India cancel Bangaldesh series

[Sanz]

I'd much rather see ODIs between India and Pakistan and Australia then any tests between India and Bangladesh? How can you say otherwise? The ODIs would be competitive (ok fair enough if you claim India can't beat Australia which is true) but the Tests would be one-sided affair which would benefit no one at all.

It's not about what you would like to see, its about International Cricket commitments. Imagine how you would have felt back in the 70s & early 80s if WI Fans had said the same thing about their matches with India that they prefered to watch a Aus-WI Series over an WI-India series.

It was India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka who pushed hard for Bangladesh's inclusion in the TEST Arena when most cricketing nations were against it knowing very well that BD wasn't ready for it. Even Ind-Pak-SL board knew about it but they went ahead and supported BD for some reasons so it's now upto these countries to help Bangladesh lift their game. According to me they are already getting better and it was evident in their performance in the series at Down Under and then in their series against Pakistan too where they were unlucky.

 

[Lions81]

its a tri series and BCCI PCB and ACB are at foul. when all of them know about the icc's ten year plan and that india was scheduled to play bangladesh. why would they support such a series because they also want the money

No, stop. The Bangladesh tour has nothing to do with ICC's Ten year Plan. It's not on it, so let's not continue to let people think it ever was.


And regards to how Bangladesh are supposed to develop. Well being destroyed by India isn't how they are going to become better. If that was the case, then let's upgrade Kenya to Test staus right now, and let them be killed by everyone else so they can be better.

 

[Sanz]

its a tri series and BCCI PCB and ACB are at foul. when all of them know about the icc's ten year plan and that india was scheduled to play bangladesh. why would they support such a series because they also want the money

As an Indian I can talk about Indian Cricket Board (BCCI) and they are breaking their international commitment to play a dumass series. I am sure If India were supposed to play a series with any other country, they wouldn't have considered abandoning the tour.

Anyways, As far as I know Australia and Pakistan aren't breaking any of their international commitments to play in this tournament. It's only India which is giving an excuse to rest it players and then sending them to play this stupid tournament.

 

[Lions81]

It's not about what you would like to see, its about International Cricket commitments. Imagine how you would have felt back in the 70s & early 80s if WI Fans had said the same thing about their matches with India that they prefered to watch a Aus-WI Series over an WI-India series.

It was India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka who pushed hard for Bangladesh's inclusion in the TEST Arena when most cricketing nations were against it knowing very well that BD wasn't ready for it. Even Ind-Pak-SL board knew about it but they went ahead and supported BD for some reasons so it's now upto these countries to help Bangladesh lift their game. According to me they are already getting better and it was evident in their performance in the series at Down Under and then in their series against Pakistan too where they were unlucky.

The West Indies did not tour India to be nice or to help India develop or because of committments. The West Indies toured because of the high touring fees.

 

[Sanz]

No, stop. The Bangladesh tour has nothing to do with ICC's Ten year Plan. It's not on it, so let's not continue to let people think it ever was.

Who says that ?? Please have a look at the ICC TEN YEAR Plan :-

http://usa.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/NATIONAL/ICC/TOURNAMENTS/10_YEAR_PLAN/

And regards to how Bangladesh are supposed to develop. Well being destroyed by India isn't how they are going to become better. If that was the case, then let's upgrade Kenya to Test staus right now, and let them be killed by everyone else so they can be better.

You are assuming that Bangladesh will be destroyed by India. Looks like you haven't been watching, they are getting better and better with every series. And Please dont tell about destruction to me who has seen Indian teams being destroyed by Australia, WI, England, Pakistan, NZ for years before finally becoming a better team which has started winning now. WI toured India not only because they were getting high match fees but also because WI had an International commitment with the Indian Board.

 

[Sanz]

The West Indies did not tour India to be nice or to help India develop or because of committments. The West Indies toured because of the high touring fees.

I hope you understand that International Cricket is not just about money, It is also about commitment. I never said WI toured India to develop cricket in India, But WI never lobbied for India to get a TEST Status either.

My point is India (Read Dalmiya) lobbied hard to grant Test Status to Bangladesh when they were not ready and now that they have got it and have started doing better how can we refuse to play a test with them because they are not good enough for us ??

 

[Lions81]

Who says that ?? Please have a look at the ICC TEN YEAR Plan :-

http://usa.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/NATIONAL/ICC/TOURNAMENTS/10_YEAR_PLAN/

Yes, I've seen that. I did not see a Bangladesh tour on for 2004, but it is there for 2003. But apparently India are to tour Pakistan in 2003 and 2004, and Australia was to tour India in 2003, which I supposed turned into a ODI tournament, so I'm not quite sure how this ten-year plan works.

