UDRS discussed without a vote

[swede]

Its really up to England and australia to acheive some sort of balance in cricket.

If they worked closely together, India would not dominate all issues as currently happens. Unfortunately england chose the mad Stanford road to nowhere and Australia signed up as partner in India´s T20 CL.

 

[Psycho Macaque]

So they say that they didn't even show the evidence of improvement in Hawkeye and Hotspot at the meeting, how stupid is that. I mean, the idiotic BCCI needed smashing with the sledgehammer of truth and they didn't even do that. Ridiculous. Still, I hope this 'envoy' that they're planning finally breaks the stubborn gents at the BCCI into stop cutting off their nose to spite their face.

 

[intcricket]

Its really up to England and australia to acheive some sort of balance in cricket.

If they worked closely together, India would not dominate all issues as currently happens. Unfortunately england chose the mad Stanford road to nowhere and Australia signed up as partner in India´s T20 CL.

Really now? Where were all the self-righteous people in the world when the same England and Australia were bullying all the other countries before the BCCI and the Asian bloc had had enough?

 

[Arachnodouche]

I hope England get a ton of crap decisions when they're touring these parts. Overrated bastards :P

 

[Arachnodouche]

Really now? Where were all the self-righteous people in the world when the same England and Australia were bullying all the other countries before the BCCI and the Asian bloc had had enough?

The white man's burden got off his shoulders and planted a boot up his ass is what happened

 

[Spikey]

Will the BCCI guy who receives the research papers burn them before or after the ICC guy who delivers the papers leaves the room?

 

[Furball]

Really now? Where were all the self-righteous people in the world when the same England and Australia were bullying all the other countries before the BCCI and the Asian bloc had had enough?

They probably weren't alive.

 

[silentstriker]

Quite a lot of them were tbf. Even most of us were.

The veto power of ECB and ACB existed not too long ago.

 

[silentstriker]

It was only in 1993 that the veto power was removed if I am correct - in which case, anyone older than 19 years old was alive. The vast majority of players were born then, almost all of the commentators were adults, and most of the people in charge of the various boards and the ICC were certainly well into adulthood 19 years ago. So yea, it's not that long ago. Someone like Sharad Pawar was like 51 years old in 1993....thankfully I was too young to understand the deal at the time but 1993 is way late to the party in terms of getting equality. If I were an adult at the time - let alone if I was involved in cricket in some way back then - I'd have a chip on my shoulder too. Forgive and forget is nice in theory but plenty of people who talk now were pretty silent when it was their turn on top and the people on the other side are rightly annoyed when they act all saintly all of a sudden.

That does not make it right, but let's not pretend it was some ancient past that has no bearing on people and events happening today.

 

[uvelocity]

vito power

 

[swede]

It was only in 1993 that the veto power was removed if I am correct - in which case, anyone older than 19 years old was alive. The vast majority of players were born then, almost all of the commentators were adults, and most of the people in charge of the various boards and the ICC were certainly well into adulthood 19 years ago. So yea, it's not that long ago. Someone like Sharad Pawar was like 51 years old in 1993....thankfully I was too young to understand the deal at the time but 1993 is way late to the party in terms of getting equality. If I were an adult at the time - let alone if I was involved in cricket in some way back then - I'd have a chip on my shoulder too. Forgive and forget is nice in theory but plenty of people who talk now were pretty silent when it was their turn on top and the people on the other side are rightly annoyed when they act all saintly all of a sudden.

That does not make it right, but let's not pretend it was some ancient past that has no bearing on people and events happening today.

but why talk about the veto in such grave terms as if it was some sort of crime.
Cricket was surely different in the 80´s. India were still in their inward-looking mode, Sri Lanka were complete newcomers, Bangladesh werent even there, south africa were banned. NZ and WI were tiny and poor. WI were undsiputed world champions, yet massively helped by all their players playing in england. That was hardly abuse of power.

what did england and australia really do that was so wrong. They had a veto from being founder members. It happens in most sports. If thats horrifying inequality, what is the situation today with all the non-test nations having little power. Is that discrimination? Should all non-test nations carry grudges for decades?

