Three nations plan an answer to the IPL

[S.P. Fleming]

Like alot of you I hate T20 cricket and I think it is doing harm to our game but I am also really exited to see NZ being involved in something like this because so often we are left out of these kinds of things. i.e. Champions league

 

[slugger]

recently it was reported that figures at nz provincial level rugby have fallen gradually each year from the initial starting year 1997 of super 14 rugby.. all the no sayes at the early period of super (12)14 are no longer .. this gradual decline in provincial rugby leaves nzru with a couple of problems.. if theyre a thinking about asking nzc for any tips .. they not going to get any nzc has had this problen for decades im not suprised nz/ras/aus have got together to create a southern ipl.. nz especailly at international level is treated poorly and only recently has the odi chappell/hadlee yearly comp been put in place .. and we may have test status but we seem to get about as many series (games) as someone like bangaladesh at times.. this southern ipl will be a god send for the players on the peripheral of the black caps and the domestic lads lower down the chain ...as making money in cricket nz is a tough compaign ...is that the icl ringing .. 3 years will not come qiuck enough...

 

[masterblaster]

Not sure about that. Cricket is founded along traditional country\agglomeration-of-countries-vs-country\agglomeration-of-countries lines - the most important part of the game has always been international cricket.

I'd be disappointed to see that changed. There just doesn't seem any good reason to do such a thing.

I'd be disappointed too. Can't get my mind around following franchises with no history or heritage made by businesses. Where is the passion and tradition in that?

 

[G.I.Joe]

I'd be disappointed too. Can't get my mind around following franchises with no history or heritage made by businesses. Where is the passion and tradition in that?

Bet you were disppointed when Pakistan played its first test? No history or heritage there either.

 

[Richard]

Fortunately Sangrah wasn't born until 30 years after that event.

Even SJS was only a few years old at said date.

 

[masterblaster]

Bet you were disppointed when Pakistan played its first test? No history or heritage there either.

I don't remember Pakistan being a business owned franchise. I said that I believe cricket should be primarily an International Game. Pakistan playing it's first test has absolutely nothing to do with it. They are a nation, and a proud one at that.

My main point was that I can't get seem to be able to support franchises created by big business for the sake of profit. I don't know how you linked what I said to Pakistan playing it's first test match.

 

[masterblaster]

Fortunately Sangrah wasn't born until 30 years after that event.

Even SJS was only a few years old at said date.

Yeah, spot on. I thought GI Joe's comment was a little silly myself.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I don't remember Pakistan being a business owned franchise. I said that I believe cricket should be primarily an International Game. Pakistan playing it's first test has absolutely nothing to do with it. They are a nation, and a proud one at that.

My main point was that I can't get seem to be able to support franchises created by big business for the sake of profit. I don't know how you linked what I said to Pakistan playing it's first test match.

The only difference is that Pakistan were a nation and the franchises are not. So, please let us not bring in talk of history and heritage which are not prerequisites. Everyone has to start sometime, even new nations do. You might feel cricket should be an International game, although my mates playing on the neighbouring ground every Sunday would beg to disagree We'd like to think what we play qualifies as cricket too.

 

[masterblaster]

The only difference is that Pakistan were a nation and the franchises are not. So, please let us not bring in talk of history and heritage which are not prerequisites. Everyone has to start sometime, even new nations do. You might feel cricket should be an International game, although my mates playing on the neighbouring ground every Sunday would beg to disagree We'd like to think what we play qualifies as cricket too.

I'm talking purely from a spectator's point of view with regards to all these T20 leagues popping up everywhere. Club Cricket, Grade Cricket, State Cricket, it's all really important in the larger scheme of things.

You want to play cricket, young people want to play cricket, that's what's most important. If these new T20 leagues get more young people playing cricket, then that's great.

My main point was as a spectator, it is difficult for me to feel emotionally invested in a team and support them when they are owned by big business. I feel more at home supporting international sides.

 

[brockley]

I want a zimbabwe team but the CA or NZCB won't agree.
Maybe 1 of those franchises will be kenya or namibia.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I'm talking purely from a spectator's point of view with regards to all these T20 leagues popping up everywhere. Club Cricket, Grade Cricket, State Cricket, it's all really important in the larger scheme of things.

You want to play cricket, young people want to play cricket, that's what's most important. If these new T20 leagues get more young people playing cricket, then that's great.

My main point was as a spectator, it is difficult for me to feel emotionally invested in a team and support them when they are owned by big business. I feel more at home supporting international sides.

The BCCI is a big business like any other. Look beyond the illusion. Its team BCCI, and not Team India. The IT department will testify to that.

I like Warne's approach, embrace the IPL and stop the proliferation of all the upcoming leagues. As the crowds at the IPL have testified with their mere presence, its time to move beyond mere nationalism.

 

[Richard]

Its team BCCI, and not Team India.

But the BCCI represent cricket in India (much as many Indians would prefer it if they didn't). Therefore, to play for the BCCI is to play for India.

