is not getting rid of one-day cricket at the highest level and not organising a world cup or similar tournament for test cricket. Bilateral series are not going to do it for new countries. or most of the old.

I don't think anyone with intelligence would advocate for no T20. I mean, I would love that world - I loved it lots before 2008 - but I'm not dumb enough to think the cricket world would be better without it.

And I couldn't disagree more that the biggest threat to Test cricket is not getting rid of one-day cricket. How so? A World Cup of Test cricket, if you think through it logistically, would be a nightmare. It might sound good in theory but that isn't working on a financial, logistically and calendar-based operational level. Then if you get rid of ODIs, you have the WTC - which becomes irrelevant for all but 2-3 sides reasonably early on - and T20 World events which are cotton candy. Tasty to some, completely undesirable to others, ultimately unfulfilling.