India, Australia, England attempt to take control of Cricket

[Fusion]

My interest in Cricket has greatly decreased in the last several years. If what is posted below is true, I'll be done with cricket altogether. As would a great many more that don't belong to the trifecta. Surely this can't be good for the long term interests of the game?

India, Aus, England in attempt to take control of Cricket

 

[GIMH]

Seems a good idea to me, aside maybe from India and Australia being involved

 

[Muloghonto]

I agree, this is a good idea.

 

[Eds]

If what is posted below is true, I'll be done with cricket altogether.

Out of interest, why?

 

[Slifer]

Yes great idea. Let England, Oz and India form their own ICC and play only themselves. The rest of us (WI, RSA, NZ, ZIM, SL, Ban, and Pak) can remain in the traditional ICC and play among ourselves. Seriously though, I'm against power being concentrated in these 3 teams but from the perspective of these three boards I cant really blame them. From a WI perspective, we will never be a major power in world cricket at least not at the board level. The most we can do is to try and become a power on the field again so that teams will want to play us often. At first when I saw this article I was like CA, BCCI and the ECB can go screw themselves. But now I look at it as an opportunity and more incentive for the rest of us to pick up our games (and esp. vs those 3 teams). RSA has already done their part (curious y they were left out), its not up to the rest of us to lift our games !!!

 

[Fusion]

Out of interest, why?

My remaining interest in the game would disappear very quickly if my team does not get to regularly play the top tier teams in the world (which due to resources is likely to always contain Ind/Aus/Eng). I also don’t like absolute power in the hands of these 3 boards (or any other group for that matter). I realize that ICC as presently structured isn’t exactly the model for all governing boards the worldwide to follow, but at least there is some “voice” given to the lesser nations. For instance, I would highly resent the fact that no matter their form, these three countries would be permanently excluded from a potential relegation system. There are tons of other reasons that I can get into, but taking away fair representation of cricket’s governance and direction from all Test nations would the major turn off for me.

 

[Muloghonto]

I support this move, pretty much because it will empower BCCI and CA more than they are now. Which means proliferation/more consideration given to 20/20 cricket, which is the future of cricket
This move, if it goes through, in my opinion, will lead to the sidelining of international cricket in favor of cricket leagues like BBL, IPL, etc. How so, one may ask ? Well, this proposal makes series bilateral by agreement and emphasizes that sides are not obligated to take on financially losing tours. From India's perspective, this means bye bye to series involving West Indies, New Zealand, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe. From Australian perspective, it means bye bye West Indies, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe. From England's perspective, it is bye bye West Indies, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe.

What are they going to do with the excess free time ? Probably upgrade India-Australia and India-England to 5 test series(ashes is already 5 test series).
but that still does not fill the gap completely, so it will lead to expansion of the 20/20 scene.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason i support this move. Future of cricket is not test cricket, however enthralling some matches can be and however more skilled the competition is.
The future of cricket is 20/20 on a franchise model. Virtually every team sport- from Soccer, Football, hockey, basketball,baseball (and rugby too i think, though i dont follow Rugby) exist primarily as private franchises competing in a league as the fundamental model, with international competition being ancillary and a side show.
Cricket is the only exception and this is the reason cricket has failed as a global sport.

99% of sportsmen- like any other professional, want to make money. Playing for your country is a 'great honor' but last i checked, honor does not buy you a house or feed you. Money does. If we want cricket to blossom in associate nations, tinkering with the FTP, having the occasional World Cup appearance 'carrot', etc. is of little consequence to 99% of the players from these nations.
However, dreams of making it big playing for Chennai SuperKings or Mumbai Indians ? Yep, that 1-2 million dollars a year ( and this price too will rise with the gaining net worth of 20/20 franchises and eventual schedule expansion) will go a long way to motivate your average Afghan or Bermudan cricket enthusiast to take it seriously.

Yes, this is an idea that has little favor from cricket fans, particularly the non-subcontinentals, who are stuck in a horrid mixture of 'statistical gluttony and traditional reverence' that test cricket engenders.
But seriously, test cricket is an epic fail of a format. 5 days of playing. Result not garanteed, even if weather does not interfere. Asymetric number of matches per series. match can be over in 3 days, leading to disgruntled fans who have tickets for the last two days and set aside time from their precious schedule for it.

