Greig's Cowdrey lecture

[Jayen]

Though this has been discussed in other threads, I am starting a
separate thread solely for this speech. I thought I'd post the
transcript of the entire speech so that it would be easy to comment on
it. Sorry if that bothers some here.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/mcc/content/story/570147.html

Regards,
Jayen

Mr President, My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you for inviting me to give the MCC Spirit of Cricket Cowdrey
Lecture. I consider it an honour to acknowledge Colin and to have the
opportunity to share with you some of my experiences as well as some
thoughts on the game we all love.

I noticed that both Martin Crowe and Adam Gilchrist paid tribute to
their families at the start of their speeches so I trust you will
indulge me if I do the same. I should like to thank my wife Vivian for
her patience and help in putting this lecture together. I should also
like to thank my children, Beau and Tom, who are here with me tonight,
and Samantha and Mark, who are embracing the spirit of cricket by
listening to this lecture the way we used to listen to the Tests sixty
years ago in the early hours of the morning. Without their love,
support and understanding of the demands cricket makes on family time,
I would not have been able to enjoy all that cricket has given me.

When I received my invitation I immediately wrote down 10 topics I
wanted to address. However, after a month's reflection, I thought I
shouldn't indulge myself and that it was more appropriate to confine
my speech to the spirit of cricket. However, since arriving in
England, I have been told repeatedly by a wide range of people that
before speaking about the spirit of cricket, I must explain my reasons
for sacrificing the most coveted role in world cricket, the England
captaincy, to become involved with an Australian television tycoon. A
quote from the transcript of my meeting with Kerry Packer, five days
after the Centenary Test on 22 March 1977, gives the best insight into
how I felt at the time:

"Kerry, money is not my major concern. I'm nearly 31-years-old. I'm
probably two or three Test failures from being dropped from the
England team. Ian Botham is going to be a great player and there won't
be room in the England Test side for both of us. England captains such
as Tony Lewis, Brian Close, Colin Cowdrey, Ray Illingworth and Mike
Denness all lost the captaincy long before they expected. I won't be
any different. I don't want to finish up in a mundane job when they
drop me. I'm not trained to do anything. I went straight from school
to playing for Sussex. I am at the stage in my life where my family's
future is more important than anything else. If you guarantee me a job
for life working for your organisation I will sign."

The previous season's cricket with Waverley in the Sydney grade
competition created a great thirst to work in Australia. I was not
only paid £50,000 for five months work but more excitingly, I mixed
work-wise and socially with a number of Australia's leading
businessmen. This opened my eyes to a world that I didn't know
existed.

Obviously, there were also key issues with the England administrators
that disturbed me, which I felt would never be resolved. I couldn't
understand why we were only paid £210 a Test when we were playing in
front of packed houses. The psyche of the administrators, the vast
majority of whom I regarded as good friends, was that the honour of
playing for England was enough - money shouldn't be a consideration.
Consequently, I couldn't see an end to the game under-selling itself
and there appeared to be no hope of expanding the revenue base for
Test and county players alike, unless there was a revolution, or at
least a big upheaval. Having to make changes to innocuous sentences in
my books and newspaper articles at the behest of the TCCB was a source
of irritation. And having to get permission to take wives on tour and
paying more for friends' tickets to the Centenary Test than I was paid
for playing in it, also didn't help.

I have never had any doubt that I did the right thing by my family and
by cricket. I have worked for Kerry Packer's organisation for 35 years
and my family's future has been secured. After the initial nastiness
and internal feuding, cricket and cricketers also did quite well out
of World Series Cricket (WSC):

WSC ensured cricket reinvented itself to survive the changing world;

WSC was the jolt the administrators needed, and it flagged the messag
e that they were substantially under-selling the sport to the
television stations;

Players immediately received substantially more money at both Test and
first class level, which increased the longevity of their careers;

Companies saw value in using cricket as a marketing tool;

TV coverage improved significantly, which increased interest in the
sport;

Night cricket created a new audience, both television-wise and at the
ground, and generated significantly more income;

WSC revolutionised cricket pitch preparation through the drop-in
pitches;

Cricket's success inspired other sports to imitate cricket with things
such as TV coverage and sponsorships.

I only have two regrets about World Series Cricket. E W Swanton was
very good to me throughout my career and I am saddened that despite
numerous attempts by me, I never had a chance to make peace with him
after World Series Cricket. Second, I had a wonderful relationship
with the chairman of selectors, Alec Bedser, which continued through
and beyond World Series Cricket. I know Alec understood why, but I
dearly would like to have told him of my plans before they became
public. However, I promised Kerry I wouldn't.

