• 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.

Are you confident in the ICC?

The ICC

  • Generally good for the game

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .

steds

Hall of Fame Member
Aren't doing the greatest job in the world, but it could be worse. George Bush could be in charge of cricket :p
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
I'd also like to clarify that the timing of this pole has absolutely NOTHING to do with the ICC recently branding Allan Donald as a chucker...
 

JASON

Cricketer Of The Year
There's lot of concerns about Umpiring and using Technology as the recent India V Australia series showed !!

They have not bothered to address concerns by many Teams regarding Quality of Umpires and as to why they persistently end up with Poor Umpiring decisions while some others end up with better decisions at crucial times in games etc.

There doesn't seem to be any serious attempt to address issues like this.

At least on the Murali issue, they have finally released results of their analysis and seem to be getting somewhere in resolving it !

The doubters will no doubt (pardon the pun) continue to question the findings, regardless, even if GOD turned up to tell them otherwise !!
 
Last edited:

JASON

Cricketer Of The Year
Langeveldt said:
I'd also like to clarify that the timing of this pole has absolutely NOTHING to do with the ICC recently branding Allan Donald as a chucker...
At least my long standing doubts about his dodgy action have been vindicated !! :laugh:
 

Tim

Cricketer Of The Year
Yeah but according to this survey even greats like Hadlee, Ambrose, Lillee etc were chuckers.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
No, Actually Only Murali is a Chucker and only he needs to go through investigations and allegetions millions of times.
 

Legglancer

State Regular
Tim said:
Yeah but according to this survey even greats like Hadlee, Ambrose, Lillee etc were chuckers.

I always doubted that many international bowlers actions were not proper ... especially when fast bowlers bowl bouncers, But the naked eye can play tricks on you ! Finally this matter has been scientifically investigated and the results speak for themselves.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The last World Cup was a shambles and it was a miracle the Champions Trophy wasn't infinitely worse being held in September. Then there's the Zimbabwe situation - How the hell am I the only one who voted for the couldn't organise a pi........... so far?

Almost forgot the Kenya situation as well - no matches for 18 months, unbelievable. Any remotely competent sport governing body would have had them playing Tests let alone one-dayers at a competitive level by now.
 
Last edited:

Langeveldt

Soutie
Scaly piscine said:
September. Then there's the Zimbabwe situation - How the hell am I the only one who voted for the couldn't organise a pi........... so far?
Because I haven't voted... I couldn't think of what was worse than that...

Maybe "It's so tragic i'm laughing.."
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
What will they do if another survey in two year's time shows ninety percent of the bowlers in the world bend between 16 and 19 degrees ??

Hike the limit to 20, then 25 !!!

Ridiculous. This is what you get when you think avoiding a problem is a far more convenient than showing the b**** to confront it head on.

The ICC is made up of pansies and takes on cricketers , some 'legendry' (and administrators) who are better suited to take on Koffi Annan's job than of the President of a crisis ridden country.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I think the ICC have made a lot of mistakes and they might continue to make a lot of mistakes. But atleast, they keep things under some semblance of control. The Murali issue could have so easily gotten bigger than it already had. So, I think they are doing an average job.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
honestbharani said:
I think the ICC have made a lot of mistakes and they might continue to make a lot of mistakes. But atleast, they keep things under some semblance of control. The Murali issue could have so easily gotten bigger than it already had. So, I think they are doing an average job.
I think we say that because we havent seen anything different. Its like the monopoly of a state owned enterprise system. In India we had public sector companies that actually proved (with statistics) that they were amongst the best run companies in the world !!

Came private competition and poof :blowup:
They couldnt even survive let alone be considered anywhere near the best.

Its something like that. ICC should not be measured by their own (or MCC's) worse standards of earlier times. They can only be judged (for want of a better measure) by the efficiency with which they function, the speed and quality of their decision making and the professionalism that goes into the decision making process.

On these they will be found wanting by any outside (even non-cricketing) panel of management experts.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
SJS said:
I think we say that because we havent seen anything different. Its like the monopoly of a state owned enterprise system. In India we had public sector companies that actually proved (with statistics) that they were amongst the best run companies in the world !!

Came private competition and poof :blowup:
They couldnt even survive let alone be considered anywhere near the best.

Its something like that. ICC should not be measured by their own (or MCC's) worse standards of earlier times. They can only be judged (for want of a better measure) by the efficiency with which they function, the speed and quality of their decision making and the professionalism that goes into the decision making process.

On these they will be found wanting by any outside (even non-cricketing) panel of management experts.
I guess you may be right. But I am still willing to give them the benefit of doubt.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
garage flower said:
Call me cynical, but has this thread been created as another thinly-veiled dig at Murali?
Whether anyone likes it or not, this new report has totally exposed the hollowness of earlier claims.

I am all for a uniform, verifiable (preferably on the field of play) criteria of what constitutes a throw. But you cant shift goal posts depending upon who or how many people are affected ?

The 5, 7.5, 10 15% criteria for different types of bowling was totally arbitrary and ridiculous. All it achieved was to disallow one particular type of bowling from Murali's armoury, nothing more. But we all pretended that it was fair and scietific and therefore objective. If anything, some felt that it should be tighter, basically because it allowed Murali to still bowl other deliveries which were also bowled with a bent elbow.

Now when they find others are also transgressing this 'arbitrary' limit fixed, they flex it to 'accomodate' them. Why ? If they can show this flexibility for a few why shouldnt it be shown for one Murali. Where is the logic that a 'throw' is not a 'throw' if a larger number of people employ it ?

Either they were wrong then in banning the doosra or they are wrong now in allowing it.Whcichever is true does no credit to ICC or the 'experts' involved in the decision making. I suspect it is worse than being wrong. It doesnt matter to ICC any more whether what they hand out is right or wrong, all that matters is, what is more 'convinient' and more politically palatable !!
 

Loony BoB

International Captain
I think they're addressing a lot of issues but I don't think they did well in Zimbabwe at all, in any way. It was diabolical (or however you spell that word). Other than that, they're 'okay', though.
 

Top