BYE Bye Afghanistan and Ireland.

[cnerd123]

*****, you know that cricket today is run like a mafia and the Big 3 are the the forefront of it. You also know that you are better than this and jingoism is not your forte. You have found yourself in the awkward position of defending Kim Jong-un and you are deliberately arguing points I never made. This is what jingoism does. Stop. Tell yourself that you are better than this. You have it in you to be passionate about cricket teams outside of your own. Be that guy.

I don't see how you can expect the rich and powerful to suddenly care about those who can't look out after themselves.

it would be nice and dandy if they did, but the point is that if countries like Pak/WI/SL/BD and Associates want to grow, they need to learn how to do so without relying on the Big 3. At some point they need to be held accountable for their own failures.

 

[cnerd123]

big bambino is completely serious though

yea but much like BD and Zim he doesn't really matter

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

yea but much like BD and Zim he doesn't really matter

you dont want to see his big bamboo

 

[S.Kennedy]

You are aware that BD and Z haven't won anything, right?

That is not even true. Zimbabwe won a series against both India and Pakistan (1998-99)!

 

[Black_Warrior]

I don't see how you can expect the rich and powerful to suddenly care about those who can't look out after themselves.

it would be nice and dandy if they did, but the point is that if countries like Pak/WI/SL/BD and Associates want to grow, they need to learn how to do so without relying on the Big 3. At some point they need to be held accountable for their own failures.

See ***** this is what I meant. You are repeatedly arguing against points that I have not made. This is what happens when people take positions for other reasons than the merits of the position.
I have repeatedly said that no board is expected to play Santa or do charity.
The boards should look after themselves. Absolutely fine. The problem is with the way ICC runs and functions. No cricket board should have to worry about another cricket board. That's the ICC's job. The criticism of the Big 3 is they have made ICC incompetent to make it redundant.

It's like this. No one expects big banks to care about inequality or single mothers or lower middle class families struggling to make ends meet. It's the job of the Regulatory board to make sure the banks don't exploit and manipulate the system. Now if the banks get together and make the regulatory body redundant, then that ought to be criticised. That's all there is to it. So for the last time..BCCI does not have to care about BCB.

 

[cnerd123]

The ICC isnt a regulatory body tho. It's a committee made up of all the cricketing boards. It has no legislative power. It couldn't regulate anything at any point in its history.

To blame the Big 3 for making it useless isn't fair.

 

[honestbharani]

But BW, you make it sound like ICC was competent before the Big 3 happened. Which is totally not true. ICC is the same it has ever been. Earlier Eng-Aus ran the show. Then Ind and friends ran the show. Recently Big 3 have been running the show. Then Manohar tried to make it "everyone but India" runs the show. Now, it seems we are slowly getting back to Ind + friends run the show. Maybe that is why Manohar has now quit. You are arguing that ICC shoudl be something that it has never EVER been.

 

[the big bambino]

big bambino is completely serious though

Its just factual.

 

[the big bambino]

you dont want to see his big bamboo

Lets just say if the ICC puts a limit on bat size I might become illegal.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

That Z and BD have been pretty useless for their entire period in international cricket? Thats not being serious or attempting to bait anyone. Its just factual.

We provide food to the opposition to inflate their stats. So not useless. Your facts are wrong.

 

[the big bambino]

That is not even true. Zimbabwe won a series against both India and Pakistan (1998-99)!

fair enough but you are being too literal. The 90s were bad for Eng. But they still won almost 30 tests, had players like Gooch, Atherton, Thorpe, Smith, Lamb, Stewart, Russell, Gough, Caddick, Fraser, Headley and subsequently upped their game in the following decade. can't really say Z and BD have achieved as much. Yes BD have improved and their batting and fast bowling looks promising. Don't think I can say as much about Z. Anyways I'm just saying I don't agree with your England in the 90s comparison.

 

[the big bambino]

Ha may have to eat humble pie seeing that BD have SL in trouble. I forgot to rate their spinners too. Actually they are putting together a pretty good side.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Ha may have to eat humble pie seeing that BD have SL in trouble. I forgot to rate their spinners too. Actually they are putting together a pretty good side.

