-
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.
BCCI make their own cricketing calendar
- Thread starter Pratters
- Start date
Langeveldt
Soutie
So this ten year ICC plan basically means sweet FA, even before India started playing there own games?Blaze said:
I find it ludicrous that in a league teams play more often against some teams than others.. (The ashes).. Imagine if, say Manchester City had to play Chelsea four times a season? It just doesn't seem logical if they want to have a proper test league going.. There should be a rigid and methodical structure used
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
India didn't bully New Zealand - it was a decision taken by mutual consent quite some time ago because it suited both countries to put it on the back-burner for a while.Blaze said:
I guess we could be seeing the first steps in the break-up of the ICC.
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Where's New Zealand's incentive in going along with the BCCI just for the sake of it? I'm not saying that you are wrong, but I cannot see what they have to gain............Blaze said:
Oh my.
WC2011 announced for New Zealand in 5....4....3....
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
u may want to check my post in the other thread regarding this issue. Plz tell me how you would have fitted in the tour, given that the Indians wanted a break of 4 weeks or so right before the WC.Blaze said:
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
lol, sorry, I meant to quote another post and accidentally quoted this one. Apologies.social said:
If BCCI have decided to have their own Test and ODI calendar, they should be allowed to do so, IMO. India obviously contributes a Lion's share to World Cricket coffers and for years ICC has been under valuing the contribution India makes while some others (you know who they are) have shrewdly capitalised on their Financial contribution and economic significance to Global Cricket in terms of securing tours and other advantages and playing lesser nations in remote locations to compensate and minimise their losses.
India have , IMO, naively failed to capitalise on their economic strength and contribution to world cricket coffers so far, and now they seem to have very clever administrators who have finally realised this .
If some others are allowed to dominate and dictate to ICC because of their economic power (and because they have key individuals strategically positioned in the ICC), why shouldn't India the World's Largest Cricket Playing Nation (and soon to be the largest populated country in the World) be allowed to do so ?
India have , IMO, naively failed to capitalise on their economic strength and contribution to world cricket coffers so far, and now they seem to have very clever administrators who have finally realised this .
If some others are allowed to dominate and dictate to ICC because of their economic power (and because they have key individuals strategically positioned in the ICC), why shouldn't India the World's Largest Cricket Playing Nation (and soon to be the largest populated country in the World) be allowed to do so ?
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Atherton continues to show how much he knows.
http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/india/content/story/234044.html
He says that the recent actions of India shows who is the master and who is the servant. I guess he wants things to go back to the old ways, when it was again clear who was master and who was servant. See how he has totally missed the actual point, of India having only 60 days of cricket at home and that too at different times of the year, not during the conventional season while England and Australia get 100+ days of international cricket and that too during THEIR season. Speed needs to stand up for that? I still remember him talking absolute rubbish about Lara NOT being a team player etc and glorifying Windies performance in the first test against RSA.... There is a reason I call the guy a first rate [unmentionable word]. I tried to talk to him when he was in Chennai commentating on the Ind-Aus series and he acted like an absolute jerk when the fans got around him.
I guess we should have known about his "knowledge" when he apparently said that Boucher will keep well to Murali or something to that effect to aussie. I remember such a post from him in one of the threads about the super series.
http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/india/content/story/234044.html
He says that the recent actions of India shows who is the master and who is the servant. I guess he wants things to go back to the old ways, when it was again clear who was master and who was servant. See how he has totally missed the actual point, of India having only 60 days of cricket at home and that too at different times of the year, not during the conventional season while England and Australia get 100+ days of international cricket and that too during THEIR season. Speed needs to stand up for that? I still remember him talking absolute rubbish about Lara NOT being a team player etc and glorifying Windies performance in the first test against RSA.... There is a reason I call the guy a first rate [unmentionable word]. I tried to talk to him when he was in Chennai commentating on the Ind-Aus series and he acted like an absolute jerk when the fans got around him.
