Revised ICC Cricket Committee!!! No more national boards voting!

[LA ICE-E]

http://icc.cricket.org/icc-media/content/story/294216.html

The new structure is designed to be representative of all interests in the modern game and replaces the previous set-up which was made up of the nominated representatives from each of the Full Members (Boards and players) and leading Associates.

I don't know it might a be a good thing, it might not we'll have to see but I think that they should have made two committees one which is the new one with at least one
Representatives from -
*Past players(2)
*Representatives of current players(2)
*Full Member team coach representative
*Member Board representative
*Umpires' representative
*Referees' representative
*Marylebone Cricket Club representative
*Statistician
*Media
*Associate representative
*and as Chairman - Sunil Gavaskar

This is a good way to go IMO but I think they should still have the national boards voting as well. So the votes would count as 50% from the national boards committee and 50% from the new committee. But it does rule out vote gatherings etc now and imo it looks good.

Although I really don't like Michael Holding being one of the representatives, I mean come on this guy went to Bermuda as a invited guest at a ceremony and than says Bermuda shouldn't be in the World Cup, short of common sense may be?

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

*and as Chairman - Sunil Gavaskar

 

[LA ICE-E]

eh...don't really have an opinion on him but anyone else that would have been better? I know Gavaskar had that little smack talking going on with the aussies so...

 

[social]

What does this group actually do?

BTW, no-one from NZ, SA, Pakistan or Bangladesh

 

[chaminda_00]

Haha Sri Lanka to rule World Cricket, whats the point of this committee?

 

[LA ICE-E]

What does this group actually do?

BTW, no-one from NZ, SA, Pakistan or Bangladesh

It will replace the old committee which was representatives of the full member boards and 2 associates. So they are going to take the decisions now instead of the full member boards which people were questioning because it was more about their needs and not always for the good of cricket.

I don't think that should be problem, anyway we can't have everything like representatives from all the full members and want good for the sport well that kind of takes it back to the old system.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Haha Sri Lanka to rule World Cricket, whats the point of this committee?

To my understanding it makes the decisions about international cricket.

 

[Jono]

I really couldn't give a crap about cricket politics anymore. I'm just sick of reading articles and news reports regarding it. Its just either depressive, or frustrating and ruins the game.

Its one of those rare situations in politics, at least IMO, where ignorance is actually an advantage. Normally those that intentionally stay ignorant from national and international politics can be frustrating, particularly when they mock those that take some interest (no matter what level, whether simply reading the papers and watching the news, or those who study it and intend on pursuing it as a career). But I just couldn't give a stuff anymore when it comes to cricket.

 

[four_or_six]

I agree. I thought it sounded like a great idea until that!

 

[JASON]

To my understanding it makes the decisions about international cricket.

How about getting rid of Power Play and going back to what it used to be?

Because , IMO, Power Play was brought about to favour some teams over others ...
It has made ODIs Lopsided more than ever... Talk about the most boring World Cup ever... and Power play is one of the major contributory factors , IMO.

The advantage of winning the toss has been made even more advantageous than it is with this extra Power Play....It really has made it harder for the Team losing the Toss...

May be this Cricket committee can make decisions on these sort of things...

 

[LA ICE-E]

How about getting rid of Power Play and going back to what it used to be?

Because , IMO, Power Play was brought about to favour some teams over others ...
It has made ODIs Lopsided more than ever... Talk about the most boring World Cup ever... and Power play is one of the major contributory factors , IMO.

The advantage of winning the toss has been made even more advantageous than it is with this extra Power Play....It really has made it harder for the Team losing the Toss...

May be this Cricket committee can make decisions on these sort of things...

No don't bring things that doesn't even have to do anything with the world cup saying it made the world cup boring.

I read it in cricinfo that powerplays had minimal effect on how much scored in the wc. Powerplay isn't a bad thing either, captains can get creative with this things. How does the powerplay has to do anything with winning or losing the toss anyway? And whats up with people clumping everything together and saying it was one of the reasons the wc was boring when they want to bash it?

 

[LA ICE-E]

I really couldn't give a crap about cricket politics anymore. I'm just sick of reading articles and news reports regarding it. Its just either depressive, or frustrating and ruins the game.

Its one of those rare situations in politics, at least IMO, where ignorance is actually an advantage. Normally those that intentionally stay ignorant from national and international politics can be frustrating, particularly when they mock those that take some interest (no matter what level, whether simply reading the papers and watching the news, or those who study it and intend on pursuing it as a career). But I just couldn't give a stuff anymore when it comes to cricket.

this new system kind of takes the politics out. but again I think it should have been 50/50 with 50% counting from the national boards and 50% counting from the cricket committee.

 

[Flem274*]

Cricket politics is down there with Iraqi politics ATM. Why not keep it simple and have;

Big head honcho

2 reps from each of the test nations

1 rep each from a selection/or all of the ascosiate nations.

This would ensure an even spread of opinions.

 

[four_or_six]

this new system kind of takes the politics out. but again I think it should have been 50/50 with 50% counting from the national boards and 50% counting from the cricket committee.

Does it really take the politics out though when you've got such a political figure as chairman?

 

[social]

To my understanding it makes the decisions about international cricket.

I think it's just on-field stuff - laws of the game, etc

Schedules, drug laws, awarding of tournaments, etc still remain in the hand of politicians

 

[honestbharani]

I think it's just on-field stuff - laws of the game, etc

Schedules, drug laws, awarding of tournaments, etc still remain in the hand of politicians

yeah, agree with Social here. don't think it will make much of a difference.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Cricket politics is down there with Iraqi politics ATM. Why not keep it simple and have;

Big head honcho

2 reps from each of the test nations

1 rep each from a selection/or all of the ascosiate nations.

This would ensure an even spread of opinions.

That's basically how it was and people complained.

 

[LA ICE-E]

I think it's just on-field stuff - laws of the game, etc

Schedules, drug laws, awarding of tournaments, etc still remain in the hand of politicians

I'm not sure may be you're right but we'll see what happens after the meeting.

 

[marc71178]

They are completely different committees - the Cricket committee has always had a broad cross-section on it, the only thing that's changed this week is the people on it.

 

[Matt79]

Yeah, its nothing to do with the actual peak "ICC" committee that makes the significant decisions. This is basically an advisory panel of interested parties put in place to think deep thoughts about the actual game, as opposed to the business side of things. My understanding is that its there at the pleasure of the real committee and is in no way replacing the current leadership of the ICC.