India, Australia, England attempt to take control of Cricket

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Defy away. But then understand that you are working against cricket, not in favour of it, by an irrational deference towards the format that is the most stagnant and leading towards erosion of cricket's marketshare in the entertainment industry.

Can you please stop misrepresenting your personal views as a statement of fact. All of your post is conjecture and speculation.

 

[Flem274*]

there's no reason why both T20 and tests between all ten nations (maybe more if the time comes) can't coexist, and for every T20 mercenary there are even more international players saying they want to be remembered in test cricket. mccullum is a very frustrating player and often his personality and his loyalty to nz gets called into question by fans. im probably his loudest critic on the forum, but i think questioning his desire to serve nz is wrong because he wants to make his mark so badly he's been involved in some pretty nasty backroom issues and is forever trying to make himself fit into a role in tests. mccullum is one of the T20 all time greats with a crocked back which could snap at any moment and force him into retirement from all cricket, yet he chooses nz.

the vast majority of T20 mercenaries are old retired players, 30 year old fringe players who cbf risking all when they have famillies to feed, or ****ty bits and pieces players who would never have succeeded anyway.

 

[Muloghonto]

Can you please stop misrepresenting your personal views as a statement of fact. All of your post is conjecture and speculation.

It is not a personal view that the model of delivery that is Test cricket is the one that has the least popularity and the least growth potential in the worldwide market that is cricket- both existing and untapped.
Ergo, by deference towards the least viable model of delivery, you are not helping the cause of the product.

To draw a simple analogy, if your product is a car, by showing deference towards the ford model T and arguing that its huge success in the past & its historical relevance should afford it the most production time, despite it being a massively inferior product to other models, you are actually working against the car industry, not in favour of it.
I fail to see how if its true for the car industry, your position isnt true for cricket too.

 

[Garson007]

The term 'flagship' comes from the British Navy, where the ship that was the most robust, powerful and often the latest model was designated the job of flagging, namely, carrying the admiral and 'flagging signals' to the rest. True enough, the current flagship of the navies are the most powerful ships at their disposal.

Which test cricket is. It's the best form of cricket. Just like the 911 from Porsche is their best product, whether it actually has the most sales or not.

In a business context, the flagship model of any product has been the model that has generated the greatest sales.

Absolute ****ing nonsense. The flagship is the prime product - not the best selling one. The flagship is the one that instigates the halo effect so that the rest of the products sell well. It's got nothing to do with the actual sales of the product. The fact that some flagships sell the most does not mean the two terms are synonymous.

 

[Prince EWS]

I fail to see how if its true for the car industry, your position isnt true for cricket too.

Which is entirely your problem really.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Prove it then. I do understand what you're saying as I'm not a cretin, but I just disagree with you. We've had sold out test matches in a so called dying market in the past 12 months. I don't think you in your Friedman ivory tower in Canada have much of a disinterested view of popularity of test cricket in current markets, so please stop stating your biased opinion as fact.

@muloghonto, of course.

 

[Muloghonto]

there's no reason why both T20 and tests between all ten nations (maybe more if the time comes) can't coexist, and for every T20 mercenary there are even more international players saying they want to be remembered in test cricket. mccullum is a very frustrating player and often his personality and his loyalty to nz gets called into question by fans. im probably his loudest critic on the forum, but i think questioning his desire to serve nz is wrong because he wants to make his mark so badly he's been involved in some pretty nasty backroom issues and is forever trying to make himself fit into a role in tests. mccullum is one of the T20 all time greats with a crocked back which could snap at any moment and force him into retirement from all cricket, yet he chooses nz.

the vast majority of T20 mercenaries are old retired players, 30 year old fringe players who cbf risking all when they have famillies to feed, or ****ty bits and pieces players who would never have succeeded anyway.

What you say is true but it can be easily explained away by two salient facts:

1. Humanity fundamentally prefers stability over uncertainty. Test cricket has been around for 100+ years, its 'stable' as of now. 20/20 cricket has barely existed for five and is only now being accepted as beginning to be stable. It is human nature to not jump ship at the first sign of the new and bold but to only make the leap when the new and bold is also better and has given the impression that its here to stay & not a flash in the pan.

2. Most test players today grew up in an environment where test cricket and test format was the foremost. Therefore it is natural for them to adhere to the value-system they grew up with. But already, we've seen that in places, such as the subcontinent, where 50 overs cricket has transcended test cricket in popularity and financial apex, several players, such as Afridi, Malinga, etc. have categorically walked away from test cricket to persue limited overs cricket. Some, like Yuvraj Singh, do not give two figs about their lack of presence in the test team. This is because the subcontinentals have a less gap between test cricket and limited overs cricket as to which is the top format in their value system.
Which leads to the reality that the future generation of cricketers- the ones who are in their pre-teens or early teens today- what possibly would be their incentive to view test cricket as the apex career accomplishment over 20/20 cricket, especially when one makes 1000x the money in 20/20 ? Incase you forgot, reverence towards the establishment and historicity of an endavour over the financial benefits of the endavour is never a selling point to the vast majority of the youth.

