Some thing about the Cricket Boards !

[FRAZ]

Which board of its respective nation has done more for the cricket and less for the BS !
I mean which cricket board has done some positive efforts regarding the infrastructure and the one which is most well behaved and well managed and is thinking seriously for the betterment of the team and is allocating proper funds to the places where it is most needed . And the one which has lesser naive politics involved inside the management and the players.And the one which is investing well in the future of the game ?
P.S. Generating a better performing team is not the basic issue over here

 

[Slats4ever]

Which board of its respective nation has done more for the cricket and less for the BS !
I mean which cricket board has done some positive efforts regarding the infrastructure and the one which is most well behaved and well managed and is thinking seriously for the betterment of the team and is allocating proper funds to the places where it is most needed... And the one which is investing well in the future of the game ?
P.S. Generating a better performing team is not the basic issue over here

Thought that a good performing team would be a logical progression from good management. Therefore it's Australia

 

[FRAZ]

Thought that a good performing team would be a logical progression from good management. Therefore it's Australia

Offcourse it is a great team . Reason why I chose South African board is that the pressure that they have in the selections plus social pressures plus they have limited resources and still they perform really well . Try to give the captaincy to hmmm lets say Asif (If was available) in the Pakistani side and see how the board will convince the players to follow him . Smith is an example there and his issue was handeled superbly!

 

[Dravid]

Where is the option of none

 

[FRAZ]

The question was better performing board ? Dunno if they all suck or not but lets say the board which is lesser sucky!!!

 

[andyc]

Offcourse it is a great team . Reason why I chose South African board is that the pressure that they have in the selections plus social pressures plus they have limited resources and still they perform really well . Try to give the captaincy to hmmm lets say Asif (If was available) in the Pakistani side and see how the board will convince the players to follow him . Smith is an example there and his issue was handeled superbly!

You chose a board which has a history of picking players on the basis of a quota policy?

 

[adharcric]

Let's see ...

Not WI - they keep getting complaints from Lara about disagreements
Not NZ - don't schedule enough matches
Not IND - more controversy and less progress, don't spend money well
Not PAK - no explanation necessary
Not SL - too much politics in this board as well
Not SA - as mentioned above

That leaves England and Australia. I'll go with the Aussies since they are professional, know how to handle talent and generally don't **** up selections.

Therefore, Australia has the "lesser sucky" (in the words of Fraz) cricketing board.
They also have the best batsmen, the best bowlers, the best fielders and the best grounds.

 

[Kweek]

You chose a board which has a history of picking players on the basis of a quota policy?

yeah can't believe Fraz missed that.
Australia it is.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Most are grossly incompetent for reasons well listed by adharcric. Leaves ECB & CA, and I've had far too much paperwork crap emanating in my direction from Lord's to vote for them.

 

[Sanz]

I think ECB does a very fair job over all.

 

[Langeveldt]

I think ECB does a very fair job over all.

We are of the opinion that in a few years time our club will be kicked out of the league because it doesn't have a junior section/womens section/enough "players of colour".. I'm sure Neil will be able to elaborate about some of this paperwork thats been going around.. Absolute disgrace

 

[Langeveldt]

Not sure which board to vote for, probably New Zealand because they are the least worst..

 

[adharcric]

Not sure which board to vote for, probably New Zealand because they are the least worst..

Do they accomplish anything of note though? Not organizing matches for your national team is just as bad as playing politics IMO. Why not CA?

 

[silentstriker]

I would have to say the ECB. I don't think the 'best team' argument flies, because the WI were obviously dominant in the 70's and 80's but I don't think the board was all that world class.

On the other hand, ECB has a fantastic domestic system and great management. I think they are the gold standard.

 

[FRAZ]

Pasag would you please explain the allocation of one important vote ? This vote would have been used in some positive areas !!!!!!

 

[FRAZ]

I think ECB does a very fair job over all.

I guess one of the few blunders or un-fair play (which are quite rare by ECB) were to demand money for the Oval incident from PCB .

 

[GIMH]

I would have to say the ECB. I don't think the 'best team' argument flies, because the WI were obviously dominant in the 70's and 80's but I don't think the board was all that world class.

On the other hand, ECB has a fantastic domestic system and great management. I think they are the gold standard.

I wouldn't call the domestic system "fantastic" personally.

 

[silentstriker]

I wouldn't call the domestic system "fantastic" personally.

Well its easily the best in the world. So I don't know what else you'd call that. Unless you are arguing its the least worst of a bad bunch.

 

[GIMH]

Okay, I'm interested to know why you think it's the best in the world? I'm open-minded on this. I've never really thought of it as anything special, but I've never compared it to any other either.

 

[Langeveldt]

Do they accomplish anything of note though? Not organizing matches for your national team is just as bad as playing politics IMO. Why not CA?

You mean the Commonwealth Bank?