BCCI make their own cricketing calendar

[GotSpin]

Just hope ICC make a stupid decision

 

[Neil Pickup]

Can't the ICC take Test status from the games? Not sure this would affect the BCCI or the statisticians though.

Won't have any effect at all - remember the Denness Test?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Won't have any effect at all - remember the Denness Test?

Is the "Denness test" counted in official stats as a test?

FWIW I read somewhere recently that India brings in over 50% of revenue to world cricket now, so it's inevitable they're going to want a larger slice of the pie.

EDIT: Article here: http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cricket/theobserver/story/0,,1681566,00.html

 

[luckyeddie]

Won't have any effect at all - remember the Denness Test?

Umpires is the only real stumbling-block I can see, if they want to put their corporate foot down.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Is the "Denness test" counted in official stats as a test?

FWIW I read somewhere recently that India brings in over 50% of revenue to world cricket now, so it's inevitable they're going to want a larger slice of the pie.

EDIT: Article here: http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cricket/theobserver/story/0,,1681566,00.html

Not AFAIK - my point was that it won't stop the BCCI/etc in the same way as it never stopped Packer.

And a large enough cheque would be able to convince a few umpires, I'd wager.

 

[Wazim]

I do not like the idea of BCCI making their own faction, but I do believe Australia, England, South Africa and New Zealand get more home games than any other team. I think, there needs to be less cricket. Too much cricket is being played. Teams like Pakistan and India have no break till World Cup 2007 only to fulfill the FTP.

I think it is time they ban Zimbabwe. The current situation is pathetic and it is time to ban Zimbabwe from world cricket, similar they did to SA in the 70 and 80s. Even if it takes 20 years as it did with the apartheid, then be so and let it happen.

Restrict Bangladesh to home tests, or atleast cut down the amount of times a team is required to play Bangaldesh. You have to play the team 4 times within a 10 period time? MAke it 2 times for a team like Bangladesh until they begin to win some more games. I still think they should be restricted to home games more than the idea above, since they can still be competitive but do not waste the host nations resources to host them since they do n ot attract much.

 

[Slats4ever]

maybe if you prepared better pitches then maybe more games would be played in pakistan

 

[Wazim]

Very wise a$$ comment there. First of all, if you are commenting on the recent Lahore pitch, then do some research. The weather did not allow to make a sporting track.

In the 13 prior tests to this current one, there have only been 2 drawn matches in Pakistan(and those two both going down to the wire). England series we made good wickets, considering we did win 2 out of the 3 games!

 

[vic_orthdox]

Very wise a$$ comment there. First of all, if you are commenting on the recent Lahore pitch, then do some research. The weather did not allow to make a sporting track.

In the 13 prior tests to this current one, there have only been 2 drawn matches in Pakistan(and those two both going down to the wire). England series we made good wickets, considering we did win 2 out of the 3 games!

Filter's there for a reason. Don't avoid it.

 

[Slats4ever]

Very wise a$$ comment there. First of all, if you are commenting on the recent Lahore pitch, then do some research. The weather did not allow to make a sporting track.

In the 13 prior tests to this current one, there have only been 2 drawn matches in Pakistan(and those two both going down to the wire). England series we made good wickets, considering we did win 2 out of the 3 games!

my most recent memory of Australia going to asia was their match against India at Mumbai. What a pitch.

 

[C_C]

my most recent memory of Australia going to asia was their match against India at Mumbai. What a pitch.

I don't get it. If OZ can have a traditional minefield pitch like WACA ( albeit its been toned down recently- till mid/late 90s atleast it was a pacer's paradise), whats wrong with having a spinner's minefield again ?

 

[vic_orthdox]

I don't get it. If OZ can have a traditional minefield pitch like WACA ( albeit its been toned down recently- till mid/late 90s atleast it was a pacer's paradise), whats wrong with having a spinner's minefield again ?

Minefield? How can a ground where the average runs per wicket in the 4th innings is 29 (up until the end of the millenium) and where there has never been a side bowled out for less than 100 in the 4th innings be described as a "minefield"?

 

[C_C]

Minefield? How can a ground where the average runs per wicket in the 4th innings is 29 (up until the end of the millenium) and where there has never been a side bowled out for less than 100 in the 4th innings be described as a "minefield"?

Well there have been several low-scoring affairs on WACA as well - i think if you play on a type of pitch long enough, you will produce almost all spectrum of scores but the average would reflect the nature of the pitch. Ie, there have been quite a few matches on WACA where one side ( or both) failed to make 100 or barely made 200. And there have been a few matches were 400+ has been achieved too.But overall, WACA has been a bowling paradise-its been a minefield a few times and semi-batting friendly a few. I think a pitch like Mumbai is much the same way, except it is for spin what WACA is for pace. And if the same type of pitch is produced in Mumbai match after match, i am sure you'd see a team or two whack 300 or 400+.

 

[Deja moo]

Minefield? How can a ground where the average runs per wicket in the 4th innings is 29 (up until the end of the millenium) and where there has never been a side bowled out for less than 100 in the 4th innings be described as a "minefield"?

How does 4th innings come into it when assessing the WACA ? It doesnt bounce sky high only in the 4th innings there.

 

[social]

The WACA traditionally has been accepted as a fantastic cricket wicket AND excellent to bat on once players were used to its' intricacies.

However, players from the sub-continent (and AUS vs the WI) have generally struggled there because of its pace and bounce.

Except for rare occasions, it could never be described as a minefield.

 

[C_C]

The WACA traditionally has been accepted as a fantastic cricket wicket AND excellent to bat on once players were used to its' intricacies.

However, players from the sub-continent (and AUS vs the WI) have generally struggled there because of its pace and bounce.

Except for rare occasions, it could never be described as a minefield.

And playes from OZ/ENG have traditionally struggled on spinning wickets. In anycase, WACA is one of the favourite haunting grounds of fast bowlers, so much so that the OZ media went up in arms for WACA being picked as a designated venue for OZ-WI series in the early 90s, given the reputation of the WI pace battery. The average innings score at WACA is also one of the lowest in the late 90s and before period.
As usual, your twists and turns knows no bounds.
And as usual, cultural bias against spin-friendly wickets rears its ugly head yet again ( but not pace-friendly wickets!).

 

[luckyeddie]

How does 4th innings come into it when assessing the WACA ? It doesnt bounce sky high only in the 4th innings there.

What's the problem with a bit of bounce anyway, shorty?

(Someone to accuse me of being 'heightist' in 5....4....3....)

 

[luckyeddie]

And as usual, cultural bias against spin-friendly wickets rears its ugly head yet again ( but not pace-friendly wickets!).

Oh, just shut up.

There's already one drivel-oriented thread.

 

[C_C]

What's the problem with a bit of bounce anyway, shorty?

(Someone to accuse me of being 'heightist' in 5....4....3....)

None whatsoever. Just like there is no problem with nimble footwork and square-turners.

 

[luckyeddie]

None whatsoever. Just like there is no problem with nimble footwork and square-turners.

I was brought up on a diet of the likes of Dexter and Cowdrey.