I have some great WSC anecdotes and I'm happy to share them with you,
as well as address any other WSC issues in question time, if you so
wish.

I played with and against Colin. In so many ways he embodied all that
is good about cricket. There could be no better person after whom to
name this lecture. As a batsman he was calmness and gracefulness
themselves. On and off the field, I don't think you could find a more
courteous person than Colin. Who else would have called Jeff Thomson,
Mr Thomson?

In the 1990s, Colin and another hero of mine, former Sussex and
England captain Ted Dexter, were so concerned about the decline in
sportsmanship in cricket, they campaigned successfully to have a
description of the spirit of cricket included in the preamble to the
laws of the game. We are indebted to both of them for their work.

When you talk about the spirit of cricket you are talking about not
just the game, but a way to live your life; you are talking about
embracing the traditions of the game and sharing your experiences with
friends and cricket lovers alike; you are talking about caring for
people less fortunate than us. This has been done for years through
organisations such as the MCC, the Lord's Taverners and the Primary
Club, and more recently through foundations and organisations set up
by many players.

The spirit of cricket is not just about adhering to the laws of the
game. It's about something far more enduring, adhering to a set of
values that can elevate you above the hum drum, above the cynicism
that can drag you down if you let it. It not only covers uniting the
various peoples in countries such as India, Sri Lanka and the
countries of the West Indies, but it also brings light into the lives
of hundreds of millions of people in those countries as well as in
Pakistan and Bangladesh. In particular, the spirit of cricket is also
about putting the game's interests before yours or your country's
interests.

Many people have romanticised our game because it does lend itself to
that. Which other sport can generate substantial newspaper column
inches over the equivalent of the suspense created by five successive
maidens? Cricket is also a partnership, and like all partnerships,
there is give and take. Sometimes cricket can feel like it has given
you everything, the moment when you score a Test 100 or score the
winning run on the village green when you were batting at number
eleven. At other times, it gives you nothing. A string of ducks or a
dropped catch. But as with all great loves, you never walk away. You
accept the bad times, the sacrifices that you make to participate in
this wonderful game, the one the poets call the summer game. Give your
hand to cricket and it will take you on the most fantastic journey, a
lifetime journey both on and off the field. That is what it has done
for me and I suspect for most of you.

People around the world love sport, but none, in my experience, in the
same profound way that people love cricket and what it stands for. I
love cricket because apart from the skill required to succeed, it is a
great leveller. It is also a wonderful test of temperament and a test
of courage. I love it for the people it has introduced me to -
lifelong friendships with people from across the globe. I particularly
love it for the opportunities it provides for old folk like us to get
together as we have done today. I love it for the wonderful spectacle
it continues to be in a world that is changing so fast. In the world
of Facebook, the web, twitter, text messages and tattoos, you still
can't see anything to match the rhythms of a Test match. Cricket moves
to charm, and even in the 21st century, it still has the grace of
timelessness.

Yehudi Menuhin once said of one of Beethoven's greatest works, The
Pastoral, that Beethoven wrote it, but God approved it. Whether it's a
game of cricket on an English green, an Indian maidan, a Caribbean
beach, an Australian park, or right here at Lord's with the ancient
pavilions looking on, I believe that is so true of cricket. We humans
created cricket, but God approved it.

It has its scandals, it has its challenges fitting into a 21st century
world where a lot of me-first values of different generations clash
with the distinctive beauty of cricket. But people still play and
follow cricket in remarkable numbers because their relationship to it
is different from any other game.

We have in our audience people of greatness in their chosen fields,
music, the arts, business, science, and politics. Offer them the
chance to play a village green match tomorrow and they will invent any
excuse to get out of the office. You can play and love cricket with
the same deep-rooted attachment at any level.

And here's another thing that makes our game unique. One of the first
things scientific researchers do when they start a project is to 'read
the literature', to find out what is already known. When it comes to
'the literature' no other sport, not even the Americans with Red Smith
and Roger Kahn, has ever produced anything as magnificent as cricket's
great writers. Heading them up, the incomparable Cardus and the poet
Arlott.

I preface the following comments by saying I have only considered our
game from the narrow perspective of the 10 Full Members of the ICC.
Lord Woolf in his recent report to the ICC looked at the global
picture and took into account the views of the 95 associate and
affiliated members of the ICC and consequently has a more negative
view than I.