I guess we should have known about his "knowledge" when he apparently said that Boucher will keep well to Murali or something to that effect to aussie. I remember such a post from him in one of the threads about the super series.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Zim used to play in May/June. SL play in Jun/July/August... India can host cricket in August/September, so can Pak. The question is are England willing to travel during THEIR season as so many other teams do... Ditto with Australia. That will show a LOT about how COMMITTED these two countries are to the ICC schedule etc.marc71178 said:
Fusion
Global Moderator
Good article by Kamran Abbasi on cricinfo:
Cricket's new world order
Kamran Abbasi
January 23, 2006
Note this month as a milestone in your life. Remember where you were, what you did, how you felt. Depending on what matters to you and how old you are, mark it in somewhere near John F Kennedy's shooting, Live Aid (first time around), September 11 and July 7. If you loved cricket's old-order lament, if you covet the new world rejoice, for this is the month that the world of cricket finally turned on its head after years of leaning like Pisa'a tower.
One-hundred-and-twenty-eight years and ten months since Australia and England played the first Test match, Pakistan and India drew match number 1781 and won the world - or more precisely India did. Cricket's seat of power flew over land and sea, s******ed above Dubai, and found a new home in New Delhi. With the announcement of a series of top-billing bilateral tours - and quiet withdrawal from ones that did not fit with the business strategy - the Indian cricket board showed ICC's men of finance what finance really is and made the world dance for its rupees. Australia, England, and Pakistan, all cleverly and lucratively embraced. New Zealand, Bangladesh, and the ICC Champions Trophy were cast away as untouchables.
India's strike was swift and sure, received with barely a murmur of official dissent from the ICC whose Future Tours Programme may not have collapsed but immediately took on the look of a supporting act. How, you might have wondered, would cricket's ruling body respond to India's billion strong consumer market - and ability to generate 75% of cricket's revenues - when it reacted so feebly to little Zimbabwe's little Hitler? With a polite letter, in fact, which is diplomatic code for surrender. ICC, for its part, had no option. India had snared Australia, England, and Pakistan in its trap, and Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, at the very least among ICC's other full members, are unlikely to grumble.
The benefits of this new schedule are many. It makes infinite sense for India and Pakistan to play each other on a two-yearly cycle akin to the Ashes, providing both regularity and some longing to these essential encounters. Indeed, ICC's special accommodation of Australia's and England's home seasons in its tours programme - everyone else had to fit around - reeked of old colonialism, and with hindsight looks remarkable considering Asia's burgeoning power in the game when the programme was agreed to.
Further, more tussles between India and Australia and England are a sensible recognition of India's clout in world cricket. It is the fans that generate that phenomenal clout who deserve to see the encounters they cherish. The Australian, English, and Pakistani boards will not complain because they will benefit too. Where this leaves Bangladesh, New Zealand, and Zimbabwe - when it returns to Test cricket - is harder to judge. But an obvious role for ICC is to ensure that smaller countries are not sacrificed at the altar of corporate greed. After years of campaigning against the illegitimacy of a sport run by a privileged and colonial elite, it would be intensely hypocritical of India to create a new elite and damn the beggars at the banquet. Such a move would be against India's long held view of the future of cricket as a sport ripe for globalisation and its support for cricket's new entrants. It would also demonstrate a certain arrogance in dismissing the lessons of history, a history that reveals how it took years for countries like India and Pakistan to demonstrate both their cricketing prowess and their audience-pulling power.
Ultimately, this is how India's audacious move will be judged. In our world driven by consumers, markets, and revenues, a world that places ever higher value on sport, entertainment, and technology - cricket, we know, encompasses all three - few should begrudge India's right to state the reality of its leadership position in world cricket by creating a tour programme that serves its purpose. Australia may have the best team but India is the biggest fish or the "big beast of cricket" as Michael Atherton put it. Leadership, though, carries responsibility and requires values. India's unilateral declarations of the past month - and importantly outside the sphere of the ICC - are an irresponsible beginning. Derogatory remarks about other countries, such as those about Bangladesh, expose a shortage of values other than pursuit of profit.
This month, India - and more generally Asia - finally seized control of international cricket, and there is much that feels right about this new world cricket order. But the test of leadership really begins here. Unless cricket's Age of India allows the minnows and the big beasts to thrive together - and works in partnership with those outside India and Asia - this month's milestone may become difficult to celebrate. Cricket's Age of Empire, ruled by Australia and England and governed by the clubs of Marylebone and Melbourne and the Imperial Cricket Conference, once seemed immortal too. It is now dead.