 

[swede]

Really now? Where were all the self-righteous people in the world when the same England and Australia were bullying all the other countries before the BCCI and the Asian bloc had had enough?

This is not about being self-righteous. surely others are allow to consider strategies or is it somehow unethical to even consider how to gain influence for anyone but india?

I am not opposed to Indian leadership at all. I am glad cricket have them. If it was up to me, they would get a window for the IPL and I wouldnt mind them staging every single world cup.

I would not want eng and aus to fight India. Quite the opposite. They should be positive towards many of India´s wishes, but they would be in a stronger position together to get something back. And that something is a plan for the future of test cricket. India throw their weight about in sometimes absolutely meaningless ways just because they can. such as with this udrs.

 

[silentstriker]

but why talk about the veto in such grave terms as if it was some sort of crime.

Because it was. These were full Test nations, many of whom had beaten both of the 'founder' nations on the field of play and some (WI) had been dominating them. Though it's nice to know that Australia and England kept the veto power out of the goodness of their hearts, you know, the half child and half devil that was the rest of the cricket playing nations.

And yes, I think A) Associates should have more power, and B) if they had full Test status, they should certainly have the same power as the other Test playing nations.

 

[swede]

Because it was. These were full Test nations, many of whom had beaten both of the 'founder' nations on the field of play and some (WI) had been dominating them. Though it's nice to know that Australia and England kept the veto power out of the goodness of their hearts, you know, the half child and half devil that was the rest of the cricket playing nations.

And yes, I think A) Associates should have more power, and B) if they had full Test status, they should certainly have the same power as the other Test playing nations.

So if the windies split into ten independent test-playing nations these few tiny islands should tell India what to do? It doesnt work like that in any sport. If there is big financial differences between members then one way or another it will be regulated and there isnt really much wrong with that. There is a limit to how much power someone can hold over other people´s money.

Had England /australia not had a veto, they would no doubt essentially have held the same power by making others dependant on them in other ways like india do now. The point of this thread seems to be that India pretty obviously holds a de facto veto.

Its great for cricket to have India. Cricket would be far worse off without them but there are downsides such as their apparent lack of support for test cricket.

 

[silentstriker]

Had England /australia not had a veto, they would no doubt essentially have held the same power by making others dependant on them in other ways like india do now. The point of this thread seems to be that India pretty obviously holds a de facto veto.

They may or may not have had influence due to money. That is a world of difference from having an official legal veto - meaning, everyone else got together and decided to do something on any issue, if they somehow found their backbone and stood up, they'd still be LEGALLY prevented from doing something if the original members did not like it. It's shocking that you can't see the injustice in that.

 

[GIMH]

The injustice was Australia having a veto. Should have been us and us only.

 

[silentstriker]

IMO only Boycott's mum should have had it.

 

[Prince EWS]

So if the windies split into ten independent test-playing nations these few tiny islands should tell India what to do?

If they all maintained genuine First Class structures, were self-sufficient and remained individually competitive on the international stage then sure, why not?

The West Indies don't play together as one team for the fun of it though; they do it because most if not all of those individual nations would struggle greatly to keep up with international standards, both financially and on the park.

 

[silentstriker]

Yea, exactly. If they were all competitive nations in their own right, they should certainly have individual votes....

 

[swede]

If they all maintained genuine First Class structures, were self-sufficient and remained individually competitive on the international stage then sure, why not?

The West Indies don't play together as one team for the fun of it though; they do it because most if not all of those individual nations would struggle greatly to keep up with international standards, both financially and on the park.

It doesnt work like that in any sport or any walk of life for that matter. There is a limit to how much people can control other people´s money. India run things now and basically have veto-power and it doesnt matter in the slightest that both England and Australia have both crushed them on the field in the their latest test series.