The importance of IPL....

[vcs]

Money is important for players (and the rest of us), but not that important IMO. Also, as has been pointed out, perhaps it will force boards to up their paying scales.

I take your point that it will take something away from FC cricket and players might pick up unnecessary injuries etc.. which is annoying, but it could happen even in training or a practice game. Overall, I still think the vast majority of players will take glory for their nation over earning a little bit more in the IPL.

 

[Borges]

The players can't do their international duty as effectively because their time spent in the IPL could be otherwise spent much better than playing 2020 franchise cricket. Not to mention the injuries that can be carried over from 2020 - Doug Bollinger for example.

Agreed. IPL is terrible for active players because of the increased work load. It is not even just injuries; the likes of Tendulkar, Watson, Zaheer, Steyn all all affected. They won't be able to perform at their peak, all the year round, year after year. The shrewder ones like Tendulkar or Dhoni will therefore skip international duty occasionally; something that they wouldn't have done if the IPL didn't exist.

currency is still currency so the players who want to look after themselves will follow the money.

The players have as much of a right to look after themselves as the rest of us. Pay them on par, or even at lower but comparable levels, and I'm sure that every one of them will overwhelmingly prefer playing for their countries.

 

[GotSpin]

Money is important for players (and the rest of us), but not that important IMO. Also, as has been pointed out, perhaps it will force boards to up their paying scales.

I take your point that it will take something away from FC cricket and players might pick up unnecessary injuries etc.. which is annoying, but it could happen even in training or a practice game. Overall, I still think the vast majority of players will take glory for their nation over earning a little bit more in the IPL.

While players can always pick up injuries in training or a practice, I'd prefer they pick it up in an attempt to benefit their own game on behalf of the national team rather than for a franchise. I can't speak on behalf of everyone but seeing Australian players playing for X franchise doesn't give me any entertainment, and most importantly, reduces the national boards return on investment because said player is playing in a format that does not benefit his country and does provide for wear and tear that would otherwise not have occurred, reducing his national career even further

I guess I have a rather pessimistic forecast of it all and I hope I'm wrong

 

[Borges]

and most importantly, reduces the national boards return on investment because said player is playing in a format that does not benefit his country and does provide for wear and tear that would otherwise not have occurred, reducing his national career even further

The national boards should just take a massive percentage of the IPL earnings as NOC fee or whatever. I don't know why they don't do it; perhaps they are apprehensive because the England players mutinied once, some time back.

 

[Bun]

So for example, what do I get from the IPL as an Australian cricket fan

- Less tours
- More domestic franchise 20/20 which I think has a very negative effect on the quality of cricket
- This in turn effects national representation
- In turn negatively influencing the investment of my country in a certain player through his developement

Wow,how exactly do your board quantify this investment? and how does the ten percent cut from ipl for 2 months loaning figure into that?

You talk about quality of cricket. enlighten me please how have you seen that say in case of the prime nation who stands to benefit/suffer directly from this, india.

strange is also the talk of losing tours. How exactly from an Aussie boards perspective is this much of a much considering this happens not exactly during the peak of their crciketing season, and also considering the possibility of tours that could happen during this period?

 

[GotSpin]

Wow,how exactly do your board quantify this investment? and how does the ten percent cut from ipl for 2 months loaning figure into that?

You talk about quality of cricket. enlighten me please how have you seen that say in case of the prime nation who stands to benefit/suffer directly from this, india.

strange is also the talk of losing tours. How exactly from an Aussie boards perspective is this much of a much considering this happens not exactly during the peak of their crciketing season, and also considering the possibility of tours that could happen during this period?

Obviously the IPL does provide some financial benefit to respective boards, but the main cost is in terms of the players. They acquire 20/20 focused skills while respectively losing ones for the longer form of the game and general wear and tear.

In terms of Australia, players traditionally went and played in England or used this period as some down time to recover and rest up. Instead they're playing franchise cricket, increasing risk of injury and shortening careers which represents a loss for national investment.

I thought as an Indian fan you'd be particularly sensitive to this issue seeing as Sehwag is delaying an operation until after the IPL is finished, thereby cutting into his national representation time. It's funny how some seem to be happy with national players asking for time off from particular tour segments but continue to play the IPL anyway

 

[Jono]

GS, I 100% understand what you are saying. But really, you're speaking in idealistic terms. How can anyone argue against you?