 

[Garson007]

Its like choosing between Hitler and Saddam. Both systems are not free. But the franchised league structure is free-er than the national setup of the sport.

I disagree. As an entity to compete the team is more free under the international structure than the franchise team structure, especially if the ICC introduces a fluid league system. Players do however have freedom of movement under a franchise structure.

But why settle for only one freedom? The European association football club system is even more free - it will not however generate as much money as either so thereby is anti-greed and therefore unlikely to ever happen.

 

[Muloghonto]

Prove it then. I do understand what you're saying as I'm not a cretin, but I just disagree with you. We've had sold out test matches in a so called dying market in the past 12 months. I don't think you in your Friedman ivory tower in Canada have much of a disinterested view of popularity of test cricket in current markets, so please stop stating your biased opinion as fact.

@muloghonto, of course.

I've said this repeatedly and you seem to not get the picture. Ticket sales are irrelevant. If you sell out a stadium of 50,000 people but fail to get fiscally viable sponsorship from the networks that transmit your product to 50 million people, you have a failing product. Period. As it stands now, no network anywhere, barring a few choice series such as India vs Australia or the Ashes, find selling test cricket exclusively as profitable venture.

It is not a biassed opinion, it is a fact that networks won't carry the vast majority of test series without the added limited overs screentime that will cover the losses incurred in showing test cricket. Do your research please.

 

[social]

Only as much as I was naive for being sad when my grandfather died. Sure it was inevitable and sure I saw it coming a mile away but that doesn't mean it didn't feel like a kick in the guts and decrease my enjoyment of family functions when it did.

The BCCI is the world's wealthiest/powerful body largely due to the IPL

The ECB refuses to provide NOCs due to conflicts with the CC and lambs to the slaughter early season tests

This marriage of convenience wont last IMO

 

[Muloghonto]

Which test cricket is. It's the best form of cricket. Just like the 911 from Porsche is their best product, whether it actually has the most sales or not.

Err no, test cricket is not the best form of cricket. The best form of cricket is the one that has the greatest consumption amongst the masses. Test cricket is the model T of cricket. Old, venerated but completely broken and outdated.

Absolute ****ing nonsense. The flagship is the prime product - not the best selling one. The flagship is the one that instigates the halo effect so that the rest of the products sell well. It's got nothing to do with the actual sales of the product. The fact that some flagships sell the most does not mean the two terms are synonymous.

The halo effect is created by the stunning sales of the flagship model. Very few flagship models are retained once they fail to make money. The old beetle is no longer the flagship model- it once was because it sold the most. By and large the general rule of business is that the flagship model gets that status by being a consistent top seller.
That is why Honda's flagship is the Civic, Toyota's is the Camry and Pepsi's is Pepsi Cola. Pandering towards the few exceptions to the rule does not help your case.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I've said this repeatedly and you seem to not get the picture. Ticket sales are irrelevant. If you sell out a stadium of 50,000 people but fail to get fiscally viable sponsorship from the networks that transmit your product to 50 million people, you have a failing product. Period. As it stands now, no network anywhere, barring a few choice series such as India vs Australia or the Ashes, find selling test cricket exclusively as profitable venture.

It is not a biassed opinion, it is a fact that networks won't carry the vast majority of test series without the added limited overs screentime that will cover the losses incurred in showing test cricket. Do your research please.

Bollocks. Number of people at the stadium has a direct correlation to the numbers watching at home. Test cricket is still popular. You're in no position to comment on other countries views on the popularity of the game. Do my research, pleae, you ask? Well, try and accept that you do not represent everyone's views and you opinions are not fact FFS. As I have stated, Sky NZ have taken MORE coverage of Test cricket this season than ever before, and that isn't for some kind of social service. This coverage taken despite being a supposedly "dead" series between SL and Pakistan. What do you know that Sky NZ don't, pray tell?

 

[Flem274*]

What you say is true but it can be easily explained away by two salient facts:

Facts or opinion?

1. Humanity fundamentally prefers stability over uncertainty.

Cite.

It is human nature to not jump ship at the first sign of the new and bold but to only make the leap when the new and bold is also better and has given the impression that its here to stay & not a flash in the pan.

If this was true we would still not know how to make fire. Again, cite.

2. Most test players today grew up in an environment where test cricket and test format was the foremost. Therefore it is natural for them to adhere to the value-system they grew up with. But already, we've seen that in places, such as the subcontinent, where 50 overs cricket has transcended test cricket in popularity and financial apex, several players, such as Afridi, Malinga, etc. have categorically walked away from test cricket to persue limited overs cricket. Some, like Yuvraj Singh, do not give two figs about their lack of presence in the test team. This is because the subcontinentals have a less gap between test cricket and limited overs cricket as to which is the top format in their value system.

