BCCI make their own cricketing calendar

[Deja moo]

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

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

Theres no problem . Its when turning pitches alone are described as minefields that we have a problem on our hands.

 

[Sanz]

It seems to me that BCCI has different priorities now a days. Majority of Indians have not been able to watch the current Indo-Pak series but that seems to be of least concern for BCCI, they are more interested in going on a collison path with ICC. BCCI and most Indian fans keep bragging about how the revenue comes from India and all that, but they keep forgetting that Revenues will come only if people get to watch the games.

BCCI have made sure that poor in India dont watch cricket, they have made sure that those who cant afford to pay hefty amounts to cable companies are not able to watch cricket. They have also made sure that people in remote areas of the country (where cable hasn't reached yet) dont get to watch cricket. For them money is more important, money which going to sit in the BCCI coffers and rot. As if that was not enough, BCCI ahs made sure that even the All India Radio doesn't get to broadcast the audio commentry. This is a first in the History of Indian Cricket.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/4619530.stm


Left in the dark
By Ayanjit Sen
BBC, Delhi

Aggrieved kiosk owner in Delhi, Kumar

When India star Virender Sehwag hit his blistering double-century in the first Test against Pakistan in Lahore, many back home were oblivious.

Rajesh Kumar, a roadside kiosk owner in Delhi, was one of many who felt the excitement a bit late. A friend of his came from nearby to update him with the score.

Kumar, a regular listener of cricket on the radio, does not have the luxury of cable television, mobile alerts or desktop pop-ups in his shop - and as a result, he is currently missing out.

"I am missing the excitement of listening to live commentary on radio. The India-Pakistan series is always a big affair but providing a few match updates during the day is just not enough," says Kumar.

The government-owned station, All India Radio, is not able to provide live broadcast of the ongoing India-Pakistan series after negotiations with the global radio rights holder, ARY Digital, failed to yield any positive results.

Mahesh, a food vendor, was also aggrieved.


Cable television is not available in many rural areas

Dehi vendor Mahesh

"I could not believe when the game started without us," he says. "I love the game and the government should make it sure that common people like us should not miss out on the excitement."

The matches are also shown on cable television but that is not something shop owners, taxi drivers and office-goers can rely on very frequently.

"Nearby shop owners used to often assemble near my shop to listen to live commentary during the 2004 India-Pakistan series. But all that is no more there now," says Mahesh.

"Television cannot match the excitement when you hear cricket commentary on radio. Also, cable television is not available in many rural areas in the country."

Some experts say the commercialisation of the game is depriving people like Kumar and Mahesh of the excitement of a cricket match.

But television and radio commentator Harsha Bhogle says the popularity of the game will not be dampened without live broadcast of one series.

"The game will not move forward without commercialisation," he insisted.

 

[swede]

India make up 50% of the income. Is it not likely it will soon be 80% given the economic growth there.
If they for monetary reasons push forward better cricket such as 5-test series between the top sides then thats only great.
Forcing top sides to play minnows allowing little time for the top series is simply a flawed system. If the ICC dont get that, then I am not bothered about the BCCI doing it.

 

[swede]

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!).

Is it allowed to consider subcontinental tests often less entertaining than others or is that just an intolerable "cultural" attack.

If I honestly looked forward more o ENG v AUS than PAK v ENG also because of the kind of cricket the pitches would produce am I then holding an opinion about cricket or is it just a vicious cultural attack?

 

[luckyeddie]

India make up 50% of the income. Is it not likely it will soon be 80% given the economic growth there.
If they for monetary reasons push forward better cricket such as 5-test series between the top sides then thats only great.
Forcing top sides to play minnows allowing little time for the top series is simply a flawed system. If the ICC dont get that, then I am not bothered about the BCCI doing it.

I don't see anyone having any objection whatsoever regarding India having 5-test series against Australia or England, especially at home - and if enough people want to see the games, away as well. Is that the issue here, though? After all, two of the three proposed tours of India don't have any tests so what's the big deal?

Personally, I really don't care what happens any more - it's all so politically charged. Wake me up when India have decided the future of cricket.

 

[Pratters]

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

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

Nothing - and nothing is wrong with a spinning wicket either.

Its the variations which make cricket interesting. Pitches which are dangerous to the players are the ones which are objectionable and have resulted in matches being called off.

Generally I do not see why people moan about wickets when they loose in an away scenario.

