If I controlled the icc I would...

[andruid]

Why would you dive in to save a man that isn't drowning?

Any sport with as many inbred and institutionalised inequalities as cricket would be termed as drowning.

 

[Manee]

Why would the boards (who comprise the ICC) agree to this though?

Dunno. This is all idealistic though, I don't really run the ICC

 

[andruid]

I$C$C will never have the power to do that. You'd need to organise a coup at every newspaper that covers cricket if you wanted that.

Then how on earth do organisations like FIFA ensure that their own competions like the World Cup get prime time or at least a decent mention in the mainstream with all the other money spinning tournaments like the UEFA Champion's league and so forth. Its scary when the ICC's so-called premier First Class competition can't even afford a paragraph on the BBC leave alone Murdoch's one eyed media empire.

 

[social]

1. Add more technology to cricket (appeal system)
2. Ban sledging
3. Make all Test series a minimum of four Tests
4. Mandatory two or three warm up games (3 days each) before the first Test
5. Get rid of the coin toss (visiting team always chooses what to do)
6. Get rid of the front-foot no ball, or use technology for it

1. If the series finishes at 2-2, you'd want 5. Basically, it has to be an odd number and unfortunately there is zero point in a number of countries playing more than the odd game against the weaker ones.

2. Nope, the coin toss is part of the beauty of the game

 

[andmark]

I would not have bad light or rain stop play. (Make the cointoss more important.)

 

[silentstriker]

1. If the series finishes at 2-2, you'd want 5. Basically, it has to be an odd number and unfortunately there is zero point in a number of countries playing more than the odd game against the weaker ones.

Nah, there would be draws as well. There is usually at least one draw in a contested series.

 

[silentstriker]

2. Nope, the coin toss is part of the beauty of the game

Nah, its an unfair advantage to a side. The home team produces the wicket, and the touring side decides who'll bat first. That's a fair solution, in my opinion.

 

[Richard]

Then how on earth do organisations like FIFA ensure that their own competions like the World Cup get prime time or at least a decent mention in the mainstream with all the other money spinning tournaments like the UEFA Champion's league and so forth. Its scary when the ICC's so-called premier First Class competition can't even afford a paragraph on the BBC leave alone Murdoch's one eyed media empire.

FIFA and UEFA don't ensure it. They benefit because the competitions are things massive numbers of people want to watch. The TV companies offer to show it, because they know it will benefit them - FIFA and UEFA therefore accept these offers. They don't force the TV companies to make said offers.

The only people who can make competitions like the Intercontinental Cup television-worthy are the people of the nations. Until they make the game look popular, TV companies won't be interested. And until TV companies are interested, they won't be showing it.

 

[Richard]

Nah, there would be draws as well. There is usually at least one draw in a contested series.

There really wouldn't be that many if you introduced measures to stop overs from being stolen by forces outside (rain, light) and within (poor over-rates) the game.

At the current time, draws where the full number of overs have been properly bowled are very, very rare indeed.

 

[simmy]

More T20s, less 50 over games and more test matches.

 

[Richard]

If I controlled the icc I would...

... say Bermuda are no longer a ODI-worthy team. Honestly, if the aim is expansion, you're wasting your time and money if you ever believe they're going to get remotely close to the required standard. The entire country has a population of 60,000, barely half the capacity of the biggest cricket stadium in The World.

 

[andruid]

FIFA and UEFA don't ensure it. They benefit because the competitions are things massive numbers of people want to watch. The TV companies offer to show it, because they know it will benefit them - FIFA and UEFA therefore accept these offers. They don't force the TV companies to make said offers.

The only people who can make competitions like the Intercontinental Cup television-worthy are the people of the nations. Until they make the game look popular, TV companies won't be interested. And until TV companies are interested, they won't be showing it.

The point I am making is that unlike The ICC and its constituent boards, FIFA na the Likes of UEFA do have a system through which all their competitions are run in a way that they generally can share the TV audiences without undermining one another.

As far as making tournaments like the Intercontinental Cup 'television-worthy' feats like Gerry Snyman's double century and bowling efforts like the Umar Bhatti's hattrick in the 2007 final could happen everyday but without the advance marketing or a minimum threshold of reporting then then they will never become TV worthy.

