Disgraceful ICC

[Scritty]

As for "getting more matches under their belt", do you think getting beaten 3-0, 4-0, 5-0 would somehow be any better than 2-0? If anything, that'd be even more demoralising for the players as well the Bangladeshi fans.

All test nations went through this. Sri Lanka (the most recent to come thorugh) were between quite poor and awful for twenty years until the early nineties.

New Zealand didn't win a test for their first 27 years! (1955/6 after playing their first test in 1929)

India took FOURTY ONE YEARS to win a test (1952 after getting test status in 1911) And even in the last 20 years have only won 11 tests outside the subcontinent (they won zero out of 33 in the 1990's - and didn't win a series outside the subcontinent for 17 years - an astonishing statistic)

It took West Indies 22 years to get their first win against England


Should all of these sides have been forgotten?
Should tests only be between England and Australia?

In any sport - at any level - in fact in any business full stop..you get better by competing against those who you aspire to beat.

It's true in all forms of life.
This is a massive backwards step for cricket. Sure maybe have a pre-tournament qualifier to get the associates down to say 2 teams - but to ban them altogether is and give them no hope of aspiring is a disgrace.

Finally - T20 cricket is definitely on a down in England. For the last three years crowds and TV ratings have been going down for T20 in England (even when England are World T20 Chamions) and 50 over cricket sales and audiences are on the increase.

We've had T20 a few years longer than the rest of the world. I went to the first T20 game (well one of them - about 5 were started at the same time) in Worcestershire. Worcestershire V Northamptonshire in 2003. The place was PACKED.

Last time I went it was half empty, and Sky TV audiences for T20 domestic have also plumetted. IPL is on a very minor channel in the UK (ITV4....not even a sports channel) and the powers that be are not even going to show most of the "T20 club championship"

Seems more people are watching the current Australia V Bangladesh series here in the UK.

I predict (and I'll put money on it) that in 3-4 years T20 cricket will be all but dead. It's sooooo dull.

Scritty

[enigma]

As I've said before, comparisons of the struggles of the new entrants back in those days with new Test-entrants of today are totally misplaced because times have changed & a lot of other things have changed significantly, there're too many modes of entertainment & options out there today, & cricket, specifically Test-cricket, is found to be "boring" by most people today compared to other options they have & thus, it can't hope to sustain itself with mediocrity. So if Test-cricket is to survive & remain the pinnacle of the sport without being mangled & mutilated then it must seek to deliver the most competitive & exciting matches at all times & having mediocre teams on Test-status doesn't help that cause at all.

Moreover, a lot of people who like pointing out the struggles of Test-teams from the past, for some reason, completely overlook the lack of a strong & organised initiative on the part of cricket-authorities back then to help improve the new entrants, mostly, they just threw new teams in the ocean & hoped that they'd learn to swim on their own somewhere down the line & that's precisely why those teams took so long to get off the blocks & that too was by mere chance; on the other hand, I'm saying lets throw the new entrants in the swimming-pool first before we throw them into the ocean, & those who do well in the swimming-pool can then be offered a shot at the ocean.
Such arguments about teams from the past also overlook many factors like how little money there was in the sport back then, so there was incentive to let in even mediocre teams just so that audience get some variety every now & then but today, that isn't a big issue, the biggest issue by far is how do we RETAIN a "boring" sport's popularity in countries where it already has a foothold rather than getting over-ambitious by trying to capture new markets by merely having more mediocre teams play it.

I don't think ODI-cricket is on its way up at all, in fact, it's only going downwards; its popularity in England might've something to do with English team doing well in recent times in limited-overs games but overall, it's going only one way, in all countries, & that is downwards; firstly, because of overkill & secondly, because it is often repetitive & monotonous, with teams going for it in the first few overs then there's a lull for 20-30 overs & then may be another onslaught in the last few overs, matches generally only become exciting in the last few overs when the team chasing gets within a striking distance; even ICC's "masterstroke" of powerplays, "more runs = more entertainment" attitude & the general propensity towards flatter pitches hasn't solved the issue either, all it has managed to do is further destroy the balance between bat & ball & effected a tremendous drop in quality of bowling.
I'd probably like to see the field-restrictions scrapped, more bouncers allowed (protective-gear these days is vastly superior anyway) & sporting-pitches for sure, & then let's see some REAL cricket i.e. a contest between bat & ball. I'd probably not mind seeing "5IVES" format in ODIs, it'd definitely take care of the monotony & "patterned" ways of ODIs; I think MCC, CA & SuperSport are going to test "5IVES" in a few matches & I'm really looking forward to seeing the kind of response it gets.

I'd agree that T20 is definitely going to go down in the long-run. I'll avidly be looking forward to the day it dies. (R.I.P. T20-cricket) But still, I think it'll survive, though it won't be as big an attraction that it initially was.

[Sureshot]

Why do you think so? Because they beat England in a one-off game? They couldn't even beat Ban & WI. So, in my opinion, the 8 teams that "should" have been there in the QFs were there & any one of us could've predicted who they'd be well in advance because of the pointless nature of the group-stage having so many mediocre teams.

No, because they got themselves in a position to beat Bangladesh. It was a statement that they should have gone through to the quarters, not that they should have been put there.

[enigma]

Well, I've never said that you wanted them to be put there; your original statement suggested that for some reason you believe they "deserved" to be in QFs & I've disagreed on the ground that they couldn't even beat Ban or WI. Even if they'd beaten Ban from the position they were in, their NRR would still have been far inferior to that of WI so I don't know how someone can believe that they "should" have been there even though the 4 teams that did go into QFs were obviously better than them.

[Irishdave]

The cricket World Cup has never been a World Cup

In my opinion they should open the tournament to more teams, play games more often and have several games ongoing at the same time.

Cricket is still a game for the few and the ICC are a disgrace for letting that remain so by keeping this inclusive little club of theirs for financial reasons.

[Scritty]

The cricket World Cup has never been a World Cup

In my opinion they should open the tournament to more teams, play games more often and have several games ongoing at the same time.

Cricket is still a game for the few and the ICC are a disgrace for letting that remain so by keeping this inclusive little club of theirs for financial reasons.

As a baseball fan as well I have to groan a little when they have "The World Series"

That's "The World series...where you can only compete if you come from North America"

I'm probably in a rare position (as a none American baseball lover - it's a group that contain me and Phil Jupitus I think) of loving the game...and seeing how incredibly parochial it is.

The Americans genuinely seem to think that all the world watches the World Series games (when in reality virtually no one does) Same if NFL and NBA.

NBA got close a few years back, but is in decline in the UK and most of Europe, and NFL keeps pushing hard, with games scheduled for European venues, but generally attended by Rugby fans who question the need for such a massive amount of body armour (normally in a very sarky "the yanks are a bunch of $£&^ies" type of attitude)

One thing they have in common is a heritige and reasonable stability in structure and rule set.
Cricket seems determined to re-invent itself in bizzarre and contortionate ways every 5 years or so - and I for one am getting really cheesed off with it.

I might go baseball all the way if they start messing with test cricket.

Scritty

[Sureshot]

The constant rule changes to domestic structures infuriate me (not to mention the time they take away from areas we can develop on ICC, take this year, "Ooh look, England is the same, oh, what are Australia doing?"). Just give it a chance to work! One season? Yeah, that'll work!

We'll be cutting down on T20s in England too, which is good, just complete overkill, they were warned but did they listen?

I can enjoy a T20, but do I really want to watch Sussex play, what, 16 odd games a season? It was about the right balance before this change. There also has to be a set day of the week for T20s, having worked at a county club before, Monday T20s would be about the third of the attendance of a Friday game and would always involve massively higher staff costs. Friday's would be near to full capacity, higher bar earnings, etc.

I'll use football as an example, whilst I think it has some way to go in regards to technology, in terms of format (I know it's a simpler game, but it is the biggest sport in the world by a country mile), how often does it change? We had the 3pt for a win back in the 70s (I think, bit before my time!), Champions League went to League then knockout from the European league, which was just knockout. Domestically, er, I'd struggle to name many changes, Division 1 (pre-Premiership days) used to be 22 teams iirc.

It's like the football teams who sack a manager after a year, yeah, he's really going to build his team in that length of time!

For me, stability is always going to yield the results you want. This is true of business, sport, personal life, everything.

Massive changes can work (I think T20 has been good for cricket, it just hasn't been managed that well), look at the overhaul of Snooker, 19 events this season compared to 6 the year before, and it's working. But then Barry Hearn is a clever bloke, wouldn't mind seeing him in some cricket role.

[Scritty]

The constant rule changes to domestic structures infuriate me (not to mention the time they take away from areas we can develop on ICC, take this year, "Ooh look, England is the same, oh, what are Australia doing?"). Just give it a chance to work! One season? Yeah, that'll work!

We'll be cutting down on T20s in England too, which is good, just complete overkill, they were warned but did they listen?

I can enjoy a T20, but do I really want to watch Sussex play, what, 16 odd games a season? It was about the right balance before this change. There also has to be a set day of the week for T20s, having worked at a county club before, Monday T20s would be about the third of the attendance of a Friday game and would always involve massively higher staff costs. Friday's would be near to full capacity, higher bar earnings, etc.

I'll use football as an example, whilst I think it has some way to go in regards to technology, in terms of format (I know it's a simpler game, but it is the biggest sport in the world by a country mile), how often does it change? We had the 3pt for a win back in the 70s (I think, bit before my time!), Champions League went to League then knockout from the European league, which was just knockout. Domestically, er, I'd struggle to name many changes, Division 1 (pre-Premiership days) used to be 22 teams iirc.

It's like the football teams who sack a manager after a year, yeah, he's really going to build his team in that length of time!

For me, stability is always going to yield the results you want. This is true of business, sport, personal life, everything.

Massive changes can work (I think T20 has been good for cricket, it just hasn't been managed that well), look at the overhaul of Snooker, 19 events this season compared to 6 the year before, and it's working. But then Barry Hearn is a clever bloke, wouldn't mind seeing him in some cricket role.

Barry Hearn has been quoted more than once saying he hates cricket. Him and Alex Fergusson alike then.

Scritty

[aus5892]

Some very valid points here - ultimately though the ICC will do whatever will pad its pocket the most. While grounds and cricket clubs may be losing money with more and more cricket to be played, the big winners are the broadcasters, and, as a result, the ICC.

Now Australia are overhauling our T20 system to replace the state teams with city-based franchises with more overseas players - if this format wants to be taken seriously, it needs to be on the same level as List A and FC cricket. But as long as it's a sideshow solely designed to make money, teams will treat it as such. England have treated the format with some degree of respect and that's why their national team has finally gotten it right and won itself a World Cup.

[Phylos Fett]

Now Australia are overhauling our T20 system to replace the state teams with city-based franchises with more overseas players - if this format wants to be taken seriously, it needs to be on the same level as List A and FC cricket. But as long as it's a sideshow solely designed to make money, teams will treat it as such. England have treated the format with some degree of respect and that's why their national team has finally gotten it right and won itself a World Cup.

I'll be very interested to see how (in)effective the Big Bash is now that they've made this change, and, indeed, how seriously it is taken by the players and fans alike.

[ab5ides1]

I'll be very interested to see how (in)effective the Big Bash is now that they've made this change, and, indeed, how seriously it is taken by the players and fans alike.

I can tell you I won't take it very seriously, I mean just as the Redbacks t20 team was beginning to look super awesome (plus we actually won something) they have to go and make stupid city based teams. I would certainly rather following the South Australian Redbacks to the Adelaide Strikers.

[Phylos Fett]

I can tell you I won't take it very seriously, I mean just as the Redbacks t20 team was beginning to look super awesome (plus we actually won something) they have to go and make stupid city based teams. I would certainly rather following the South Australian Redbacks to the Adelaide Strikers.

I'm looking forward to the new season (after a fashion) - haven't seen a full season for a while, but this year I'll be in Australia, so I'll be able to spend some time following the competitions properly. I think changing the team allocations for one area of the game might be short sighted, but we'll see how it pans out, I guess. Do they actually still telecast the Sheffield Shield and the Pura Cup games?

[ab5ides1]

I'm looking forward to the new season (after a fashion) - haven't seen a full season for a while, but this year I'll be in Australia, so I'll be able to spend some time following the competitions properly. I think changing the team allocations for one area of the game might be short sighted, but we'll see how it pans out, I guess. Do they actually still telecast the Sheffield Shield and the Pura Cup games?

The Sheffield Shield was at one stage named the PURA cup, for obvious reasons, but is now back to it's original namesake. I'm no sure about the shield, but I know that all the t20s and some of the one-dayers are shown on foxtel (pay tv). This is of course assuming they don't change the tv deal for the t20. Wouldn't mind seeing some domestic cricket on channel nine, but I doubt it will happen. Hell, I hope we keep all the international stuff free-to-air at least.

[Phylos Fett]

The Sheffield Shield was at one stage named the PURA cup, for obvious reasons, but is now back to it's original namesake. I'm no sure about the shield, but I know that all the t20s and some of the one-dayers are shown on foxtel (pay tv). This is of course assuming they don't change the tv deal for the t20. Wouldn't mind seeing some domestic cricket on channel nine, but I doubt it will happen. Hell, I hope we keep all the international stuff free-to-air at least.

It's so hard to keep track of who is sponsoring what these days!

I was hoping that One was going to get some of the games, but if Foxtel has already got the rights, then that buggers that idea. Guess I'll just have to read about it online, in the papers, and see the snippets on the news (which invariably are just the "local" results)...

[ab5ides1]

It's so hard to keep track of who is sponsoring what these days!

I was hoping that One was going to get some of the games, but if Foxtel has already got the rights, then that buggers that idea. Guess I'll just have to read about it online, in the papers, and see the snippets on the news (which invariably are just the "local" results)...

That's why cricinfo is so amazing. It gives a fantastic amount of coverage.