Of course that is the ideal world. Ideally Zaheer wouldn't be risking injury playing **** and giggle cricket he's not even that good at instead of resting and preparing for his series vs. WI, and importantly, England. But I understand that he wants to earn a living. Same with Sehwag and his shoulder injury. Now I'm sure they're paid well anyway so that argument doesn't fly as much as a Pollard or Styris etc. But still, I'm not going to boycott the IPL for it. I don't mind watching it (I understand you don't like it, fair enough). I don't watch every game, and unless there was Warne or McGrath vs. Sachin, I probably wouldn't deliberately change plans to watch it. But if I'm home and it's on I'll watch.

 

[Bun]

While players can always pick up injuries in training or a practice, I'd prefer they pick it up in an attempt to benefit their own game on behalf of the national team rather than for a franchise. I can't speak on behalf of everyone but seeing Australian players playing for X franchise doesn't give me any entertainment, and most importantly, reduces the national boards return on investment because said player is playing in a format that does not benefit his country and does provide for wear and tear that would otherwise not have occurred, reducing his national career even further

I guess I have a rather pessimistic forecast of it all and I hope I'm wrong

Totally dwta. Basic common sense suggests when there are two choices with varying rewards for similar risks, the one which rewards more should be the logical choice. Someome like pollard feels it easier to jump a mile to pounce a catch and give it his best shot, because he feels more secure in taking the additional risk.

I Am not playing the ipl advocate here. When national pay packages become comparable to the ipl, the same players will definitely opt for it, and the so called ipl menace will be done away with for good. But thats not going to happen soon, if not at all. Shame but inevitable the exodus will be then.

 

[GotSpin]

GS, I 100% understand what you are saying. But really, you're speaking in idealistic terms. How can anyone argue against you?[

Of course that is the ideal world. Ideally Zaheer wouldn't be risking injury playing **** and giggle cricket he's not even that good at instead of resting and preparing for his series vs. WI, and importantly, England. But I understand that he wants to earn a living. Same with Sehwag and his shoulder injury. Now I'm sure they're paid well anyway so that argument doesn't fly as much as a Pollard or Styris etc. But still, I'm not going to boycott the IPL for it. I don't mind watching it (I understand you don't like it, fair enough). I don't watch every game, and unless there was Warne or McGrath vs. Sachin, I probably wouldn't deliberately change plans to watch it. But if I'm home and it's on I'll watch.

This is why I'm expressing my dislike for the IPL. It influences international cricket in such a negative manner and detracts from national representation to an incredible degree.

I'd be happier if the IPL window was much smaller though because I do recognise the incredibly large market that it holds

 

[GotSpin]

Totally dwta. Basic common sense suggests when there are two choices with varying rewards for similar risks, the one which rewards more should be the logical choice. Someome like pollard feels it easier to jump a mile to pounce a catch and give it his best shot, because he feels more secure in taking the additional risk.

I Am not playing the ipl advocate here. When national pay packages become comparable to the ipl, the same players will definitely opt for it, and the so called ipl menace will be done away with for good. But thats not going to happen soon, if not at all. Shame but inevitable the exodus will be then.

Then cricket will lose in the long run because what incentive would boards have to provide development and grass roots programs for cricketers when all they do is go and play the IPL, a market which is fairly isolated from a global market

 

[Jono]

I definitely agree with that. If the IPL was probably 4 weeks, or 5 weeks at the absolute most it'd be better. 7 weeks is far too long.

 

[vcs]

I will still maintain that the attractiveness of the IPL in the long term will be essentially limited by the shallowness of its format. For that reason alone, I cannot see it becoming much of a threat to international cricket. The "club vs. country" argument will create much more of a conflict in a sport like football because the nature of the game does not change in that case. Yes, the IPL will create some annoying situations now and again, but nowhere near enough to worry about the future of the sport IMO.

EDIT : I also agree about reducing its length. That can only be a good thing. Ultimately, overkill will result in exactly that. They'll probably cull a couple of franchises while they're at it, as well.

 

[GotSpin]

I will still maintain that the attractiveness of the IPL in the long term will be essentially limited by the shallowness of its format. For that reason alone, I cannot see it becoming much of a threat to international cricket. The "club vs. country" argument will create much more of a conflict in a sport like football because the nature of the game does not change in that case. Yes, the IPL will create some annoying situations now and again, but nowhere near enough to worry about the future of the sport IMO.

I don't know but it'll become a depressing state of affairs if fast bowlers retire at an increasingly younger age in order to extend their IPL marketability and contracts

 

[Jono]

I also agree about reducing its length. That can only be a good thing. Ultimately, overkill will result in exactly that. They'll probably cull a couple of franchises while they're at it, as well.