 

[Lions81]

I hope you understand that International Cricket is not just about money, It is also about commitment. I never said WI toured India to develop cricket in India, But WI never lobbied for India to get a TEST Status either.

My point is India (Read Dalmiya) lobbied hard to grant Test Status to Bangladesh when they were not ready and now that they have got it and have started doing better how can we refuse to play a test with them because they are not good enough for us ??

No, international cricket today is all about the money. Cricketers draw a regular salary, and receive hefty endorsements to play cricket nowadays. This ensures that they will commit themselves 100% to keeping themselves in top playing condition and that they will work hard to ensure their skills remain at a high level. I don't see how committment works without money. India toured Australia because if they didn't, 1. they wouldnt receive the touring fees, and 2. because then Australia wouldn't tour India back. We can discuss the spirit of cricket or whatever else one likes, but the facts are different from this fiction. Money runs the sport.

But why is this bad? Without this money, cricket would have gone the way of curling. The money ensures that we'll all have coverage of cricket around the world. Including us in the United States. Without the money of cricket, Dish Network won't be providing us with any feeds of cricket matches. Money helps build and maintain cricket stadiums and grounds, and funds school-level teams. I think there was a thread earlier regarding sponsorships and whether they were hurting the game, and someone brought up the excellent point that without sponsorships, there would be no game to hurt. Let's keep this in mind. If Jagmohan Dalmiya and his colleagues did not go after the dollar, we'd have no cricket at all.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Similar to the boycotting of Zimbabwe, there are no valid cricketing reasons for this.

So they should recieve the same punishment. 1 year ban.

 

[Lions81]

Similar to the boycotting of Zimbabwe, there are no valid cricketing reasons for this.

So they should recieve the same punishment. 1 year ban.

1. The BCCI has already said they are playing too much cricket. And test tours are more work than a simple ODI tournamnt.

2. Bangladesh isn't complaining, whereas Zimbabwe is doing nothing but, why should the ICC step in?

 

[Tom Halsey]

1/ Tough. Why did they arrange it then?

2/ I would think Bangladesh would like to play.

 

[Lions81]

1/ Tough. Why did they arrange it then?

2/ I would think Bangladesh would like to play.

1. Things don't always go according to plan.

2. Yes, I'm sure they would like to play, but judging from the lack of Bangladeshi outrage at this cancellation, I think they have less of a problem with the tour being cancelled than some of the posters here!

 

[Tom Halsey]

1. Things don't always go according to plan.

Put up with it. It's not Bangladesh's fault that India messed up.

 

[Rich2001]

I think this part of the statement has been over looked by many

"The board was very keen to send a full-strength team to Bangladesh, but have decided against it as we don't want our cricketers to suffer burnout before an important four-match Test series against Australia in September,"

They simply see the Australian tour as far more important and don't want to get any of their top players injuried on a "Pointless" tour, well that's how I read it anyway.

 

[Lions81]

Put up with it. It's not Bangladesh's fault that India messed up.

I'm sure India will make it up to Bangladesh when we tour in 2005. By then, Bangladesh should be an even better squad, and so the series should be more exciting.

 

[Lions81]

I think this part of the statement has been over looked by many

"The board was very keen to send a full-strength team to Bangladesh, but have decided against it as we don't want our cricketers to suffer burnout before an important four-match Test series against Australia in September,"

They simply see the Australian tour as far more important and don't want to get any of their top players injuried on a "Pointless" tour, well that's how I read it anyway.

Not pointless, but less pivotal. I don't think anyone can argue that India-Bangladesh is more important than India-Australia. If the roles were reversed, I feel Australia would pull out of Bangladesh to play later rather than be tired for a tour by India.

 

[Sanz]

Yes, I've seen that. I did not see a Bangladesh tour on for 2004, but it is there for 2003. But apparently India are to tour Pakistan in 2003 and 2004, and Australia was to tour India in 2003, which I supposed turned into a ODI tournament, so I'm not quite sure how this ten-year plan works.

It was there untill the Pak tour started, ICC updates it periodically esp after every tour cancellation or completion. They must have updated it. Anyways the reason I posted this was to prove that BD are indeed part of ICC 10 year plan and they playing every test playing nation in that plan.