 

[Pratters]

LONDON (Reuters) - The International Cricket Council (ICC) has warned India against making unilateral decisions about the cricket calendar after the Indian board said it would not take part in the Champions Trophy after this year.

The ICC said in a news release from its headquarters in Dubia on Tuesday that chief executive Malcolm Speed had written to Indian cricket's ruling body (BCCI) "to remind it of the obligations it has as a member of the international cricket community".

"The President (Ehsan Mani) and I are both very concerned that BCCI is moving ahead and taking what appear to be unilateral decisions that are contrary to ICC policy as agreed by the ICC members including BCCI," Speed wrote.

The Indian board, who are staging the one-day Champions Trophy from October 7 to November 5 this year, said on Monday India would not be free to take part in future years.

It argued that holding the trophy in October broke into India's season and so cut revenue.

The biennial Champions Trophy was launched in 1998 to raise money for the ICC's development projects. BCCI vice-president Lalit Modi said on Monday the event had been scheduled so that it did not clash with Australia's or England's season.

"If others want to play they can. Why should we play in October," he said.

In its statement the ICC said decisions taken at a meeting in Auckland in 2004 resolving to adopt a future tours programme were binding on India as on all members of the ICC.

"Any attempt by a Member to amend it unilaterally without the consent of the ICC Executive Board is invalid," the ICC quoted Speed as saying.

It added that the "next appropriate forums to discuss ICC policy were the Chief Executives' Committee and Executive Board meetings scheduled for February and March 2006 respectively."

Reuters

 

[vic_orthdox]

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

Many of the times, when the WACA has become a "nightmare", it's been due to the massive cracks that just get bigger and bigger as the game goes on - see Greg Blewett getting bowled by Curtly in about 1996.

 

[Langeveldt]

Who cares if India want to break away, who can blame them? Soon the top nations will have to host people like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh who shouldn't be playing test cricket anyway, and they are going to lose out financially through no fault of their own.. If the ICC want to carry on being totally inept then get ready for another Packer style shakeup of cricket..

 

[danish]

These new proposed matches will be great for Prasar Bharati (National Indian broadcaster) who insist that international Cricket coverage be shared with them, and at one point even proposed that they be paid by the BCCI for showing international matches. It won't be the case if the BCCI goes ahead with its proposal to produce its own Cricket coverage.

 

[andyc]

If they've announced those series' against Australia, doesnt it imply that the Australian board are in on it too (if you were referring to the scheduling bit, that is) ?

According to this article, the ICC has no qualms with England or Australia or anyone else playing more games with India, as long as they honour the FTP.

 

[Deja moo]

According to this article, the ICC has no qualms with England or Australia or anyone else playing more games with India, as long as they honour the FTP.

yeah Andy, but the BCCI have beef with the FTP itself, for reasons already mentioned.

 

[SJS]

I don't see anyone having any objection whatsoever regarding India having 5-test series against Australia or England, especially at home - and if enough people want to see the games, away as well. Is that the issue here, though?

The real issue is a bit different than being debated here.

For far too long, much before the big bucks came into cricket, the big teams (read England and Australia) decided WHEN they would tour outside. They simply refused to tour during their own peak seasons. England being lucky, of course, that no cricket is really played when they are playing in England. Thus India, Pakistan etc had to always accomodate these teams in whatever time it suited them to tour.

In 1982 Australia refused to tour Pakistan during the proper season since it clashed with their own season and agreed to travel only before the season proper starting in September which is no time to play cricket in the subcontinent. Imran initially refused to play in that series but agreed later on the condition that this would not happen again and they (Australia) would tour Pakistan during the Pakistan season and not after it was over. However, in 1988 Australia again toured only in September. This time Imran refused to play the series as a mark of protest.

Unfortunately, Imran's protest was a rare one from countires used to being bullied. Most players/countries were in no position to protest like this. Now they are and are doing it.

India thinks there is far too much cricket (bilateral) to fit in more than one (world cup) multination tournament. ICC thinks otherwise.

Of course, India is doing it because the money that ICC shares with them (and other countries) during the ICC Championships is far too less compared to the time it takes for that tournament to be gone through. Yes it is a question of bucks but so is it for ICC. Neither indian Board nor ICC are fighting for the players, the game or for any other higher cause.