 

[Richard]

The point I was trying to make is that full houses are an absolute must as a precursor to any TV company being interested.

Seriously - no TV company is going to pay to broadcast Uganda v Canada. It's a shame, it really is, but it's a reality. There's a lot that I$C$C do wrong, but there's nothing they can do to force the game on the public of Canada.

 

[andruid]

The point I was trying to make is that full houses are an absolute must as a precursor to any TV company being interested.

Seriously - no TV company is going to pay to broadcast Uganda v Canada. It's a shame, it really is, but it's a reality. There's a lot that I$C$C do wrong, but there's nothing they can do to force the game on the public of Canada.

That would be a whole lot without the fact that mainstream media already has an huge reach in potential markets and are already flooding them with footage of the dominant cricketing powers. How are Associate/Affiliate cricketing nations going to comvince fans to fill up stadiums for local teams when there is so much Test cricket with bigger marketing machinery and revenue on TV?

 

[Burgey]

Nah, its an unfair advantage to a side. The home team produces the wicket, and the touring side decides who'll bat first. That's a fair solution, in my opinion.

Meet you half way - one coin toss at the start of the series, the winner decides what to do that test, then it's alternate through the series from then on.

On the Champions Trophy, I say scrap it and put the T20 WC in the space it occupied, else the CT year will get pretty cramped, given both the CT and T20 WCs would be in it, thus further compromising test series.

 

[Richard]

That would be a whole lot without the fact that mainstream media already has an huge reach in potential markets and are already flooding them with footage of the dominant cricketing powers. How are Associate/Affiliate cricketing nations going to comvince fans to fill up stadiums for local teams when there is so much Test cricket with bigger marketing machinery and revenue on TV?

By playing vibrant cricket of their own and attracting the partisan instincts of their own countrymen.

That is the only way. Sadly, though, such a thing cannot happen purely by the skill of the organisers. Some element of luck generally needs to be present too.

 

[Richard]

Meet you half way - one coin toss at the start of the series, the winner decides what to do that test, then it's alternate through the series from then on.

I'm still far happier with the idea that some form of skill, rather than luck, -related matter decides on a match-by-match basis.

Mind, the notion of alternating is an ITSTL one.

 

[silentstriker]

Meet you half way - one coin toss at the start of the series, the winner decides what to do that test, then it's alternate through the series from then on.

I'd be OK with that. The only issue would be that if its a five match series, and let's say the home captain wins the toss. The groundskeeper then might prepare a total pitch that will crap out completely by the end of day 2. He knows his captain will pick first and he'll bat, so he pretty much ensures the win.

I think that the visiting teams need the ability to call whether to bat or bowl first to minimize any pitch-preparing shenanigans by the home board. Pitches should be prepared by the home team, and offer them an advantage based on their skill (so, Indian pitches would turn from day 1, NZ pitches would bounce, etc), but it should be fair for both sides (instead of paradise for four days and then 10 wickets fall on the first session on day five).

 

[Richard]

Seriously, who has ever - who could ever - prepare a pitch like that?

 

[slugger]

I just want to add .. that I would like non test playing nations.. compete or begin to atleast be given the oportunity aginst the test teams etc.. but the other day I realised I hard this truely is... here in NZ 5 days out from the start of the Super 14 the main papers where saturated with rugby stories.. in the sports section you had to go in 14 pages before you came across the cricket and this was at this current time right in the middle of the odi series against eng.. so i thought I could geting cricket to a level of popuality in the non test nations be possible when even in a test playing nation cricket is moved to the back pages as quick as that even when a series is on.. and worse even when rugby hasnt kicked off..

Its got to be very tricky to get these non test teams up to a good standard.. however I think the IPL and the ICl are going to create a lot of opportunities for these baseball nations.. it ill take one guy who didnt make t baseball to apply his talent to cricket.. think about like this if winton rufer good play in the german league and be consided a play of true talent worthy enough for germany at a time to suggest he could have played in their national team.. then something like this is possible for cricket.. and 20/20 is going to be the inticement ... money.. money .. money..

sorry fro the rant...