 

[Sanz]

No, international cricket today is all about the money. Cricketers draw a regular salary, and receive hefty endorsements to play cricket nowadays. This ensures that they will commit themselves 100% to keeping themselves in top playing condition and that they will work hard to ensure their skills remain at a high level. I don't see how committment works without money. India toured Australia because if they didn't, 1. they wouldnt receive the touring fees, and 2. because then Australia wouldn't tour India back. We can discuss the spirit of cricket or whatever else one likes, but the facts are different from this fiction. Money runs the sport.

But why is this bad? Without this money, cricket would have gone the way of curling. The money ensures that we'll all have coverage of cricket around the world. Including us in the United States. Without the money of cricket, Dish Network won't be providing us with any feeds of cricket matches. Money helps build and maintain cricket stadiums and grounds, and funds school-level teams. I think there was a thread earlier regarding sponsorships and whether they were hurting the game, and someone brought up the excellent point that without sponsorships, there would be no game to hurt. Let's keep this in mind. If Jagmohan Dalmiya and his colleagues did not go after the dollar, we'd have no cricket at all.

Money doesn't run the sport, it's just another aspect of the game. There are millions of people playing cricket just out of passion, You need to go and watch the domestic tournaments in India. Not all of them play for money. Greatest players of the game played in the era when there was not much money involved in the game.

Cricket was played before Jagmohan Dalmiya and his money and it did pretty well without it. Please dont make him a saviour who saved the game of cricket with all his money talk. I am not against sponsorship or anything but cancelling one tour for another lucrative tour is ridiculous and you are supporting it only because you are not at the recieving end.

 

[Rich2001]

Not pointless, but less pivotal. I don't think anyone can argue that India-Bangladesh is more important than India-Australia. If the roles were reversed, I feel Australia would pull out of Bangladesh to play later rather than be tired for a tour by India.

The point I was trying to make is everyone knew the sitiuation at hand, India never had to agree to playing that ODI series but they did knowing full well they had a Tour in the same period.

So should teams be allow just to pick and choose who and when they play, England (Right or Wrong) gave concernces to not making a tour and we are being killed in the media and by everyone, yet India just say we aren't touring we are feeling a bit tired and in the population of India we can't find a few new faces to give the main stars a rest seems to make a rule for one and rule for the other.

And to use a point that we are resting for a more important series is pretty weak, at the end of the day a Tour is a tour it doesn't matter if your playing Australia or Bangladesh you should view all the games as important.

Putting it into a normal example I don't know if you work or at school, but there is no way in the world you couldn't go in to work and when asked use the excuse oh I was a bit tired and fancied resting for the day :rolleyes: - Cricket is the job Indian players do and therefore I don't see any differnce in it, they are there to do a job so do it IMO.

 

[Lions81]

The point I was trying to make is everyone knew the sitiuation at hand, India never had to agree to playing that ODI series but they did knowing full well they had a Tour in the same period.

So should teams be allow just to pick and choose who and when they play, England (Right or Wrong) gave concernces to not making a tour and we are being killed in the media and by everyone, yet India just say we aren't touring we are feeling a bit tired and in the population of India we can't find a few new faces to give the main stars a rest seems to make a rule for one and rule for the other.

And to use a point that we are resting for a more important series is pretty weak, at the end of the day a Tour is a tour it doesn't matter if your playing Australia or Bangladesh you should view all the games as important.

Putting it into a normal example I don't know if you work or at school, but there is no way in the world you couldn't go in to work and when asked use the excuse oh I was a bit tired and fancied resting for the day :rolleyes: - Cricket is the job Indian players do and therefore I don't see any differnce in it, they are there to do a job so do it IMO.

England isn't touring Zimbabwe (or that's the plan at least) because of political concerns, not because of concerns for the health of the players.

If playing Australia and Bangladesh are equally as important, then how can you justify the argument that India should just send "some new faces to give the main stars some rest"? Isn't that showing that Bangladesh is less important, because we think we can win without our main players? I think postponing the tour (which is what it really is, a postponement until next year) gives the sign that we respect Bangladesh too much to send a understrength side to them. Of course we could send an A side or a weakened main side with no problems, but then the complaints would be our utter disrespect in doing so.

And yes, all the games are important, but some are more so than others.

I am currently in college, and your example works well for college to help my point. If I've got two classes in a day, and I have an exam in the second class, and I think I would do better in the exam by sleeping through the first class so as to be more rested, and then make up the work for the first class later, then it is in my best interests to do so! Sure, both classes are important, but the class with the exam is more important right now.

Also your example is flawed because the cricket players aren't refusing the tour, it's the board - their bosses. So in terms of your example, it's more like your boss calling you up and telling you to take the day off and skip the day's meeting, you look tired, we need you refreshed for the bigger meeting the next day.