What's This Dilution of Concept That BCCI Officials Keep Talking About
arahim
tendulkar.com
> http://www.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/409099.html
Again analyzing the wrong thing.
Pak used their free option of making noises & was rewarded handsomely
(Look at the no. of idiots who were advising Pak to move on & not use
lawsuits. Also, Look at the # of idiots using logic to argue against
Pakistan on that issue. All that was moot as Pak's dominant strategy
was to make noise & it did)
Now, India is making noises and exercising its free option to make
noise. (It doesn't matter what is it about. You are making the same
mistake as other did trying to argue it logically & trying to argue
against some useless point that was made). Both, India & Pakistan
could have just screamed
'Ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee' and would
have gotten the same result
Moral of the story: Exercise your free call option to make noises in
this world
arahim
Well whether you agree with it or not what PCB was/is asking is
relatively clear. But what the hell is dilution of concept? Perhaps
the concept was to stick it to PCB for not falling in line to BCCI
dictates. Perhaps the dilution is that the "sticking it to PCB" part
is diluted.
Mohan
> On Jun 16, 10:32 pm, "tendulkar.com" <tendulkar....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 17, 1:08 am, arahim <arahim_ara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/409099.html
>
> > Again analyzing the wrong thing.
>
> > Pak used their free option of making noises & was rewarded handsomely
> > (Look at the no. of idiots who were advising Pak to move on & not use
> > lawsuits. Also, Look at the # of idiots using logic to argue against
> > Pakistan on that issue. All that was moot as Pak's dominant strategy
> > was to make noise & it did)
>
> > Now, India is making noises and exercising its free option to make
> > noise. (It doesn't matter what is it about. You are making the same
> > mistake as other did trying to argue it logically & trying to argue
> > against some useless point that was made). Both, India & Pakistan
> > could have just screamed
> > 'Ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee' and would
> > have gotten the same result
>
> > Moral of the story: Exercise your free call option to make noises in
> > this world
>
> Well whether you agree with it or not what PCB was/is asking is
> relatively clear. But what the hell is dilution of concept?
I thought it was pretty straighforward. Dubai isn't part of Indian sub-
continent and to the extent that matches are held there, the world cup
will no longer be a sub-continental world cup. It will be diluted in
that sense.
Mohan
arahim
Even if your answer is yes it was still a success. And it was the
right thing to do.
What does this fixation to four countries achieve? Apart from being
some fixation on the concept.
Bonus question:
Does this mean that matches reduced to three countries makes it more
concentrated?
> Mohan
>
>
>
> > Perhaps
> > the concept was to stick it to PCB for not falling in line to BCCI
> > dictates. Perhaps the dilution is that the "sticking it to PCB" part
> > is diluted.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mohan
No question, it was. But they had no choice. Here they have the choice
of hosting those matches in India, SL, BD.
> Even if your answer is yes it was still a success. And it was the
> right thing to do.
> What does this fixation to four countries achieve? Apart from being
> some fixation on the concept.
You wanted to know what is the dilution of concept they are talking
about, I answered it. What will be achieved by fixating on the concept
- I don't know. But they are clear it is that concept they want to
preserve.
> Bonus question:
> Does this mean that matches reduced to three countries makes it more
> concentrated?
No. Pak is also part of the sub-continent, so whether the matches are
held in India, Pak, SL and BD or just India,SL and BD it remains a
100% sub-continental world cup. There is no change in concentration.
Mohan
arahim
Yes but Pakistan is a joint host. And since they have no choice there
then why not let that host choose a convenient alternative?
> > Even if your answer is yes it was still a success. And it was the
> > right thing to do.
> > What does this fixation to four countries achieve? Apart from being
> > some fixation on the concept.
>
> You wanted to know what is the dilution of concept they are talking
> about, I answered it. What will be achieved by fixating on the concept
> - I don't know. But they are clear it is that concept they want to
> preserve.
