What do you think about India flexing its muscles?

[silentstriker]

Is it a good thing if the best test teams (India, England, Australia, Pakistan) played each other more often, in Ashes-style 5 match series?

What happens to the 'poorer' teams?

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

....South Africa

 

[silentstriker]

Errr...sure. South Africa. Is there a more uninteresting team in international cricket?

But yes, South Africa would be on that list.

 

[Armadillo]

Is it a good thing if the best test teams (India, England, Australia, Pakistan) played each other more often, in Ashes-style 5 match series?

What happens to the 'poorer' teams?

How is that 'India flexing its muscles'?

 

[silentstriker]

They pretty much withdrew from the Challenger series, canceled the tour to new zealand, about to undertake a smaller tour to west indies, and are threatening to set up their own touring program outside of the ICC FTP.

The new regime's goal is to extract as much money out of international cricket as possible. There are several articles on Cricinfo giving various opinions on the subject. The problem is that over 50% of total income of cricket is generated out of India. This could hurt countries like WI, SL and others that rely on Indian money to keep themselves going.

Australia/England/Pakistan would benefit, as they'd get more money as they would play India more. But the rest probably wouldn't. The problem is that Australia/England/Pakistan/SA have enough money to survive with or without India...but the rest might not have enough money to be as competitive if India stopped playing them (or even if they cut back significantly).

 

[Blaze]

The thing that annoys me is that India aren't actually better than any of the other teams ranked 3-7. When was the last time they won a series away from home?

 

[silentstriker]

The thing that annoys me is that India aren't actually better than any of the other teams ranked 3-7. When was the last time they won a series away from home?

Outside the subcontinent: 1986. Against England, I believe. Zimbabwe doesn't count, obviously.

No, they aren't better than the other teams except at home. But they generate more $$ than any other team..and that counts a lot.

 

[Langeveldt]

Errr...sure. South Africa. Is there a more uninteresting team in international cricket?.

yes.. The USA..

 

[danish]

yes.. The USA..

Just because they are substandard, it doesn't means that they are not interesting. In fact, because they are substandard, they are fascinating.

 

[Langeveldt]

Anyway, do I care about India.. Not really..

It's a case of unromantic, money grabbing capitalism with no interest in cricket taking over unromantic, money grabbing incompetency with no spine.. So India are the lesser of two evils when pitched against the ICC

 

[silentstriker]

Anyway, do I care about India.. Not really..

It's a case of unromantic, money grabbing capitalism with no interest in cricket taking over unromantic, money grabbing incompetency with no spine.. So India are the lesser of two evils when pitched against the ICC

Very true. But even though I am an India fan, I am very apprehensive about an organization that basically has its own agenda and not that of the cricket fan having so much power. They are not transparent at all, and no one doubts that there are some shady things going on with so much money in Indian cricket.

If they actually were a competent organization run like AUS or ENG cricket boards, then I'd be happy about the change.

But the corrupt BCCI? BCCI are not much better than Bvute and Chingoka. Except they hide it better. I wouldn't want them running anything.

 

[Langeveldt]

Very true. But even though I am an India fan, I am very apprehensive about an organization that basically has its own agenda and not that of the cricket fan having so much power. They are not transparent at all, and no one doubts that there are some shady things going on with so much money in Indian cricket.

If they actually were a competent organization run like AUS or ENG cricket boards, then I'd be happy about the change.

But the corrupt BCCI? BCCI are not much better than Bvute and Chingoka. Except they hide it better. I wouldn't want them running anything.

It looks like we have no choice..

Money talks, BS walks...

 

[silentstriker]

It looks like we have no choice..

Money talks, BS walks...

I realize that, but my question was: "Is this an improvement over the ICC?" You seem to think so, I am still not sure.

 

[Langeveldt]

I realize that, but my question was: "Is this an improvement over the ICC?" You seem to think so, I am still not sure.

In my eyes you can't get worse than the ICC.. Test cricket functioned, as did one day cricket, perfectly well before the ICC was even thought up..

Since then they have
- Introduced mind numbing schedules of cricket, burning out both players and spectators
- Managed to lose two entire nations of cricketers - Kenya and Zimbabwe.. I mean how can you LOSE an entire nation?
- Handled the chucking affair with all the nouse and confusion of a slightly off banana
- Introduced such spectacles as the ICC "super" world series
- Introduced super things like "super" subs and "super" power plays.. What next, super umpires?

I think the only thing they have actually done for the game, is handle the match fixing crisis with a bit of conviction.. for once they actually grew a spine

So yeah, if the BCCI can do worse, then it will be an interesting few years!

 

[Smudge]

yes.. The USA..

How can any team that has Fardin as a future international be considered uninteresting?

 

[BoyBrumby]

How can any team that has Fardin as a future international be considered uninteresting?

Quite right. I'm expecting a strong showing from The Magical Land of Make-believe in the next ICC Trophy...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

They pretty much withdrew from the Challenger series, canceled the tour to new zealand, about to undertake a smaller tour to west indies, and are threatening to set up their own touring program outside of the ICC FTP.

About to? Really? The President of the WICB said in a speech yesterday that they are yet to receive a formal request from the BCCI. Even so, simply because the BCCI requests it doesn't mean it will come to pass.

 

[swede]

Is it a good thing if the best test teams (India, England, Australia, Pakistan) played each other more often, in Ashes-style 5 match series?

What happens to the 'poorer' teams?

It is a good thing, as the ICC´s idea about everyone playing everyone isnt good for cricket.

cricket needs its top sides to play eachother regularly over 5-match series. I hope it leads to that.

I am also not worried about India dominating too much.
If they became unreasonable, I would expect England and Australia to stick together as they want the ashes and then the windies, south africa and NZ would join them, which is enough to be able to stage lots of good cricket meaning India cant go too far and I dont think they will.

what happens to the minnows is the difficult one.

Basically the top teams will want to play the minnows if they can perform but not when they cant. this suggest a division system but the top teams also want to safeguard the more consistently popular fixtures.

I think we are looking at some sort of informal 2 division system where some of the teams cant be relegated but others can.
It may be unfair but its the only way, really, and it could work well enough.

It would basically mean that if India or England keep getting hammered then they would still get the top fixtures whereas New Zealand or bangladesh would lose such fixtures but its ok for me if NZ can get back to play the top teams if they start to play well.

we cant be completly fair as its bad for cricket and frankly NZ with a 4 million population and cricket well down the popularity list, it wouldnt be fair to let them stand in the way.

 

[andyc]

I think it's very possibly going to have a pretty detrimental effect on the game.

 

[Langeveldt]

Errr...sure. South Africa. Is there a more uninteresting team in international cricket?

But yes, South Africa would be on that list.

Ah yes, sorry I forgot that Kemp, Pollock, Nel, Ntini, Gibbs, Boucher etc. were actually really boring.. thanks for enlightening me