India is not the only country that thinks this way but they are the ones with the muscle today to do it. You cant blame them for flexing muscles when they can. Look who taught them

 

[LongHopCassidy]

IMO, if a Test side makes more than 700 on a pitch against a Test-standard attack, the curator should be fired.

 

[social]

You cant blame them for flexing muscles when they can. Look who taught them

And look what has happened to the country that's taught them.

 

[SJS]

IMO, if a Test side makes more than 700 on a pitch against a Test-standard attack, the curator should be fired.

Thats an interesting proposition. Just to see what would have happened if it had been implemented in the past.

- 13 curators would have lost their jobs.
- Not a single one of them would have been a Pakistani or an Indian - good our poor people cant afford to be unemployed !!
- 4 Englishmen, 2 Australians and 5 West Indians would have been kicked in the backside - in addition to a solitary Sri Lankan and a hapless Zimbabwean who would have been suffered the fate even on a bowlers paradise !!

I then went further to look at scores between 650 and 699 and found that there were

- 9 Englishmen
- 5 Pakistanis
- 4 West Indians
- 3 South Africans
- 3 Indians
- 2 Australians and
- 2 New Zealanders

Very interstingly, all the five matches in which Pakistani curators made these 650-plus-wicketswere in matches between India and Pakistan. . Aha. It seems that everytime there is an India Pakistan series, the wickets shed their grass, the rain comes along to prevent preparing the wicket etc etc.

and it is not just Lahore......The poor curators have wickets in Lahore, Multan as well as Faislabad out to give them a bad name.

 

[pug]

It seems to me that BCCI has different priorities now a days. Majority of Indians have not been able to watch the current Indo-Pak series but that seems to be of least concern for BCCI, they are more interested in going on a collison path with ICC. BCCI and most Indian fans keep bragging about how the revenue comes from India and all that, but they keep forgetting that Revenues will come only if people get to watch the games.

Cricket is a mode of entertainment and not a basic amenity to survival. I do not see it as a Fundamental Right of all citizens to be allowed to watch every single cricket match featuring India nor do I see it as a duty of the BCCI or whatever television company to make sure every single Indian (who wants to) gets to see every single cricket match featuring India. I don't mean to be insensitive or anything but its a plain fact. You can't nationalise an international sport and influence whatever acceptable financial motives drive TV channels and cricket boards (note, acceptable) by comments on patriotism.

 

[pug]

Pakistan, India and Australia are set to play a triangular series in India during September, ahead of the Champions Trophy. The tournament, which would be a lucrative money-spinner involving three of the leading teams in the world, is expected to take place between September 12 and October 5.

http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/india/content/story/233681.html

Its going hard and fast now - not paying heed to the FTP with pakistan also getting involved. It seems as if most countries will be the split if it comes to that.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

Mumbai was nowhere near a minefield. Trust me, I have seen a few. It was a tough wicket to bat on, but batsmen like Marto, VVS and Sachin showed how things should be done over there. Too bad others didn't follow suit. Plus, unseasonal rains hampered the preparation of that pitch as well. U are still bitter about it? It was not the pitch's fault that Australia couldn't even make 100 in the 4th innings. It was NOWHERE near that bad. The Aussies let themselves down by playing a few stupid shots and the Indians bowled brilliantly, as well.

 

[Loony BoB]

If this does indeed generate more revenue, which it most likely will, then the real question is where will the money go? I mean, if this, in the end, resulted in MORE money being generated for developing cricket, then I would go as far as to say it's a step forward. Doesn't rugby generate more revenue than cricket? I certainly don't know of any FTP set up for rugby teams. They play each other when they choose and the people are generally happy. Does it matter that Italy isn't touring NZ regularly? No, it doesn't.

So long as the games do get played every now and then, it's all good. And Twenty20 internationals could be set up on par with Rugby Sevens - grab a side made up of the "leftovers" from each country at the given time and send them off to a small tournament. It won't detract from the world cup because it's generally second rate sides from the major teams, but at the same time, it would help develop the depth for major teams and develop first teams for the minnows. We could end up with, say, Scotland or Holland becoming the "Fiji" of cricket, making a mark in such small tournaments and then bringing the experience from such tournaments into the longer game.

All of this could be done with the right revenue. If a percentage of the revenue from a match was to go towards developing cricket in the international arena, then I'd much rather see 10% of the revenue from an India-Australia game than 10% of the revenue from a Bangladesh-India game.

Hopefully that made sense, despite my tangent into Twenty20 and rugby sevens.