No humble pie tbh. You would have expected BD to progress more by this time. The criticisms are fair enough imho but taking away the test status will not help us either.

 

[Daemon]

The ICC isnt a regulatory body tho. It's a committee made up of all the cricketing boards. It has no legislative power. It couldn't regulate anything at any point in its history.

To blame the Big 3 for making it useless isn't fair.

It can sanction players in any international match, it organises tournaments, appoints match officials without which an international fixture can't be officially recognised and it also handles any action against corruption. What else do you want them to do to be called a regulatory body?

It may not be independent of the boards for all practical purposes but it's still a regulatory body.

 

[cnerd123]

I made a post somewhere on this time sometime back explaining why BD has taken so long to find their feet at this level and why in the long run they are a better bet to become a strong Test nation than most, if not all, other Associates. Can't find it. But the main points are:

> They were a Test nation before even having a FC competition - no other nation had that issue, and it still took them all decades to be relatively competitive.
> They have a large passionate following - the number of people playing cricket in BD is several times greater than any associate nation
> They don't rely on other domestic structures to groom their talent, like European nations traditionally have with County or English Club cricket and African nations occasionally have with South Africa's domestic stuff.

I don't think any Associate becoming a Test nation will be as sustainable as BD being a Test nation tbh. Afghanistan is the best bet. The rest will struggle just as much, if not more.

That being said, IDM all countries playing Tests. Lets be like Rugby. More cricket for everyone.

 

[cnerd123]

It can sanction players in any international match, it organises tournaments, appoints match officials without which an international fixture can't be officially recognised and it also handles any action against corruption. What else do you want them to do to be called a regulatory body?

It may not be independent of the boards for all practical purposes but it's still a regulatory body.

It holds what power the member bodies want it to hold. It's basically all the boards agreeing on what is a sanctioned match/player/fixture/etc etc. It holds no power independent of them - ie, the ICC can't pass a ruling that majority of the member boards don't agree for.

I dont want to get into semantics and terminology but my point essentially is that the ICC doesn't exist to control and regulate all the boards. It is all the boards. It's not a government to a bunch of private entities. Its all the private entities getting together and agreeing on some basic framework within which they work together. It has no real power in of itself. And to expect it to act as though it does - to act in the interests of cricket as a whole vs the interests of the most powerful members at the table - is just dumb.

 

[Burgey]

I made a post somewhere on this time sometime back explaining why BD has taken so long to find their feet at this level and why in the long run they are a better bet to become a strong Test nation than most, if not all, other Associates. Can't find it. But the main points are:

> They were a Test nation before even having a FC competition - no other nation had that issue, and it still took them all decades to be relatively competitive.
> They have a large passionate following - the number of people playing cricket in BD is several times greater than any associate nation
> They don't rely on other domestic structures to groom their talent, like European nations traditionally have with County or English Club cricket and African nations occasionally have with South Africa's domestic stuff.

I don't think any Associate becoming a Test nation will be as sustainable as BD being a Test nation tbh. Afghanistan is the best bet. The rest will struggle just as much, if not more.

That being said, IDM all countries playing Tests. Lets be like Rugby. More cricket for everyone.

You just want to play for Hong Kong.

 

[cnerd123]

If i were good enough I wouldn't be posting here

 

[vcs]

What you are saying isn't relevant at all to whether the BCCI is obligated to play other teams, or to support Test status for other nations.

There is no law that forces them to do it. Period.

When market forces dictate that it would be more profitable for them to play these lesser nations than Aus/Eng/SA, then I guarantee you they will do it. But that day hasn't arrived yet.

Sports is better run on a Socialist rather than Capitalist model. That's how even the Yank sports are run (and we know how much they love their capitalism).. the sports themselves may be ****e, but at least the setup limits these kinds of monopolies being created over the long run.

European football is facing this problem as well.

 

[cnerd123]

Sports is better run on a Socialist rather than Capitalist model. That's how even the Yank sports are run (and we know how much they love their capitalism).. the sports themselves may be ****e, but at least the setup limits these kinds of monopolies being created over the long run.

European football is facing this problem as well.

Does sport exist to make money or does sport make money to exist?