Cricket's new world order
Kamran Abbasi
January 23, 2006
Note this month as a milestone in your life. Remember where you were, what you did, how you felt. Depending on what matters to you and how old you are, mark it in somewhere near John F Kennedy's shooting, Live Aid (first time around), September 11 and July 7. If you loved cricket's old-order lament, if you covet the new world rejoice, for this is the month that the world of cricket finally turned on its head after years of leaning like Pisa'a tower.
One-hundred-and-twenty-eight years and ten months since Australia and England played the first Test match, Pakistan and India drew match number 1781 and won the world - or more precisely India did. Cricket's seat of power flew over land and sea, s******ed above Dubai, and found a new home in New Delhi. With the announcement of a series of top-billing bilateral tours - and quiet withdrawal from ones that did not fit with the business strategy - the Indian cricket board showed ICC's men of finance what finance really is and made the world dance for its rupees. Australia, England, and Pakistan, all cleverly and lucratively embraced. New Zealand, Bangladesh, and the ICC Champions Trophy were cast away as untouchables.
India's strike was swift and sure, received with barely a murmur of official dissent from the ICC whose Future Tours Programme may not have collapsed but immediately took on the look of a supporting act. How, you might have wondered, would cricket's ruling body respond to India's billion strong consumer market - and ability to generate 75% of cricket's revenues - when it reacted so feebly to little Zimbabwe's little Hitler? With a polite letter, in fact, which is diplomatic code for surrender. ICC, for its part, had no option. India had snared Australia, England, and Pakistan in its trap, and Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, at the very least among ICC's other full members, are unlikely to grumble.
The benefits of this new schedule are many. It makes infinite sense for India and Pakistan to play each other on a two-yearly cycle akin to the Ashes, providing both regularity and some longing to these essential encounters. Indeed, ICC's special accommodation of Australia's and England's home seasons in its tours programme - everyone else had to fit around - reeked of old colonialism, and with hindsight looks remarkable considering Asia's burgeoning power in the game when the programme was agreed to.
Further, more tussles between India and Australia and England are a sensible recognition of India's clout in world cricket. It is the fans that generate that phenomenal clout who deserve to see the encounters they cherish. The Australian, English, and Pakistani boards will not complain because they will benefit too. Where this leaves Bangladesh, New Zealand, and Zimbabwe - when it returns to Test cricket - is harder to judge. But an obvious role for ICC is to ensure that smaller countries are not sacrificed at the altar of corporate greed. After years of campaigning against the illegitimacy of a sport run by a privileged and colonial elite, it would be intensely hypocritical of India to create a new elite and damn the beggars at the banquet. Such a move would be against India's long held view of the future of cricket as a sport ripe for globalisation and its support for cricket's new entrants. It would also demonstrate a certain arrogance in dismissing the lessons of history, a history that reveals how it took years for countries like India and Pakistan to demonstrate both their cricketing prowess and their audience-pulling power.
Ultimately, this is how India's audacious move will be judged. In our world driven by consumers, markets, and revenues, a world that places ever higher value on sport, entertainment, and technology - cricket, we know, encompasses all three - few should begrudge India's right to state the reality of its leadership position in world cricket by creating a tour programme that serves its purpose. Australia may have the best team but India is the biggest fish or the "big beast of cricket" as Michael Atherton put it. Leadership, though, carries responsibility and requires values. India's unilateral declarations of the past month - and importantly outside the sphere of the ICC - are an irresponsible beginning. Derogatory remarks about other countries, such as those about Bangladesh, expose a shortage of values other than pursuit of profit.
This month, India - and more generally Asia - finally seized control of international cricket, and there is much that feels right about this new world cricket order. But the test of leadership really begins here. Unless cricket's Age of India allows the minnows and the big beasts to thrive together - and works in partnership with those outside India and Asia - this month's milestone may become difficult to celebrate. Cricket's Age of Empire, ruled by Australia and England and governed by the clubs of Marylebone and Melbourne and the Imperial Cricket Conference, once seemed immortal too. It is now dead.