-
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.
BCCI make their own cricketing calendar
- Thread starter Pratters
- Start date
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Not really. England HAVE to host 2 home series, period. There is no specification that they have to do it in their season or whatever. I mean, similarly, if India HAS to host 2 series per year, what if they start saying that they will do it only in THEIR season, which is roughly from Jan to April? That is part of the issue, along with the fact that England and Australia get a lot more days of cricket at home than India and Pakistan and Sri Lanka.marc71178 said:
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Here is another good article, or rather the relevant portion of it.
Tim de Lisle in cricinfo
How many superpowers does it take to mess up a world? The usual answer is one - when there are two or more, they keep each other in check. If there's just the one, we get a man like George W Bush running the show.
How many superpowers does cricket have? Hmm, let's think. On the field, it has one - Australia, wobbling a bit and in transition, but still top of both world championships. Off the field, cricket also has one superpower - India, finally converting her massive population into dollars. So there are two superpowers. Or are there? Well, there would be if the cricket world was striking the right balance between sport and business. But it isn't.
Business has the upper hand. TV contracts go to the broadcasters with the most money, not those with the most viewers. Administrators express themselves in the grim, grey jargon of the businessman. Players blithely promote companies that run sweatshops, cause pollution, create obesity, collude with tyrants. Even the ICC aspires to be a brand. Money doesn't talk, it shouts, so cricket's only real superpower is the country with the fattest wallet. The new-look Indian board (BCCI) is behaving as if it had only just worked this out.
In a few weeks, the BCCI has torpedoed the Champions' Trophy, torn up the Future Tours Programme (FTP), walked all over the little guys (cancelling New Zealand, dissing Bangladesh), cosied up to the biggish boys (Australia to tour India annually, England every four years), and turned itself into a TV production company. Soon, commentators on all India's home games will be working for the board, so don't expect much free comment there. Under Sourav Ganguly, the Indian team finally developed a cutting edge. Now, just as the Ganguly era ends, the men in ties are following suit.
On Sunday Mike Atherton, one of the shrewder ex-players in the press box, called India a selfish bully. Hard to argue with that, but there is another side to the story. The Champions' Trophy has yet to find a decent format, let alone a place in cricket lovers' hearts. The FTP has done more harm than good, abolishing the one-off Test (except when it suited ICC for its Super "Series"), creating far too many two- and three-Test series, and making five-Test series even harder to schedule. And someone had to do something about Bangladesh. So far, the new India isn't the big bad wolf: it's the big mixed wolf.
Tim de Lisle in cricinfo
How many superpowers does it take to mess up a world? The usual answer is one - when there are two or more, they keep each other in check. If there's just the one, we get a man like George W Bush running the show.
How many superpowers does cricket have? Hmm, let's think. On the field, it has one - Australia, wobbling a bit and in transition, but still top of both world championships. Off the field, cricket also has one superpower - India, finally converting her massive population into dollars. So there are two superpowers. Or are there? Well, there would be if the cricket world was striking the right balance between sport and business. But it isn't.
Business has the upper hand. TV contracts go to the broadcasters with the most money, not those with the most viewers. Administrators express themselves in the grim, grey jargon of the businessman. Players blithely promote companies that run sweatshops, cause pollution, create obesity, collude with tyrants. Even the ICC aspires to be a brand. Money doesn't talk, it shouts, so cricket's only real superpower is the country with the fattest wallet. The new-look Indian board (BCCI) is behaving as if it had only just worked this out.
In a few weeks, the BCCI has torpedoed the Champions' Trophy, torn up the Future Tours Programme (FTP), walked all over the little guys (cancelling New Zealand, dissing Bangladesh), cosied up to the biggish boys (Australia to tour India annually, England every four years), and turned itself into a TV production company. Soon, commentators on all India's home games will be working for the board, so don't expect much free comment there. Under Sourav Ganguly, the Indian team finally developed a cutting edge. Now, just as the Ganguly era ends, the men in ties are following suit.
On Sunday Mike Atherton, one of the shrewder ex-players in the press box, called India a selfish bully. Hard to argue with that, but there is another side to the story. The Champions' Trophy has yet to find a decent format, let alone a place in cricket lovers' hearts. The FTP has done more harm than good, abolishing the one-off Test (except when it suited ICC for its Super "Series"), creating far too many two- and three-Test series, and making five-Test series even harder to schedule. And someone had to do something about Bangladesh. So far, the new India isn't the big bad wolf: it's the big mixed wolf.
Langeveldt
Soutie
Well nobody can do any worse than the ICC (Maybe the ZCU), so the BCCI's new domination of cricket isn't the worst thing thats ever happened..