I believe our game is in reasonably good shape. More people play it
than ever before. Run rates are often substantially higher than in the
'golden years' of cricket. More women are involved as both players and
spectators. Television audiences are up substantially. We have
expanded our product range - Tests, ODIs and Twenty/20s - to cater for
the different needs of players and spectators alike. Global revenue
has gone through the roof. Substantially more players make a decent
living - crikey, the England players even have food tasters and
someone to tuck them into bed at night. In the old days people used to
say the sun never set on the British Empire. Today, cricket has grown
so much that it is probably watched on television somewhere in the
world 24 hours a day. Sure there are issues that need attention, some
even urgent attention, but this has always been the case. This is part
of the evolution of any game.

At the risk of over simplifying things, the major problems facing
cricket at the moment are: the decline in the image of cricket; ICC's
control; the international calendar and the mix of different types of
cricket; gambling; the Decision Review System; governance; unequal
resources; and the possibility of India cherrypicking the Woolf Report
to increase its power.

Fortunately, I think most of the problems can generally be addressed
if India invokes and adheres to the spirit of cricket. Mahatma Gandhi
said "A nation's culture resides in the hearts and in the soul of its
people." As cricket certainly resides in the hearts and souls of
Indian people I am optimistic India will lead cricket by acting in the
best interests of all countries rather than just for India. If there
is proof of the leadership India can provide it is the recent
announcement of a one-time benefit payment of $13 million to former
national and domestic players for their services to Indian cricket.
This certainly exemplifies acting in the spirit of cricket and rewards
those players who played before 2003 for little financial reward. That
people like Chandrasekhar, Prasanna, Borde and Nadkarni will have this
sort of financial support as they cope with the onset of the years is
a powerful sign that India can not only generate great wealth for the
game, but use it wisely for the benefit of cricket and cricketers.

Almost since its inception cricket has been synonymous with fair play.
"It's not cricket" - another way of saying "it's not right" - was an
expression used throughout the English speaking world - not just in
cricket playing countries. It was a gentleman's game. More than any
other sport, the people who played, and the people, who followed
cricket, knew they were special. Along the way my generation decided
that the game would be more exciting and more testing if we turned the
heat up on the funny quips and used them to intimidate the opposition.
History suggests most players of mine and subsequent generations also
embraced the new gladiatorial environment. On reflection, I wouldn't
have had it any other way. But I have to acknowledge that we not only
breached the spirit of cricket but it was probably a selfish attitude.

As a result of sledging, I don't think following generations inherited
a game that was as special in the community's eyes that my generation
inherited. Sadly, these days, captains don't earn or receive the same
adulation that Richie Benaud and Sir Frank Worrall rightly received in
their day. Players also no longer have the same relationships with
each other that say Keith Miller and Denis Compton had. Crikey, at
times when I watched Ricky Ponting and Duncan Fletcher, who was
sitting in the stand, and Andrew Symonds and Harbhajan Singh on the
field, I thought I was back in the 1960s and 1970s watching Billy
Bremner and Nobby Stiles chopping down opponents.

I suspect who runs cricket and how well it has been run have been
contentious issues since the beginning of time. Irrespective of the
existence of the ICC or its forerunners, for about the first hundred
years cricket was run by England and Australia. Both countries, proud
advocates of democracy, ironically even had a veto on the ICC or its
equivalent. Unfortunately, on many occasions self-interest was more
important than the spirit of cricket and countries such as India and
New Zealand were undoubtedly discriminated against.

Before examining the specific issues, we must acknowledge and praise
India for embracing the spirit of cricket through the financial
opportunities it provides, which has enabled a number of Test playing
countries to survive, and some to thrive. World cricket would be in a
sorry state if it weren't for the money shared with other countries
from India's television deals. You can imagine the indebtedness to
India of those cricket boards, which are able to negotiate a tour with
the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to their country. It
generates a spike in the host country's revenue that they will not see
until India chooses to come again.

World cricket would also struggle if India didn't have such
sophisticated administrators as it does. More recently, India has
found a way to involve its wealthiest entrepreneurs and Bollywood
stars through the ownership of its IPL teams.

Today, many people level the problems of the game with the ICC.
Technically, they are correct but in practice most members of the ICC
have little control over many of the important issues of the game.
Currently, there are 10 full members of the ICC and the constitution
requires the approval of 70%, or seven members, to advance any motion,
which means 40%, or four members, can block any motion. Much of the
game is controlled by the BCCI because it controls enough votes to
block any proposal put forward at the ICC board meetings. The reason
for this is some countries would not survive without the financial
opportunities India provides. What is just as disturbing is through
the Champions League, South Africa and Australia have a partnership
with India and are unlikely to risk offending India. The current
Champions League 10-year contract generates just under a billion
dollars and is 50% owned by India with Australia and South African
sharing the rest.

As a result of the dependence on India the process adopted by the ICC
is simply not working. The ICC cricket committee for example is made
up of a group of top class current and former players and umpires.
They go to great lengths to make recommendations that they consider in
the best interests of the game. These recommendations are then
submitted to the CEO's committee for approval, which normally happens
as a formality. The recommendations are then raised at the ICC board
meeting and if India doesn't like them, they are, at best, modified or
thrown out. It's a sorry state of affairs and very frustrating for
those who give so much time to getting things right.

India's apparent indifference towards Test cricket and its response
towards some of the key issues - the international calendar and the
mix of the different types of cr icket; its attitude to the earlier
ICC corruption inquiries; its indifference to the urgency to introduce
anti-doping rules; the rumoured corruption hanging over the IPL; its
attitude to the Decision Review System; and its role in the lack of
due process in stopping former Australian Prime Minister John Howard
being appointed vice president of the ICC - are all examples of
disappointing decisions. But many of the problems with the ICC could
be resolved if India invoked the spirit of cricket and didn't try and
influence its allies in how to vote.

In my view, every international team should be required to play at
least three Tests, three ODIs and three Twenty/20 matches against all
the other teams in a given home and away cycle. The Future Tours
Programme is managed by the ICC and it provides guidelines to its
members. The ICC tries to impose 'minimums'. However, the various 'big
guns' didn't like the idea of being tied to these 'minimums' so they
agreed to the minimums but introduced an "unless otherwise agreed
clause", which in effect allows all full members to do as they please.

In a perfect world no consideration should be given to any domestic
tournaments - that is IPL, Big Bash, Champions League etc - before the
international calendar is set in stone. No domestic competitions
should take precedence over international matches. Unfortunately,
India is pre-occupied with money and Twenty/20 cricket, and sees its
IPL and Champions League as more important than a proper international
calendar. To compound the problems, India has not only sold part of
the game to private interests but some of her administrators are seen
to have a conflict of interest, which makes it more difficult for it
to act in the spirit of the game.

Twenty/20 has played a crucial role in creating interest in cricket to
a new audience. The funds it generates at both international and
domestic levels also helps under-write all other cricket. The IPL has
produced a wonderful opportunity for players from all cricketing
countries to mix in a way that Martin Luther King would never have
dreamed. But the IPL is too long in its current form; many players are
paid ridiculous sums of money; young players are brought from other
countries when they should be learning their craft in their domestic
competitions; and the Indian board is more beholden to the private
franchise owners than it is to fellow ICC members.

The net result of this is Test cricket is suffering; some players
appear not to have the same feeling for Test matches as their
predecessors; there are more and more meaningless ODI matches;
governing bodies have lost some control of their players; and some
players are abandoning their responsibilities to their home countries.

We can huff and puff as much as we like and have all sorts of external
reports but this situation can only be resolved by India accepting
that the spirit of cricket is more important than generating billions
of dollars; it's more important than turning out multi-millionaire
players; and it's more important than getting square with Australia
and England for their bully-boy tactics towards India over the years.
It's ironic that the world, including India, rightly worships at the
Nelson Mandela altar because of his conciliatory attitude but then
India eschews his approach by indulging in a little pay back.

Although the current Test ranking system is working well, I think a
play-off for the Test crown is essential. Test cricket is still
paramount in England, South Africa and Australia but disappointingly
it is no longer as important in India as it once was. Sadly, Pakistan
can't play Tests at home and the West Indies has big problems, which
have diminished the standing of their Tests. The euphoria in India
after it won the ODI World Cup was amazing. That euphoria was not
duplicated when India became number one in the Test rankings. Cricket
will only have its priorities right when Pakistan and the West Indies
are given a helping hand and their Tests become more meaningful, and
when Indian players and people celebrate success at Test level as much
as it did when it won the ODI World Cup. That can probably only happen
by having a playoff for Test supremacy, say once every four years. The
ICC's internal executive was bitterly disappointed that India was
responsible for canning the scheduled 2013 Test championship. Unless
India embraces the spirit of cricket I wouldn't hold my breath about
the scheduled 2017 Test championship being played.

I was involved in the embryonic stages when Channel Nine developed
tools to aid the viewer in judging umpiring decisions, and have been a
passionate supporter of the Decision Review System (DRS). I do,
however, accept that it is hard to argue against people such as Rodney
Cavalier, current Chairman of the Sydney Cricket Ground Trust, who, in
opposing the DRS, said: "Cricket is fantasy. It is the intersection of
Heaven and Earth, it cannot ever be the slave of certainty. The
essence of cricket is honour and accepting the umpire's decision."

Having acknowledged that, I would still argue that it is just as
important to get the decisions correct. It can't be good for the game
when the media devotes so many words and so much ink to bad decisions,
which ultimately undermines the integrity of some results. The DRS is
not perfect, but it does err in favour of the umpires' decisions and
according to the ICC, fewer mistakes are made with its use. And
furthermore, there is less conflict on the ground.

India has two reasons for opposing it: One, because its superstars had
such an embarrassing experience with it in the early days. Two, the
BCCI argues that the DRS is too inexact. Ironically, the spirit of
cricket is batting on both sides in this one. The Cavalier approach
says DRS is not in the spirit of cricket, but on the other hand, the
Indian superstars should act in the spirit of cricket and accept the
majority viewpoint.

These days you can't talk about cricket without dwelling on the on-
going damage match fixing or game manipulation has caused the sport. I
share the world's view that it is repugnant and the cricket
administrators should adopt a zero-tolerance policy.

Currently, all ICC Member player contracts contain clauses prohibiting
match fixing, etc and all contracted players are required to sign-off
on the education program provided by the ICC, prior to taking part in
any international match. The Boards have also spelt out exactly what a
player's obligations are if any approach is made by anyone in relation
to corruption. For example, there is an ICC Anti-Corruption and
Security representative at every international match. Players are
encouraged to go to either their management, or alternatively, go
directly to the ICC Anti-Corruption & Security representative. Sadly,
this hasn't been sufficient to eliminate corruption.

Short of all players agreeing to take lie detector tests, I don't know
how corruption can be eliminated completely. I think all players
should agree to take lie detector tests and all should agree that if
they failed the tests, they would give the officials access to their
bank account records and phone records. My expectation is that only a
handful of players might fail the test and therefore it would not be
an onerous commitment by 99.9% of the players.

Some players embrace the bookies or their representatives for
financial gain or because of threats to their family or because a
young naïve player feels beholden to a captain he idolizes.
Ironically, I think taking lie detector tests would be in the
interests of the vulnerable players because it would lessen the
chances of approaches from bookies and captains. Knowing that they
would be caught through the lie detector tests would lessen the
chances of the players trying to either make a quick dollar or
capitulating to the bookmakers' threats. Obviously, agreeing to take
lie detector tests would be a huge invasion of privacy - but no more
so than accepting strangers knocking on your door at 5.00am asking you
to provide a urine sample. It's a huge sacrifice but I think it would
be in the spirit of cricket for the players to agree to it.

I should like to express my dismay at not only the proliferation of
external reports telling us what changes need to be made, but also
governments throughout the cricket world telling us how to run the
game. I don't know whether current administrators lack the knowledge
and courage to make decisions for the sport. Perhaps it's both or more
likely they are being sneaky in pushing responsibility for unpopular
decisions to an external source.

In recent times Cricket Australia, the ECB and the ICC all
commissioned external reports. The ICC investigation was undertaken by
Lord Woolf, and his key recommendations were never going to be
accepted. Basically, Lord Woolf was recommending the equivalent of the
United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom and France giving up
their vetoes in the Security Council, or the House of Lords voting
itself out of existence. Believe it or not, the reason for outside
independent 'expert' reports is that anything put forward by say the
ICC executive is perceived to be agenda driven by someone. What a
sorry state of affairs. What a cop out. I want cricket people running
cricket in the best interests of cricket, not outsiders reading from a
text book.

Over the years cricket has been severely damaged by government
interference in South Africa, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and India.
England has been subjected to government interference and recently the
Australian Government urged Cricket Australia to improve its
governance. Obviously, all cricketing boards need to comply with the
laws of the land, re corruption etc, and all need to improve their
governance, but the governance should be done at their own initiative
and members behest, and not with governments holding a gun at their
heads.

There is obviously a substantial difference in available resources
between the haves - India, England, Australia and South Africa - and
the have-nots - West Indies, Pakistan, New Zealand, Sri Lanka,
Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. This creates many problems. The have-nots'
youngsters are less likely to be attracted to cricket; it is far more
difficult for those countries to develop the players; and perhaps more
importantly, players from the have-not countries are more likely to be
attracted to the big money in Twenty/20 competitions than in playing
Tests for their own countries. Once again, this problem could be
addressed if all countries invoked the spirit of cricket and made some
sacrifices. The following comments provide a solution to my earlier
observations about the International Calendar and the IPL, and,
paradoxically, the IPL might just provide a solution.

One, India should agree to reduce the length of the IPL in its current
form as a trade-off for the other countries not scheduling
Internationals in opposition to it. That is, unless it adopts my Asian
League proposal which I shall discuss in a minute.

Two, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, New Zealand and the West Indies agree not
to schedule any Internationals in opposition to the IPL. These
countries will never be able to generate enough income to make
Internationals in the long term more attractive to their players than
the IPL money.

Three, India should agree to expand the IPL to say an Asian League and
include extra teams from Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan. The
cricket boards of these countries should be given a financial interest
in the competition, which would enable them to under-write most of
their cricket. Those funds would compensate the boards for not running
domestic Twenty/20 competitions of their own as they are planning to
do now. This expanded league would enable players from the have-not
countries to earn good money and still be available for
Internationals.

Four, England should set up its equivalent of the IPL and include
teams from the West Indies and one team from Ireland, which would have
a financial interest in the competition. Similar arrangements should
be made by South Africa for Zimbabwe and Kenya. And Australia's Big
Bash should include New Zealand teams.

Five, World cricket should do everything possible to not only help the
West Indies become a dominant Test force again but to ensure Pakistan
cricket survives the extraordinary situation it finds itself.

As I have expressed a number of times throughout this speech, I
believe most of the existing problems can be solved by India if it
embraces the spirit of cricket and leads for world cricket, not just
for India. However, there is a potential problem, which would diminish
my optimism. Lord Woolf recommended that the President of the ICC
become a ceremonial role and that a new position of an independent
Chairman be created. He recommended that the Chairman serve for three
years and that the position be remunerated. This person would be the
most powerful person in world cricket. Although India has rejected the
Woolf Report, I am concerned that it will cherry-pick and support this
recommendation, or a watered-down version, in a motion to change the
existing constitution. India has enough clout to control the position.

I should like to conclude by saying that cricket, a 19th century game,
has survived and thrived into the 21st century because the spirit of
cricket has been just as special to cricket playing countries as
democracy and Shakespeare have been to the world. Cricket as we know
and love it has plenty of problems. Most of those problems can best be
solved if the ICC members put the game's interests before their own
interests; if India accepts the survival of Test cricket is non-
negotiable; if India accepts its responsibility as leader of the
cricket world; if it embraces Nelson Mandela's philosophy of not
seeking retribution; and if it embraces the spirit of cricket and
governs in the best interests of world cricket, not just for India and
its business partners.

All those things need to be addressed so that cricket's own great
journey can continue - the one that began on the Wealds of Kent and
the Downs of Hampshire, and of course found its way north, so that
that canny Yorkshireman, Captain James Cook, could set it off towards
Australia and New Zealand. And it has found its way to the East and
West Indies and my native South Africa and they're beginning to play
it in all sorts of other exotic locations.

What we have is a game with its roots deep in the 19th century, but
like a magnificent English oak, continues to spread its luxuriant
branches in the 21st century. If we want our children's children's
children to be able to climb on that tree, share in what we are lucky
enough to share in, in this room today, we must do everything in our
power to ensure that the tree can live. To do that, no matter where we
come from in the world, no matter what our religion or our hue, we
must be guided by the paramount and enlightening thing that Colin
Cowdrey knew and cherished so well: The Spirit of Cricket.

[Jayen]

Some thoughts on the speech. I read through the transcript of Greig's lecture and found that I disagreed with a lot of what he had said. So I re-read it fully and wrote down my thoughts at different points.

Regards,
Jayen

On July 1, 2012 12:04:17 AM UTC+5:30, Jayen wrote:
<snip>

>
> Mr President, My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen,
>
> Thank you for inviting me to give the MCC Spirit of Cricket Cowdrey
> Lecture. I consider it an honour to acknowledge Colin and to have the
> opportunity to share with you some of my experiences as well as some
> thoughts on the game we all love.
>

<snip some stuff>

> The spirit of cricket is not just about adhering to the laws of the
> game. It's about something far more enduring, adhering to a set of
> values that can elevate you above the hum drum, above the cynicism
> that can drag you down if you let it. It not only covers uniting the
> various peoples in countries such as India, Sri Lanka and the
> countries of the West Indies, but it also brings light into the lives
> of hundreds of millions of people in those countries as well as in
> Pakistan and Bangladesh. In particular, the spirit of cricket is also
> about putting the game's interests before yours or your country's
> interests.
>

This started out as a motherhood statement which was unexceptionable, but the second part of the last sentence raises alarm bells. It suggests that the game's interests may be different from that of the country and that one has to be prioritised over the other.