 

[G.I.Joe]

But the BCCI represent cricket in India (much as many Indians would prefer it if they didn't). Therefore, to play for the BCCI is to play for India.

Wouldn't argue with that. I consider their team the Indian team myself. But the point stands. The BCCI and the franchises are both similar in their pursuit of the dollar, the only difference being the player base they can draw from.

 

[Richard]

And it's that - the issue of qualification - that makes international sport so special.

Personally I'm beginning to feel it's not special enough, that the qualification rules are too light, as discussed not so long ago. But the qualification rules, rather than just "oh, please play for us" "OK", is what makes international sport a cut above for mine.

 

[G.I.Joe]

And it's that - the issue of qualification - that makes international sport so special.

Personally I'm beginning to feel it's not special enough, that the qualification rules are too light, as discussed not so long ago. But the qualification rules, rather than just "oh, please play for us" "OK", is what makes international sport a cut above for mine.

Fair enough. What endeared the IPL to me was the fact that I walk into the stadium supporting my home team, see tham **** their pants and yet appreciate the opposition for the quality of cricket they exhibited. I was at the Mumbai Indians vs Deccan Chargers game at Mumbai, and you could sense the entire crowd hushed into silence as Gilchrist got the Deccan chase of a mediocre Mumbai total off to a flyer. What was amazing was how the crowd went 'oh screw that' after a while and cheered vociferously for each boundary Gilchrist hit in his innings of a 100 off 42 balls. He might well have been playing a home game in Australia, such was the crowd intensity.

You wouldn't find that in an International game. The IPL allowed the spectators to cheer for good cricket, no matter who the player. The international game can be too stifling to the detriment of spectator enjoyment at times, not surprising considering that it is the emotive value one places on the cancept of the nation that makes it special for those who abhor the franchise concept.

 

[Richard]

Well, myself, I'm good at separating appreciating good cricket and actually actively showing my enjoyment of both good cricket and my team's success. I'm a pretty "bland" person at the best of times where sport spectatorship is concerned - while the rest of the family and the friends jumped around positively screaming at the denounement of Edgbaston 2005, I simply sat in my chair smiling and even shaking my head at the unbelievable-ness of it all.

In any case, whenever I'm at the ground (which is not that often) I applaud a good stroke. I'm not terribly into cheering and screaming in enjoyment. So I can't really comment too much on that I guess. It's just something that doesn't form a part of the game for me at all, so I'm honestly not bothered about who else does it.

 

[Uppercut]

Fair enough. What endeared the IPL to me was the fact that I walk into the stadium supporting my home team, see tham **** their pants and yet appreciate the opposition for the quality of cricket they exhibited. I was at the Mumbai Indians vs Deccan Chargers game at Mumbai, and you could sense the entire crowd hushed into silence as Gilchrist got the Deccan chase of a mediocre Mumbai total off to a flyer. What was amazing was how the crowd went 'oh screw that' after a while and cheered vociferously for each boundary Gilchrist hit in his innings of a 100 off 42 balls. He might well have been playing a home game in Australia, such was the crowd intensity.

You wouldn't find that in an International game. The IPL allowed the spectators to cheer for good cricket, no matter who the player. The international game can be too stifling to the detriment of spectator enjoyment at times, not surprising considering that it is the emotive value one places on the cancept of the nation that makes it special for those who abhor the franchise concept.

Sounds like good fun, but it also sounds like noone really cares about it itbt. The way i feel on the IPL.

 

[zaremba]

My solution to the IPL and the problems it poses has two parts:

1. Litigate. It's too late, and positions are too entrenched, for an amicable solution without litigation. So the various parties will sue each other, and the BCCI's worst excesses will (hopefully) be curbed. In other words, "Cairns the Bailey".

2. Wait. Wait until the penny drops that T20 is a really poor game. The crowds will start to dwindle, the gloss will come off the "product" and then the investors/backers will bugger off. And the whole thing will deflate like a balloon 3 days after the birthday party.

 

[Precambrian]

My solution to the IPL and the problems it poses has two parts:

1. Litigate. It's too late, and positions are too entrenched, for an amicable solution without litigation. So the various parties will sue each other, and the BCCI's worst excesses will (hopefully) be curbed. In other words, "Cairns the Bailey".

2. Wait. Wait until the penny drops that T20 is a really poor game. The crowds will start to dwindle, the gloss will come off the "product" and then the investors/backers will bugger off. And the whole thing will deflate like a balloon 3 days after the birthday party.

I think if at all something happens, it will only be the 2nd option.

There's been too much of twanty twanty cricket these days.

 

[aussie]

http://content-wi.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/375466.html

Good to see the MCC or whoever finally saying & palnning to do something about all these crazy ass 20/20 innovations by investors who just basically want to use 20/20's to make money, caring absolutely about test cricket.

Really starting to get irritated by the IPL, everytime i hear that Lalit Modi talk i want to slap him.