>
Ok. But can the BCCI tell us what will be achieved by fixating on the
concept?
> > Bonus question:
> > Does this mean that matches reduced to three countries makes it more
> > concentrated?
>
> No. Pak is also part of the sub-continent, so whether the matches are
> held in India, Pak, SL and BD or just India,SL and BD it remains a
> 100% sub-continental world cup. There is no change in concentration.
>
So wouldn't it be nice to listen to your cohost? After all none of the
games scheduled in the other three hosts get affected.
> Mohan- Hide quoted text -
Mohan
> > No question, it was. But they had no choice. Here they have the choice
> > of hosting those matches in India, SL, BD.
>
> Yes but Pakistan is a joint host. And since they have no choice there
> then why not let that host choose a convenient alternative?
Because their choice dilutes the concept of s-c world cup.
> > You wanted to know what is the dilution of concept they are talking
> > about, I answered it. What will be achieved by fixating on the concept
> > - I don't know. But they are clear it is that concept they want to
> > preserve.
>
> Ok. But can the BCCI tell us what will be achieved by fixating on the
> concept?
It is not hard to guess. Cricket in every region has its own flavour.
BCCI folks probably feel mixing s-c matches with Dubai wouldn't give
the World Cup a consistent theme. If you want to do a proper Indian
style wedding, you don't want to have a black suit, sit-down dinner
for one of the events.
> So wouldn't it be nice to listen to your cohost? After all none of the
> games scheduled in the other three hosts get affected.
Not if you don't want to dilute the concept and your co-host is
intent on doing that.
Mohan
arahim
> On Jun 17, 11:12 am, arahim <arahim_ara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > No question, it was. But they had no choice. Here they have the choice
> > > of hosting those matches in India, SL, BD.
>
> > Yes but Pakistan is a joint host. And since they have no choice there
> > then why not let that host choose a convenient alternative?
>
> Because their choice dilutes the concept of s-c world cup.
>
> > > You wanted to know what is the dilution of concept they are talking
> > > about, I answered it. What will be achieved by fixating on the concept
> > > - I don't know. But they are clear it is that concept they want to
> > > preserve.
>
> > Ok. But can the BCCI tell us what will be achieved by fixating on the
> > concept?
>
> It is not hard to guess. Cricket in every region has its own flavour.
> BCCI folks probably feel mixing s-c matches with Dubai wouldn't give
> the World Cup a consistent theme. If you want to do a proper Indian
> style wedding, you don't want to have a black suit, sit-down dinner
> for one of the events.
>
Bridezilla! BCCI is Bridezilla!
arahim
Got distracted there with that other thing going on but did want to
continue this discussion Mohan. Now if I remember correctly in the mid
nineties Dubai had four hundred thousand Indians, two hundred thousand
Pakistanis, Sri Lankans and Bangladeshis, a hundred and fifty thousand
locals. Now don't quote me on the numbers but you get the idea. You
can live in Dubai without ever having to speak anything other than
Urdu, Hindi, and officially English. Even many locals have learnt
these languages to various degrees. The crowds that come to see the
games are predominantly Indians and Pakistanis. Then does not the
venue actually support this supposed concept rather than dilute it?
To carry on your analogy it is the Indian style wedding you want why
is the exact location so important to that concept? After all there
can be black suit dinners in India as well.
The location is close enough that time differences are negligible. The
feel and people are subcontinentals. What is the problem even if this
"concept" must be concidered?
> Mohan
Nirvanam
It is really hard to find a balanced viewpoint on such a topic...on
the one hand Pakistan is right in demanding its share as the "host"
while on the other hand if you move the matches out of Pakistan to
some other place, immaterial of which place (Dubai, Honolulu,
Afghanistan, England, etc) because the PCB "feels" that, that nation
is representing it as a "host" then why can't PCB feel that SL or
Bangladesh or India or the 3-combined are representing it as a "host"
too? Why should they explicitly try to disassociate from the rest of
the community?
Another point is that Pakistan is getting paid for the matches
immaterial of whether they host it or not. In this case I think the
ICC and the Asian block are being generous to Pakistan because no one
absolutely no one is willing to travel to Pakistan. *Pakistan's soil
used for terrorism must not influence cricket* is not a great argument
because Pakistan as a state has been sponsoring terrorism...playing
the victim card is stupid, opportunistic, and downright dumb. If there
is a god, it is definitely ensuring you get what you deserve.
Third point is, after Lahore which cricket board will trust PCB on
security matters? Even if the games are to be shifted to UAE who will
ensure security there? Do you expect the UAE Government to do it for
you? I would expect PCB to bear those costs because providing security
is anyway the burden of the "host" nation.
PCB has been reacting irrationally quite regularly in the last couple
of years so obviously the other nations do not trust PCB of having the
capability to do anything properly. Please understand this is not a
reflection on Pakistani cricketers or cricket fans but on PCB. Of late
PCB has been acting in a vengeful way against other boards, like
turning down Bangladesh U-19 tour recently, turning against the sub-
continent who are ready to pay PCB for no contribution of theirs on
the 2011 World Cup.
Let us assume that even if Ind-SL-Ban agree to go ahead with Pakistan
as a host, how many teams including these 3 will actually be ready to
play a single match in Pakistan? What do you expect the Asian block to
do in such a scenario?
arahim
I am just trying to understand BCCIs quoted position about this
dilution effect and it makes no sense. While the topics you raise can
be discussed and some of them have been discussed in the past I want
to still get an answer to BCCIs logic in the line its pursuing. Unless
you are claiming that the real reasons are some of the things you
state ( It cannot be all things since some of them have happened after
the fact) and the BCCI statement is just the shiny cover.
So I will come back to the issues you raise (some of them have already
been discussed as I said) but frankly the dilution of concept argument
looks very very bad.
Nirvanam
I don't know exactly what the BCCI meant by dilution of concept, but
what I can interpret is that PCB wants to "feel" like a host by
organizing lunch at its neighbor's house...that is downright illusory.
To extend the argument further the Asian block including the BCCI may
take the stance that if PCB wants to "feel" like the host by
organizing lunch at its neighbor's, then why not have it at these 3
neighbors'?
Maybe the BCCI is using the dilution of the concept as a wrapper
around the main argument (which every other board also has) that PCB
just cannot be trusted to provide security to the teams. Lets face it
BCCI or for that matter ICC will not openly come out and point out to
PCB where all it has fallen short in delivering cricket in the recent
past. And this is done for 2 reasons: they do not want to insult the
intelligence of PCB to fathom such clear and present dangers of
touring Pakistan, and secondly they assume PCB is intelligent and
mature enough to understand why it cannot host matches in Pakistan as
of now.
If ICC and BCCI have to come out and explicitly state this for PCB to
know why Pakistan is removed from hosting the CWC then it would only
make PCB seem to possess an IQ of a mentally disabled entity. Would
you prefer that, or subtler suggestions?
Mohan
It is still Dubai and not India or Pakistan. The Sheikhs in the VIP
boxes are enough to remind anyone that the match is not happening in
the sub-continent and with that goes the "concept". Not to mention
reminding people of the match-fixing saga of the '90s.
Mohan
Nirvanam
> http://www.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/409099.html
Arahim, let me try to explain what I understand from the dilution of
concept argument that BCCI is referring to. Of course it is my
interpretation and unless you ask one of the BCCI officials
(preferably the same guy who made the comment) you will not get the
exact answer. Nevertheless, here is an interpretation of BCCI's
reference...
The concept of this World Cup was to hold it in the Sub-Continent not
just in terms of Geography but also in terms of the style of cricket
in the sub-continent. It is unfortunate that situation in Pakistan is
such that it cannot hold matches there. Now, given this scenario all
boards (probably including associates/affiliates Afghanistan too) have
plainly refused to travel to Pakistan for cricket. PCB had its own
options to deal with this situation:
a) Understand reality and work together with world cricket to shift
its games to the rest of the 3 countries
b) Stick on to the stand that Pakistan is safe for cricket and if
other boards and tournament committee do not agree then boycott the
tournament
c) Concede to reality but demand that PCB needs to be compensated for
this (which according to me is plain illegal and dumb because PCB has
zero contribution to the tournament)
d) Concede to reality, demand for compensation but offer to help the
tournament committee in ensuring success of the tournament
e) Concede to reality, propose that some other country be treated
"mentally" as representing Pakistan as a host and ask for all original
games to be played there. While doing so, expect all 4 countries to
bear the costs of this shift.
f) Same as above but accept also that PCB alone needs to bear the cost
and there could be even more options.
The stance that PCB seems to have taken is closer to option e. Given
this stance, ICC and BCCI are probably arguing that if you can treat
UAE as representing you, why can't you let Ind-SL-Ban represent you as
"hosts". This way it works out as a win-win for everyone because PCB
will be compensated. But by explicitly stating that you want UAE to
represent you and no one else PCB has implied that it is not willing
to treat Ind-SL-Ban as its representatives. So, obviously the other 3
nations will feel that PCB is unnecesaarily creating a fracas when
things can be amicably sorted out. Hence they are using "dilution of
concept" as a wrapper to get PCB to open its eyes.
My question to you, Arahim, is: What do you think PCB should do given
the current scenario i.e. just before ICC said that Pakistan is being
dropped as a host. In other words, when PCB quite clearly knew that
after Lahore there was going to be some talk in the next ICC meeting,
what according to you (assuming you will be proactive in responding to
Lahore and concerns of other boards) should the PCB have done? Let me
suggest here that PCB could have proactively proposed something during
that meeting. What do you think PCB should have proposed which would
ensure a win-win for all?
If you want me to explain the question further, do let me know...
eusebius
> On Jun 17, 11:12 am, arahim <arahim_ara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > No question, it was. But they had no choice. Here they have the choice
> > > of hosting those matches in India, SL, BD.
>
> > Yes but Pakistan is a joint host. And since they have no choice there
> > then why not let that host choose a convenient alternative?
>
> Because their choice dilutes the concept of s-c world cup.
Does anyone other than BCCI give a flying fred about this?
.....
>
> > > You wanted to know what is the dilution of concept they are talking
> > > about, I answered it. What will be achieved by fixating on the concept
> > > - I don't know. But they are clear it is that concept they want to
> > > preserve.
>
> > Ok. But can the BCCI tell us what will be achieved by fixating on the
> > concept?
>
> It is not hard to guess. Cricket in every region has its own flavour.
> BCCI folks probably feel mixing s-c matches with Dubai wouldn't give
> the World Cup a consistent theme. If you want to do a proper Indian
> style wedding, you don't want to have a black suit, sit-down dinner
> for one of the events.
>
I see, this is blatant trolling....not one of your better efforts
unfortunately. You've lost the knack.
> > So wouldn't it be nice to listen to your cohost? After all none of the
> > games scheduled in the other three hosts get affected.
>
> Not if you don't want to dilute the concept and your co-host is
> intent on doing that.
>
> Mohan
OH NOES! We have diluted concept of a world cup in India and its
sattelites! How will the world continue?
Shows how mediocre BCCI is, that they should stoop to this petty
grandstanding and control freakery. No wonder world cricket is going
down the toilet when its run by these jokers. Bad enough that they
stole the event for the 4th time. In normally governed sports,
international competitions are shared around. Even the Olympics and
the soccer world cup aren't as blatantly farmed by the US/Europe
respectively.
Nirvanam
What is this "stealing the 4th time" thing, Eusebius? As far as I can
remember India has hosted the world cup only twice before i.e. 87 and
96, and in 2011 it will be the 3rd time. But, anyway how is it
stealing? If anything the CWC being held only in 1 country 3 times
consecutively seems like abuse of power. From 87 each area in the
world has had equal opportunity to hold the world cup once without any
one country/area getting hostage significantly higher than others and
thereby indicating abuse of power. In 2011 I'd think the cycle starts
again, unless I forgot some major country/ geographically closely
located countries that play cricket.
Read this:
1975 - Eng
1979 - Eng
1983 - Eng
1987 - Ind/Pak
1992 - Australasia (both Test Nations)
1996 - Asia (all 3 Test Nations)
1999 - Eng
2003 - Africa (both Test Nations + one associate)
2007 - WI
2011 - Asia (planned for all 4 but now 3 Test Nations)
2015 - Australasia (both Test Nations)
Stop bashing BCCI for all ills in cricket. I am not a big fan of BCCI
but your accusation of BCCI is baseless. To remind you, Eusebius, your
accusation was "No wonder world cricket is going down the toilet when
its run by these jokers". If you want to stick to that accusation,
Eusebius, provide some hard evidence that clearly demonstrates that
cricket is worser than it was before the mid-late 90's (since it is
from this time that BCCI realized its potential for becoming the top
player in international cricket administration).
And just in case you don't know how to og about providing evidence,
here are some pointers...first define criteria based on which you can
evaluate BCCI. Then ensure that the criteria are just and fairly
represent what people want from a cricket administration that has
greatest clout. Then provide evidence for or against.
Nirvanam
"hostage" above should be read as "hosting rights"
alvey
> If you want to stick to that accusation,
> Eusebius, provide some hard evidence that clearly demonstrates that
> cricket is worser than it was before the mid-late 90's (since it is
> from this time that BCCI realized its potential for becoming the top
> player in international cricket administration).
Well there's problems there with who gets to determine what "hard evidence"
is, or if cricket is "worser (sic)" since the BCCI went all gangster, but
imo the BCCI is directly responsible for the list below. Had they based
their positions on the image and welfare of the game instead of politics
and/or self-interest then either the items below would not have occured, or
would not of reached their current abysmal situations.
1. The rise of the chucker.
2. The flagrant disregard for the authority of match officials.
3. The continued presence of Zimbabwe at the ICC's top table.
4. The granting of ICC Full Member status to Bangladesh.
5. The continued status of Bangladesh as a Full Member.
6. The persecution of the ICL players.
alvey
alvey
>>
>> And just in case you don't know how to og about providing evidence,
>> here are some pointers...first define criteria based on which you can
>> evaluate BCCI. Then ensure that the criteria are just and fairly
>> represent what people want from a cricket administration that has
>> greatest clout. Then provide evidence for or against.
Well that's just complete rubbish.
What you're proposing is that "evidence" has to be tailored to "what people
want from" the BCCI. errr. Which "people" would that be? And exactly how
are we able to know what they "want"?
You are a member of the BCCI and I demand my 5 free whacks of an umpire.
alvey
HVS
> No. Pak is also part of the sub-continent, so whether the
> matches are held in India, Pak, SL and BD or just India,SL and
> BD it remains a 100% sub-continental world cup.
Sorry; late contribution here, but "sub-continental world cup" is an
oxymoron...
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Nirvanam
difference" that is an oxymoron. An "international domestic"
tournament is one more.In any case, your point actually adds zero
value to the current discussion except if you intended it as a red
herring. If you follow cricket regularly enough you would be aware
that cricket world cups since 1987 do not work like other sports'
world cups. World Cups are held in "areas" rather than countries. The
West Indies itself is a team of nations but cricket recognizes it as
one nation for its purposes.
Nirvanam
Alvey,
how is it rubbish? Where have I indicated that the evidence needs to
be tailored? All I've said is to do the following:
step 1) establish criteria for evaluation...since you surely have made
decisions in your life you will be aware that when you want to choose
something, for example a car, you evaluate different cars (all cricket
boards) or your specific model of interest (bcci) against things like
cost, mileage, power, or whatever matters to you (these are criteria)
step 2) you then evaluate the performance of a specific option (bcci)
against these criteria to decide whether that option meets your
expectations or not, and how well it meets them
You would also be aware that, from your work experiences, that in some
cases decisions need to be made by a group of people therefore you
need to consider others' evaluation against the said criteria of the
available options to agree upon a final evaluation of whether that
option meets your evaluation criteria and how well it meets them. In
order to do so, you will appreciate that if objective data (not
necessarily numbers) is available it is easier to evaluate. This
objective data is what is meant by "hard evidence". But yes, some
decisions/evaluations can be made with subjective criteria as well but
the criteria being subjective means it is based on opinion and not
evidence. Opinions in themselves are rarely 'absolute right' or
'absolute wrong' so you would appreciate the need for objective
criteria. I hope this answers the need for "hard evidence".
The points you have mentioned are exactly what you said...they are
your opinions. They don't add much value for evaluating BCCI.
Currently, they stand as just mumbles, nothing more. At least if you
would've cared to define some criteria we could have used them as
subjective data and evaluate BCCI. So, do that first if you are
bothered enough to evaluate BCCI even subjectively.
Someone can present 6, no 1 more than what you have presented 7,
points of "good" things that BCCI has done and claim that BCCI is a
success. You wouldn't accept that, right? Or will you?
Nirvanam
By the way, the worser word did not need a [sic]. the word exists
although used less often than worse :-)
arahim
The sentence about the VIP boxes, Mohan, I would like you to read
aloud to yourself a few times.
As far as match-fixing is concerned that has nothing to do with this
dilution of concept claim that BCCI is making. Not only that it is a
red herring. The prime places where bookies operated were India and SA
and players from all over the world were involved. BCCI rejected anti-
corruption arrangements for IPL held in SA. Now to claim that that is
the reason is a little disingenuous. By the mid nineties the hight of
the scandal Dubai had already fallen off the map as a venue. But this
is not the issue here. I think you just dropped it in anyway:)
Mohan
Yeah, I realized. But that's not what I meant. Point is, it is Dubai
and it has a different look and feel compared to the sub-continent.
> As far as match-fixing is concerned that has nothing to do with this
> dilution of concept claim that BCCI is making.
Point taken.
Mohan
Gilly's Danda
> is, or if cricket is "worser (sic)" since the BCCI went all gangster, but
and also wrote
> would not of reached their current abysmal situations.
Oh, the irony.
A
Nirvanam
Arahim,
you are responding to red herrings rather than the main questions
asked of you. I asked you in my previous post on what you think the
PCB should have done before the meeting where it was decided that
Pakistan would be removed from hosting CWC 2011.
Your continuing ignorance to the question can be interpreted as,
a. You have no suggestion to give
b. You accept that Pakistan should not host its matches either in
Pakistan or any other "representative host" other than Ind-SL-Ban
c. You are least bothered about what happens to Pakistan's original
matches but more interested in criticizing BCCI on any grounds possible
alvey
I'll stand by "rubbish".
Your 'argument' requires that everything is either "hard evidence" or
merely "opinion" is well and good, however it falls in a heap when you
elect yourself as the sole arbiter of what's what and leads to the
inevitable conclusion that there's no point in continuing this. And fwiw,
your dismissive determination that the BCCI being vindictive against the
ICL players is a "mumble" displays the structural weakness of your boringly
verbose position.
eod
alvey
alvey
O the indifferance.
Nirvanam
Alvey, read my post again...I said wherever possible hard evidence
i.e. objective data is better, I haven't said don't use subjective
data...have only presented the difficulty in getting a consensus with
subjective data. Also, where have I indicated that I will be the
arbiter? You are cooking up stories.
One mory story you are cooking up is about the ICL players...in which
post of mine on this thread did I even use the term ICL?
By the way what is "fwiw"...don't know what it expands to.