<snip general stuff and fluff>

>
> I preface the following comments by saying I have only considered our
> game from the narrow perspective of the 10 Full Members of the ICC.
> Lord Woolf in his recent report to the ICC looked at the global
> picture and took into account the views of the 95 associate and
> affiliated members of the ICC and consequently has a more negative
> view than I.
>
> I believe our game is in reasonably good shape. More people play it
> than ever before. Run rates are often substantially higher than in the
> 'golden years' of cricket. More women are involved as both players and
> spectators. Television audiences are up substantially. We have
> expanded our product range - Tests, ODIs and Twenty/20s - to cater for
> the different needs of players and spectators alike. Global revenue
> has gone through the roof. Substantially more players make a decent
> living - crikey, the England players even have food tasters and
> someone to tuck them into bed at night. In the old days people used to
> say the sun never set on the British Empire. Today, cricket has grown
> so much that it is probably watched on television somewhere in the
> world 24 hours a day. Sure there are issues that need attention, some
> even urgent attention, but this has always been the case. This is part
> of the evolution of any game.
>

A few words of optimism, nothing wrong with some feel-good stuff.

> At the risk of over simplifying things, the major problems facing
> cricket at the moment are: the decline in the image of cricket; ICC's
> control; the international calendar and the mix of different types of
> cricket; gambling; the Decision Review System; governance; unequal
> resources; and the possibility of India cherrypicking the Woolf Report
> to increase its power.
>

The List. This is the crucial part, some of which is discussed in detail later.

> Fortunately, I think most of the problems can generally be addressed
> if India invokes and adheres to the spirit of cricket. Mahatma Gandhi
> said "A nation's culture resides in the hearts and in the soul of its
> people." As cricket certainly resides in the hearts and souls of
> Indian people I am optimistic India will lead cricket by acting in the
> best interests of all countries rather than just for India.

The actual rant starts here. Presumably the first "India" in the sentence above refers to the BCCI and the second "India" to Indian cricket. It comes as a complete surprise to Indian fans that the BCCI acts in the interest of Indian cricket. As long-term observers we have seen that the head honchos do so only on the rare occasions when it coincides with their own interests or when it is completely unavoidable.

> If there
> is proof of the leadership India can provide it is the recent
> announcement of a one-time benefit payment of $13 million to former
> national and domestic players for their services to Indian cricket.
> This certainly exemplifies acting in the spirit of cricket and rewards
> those players who played before 2003 for little financial reward. That
> people like Chandrasekhar, Prasanna, Borde and Nadkarni will have this
> sort of financial support as they cope with the onset of the years is
> a powerful sign that India can not only generate great wealth for the
> game, but use it wisely for the benefit of cricket and cricketers.
>

Sorry to appear churlish, but I have come to detest such gestures. It is the simplest thing that can be done and the BCCI regularly does with a lot of fanfare, but I would far prefer that all Indian cricketers (not only those who play International cricket) are able to take care of themselves rather than depend on largesse from the BCCI. Such gestures are frequently a substitute for actual action.

> Almost since its inception cricket has been synonymous with fair play.
> "It's not cricket" - another way of saying "it's not right" - was an
> expression used throughout the English speaking world - not just in
> cricket playing countries. It was a gentleman's game. More than any
> other sport, the people who played, and the people, who followed
> cricket, knew they were special. Along the way my generation decided
> that the game would be more exciting and more testing if we turned the
> heat up on the funny quips and used them to intimidate the opposition.
> History suggests most players of mine and subsequent generations also
> embraced the new gladiatorial environment. On reflection, I wouldn't
> have had it any other way. But I have to acknowledge that we not only
> breached the spirit of cricket but it was probably a selfish attitude.
>
> As a result of sledging, I don't think following generations inherited
> a game that was as special in the community's eyes that my generation
> inherited. Sadly, these days, captains don't earn or receive the same
> adulation that Richie Benaud and Sir Frank Worrall rightly received in
> their day. Players also no longer have the same relationships with
> each other that say Keith Miller and Denis Compton had. Crikey, at
> times when I watched Ricky Ponting and Duncan Fletcher, who was
> sitting in the stand, and Andrew Symonds and Harbhajan Singh on the
> field, I thought I was back in the 1960s and 1970s watching Billy
> Bremner and Nobby Stiles chopping down opponents.
>

He seems to digress a bit into sledging as a reason why captains today don't get the same level of adulation that those of the earlier generation got. This is not something that is obvious to me, but let it pass. Greig doesn't talk any further about it.