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Playing A teams of the stronger sides? Touring one of their FC sides juz before the home season of that side?marc71178 said:
Anyways, the gross imbalance of the number of days of cricket at home for Eng/Aus and Ind/Pak and others itself has shown that the FTP isn't anything to write home about.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Matches happening in off season in India, Pak etc aren't exactly played on the best pitches either and there is always the threat of rain in off season in almost all countries.marc71178 said:
this is just ridiculous. surely its in everyone´s interest that England play at home in their own season. I thought the problem was that everyone wanted to play at home at various times during the english off-season, hardly any reason to add england to the list.honestbharani said:
I actually thought India had long seasons if moving matches around the country according to the climate. Must admit I dont know much about it though,
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
The thing is, there is the period of Jan- April in India. It is just about the only time where one can safely predict that there won't be any rain... All the other months are prone to having unseasonal rainfall. And the weather forecasts have almost always been wrong in that regard. Anyways, these days, the climatic conditions have rapidly changed all over India. Almost all big cities have had unseasonal rainfalls wreck havoc with normal life.swede said:
BTW, I already pointed out the countries that HAVE played during the English season. West Indies have their season extending till June this year. Ind have played at home in August/Sep... Sri Lanka often play in June/july/august/sep at home. Pakistan HAVE played in Aug/Sep as well. And Zim for a couple of years hosted their home games in May,June and July. The thing is the FTP calls for flexibility... if it requires England to play only a couple of two test series at home in a particular season and then tour (say) Sri Lanka DURING their season, they should be able to do it. That is what India and Pak have been doing and Aus and Eng have gotten away with it, whether u guyz like it or not.
As I said, the two MAIN reasons for this mini-revolt by the BCCI is the ridiculously low no. of home matches for India and Pak and the fact that they are forced to host matches outside THEIR season almost all the time, while Eng and Aus get away with it. At least, Aus have shown flexibility by having those matches at Darwin and Cairns in july.
TIF
U19 Debutant
The main reasons for this new BCCI staging a slight revolt against the ICC are -
1. England and Australia play their home matches at a fixed time every season and the tri-series in Australia, takes place every year. This new BCCI just wants that their schedule be altered for atleast 1 year and if that cannot happen, have BCCI decide their own schedule. England hosts its matches from May-August and Austalia hosts theirs from November-February every year without touring in that time. Indias home matches are not fixed. One year it happens in October-December and the other year it takes place from January-March and the same goes with Pakistan. Atleast Australia showed some interest by staging off season matches in Darwin and Cairns during June-July, but England have never done this.
2. 20/20 cricket was brought in only to increase crowd attendance in England and spread cricket in USA and Canada. That is one of the main reasons why India hasnt showed any interest in 20/20 cricket. The BCCI, feels that there is no point dragging India into something which was meant to increase "crowd attendance" and "grow more interest in cricket" in England.
3. BCCI does not want to send a team for the ICC Champions trophy because it usually takes place in September-October, at a time when India should host its home matches. The BCCI has only said hold the Champions Trophy at the time when England and Australia host their home matches as these 2 should also have a shift in their home matches.
I feel that the BCCI is right on some issues, but then some issues I disagree with like - "Not playing in the Champions Trophy" and "Not hosting Bangladesh as they are not "commercially viable"."
1. England and Australia play their home matches at a fixed time every season and the tri-series in Australia, takes place every year. This new BCCI just wants that their schedule be altered for atleast 1 year and if that cannot happen, have BCCI decide their own schedule. England hosts its matches from May-August and Austalia hosts theirs from November-February every year without touring in that time. Indias home matches are not fixed. One year it happens in October-December and the other year it takes place from January-March and the same goes with Pakistan. Atleast Australia showed some interest by staging off season matches in Darwin and Cairns during June-July, but England have never done this.
2. 20/20 cricket was brought in only to increase crowd attendance in England and spread cricket in USA and Canada. That is one of the main reasons why India hasnt showed any interest in 20/20 cricket. The BCCI, feels that there is no point dragging India into something which was meant to increase "crowd attendance" and "grow more interest in cricket" in England.
3. BCCI does not want to send a team for the ICC Champions trophy because it usually takes place in September-October, at a time when India should host its home matches. The BCCI has only said hold the Champions Trophy at the time when England and Australia host their home matches as these 2 should also have a shift in their home matches.
I feel that the BCCI is right on some issues, but then some issues I disagree with like - "Not playing in the Champions Trophy" and "Not hosting Bangladesh as they are not "commercially viable"."
Last edited:
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
I think the real problem is that there are so many sides who all have to host series in a set period of time (ie the English winter) which means that there isn't time for all of them to host series.swede said:
Quite how we get round it is a puzzle that has been partially helped by holding "out of season" series.
Why England are being blamed for the quirk that means they can actually host cricket at a time when most sides can't I'm not sure.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
I am not saying they are the ONLY guys to be blamed. But let us say if England are supposed to play Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka want to host them in their proper season, as they think Eng/SL will bring in the crowds... Will England actually cut short their home program and play a couple of two test series against their opponents for that summer and head out to Sri Lanka during june or july to play over there?marc71178 said: