• 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.

India, Australia, England attempt to take control of Cricket

Flem274*

123/5
Haha, so if the other boards refuse this the big three won't turn up to ICC events?

Call them on their bluff imo, and if the BCCI refuse to defend their world cup title then let the Indian public sort the issue out for us. There is no way they will stand for it. At the least we'll get some burning caricatures and painted donkeys, and at the extreme end we might even get a lynch mob to solve the problem permanently
 

Flem274*

123/5
Anyway, if we're going to go down I hope New Zealand choose to go down with dignity and integrity and fight this. NZC are a very weak and meek board these days however and as the Ross Taylor dumping showed, they're led by a liar and a boot licker. NZC are going to wave the white flag and it will be galling. I wouldn't be surprised to see the pitches turning square in the test series to try and placate the BCCI. Hesson definitely won't get his seam and bounce he's demanding.
 

Agent Nationaux

International Coach
Since 1990, England have won only 17 matches and lost 37 against Australia. Australia has been the dominant team and will win the majority of matches, especially now that they are improving and with England being in decline.

But anyway, even if it's an equal contest, Test cricket being played by only 2 teams won't last.
 

Flem274*

123/5
off they go then

would rather cricket be an amatuer sport than the other possibility. we've got steyn anyway, so we're automatically cooler.
 

Shri

Mr. Glass
Could be the end of test cricket for all.

With Aus, Eng and India mainly playing each other, the other boards will have to rely on LOI's to survive so test cricket won't be played by them. India will eventually stop playing tests because they will never win matches overseas and their market prefers LOI's. So the only test cricket will be played in the long run will be the Ashes, and will that even last if it's the same 2 teams always playing each other with only 1 winning all the time (Australia)?
Again,

 

Shri

Mr. Glass
Cricket has survived worse. So quit whining and wait and see how bad it gets before getting the pitchforks out. Things change, you can always huff and puff later if you still don't like it.
 

salman85

International Debutant
Eh..How has Cricket survived worse?

Absolute power is never beneficial.There are simply no two ways about it.
 

Agent Nationaux

International Coach
I wasn't whining you prick. I was pointing out that it's a potential deathblow to Test cricket. Whining would be me complaining at how unfair the situation is, and yet I felt positive about Pak playing series with India in the future.
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Cricket has survived worse. So quit whining and wait and see how bad it gets before getting the pitchforks out. Things change, you can always huff and puff later if you still don't like it.
Exactly

Also, BCCI and CA/ECB have been at loggerheads for years so cant imagine that they will all be happy families forever more
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Since 1990, England have won only 17 matches and lost 37 against Australia. Australia has been the dominant team and will win the majority of matches, especially now that they are improving and with England being in decline.

But anyway, even if it's an equal contest, Test cricket being played by only 2 teams won't last.
Before the series that just took place, Australia had won 2 out of 15 Ashes Tests.

Ashes superiority is cyclical. Australia had an ATG team for the 90s and early 21st century, so there's a lot of recent disparity. Even so, in my time watching cricket, the series scoreline reads 4-2 to England.
 

straw man

Hall of Fame Member
So it seems the 'administrators' of the game have decided that their role is not in fact 'to minister to' the game of cricket but instead is self-aggrandisement, to play empires, appeal to jingoism and maximise short-term money for their own organisations and in certain cases no doubt personal enrichment too. Given the reigns, they've decided they are no longer servants of the game; instead the game is servant to them.

As per the other FTP thread, we need to consider the ICC's purpose; once The Goal of the organisation is understood then all means are arranged around the achievement of that goal. The Goal is in the name: International Cricket Council - the goal is Cricket. Money is not The Goal, it is merely a necessary condition to achieve that aim. Some business sensibilities are required to ensure the game can stand up economically, but for these to overwhelm the purpose of the organisation is the tail wagging the dog.

There is no way Cricket is best served by this proposal; any cursory examination of the dynamics involved would forecast that the nations outside the top 3 will be marginalised, resulting in the self-perpetuating cycle of a loss of interest and competitiveness. In the short term this represents a revenue increase for the top 3 (play each other more often) and a cost saving (don't have to play other nations). In the medium to long term it means one by one the marginalised nations fall victim to that negative feedback loop are no longer functional - and it's very hard to reverse that. That's bad enough - the goal spectacularly not achieved in those countries. What's left of the international game of cricket is robbed of it's diversity, and whether people in the big three countries are satisfied still getting served up the same **** sandwich year after year is a further question (probably are tbh).