The only thing Test cricket has it going, strictly from a playing perspective, is that it requires the most skill. Which is why Test cricket should be relegated to 3-5 tests a year at most, akin to 'international friendlies' in soccer.

it is a proven fact that appealing to greed also appeals to quality- since even the best of the best sportsmen are greedy and will follow the money. How do you turn a profit, attract the top level talent & promote the sport on a global scale ? you start a franchised league. Which at the moment, only 20/20 caters to. maybe 50 overs cricket can be turned into one too.

And one of the biggest benefit, as a sport, cricket would derive from relagation of international cricket in favor of franchise cricket, is that players (who would ultimately be free agents, instead of citizens forever playing for one team only) will earn their reputation fair and square, based on their skills and contributions, rather than the jingoistic nationalistic fandom that is central to cricket.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

A reputation earned solely off the back of T20 cricket is no reputation at all.

 

[theegyptian]

ugh i do agree mulog and wrote a similar but shorter thing in the other thread. Is Lalit Modi based in Canada? Is that you?

 

[Muloghonto]

A reputation earned solely off the back of T20 cricket is no reputation at all.

A reputation based on success in a league where the talent pool is global (not nationally restricted) and driven by financial incentive is the only reputation that matters in most team sports.
Messi is not evaluated by what he does or didnt do for Argentina. Its what he does for his club that matters. Crosby is considered the gretest hockey player in a generation not for winning gold in Vancouver, its for what he does for the Pittsburg Penguins.

cricket too will eventually follow this dictum.

 

[Muloghonto]

ugh i do agree mulog and wrote a similar but shorter thing in the other thread. Is Lalit Modi based in Canada? Is that you?

I am not Lalit Modi, i am just a guy who played some cricket before in Canada ( i quit when Patrick Patterson broke my arm) and have thought for a long time the difference between the success and failure of team sports such as cricket versus soccer & ice hockey or basketball.

 

[Spikey]

they basically already had control

 

[Spikey]

but yeah this is terrible

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

A reputation based on success in a league where the talent pool is global (not nationally restricted) and driven by financial incentive is the only reputation that matters in most team sports.
Messi is not evaluated by what he does or didnt do for Argentina. Its what he does for his club that matters. Crosby is considered the gretest hockey player in a generation not for winning gold in Vancouver, its for what he does for the Pittsburg Penguins.

cricket too will eventually follow this dictum.

What rot. What players of a world class calibre are missing out because of "nationalism"? This isn't ice hockey or American football or baseball and extending that model to cricket will destroy what the sport is at the moment. Which it seems you're keen to do just to make another sport more bloated by obscene amounts of money for players. We should be celebrating the differences between sports, not forcing each different discipline into a rampant consumerist approach and damn the history and sentiment on which the sport was built.

 

[theegyptian]

I am not Lalit Modi, i am just a guy who played some cricket before in Canada ( i quit when Patrick Patterson broke my arm) and have thought for a long time the difference between the success and failure of team sports such as cricket versus soccer & ice hockey or basketball.

Your views are definitely going to be not liked by a lot of people on this forum and if a cricket journalist wrote something like what you've wrote in a newspaper there would be an absolute massive uproar from tradionalists - but I do agree and it's nice to hear a different voice from a different perspective so welcome to the forum.

Nearly everbody on this forum has been brought up a traditionalist and love test cricket over everything. I've followed England overseas on three occasions to Australia, India and NZ to watch test cricket and have had an incredible time. I favour test cricket over the other formats. I love the game but as you say the international game as it is is stagnant. There is no growth. It's a dying game.

 

[Muloghonto]

What rot. What players of a world class calibre are missing out because of "nationalism"? This isn't ice hockey or American football or baseball and extending that model to cricket will destroy what the sport is at the moment. Which it seems you're keen to do just to make another sport more bloated by obscene amounts of money for players. We should be celebrating the differences between sports, not forcing each different discipline into a rampant consumerist approach and damn the history and sentiment on which the sport was built.

1. There is no such thing as 'obscene amount of money'. What the market is willing to pay, is what the fair price is. Messi does not make obscene amount of money, he makes the fair market value.

2. The differences in sport exist in the format of the sport. Celebrating a poorer business model that cricket is, is simply traditionalist protectionism over progress.

