icc rights goto espn star for $1.1 billion!!

[nightprowler10]

You're welcome. Want a cloth to wipe it off?

No thanks, SS already hosed me down with a fire hose earlier....

 

[silentstriker]

it was just england australia and south africa when the icc was born and in all those years they now have 10 test playing nations and they weren't even like they are now

Sorry no. WI, Pakistan, India were all pre-dating the ICC. And the others (except Bang/Zim) would have began to play test cricket even if it weren't for the ICC. And Bangladesh should never have been given TEST status.

So, its score is -1 as far as I'm concerned. It didn't admit anyone worth admitting, and gave test status to someone who just messes up Test cricket's stats and records.

Every time we rank a player, we have to 'remove the minnows'. It's an absolute disgrace that we have to do that. Muddle with ODI cricket all you want, leave Test cricket alone until a side proves it won't just be the whipping boys.

 

[nightprowler10]

You don't think Bangladesh deserves test status after they beat another test nation and completely dominated Australia for the better part of a test match? It took New Zealand 60+ tests to get their first win, look at them now.

 

[silentstriker]

You don't think Bangladesh deserves test status after they beat another test nation and completely dominated Australia for the better part of a test match? It took New Zealand 60+ tests to get their first win, look at them now.

Yea, but how many years did 60 tests take? It allowed for a whole new generation of cricketers to come through in the meantime. I wouldn't have a problem with it if they played like 2-3 tests a year, so that way it wouldn't really affect the other players' records and things. But touring and getting toured every 6 per the ICC FTP years is BS.

 

[nightprowler10]

Yea, but how many years did 60 tests take? It allowed for a whole new generation of cricketers to come through in the meantime. I wouldn't have a problem with it if they played like 2-3 tests a year, so that way it wouldn't really affect the other players' records and things. But touring and getting toured every 6 per the ICC FTP years is BS.

Your argument is a valid one, but the solution is not to strip Bangladesh of test status. I've never agreed with the FTP thing, how the hell can you justify NZL getting such a small amount of tests anyway?

 

[LA ICE-E]

Sorry no. WI, Pakistan, India were all pre-dating the ICC. And the others (except Bang/Zim) would have began to play test cricket even if it weren't for the ICC. And Bangladesh should never have been given TEST status.

So, its score is -1 as far as I'm concerned. It didn't admit anyone worth admitting, and gave test status to someone who just messes up Test cricket's stats and records.

Every time we rank a player, we have to 'remove the minnows'. It's an absolute disgrace that we have to do that. Muddle with ODI cricket all you want, leave Test cricket alone until a side proves it won't just be the whipping boys.

india,pak WI would be playing cricket but not test cricket...you can argue all you want about bangladesh but they have people playing cricket in that country and enough fan base to go to their test matches thats whats needed to be a test country along with skills...kenya doesn't have fan base or enough people playing cricket so they dont have test status yet....ah i dont think sri lanka would have played without the icc...and we couldn't muddle with ODI cricket without the funds from the ICC going to the associate nations

 

[LA ICE-E]

Yea, but how many years did 60 tests take? It allowed for a whole new generation of cricketers to come through in the meantime. I wouldn't have a problem with it if they played like 2-3 tests a year, so that way it wouldn't really affect the other players' records and things. But touring and getting toured every 6 per the ICC FTP years is BS.

it thats because they still played cricket nationally (if not as much as now internationallly) but they had new genarations come in well bangladeshs new genarations have not yet come in and they are looking pretty good in the U19s

 

[silentstriker]

india,pak WI would be playing cricket but not test cricket...

West Indies played test cricket in the 1930's. Way before the ICC. India and Pakistan both played in the 1950's......

 

[silentstriker]

it thats because they still played cricket nationally (if not as much as now internationallly) but they had new genarations come in well bangladeshs new genarations have not yet come in and they are looking pretty good in the U19s

If that generation can play good solid test cricket, then you let them in.