Exactly. The market will sort this out.

Believe in the invisible hand!

 

[Bun]

Then cricket will lose in the long run because what incentive would boards have to provide development and grass roots programs for cricketers when all they do is go and play the IPL, a market which is fairly isolated from a global market

Maybe it will evolve into a diff system altogether. Take the example of football, it has become predominantly club dominated where except for the wc, national schedules by ans large get built around dom schedules.

national representation is being given too much onus here. Treat cricket as any other profession. You might be born and brought up in a country whcih did bear some costs in so, but once u are done with ur studies, you get a plush offer to move out of the country. Will you say ' oh no way my nation comes first, am gonna stay back here even if I am paid only a tenth for same work' ? How'd you feel if the govt comes and says, 'nah you can.t go, you got to put in your efforts for the stuff we will specify, and nah u can't bargain for ur pay on account of the opportunity cost of ur sacrifice'?

I bet such a govt will be considered as 'anti people' by a majority. people have been migrating abroad for ages, yet I havent seen countried putting such impositions arguing its affecting their talent base or undermining their grassroot activity.

if am talented, in todays world, there is no way I shoiuld be prevented from earning what I deserve, just because I happened to be born in a particular strip of earth.

 

[jeevan]

As an Indian fan, no problem at all if our key players skipped national duties like the ODI in WI due to IPL. First, there are too many meaningless international games - particularly bilateral & trilateral ODI series. Second, particularly in India, there are too many decent players who deserve to get a go and such ODI series are prime candidates to blood players en masse. Would be quite all right if only two players from Sehwag, SRT, Gambhir, Dhoni, Zaheer, Harbhajan (these are the automatic selections for both ODIs & tests) were present for any given bilateral or trilateral series. In fact would insist that a precious commodity like Zaheer sit out most ODIs, and IPL affords him the financial cushion to do so. Come to think of it, all tests against BD and even dead rubbers are times to rest 3 or 4 from the core team if the IPL is burning them out.

Small price to pay for the 60-90 Indian players (besides the international regulars) who are getting a fabulous financial and sporting experience rubbing shoulders with the likes of Warne & Gilchrist, Sanga & Vettori, and Watson & Gayle. Finding a Valthaty is well worth losing an ODI or ten every year and never mind the rankings.

 

[jeevan]

Then cricket will lose in the long run because what incentive would boards have to provide development and grass roots programs for cricketers when all they do is go and play the IPL, a market which is fairly isolated from a global market

Well the boards get a part of IPL profits, right? The boards also have an outlet for their players who are quite good, but national teams only have squads of 14 or 15 and so cannot be accomodated too much. Shaun Marsh as an example of such a player from Australia - IPL would've come as a release valve for him after not being in the WC ...

 

[GotSpin]

As an Indian fan, no problem at all if our key players skipped national duties like the ODI in WI due to IPL. First, there are too many meaningless international games - particularly bilateral & trilateral ODI series. Second, particularly in India, there are too many decent players who deserve to get a go and such ODI series are prime candidates to blood players en masse. Would be quite all right if only two players from Sehwag, SRT, Gambhir, Dhoni, Zaheer, Harbhajan (these are the automatic selections for both ODIs & tests) were present for any given bilateral or trilateral series. In fact would insist that a precious commodity like Zaheer sit out most ODIs, and IPL affords him the financial cushion to do so. Come to think of it, all tests against BD and even dead rubbers are times to rest 3 or 4 from the core team if the IPL is burning them out.

.

I disagree - Except that there are too many meaningless ODI series - National representation should be more important no matter what, and it's absurd to have the scenario in which players sit out because they don't want to burn out for the IPL

 

[GotSpin]

Well the boards get a part of IPL profits, right? The boards also have an outlet for their players who are quite good, but national teams only have squads of 14 or 15 and so cannot be accomodated too much. Shaun Marsh as an example of such a player from Australia - IPL would've come as a release valve for him after not being in the WC ...

Yes there are definitely financial benefits for fringe players, but this time could otherwise be spent playing in a format that is actually beneficial for his game and his country - i.e playing country cricket etc - Not to mention more wear and tear on players

 

[Howsie]

if am talented, in todays world, there is no way I shoiuld be prevented from earning what I deserve, just because I happened to be born in a particular strip of earth.

And I think most people will agree with that, but GS makes a valid point in saying cricket could potentially lose out if boards don't feel as though they're getting a good enough return on their investments. Why should they be expected to fork out millions developing the game in their country and providing players for the future only to have them take off and ply their trade elsewhere for another business?