Test cricket is the other component that is marginalised and possibly eventually left to die. While I love test cricket, I appreciate that many particularly outside this forum do not. That's ok. However the test format is the wellspring from which a depth of expertise, passion and skills flows downhill to the T20 format. It's a marine reserve that spills over to make the surrounding fisheries profitable. It's the repository of expensive and experienced seniors that a company must keep around because they're the ones that understand the company and it's clients. It's the fine wine that people move into when they're no longer satisfied with sweet cordial, and then they sit around discussing the ins and outs of that fine wine for hours afterwards and go to wine-tasting events and make up flowery words to describe it. But this is not just flowery talk - get rid of test cricket and you gut the cricket world of the people that care most about the game and provide much of the interest and expertise that makes it work - that's a monumentally stupid strategy from any perspective.

Particularly when there's already masses and masses of lowest-common-denominator entertainment out there. On that note, it's a fantasy that domestic T20 is going to become big in England and Australia; two countries that are already super-saturated by dominant domestic football codes with broad-based passionate appeal. And if we must use market-speak, frankly T20 is just not as good a product as those football codes. It's taken hold in India most likely because cricket already held a privileged position and didn't have quite so much competition as elsewhere. And forget other markets like the US that are themselves hyper competitive for the sporting entertainment dollar. Any realistic proposal for the good of the game needs to accept as a starting point that the Indian market does and is always likely to make most of money, and the IPL is a big part of that, and then move forward from there. Domestic T20 elsewhere will continue to be attended by people mildly interested in a bit of light amusement and a beer or two on a balmy summer night - not people that care passionately about a result one way or another.

Also can the person clogging this thread with ideological the-free-market-is-God babble please **** off. Just so much bull**** that I don't have time right now to ridicule for the counter-to-reality nonsense that it is.
 

BeeGee

International Captain
So it seems the 'administrators' of the game have decided that their role is not in fact 'to minister to' the game of cricket but instead is self-aggrandisement, to play empires, appeal to jingoism and maximise short-term money for their own organisations and in certain cases no doubt personal enrichment too. Given the reigns, they've decided they are no longer servants of the game; instead the game is servant to them.

As per the other FTP thread, we need to consider the ICC's purpose; once The Goal of the organisation is understood then all means are arranged around the achievement of that goal. The Goal is in the name: International Cricket Council - the goal is Cricket. Money is not The Goal, it is merely a necessary condition to achieve that aim. Some business sensibilities are required to ensure the game can stand up economically, but for these to overwhelm the purpose of the organisation is the tail wagging the dog.

There is no way Cricket is best served by this proposal; any cursory examination of the dynamics involved would forecast that the nations outside the top 3 will be marginalised, resulting in the self-perpetuating cycle of a loss of interest and competitiveness. In the short term this represents a revenue increase for the top 3 (play each other more often) and a cost saving (don't have to play other nations). In the medium to long term it means one by one the marginalised nations fall victim to that negative feedback loop are no longer functional - and it's very hard to reverse that. That's bad enough - the goal spectacularly not achieved in those countries. What's left of the international game of cricket is robbed of it's diversity, and whether people in the big three countries are satisfied still getting served up the same **** sandwich year after year is a further question (probably are tbh).

Test cricket is the other component that is marginalised and possibly eventually left to die. While I love test cricket, I appreciate that many particularly outside this forum do not. That's ok. However the test format is the wellspring from which a depth of expertise, passion and skills flows downhill to the T20 format. It's a marine reserve that spills over to make the surrounding fisheries profitable. It's the repository of expensive and experienced seniors that a company must keep around because they're the ones that understand the company and it's clients. It's the fine wine that people move into when they're no longer satisfied with sweet cordial, and then they sit around discussing the ins and outs of that fine wine for hours afterwards and go to wine-tasting events and make up flowery words to describe it. But this is not just flowery talk - get rid of test cricket and you gut the cricket world of the people that care most about the game and provide much of the interest and expertise that makes it work - that's a monumentally stupid strategy from any perspective.

Particularly when there's already masses and masses of lowest-common-denominator entertainment out there. On that note, it's a fantasy that domestic T20 is going to become big in England and Australia; two countries that are already super-saturated by dominant domestic football codes with broad-based passionate appeal. And if we must use market-speak, frankly T20 is just not as good a product as those football codes. It's taken hold in India most likely because cricket already held a privileged position and didn't have quite so much competition as elsewhere. And forget other markets like the US that are themselves hyper competitive for the sporting entertainment dollar. Any realistic proposal for the good of the game needs to accept as a starting point that the Indian market does and is always likely to make most of money, and the IPL is a big part of that, and then move forward from there. Domestic T20 elsewhere will continue to be attended by people mildly interested in a bit of light amusement and a beer or two on a balmy summer night - not people that care passionately about a result one way or another.

Also can the person clogging this thread with ideological the-free-market-is-God babble please **** off. Just so much bull**** that I don't have time right now to ridicule for the counter-to-reality nonsense that it is.
Top post. Bravo.
 
Last edited:

Top