 

[LA ICE-E]

West Indies played test cricket in the 1930's. Way before the ICC. India and Pakistan both played in the 1950's......

by this statement you are letting me know you dont know alot about the ICC or what its been doing...just a guess....the ICC was made in 1909....i think thats before the year 1930..isn't it or am i wrong?and when they played the tests they were in the ICC

 

[silentstriker]

by this statement you are letting me know you dont know alot about the ICC or what its been doing...just a guess....the ICC was made in 1909....i think thats before the year 1930..isn't it or am i wrong?and when they played the tests they were in the ICC

ICC in its present form did not exist in 1909. ICC in 1909 was pretty much the Long Room at Lords. And at that point it was called the Imperial Cricket Council.

 

[nightprowler10]

If that generation can play good solid test cricket, then you let them in.

Disagree. For all we know test cricket might be a major reason why cricket actually has a fan base in Bangladesh. If Bangladesh can pull off a victory against someone other than Zimbabwe (and they have come achingly close to doing so), that fanbase will spread like wildfire. And the Banglas don't exactly roll over against every opposition like Zimbabwe did before they were stripped off their test status.

 

[LA ICE-E]

If that generation can play good solid test cricket, then you let them in.

they will but it wouldn't happen without sucking atleast the 1st ten years of test playing...because before they were playing 50 overs and didnt have intercontinental like now(which is a bit of what the ICC did in helping spreading the game)

 

[silentstriker]

There was no further meeting of the Conference until 1921, when the main discussions centred on the use of eight-ball overs. Five years went by without a further meeting, but in 1925/6 MCC sent a team to the West Indies, a visit of particular interest to Lord Harris, who had spent his early years in Trinidad. A West Indies side came close to beating MCC in Georgetown and this performance strengthened the home side’s resolve to join the Test playing countries. When the Imperial Cricket Conference met in England in 1926, delegates from West Indies, New Zealand and India were invited to attend. Later that summer, Lord Harris presided at a second meeting at The Oval, where it was agreed that the membership of the ICC should comprise, ‘governing bodies of cricket in countries within the Empire to which cricket teams are sent, or which send teams to England.’ This definition rather unfortunately excluded the United States, which country had regularly received teams from England since 1859 and had dispatched several teams to England. The meeting effectively created three new Test playing nations, West Indies, New Zealand and India. West Indies played their first Test in 1928, New Zealand in 1929/30 and India in 1932.

Money from the Imperial Cricket Council was not the cause of WI, Ind, NZ joining.

 

[LA ICE-E]

ICC in its present form did not exist in 1909. ICC in 1909 was pretty much the Long Room at Lords. And at that point it was called the Imperial Cricket Council.

yes but changing the name does make it a different organization... Look at IBAF they changed their named but doesn't make it a different oranization

 

[silentstriker]

yes but changing the name does make it a different organization... Look at IBAF they changed their named but doesn't make it a different oranization

Yes, it does. For one, England and Australia had the veto power until very recently. They also did not give money to other countries to 'ignite' the love of cricket.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Money from the Imperial Cricket Council was not the cause of WI, Ind, NZ joining.

didn't say its about money its about ICC helping more countries into cricket...money is just a part of it...organizing tournaments for the associates is just another....building the womens side is just another

 

[LA ICE-E]

Yes, it does. For one, England and Australia had the veto power until very recently. They also did not give money to other countries to 'ignite' the love of cricket.

it was STILL THE SAME ORGANIZATION which made some chances until very recently to help the game

 

[silentstriker]

it was STILL THE SAME ORGANIZATION

Eh? Your contention is that somehow the ICC 'spread' the game to the other countries. Mine is that they did not, and the countries that were let into test status already had a healthy cricket community without any money from the ICC.

You're saying....????

 

[LA ICE-E]

Eh? Your contention is that somehow the ICC 'spread' the game to the other countries. Mine is that they did not, and the countries that were let into test status already had a healthy cricket community without any money from the ICC.

You're saying....????

back then the ICC didn't even have a developement program and cricket might have played in those countries but it would be like baseball without the ICC and domestic sport(yea i know baseball now is starting to be internationl..at least importace wise)...sri lanka, zimb, bang wouldn't been playing test without the ICC and that was before the ICC was focusing on develoment of the game....