3. History and sentiment does not make the world go around today. It did in the 1800s, when the sport was at its peak ( in terms of market share of the sporting world). Money makes the world go around today.
KP wants to play IPL not because he is a twit but because he, like every single normal & sensible human being, would like to get paid the maximum for his skills.

in every discipline of human excellence, it is money that attracts the highest skillset of the individual- from rocket scientists in NASA to bastkeball players from Africa.
Cricket is no different.

Your professional reputation is based on your competence in the workplace that is based on financial competition between you and those who would bid for your position.
Cricket again, is no different.

 

[theegyptian]

What rot. What players of a world class calibre are missing out because of "nationalism"? This isn't ice hockey or American football or baseball and extending that model to cricket will destroy what the sport is at the moment. Which it seems you're keen to do just to make another sport more bloated by obscene amounts of money for players. We should be celebrating the differences between sports, not forcing each different discipline into a rampant consumerist approach and damn the history and sentiment on which the sport was built.

The problem is cricket is fading at the moment. Countries like Zim, NZ, WI, SL can't keep up. They can't afford to host test tours? They're losing money and on the verge of bankruptcy. Players from England and Australia make decent money but the guy from Pakistan with just as good skills is paid a fraction of the amount - and then there are big incentives to corruption/etc or do something else

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I'm never going to be able to convince someone who puts capitalist demagoguery over the actual basis of sport. I profoundly disagree with everything you've said. Money isn't the be all and end all otherwise all current test players would have retired to take up lucrative IPL contracts, but feel free to extend your personal beliefs to the whole world if you like.

 

[Muloghonto]

Your views are definitely going to be not liked by a lot of people on this forum and if a cricket journalist wrote something like what you've wrote in a newspaper there would be an absolute massive uproar from tradionalists - but I do agree and it's nice to hear a different voice from a different perspective so welcome to the forum.

Nearly everbody on this forum has been brought up a traditionalist and love test cricket over everything. I've followed England overseas on three occasions to Australia, India and NZ to watch test cricket and have had an incredible time. I favour test cricket over the other formats. I love the game but as you say the international game as it is is stagnant. There is no growth. It's a dying game.

I am no different, I too have been brought up in the traditionalist model of cricket. Before i moved to north America, i grew up bowling to Snehashish Ganguly ( that's Saurav's older brother, who everyone thought was a far more technically & temperamentally superior batsman in their kid days). I played the sport too in North America, until i realized that the entire reason we find hockey players from kazakhstan, basketball players from congo,etc. but hardly a serious cricketer outside of the top 9 nations ( even the Zimboks are not 'serious cricket pros', they are amatuers who have day jobs) is because of cricket's national-competition model, which is fundamentally anti-growth and anti-incentive, over the franchise model that almost all other team sport practices.

If cricket were a franchise model, players like Rajinder Goel, Sylvester Clarke, etc. would've been household names and had careers in cricket instead of being sidelined. Because when you follow a national format, you compete for 1 of 11 spots for competition at the highest level and top rate money. When you play in a franchise format, your opportunity is exponentially greater. Don't get me wrong, i am not anti-test cricket per se. I am anti- national model. Test cricket is just an incidental casualty to my perspective because Test cricket does not lend itself to franchising at all, while 20/20 or ODi cricket does.

What cricket needs, is to move away from Australia vs England and India vs Pakistan type format to Brisbane Heat vs Chennai Superkings or Cape Cobras vs Mumbai Indians format. The franchise model that leads to growth, excellence and financial sustainability.
Not the national format that promotes nepotism, jingoism and an artificial ceiling.

 

[Muloghonto]

I'm never going to be able to convince someone who puts capitalist demagoguery over the actual basis of sport. I profoundly disagree with everything you've said. Money isn't the be all and end all otherwise all current test players would have retired to take up lucrative IPL contracts, but feel free to extend your personal beliefs to the whole world if you like.

The actual basis of professional sport, is money. Otherwise, it is amatuer sport. Money *is* the be-all, end-all of any professional endavour. That is what being professional means.
Test players have not retired from test cricket to play IPL because IPL is still, in its infancy. People tend to be conservative and do not just jump ship at the first new thing that pops around the corner. But have a look around- KP has already expressed his deep disappointment at missing out on the IPL. Chris Gayle has made it amply clear through his actions that he prioritizes professional money-driven cricket, namely, IPL, over representing the west indies.
Give IPL or BBL another 3-4 years and it will start to be the main focus of 90% of sportsmen because when you have a financial incentive to succeed, it really does bring out the cream of the crop in every profession. including sports.