Several players do not make a trend. I'm sure there were a few Packer mercenaries as well. We still see the Guptill's, KW's etc who choose to hone their test games in 4 day county cricket rather than take the cash. I think one of the forever injured young quicks from Aussie voluntarily avoided T20 as well, at least for a bit, because he wanted to be a proper bowler. David Warner even as a T20 specialist made it clear time and again he wanted to make his name as a test batsman. We could sit here exchanging one off examples all night. Show me the numbers.

Which leads to the reality that the future generation of cricketers- the ones who are in their pre-teens or early teens today- what possibly would be their incentive to view test cricket as the apex career accomplishment over 20/20 cricket, especially when one makes 1000x the money in 20/20 ?

This is only possible if you can prove your previous statements true with hard data. Even then it is not reality, just a hypothesis.

Incase you forgot, reverence towards the establishment and historicity of an endavour over the financial benefits of the endavour is never a selling point to the vast majority of the youth.

Why does amatuer sport exist? Why do people take doctorate degrees in geology rather than big bucks for mineral exploration companies? Do not think we all share your values.

 

[Garson007]

The best form of X is the one that has the greatest consumption amongst the masses.

Okay. If that is your view then this discussion is pointless. Clearly the Toyota Corolla is the best car ever built.

 

[Muloghonto]

Bollocks. Number of people at the stadium has a direct correlation to the numbers watching at home. Test cricket is still popular. You're in no position to comment on other countries views on the popularity of the game. Do my research, pleae, you ask? Well, try and accept that you do not represent everyone's views and you opinions are not fact FFS. As I have stated, Sky NZ have taken MORE coverage of Test cricket this season than ever before, and that isn't for some kind of social service. This coverage taken despite being a supposedly "dead" series between SL and Pakistan. What do you know that Sky NZ don't, pray tell?

As much as you would like to dismiss my facts as 'opinion', it still remains a fact that limited overs cricket makes a profit for over 90% of the series played and test cricket incurs a loss for over 90% of the series played for the networks.
The coverage of test cricket is a loss-making venture that is made up for by the profits incurred in the limited overs format. Networks are forced to carry test cricket due to coverage deals with ICC and member nations but since the numbers are not specified in the contract, for all but a few choice test series, the continuous pressure is to trim the test leg of the tours and add more limited overs contests from the networks.
This is a fact, not an opinion or fiction.

 

[uvelocity]

hondas flagship is the legend, and they sell **** all of them

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Okay. If that is your view then this discussion is pointless. Clearly the Toyota Corolla is the best car ever built.

Beautiful.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

As much as you would like to dismiss my facts as 'opinion', it still remains a fact that limited overs cricket makes a profit for over 90% of the series played and test cricket incurs a loss for over 90% of the series played for the networks.
The coverage of test cricket is a loss-making venture that is made up for by the profits incurred in the limited overs format. Networks are forced to carry test cricket due to coverage deals with ICC and member nations but since the numbers are not specified in the contract, for all but a few choice test series, the continuous pressure is to trim the test leg of the tours and add more limited overs contests from the networks.
This is a fact, not an opinion or fiction.

If it's a fact, then provide some proper evidence then, which you've so far failed to do.

As far as I'm concerned, 62% of statistics are made up, and 100% of your statistics are made up. Show me something that supports your statistics and maybe I'll start to believe that you're speaking fact and not opinion.

 

[Muloghonto]

Facts or opinion?

fact.

Cite.

investment in stock market trends overwhelmingly confirms that humanity has a far bigger proclivity towards investing in volume towards a stable market product over a new one.

If this was true we would still not know how to make fire. Again, cite.

Again, stock market trend. We do not buy stocks in a new company nearly as quickly or in volume as we do in an established one.

Several players do not make a trend. I'm sure there were a few Packer mercenaries as well. We still see the Guptill's, KW's etc who choose to hone their test games in 4 day county cricket rather than take the cash. I think one of the forever injured young quicks from Aussie voluntarily avoided T20 as well, at least for a bit, because he wanted to be a proper bowler. David Warner even as a T20 specialist made it clear time and again he wanted to make his name as a test batsman. We could sit here exchanging one off examples all night. Show me the numbers.

I think several players do make a trend. If you want the majority to follow the principle, then it is not a trend, it is a law.

This is only possible if you can prove your previous statements true with hard data. Even then it is not reality, just a hypothesis.

Why does amatuer sport exist? Why do people take doctorate degrees in geology rather than big bucks for mineral exploration companies? Do not think we all share your values.

I did not say we all share the same values. But the value of professionalism and chasing the big bucks over historical protectionism has majority following in virtually all human endavour.

 

[Muloghonto]

If it's a fact, then provide some proper evidence then, which you've so far failed to do.

As far as I'm concerned, 62% of statistics are made up, and 100% of your statistics are made up. Show me something that supports your statistics and maybe I'll start to believe that you're speaking fact and not opinion.

Do your own research, i am not privy to printing or citing the renumeration details of networks on this website. To do so, i am pretty sure, would be to invite a lot of lawsuits in my direction.
If you are geuinely challenging the fact that 90% of test series are loss making ventures for the networks, i can safely say that you know very little about the actual economics of cricket and use your limited intuitive experience as the only candle in this discussion.