• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Which team will miss out on the Champions Trophy?

Which team will miss out on the 2017 Champions Trophy?

  • West Indies

    Votes: 7 28.0%
  • Bangladesh

    Votes: 9 36.0%
  • Pakistan

    Votes: 9 36.0%

  • Total voters
    25

G.I.Joe

International Coach
Under the new non binding FTP which has no legal ramifications unless boards agree (this tri-series was actually never actually written into a contract it was proposed by ZIM and originally was suppose to just be a ZIM & PAK ODI series), if it was the WI in # 8 & they did to PAK what PAK did - that's different to the India situation. They would have had to be on the ground for the tri-series for it to be comparable.
The WICB lawyers wouldn't hold that view. They'd really want to avoid the serial offender tag.

Plus he FTP deserves all the blame because any of the test playing nations could game the system like that if they were in this situation.
The tri-series would not have been part of the FTP under the old system to begin with since it wasn't inked on the calendar early enough. It would not have been played under the old system and it wasn't played under the new system. Same difference.
 
Last edited:

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
It's England behind the move to limit the WC to 10 teams. It wasn't a collective decision by the Big 2 (and England).
I believe Giles Clarke may have been the one in Big 3 to start the idea, but in the end all 3 of them are behind it, its not possible in that new despicable triumvirate for 1 of the big three to want something done and two disagree's and it gets done (unless is BCCI since they have the most money still) - Wally Edwards from CA have openly stated his support of 10 team world cup - Wally Edwards: 'Hope I get my way: four Full Members having to qualify for the World Cup' | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

From my regular observations of ICC/Big 3 Srinivasam hasn't said anything publicly about it - but he don't necessarily need to at this stage.
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
I believe Giles Clarke may have been the one in Big 3 to start the idea, but in the end all 3 of them are behind it, its not possible in that new despicable triumvirate for 1 of the big three to want something done and two disagree's and it gets done (unless is BCCI since they have the most money still) - Wally Edwards from CA have openly stated his support of 10 team world cup - Wally Edwards: 'Hope I get my way: four Full Members having to qualify for the World Cup' | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

From my regular observations of ICC/Big 3 Srinivasam hasn't said anything publicly about it - but he don't necessarily need to at this stage.
Have all of the Small 7 cricket boards openly voiced their displeasure at the format? If not, what makes them any better than the Big 2 (and England)?
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
The WICB lawyers wouldn't hold that view. They'd really want to avoid the serial offender tag.



The tri-series would not have been part of the FTP under the old system to begin with since it wasn't inked on the calendar early enough. It would not have been played under the old system and it wasn't played under the new system. Same difference.
Except the new system is not a "ICC FTP" as you termed it. Its bilateral arrangements.

There have been times in the past where series that we part of the ICC FTP were played outside - most famously Tendy's farewell series. Also IND when the faulty ranking system had them as # 1 in test invited AUS for 2 random tests before 2010 Ashes.

ENG hosting AUS & PAK in 2010 was not in FTP at the time also.

This tri series never at best although nothing was ever signed had some verbal agreement it could be played, under old FTP if it could have been slotted in given the circumstances Pakistan would have had to play because ICC would have mandated it. They could have been no last minute change of hearts just to protect their C-Trophy presence.

PAK even pushed back that ODI series with ZIM which was originally set for before September 30th C-Trophy cut off date - Pakistan, Zimbabwe put limited-overs series on hold | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Have all of the Small 7 cricket boards openly voiced their displeasure at the format? If not, what makes them any better than the Big 2 (and England)?
No i've yet to see a board state displeasure, but why would they when they are at the mercy of the Big 3?

Not sure what you mean by "what makes them any better than Big and England"
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
No i've yet to see a board state displeasure, but why would they when they are at the mercy of the Big 3?
So what you're saying is that the situation would be no different under either system. Thanks for clearing that up. Plainly the Big 3 bogeyman exists as a means for the small 7 to divert attention away from the fact that they would have been on-board with the 10 team WC even under the old system. If you're against the 10 team WC, speak up. Or keep silent and let it be known that you're on board with getting your grubby hands on more $$ too. The small 7 are no different from the Big 2 (and England). They just like to put on an act of self-righteousness.

Not sure what you mean by "what makes them any better than Big and England"
The Big 2 are benevolent and merciful while England is clearly evil. The distinction needs to be made.
 

AndyZaltzHair

Hall of Fame Member
Have all of the Small 7 cricket boards openly voiced their displeasure at the format? If not, what makes them any better than the Big 2 (and England)?
Disagree. People in position of power have to take the maximum blame because they are people in position who hold the authorities. They are sitting at top expected to make right decisions for the greater good of cricket. Blame goes to other boards too for not raising their voice echoing associate members but for a failed kingdom, king has to cop it; like it or not
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
Disagree. People in position of power have to take the maximum blame because they are people in position who hold the authorities. They are sitting at top expected to make right decisions for the greater good of cricket. Blame goes to other boards too for not raising their voice echoing associate members but for a failed kingdom, king has to cop it; like it or not
The king also gets to do as he pleases. If you insist on them taking on all the criticism, then you shouldn't also complain about them garnering the greatest benefits from the system. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
The king also gets to do as he pleases. If you insist on them taking on all the criticism, then you shouldn't also complain about them garnering the greatest benefits from the system. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
What are you saying dude? The big 3 are getting criticism as they have put their interest ahead the good of cricket.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
The small 7 did try to group together actually, any ways. However, they faced the possibility of bankruptcy with India not touring or choosing peanuts. They chose peanuts. You can't blame them here.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
There wasn't exactly silence. If you followed the last two days when the voting was done, there was a second block formed. However, they were bullied/coaxed one way or the other.
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
We were talking about the 10 team WC format. AFAIK, the small 7 have not openly opposed the format.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
What do you expect a team from the small 7 to do? Protest and get boycotted? It's not like there is unity among the small 7.
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
What do you expect a team from the small 7 to do? Protest and get boycotted? It's not like there is unity among the small 7.
They could make their opposition to the 10 team WC proposal known clearly for a start. Talk costs nothing. The associate members have voiced their displeasure. The silence of the small 7 is telling. They're silent not because they consider voicing their concerns futile, but because they're glad for the extra $$ that a 10 team WC provides them.
 

cnerd123

likes this
Yea I get the Small 7 being too scared to argue against the Big 3 wanting a greater share of revenue and tearing down the FTP, but they were definitely on board for a 10 team WC.
 

cnerd123

likes this
Those who do not speak out against this also bear responsibility. Silence indicates complicity.
Disagree with this. Each board member is there to do what's best for their country's cricket. Speaking out against the Big 3 isn't one of those things. They are silent because they have to be.

Anyone who can afford to speak out has already done so, but those at risk of incurring the Big 3's wrath are naturally not going to risk it.
 

Top