> I suspect who runs cricket and how well it has been run have been
> contentious issues since the beginning of time. Irrespective of the
> existence of the ICC or its forerunners, for about the first hundred
> years cricket was run by England and Australia. Both countries, proud
> advocates of democracy, ironically even had a veto on the ICC or its
> equivalent. Unfortunately, on many occasions self-interest was more
> important than the spirit of cricket and countries such as India and
> New Zealand were undoubtedly discriminated against.
>

We are back to the thread of ICC governance with Grieg admitting that England and Australia might have been at fault in the past. OK, fine.

> Before examining the specific issues, we must acknowledge and praise
> India for embracing the spirit of cricket through the financial
> opportunities it provides, which has enabled a number of Test playing
> countries to survive, and some to thrive. World cricket would be in a
> sorry state if it weren't for the money shared with other countries
> from India's television deals. You can imagine the indebtedness to
> India of those cricket boards, which are able to negotiate a tour with
> the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to their country. It
> generates a spike in the host country's revenue that they will not see
> until India chooses to come again.
>

A statement of how important an Indian tour is to revenues of various countries. This is a key point in what he talks about later.

> World cricket would also struggle if India didn't have such
> sophisticated administrators as it does. More recently, India has
> found a way to involve its wealthiest entrepreneurs and Bollywood
> stars through the ownership of its IPL teams.
>

With all my arm-chair, smart-aleck comments about BCCI administrators, this is one area where I too am in awe of what has been accomplished. Let's salute them and then carry on.

This is a fair description of ICC decision making. However, the main point is that Greig suggests that the solution to all or many problems is present with the ICC committees, but the BCCI blocks them. To recap, the problems that Greig lists earlier are

(i) the decline in the image of cricket;
(ii) ICC's control;
(iii) the international calendar and the mix of different types of cricket;
(iv) gambling;
(v) the Decision Review System;
(vi) governance;
(vii) unequal resources;
(viii) and the possibility of India cherrypicking the Woolf Report to increase its power.

For how many of them does the ICC have a solution? How many of these solutions are blocked by the BCCI. Let's see.

> India's apparent indifference towards Test cricket and its response
> towards some of the key issues - the international calendar and the
> mix of the different types of cr icket; its attitude to the earlier
> ICC corruption inquiries; its indifference to the urgency to introduce
> anti-doping rules; the rumoured corruption hanging over the IPL; its
> attitude to the Decision Review System; and its role in the lack of
> due process in stopping former Australian Prime Minister John Howard
> being appointed vice president of the ICC - are all examples of
> disappointing decisions. But many of the problems with the ICC could
> be resolved if India invoked the spirit of cricket and didn't try and
> influence its allies in how to vote.
>

Another List. This time it's one of the BCCI's sins, something that needs to be examined in greater detail.

(i) India's apparent indifference towards Test cricket: What's he on about? India plays a lot of test cricket and till last year were rated at the very top. If someone knows what Greig's on about, please explain.

(ii) India's response towards the the key issue of the international calendar: Whether the international calendar is a key issue needs to be debated.

(iii) India's response towards the mix of the different types of cricket: Is this related to (i)? If so, the same question needs to be asked.

(iv) India's attitude towards the earlier ICC corruption inquiries: Eh? Whether it's the across-the-board bans for matchfixing in 2000 or the bans that were announced today for the cricketers in the IPL TV exposes, India's record is quite good. I would *really* like to hear what Greig's on about here.

(v) its indifference to the urgency to introduce anti-doping rules: Hmmm. How big a problem is doping, anyway? Somehow, I am inclined to think that though the BCCI are not thought-leaders here, or even thought-followers, their pig-headedness, even if we were to assume it to be that, hasn't led to disaster.

(vi) the rumoured corruption hanging over the IPL: Grieg doesn't expand on this so we need to guess what he's on about. The bans announced today have taken care of one part. Another part, presumably, is about the Modi shenanigans, a naked and very unsubtle power-struggle, which is an embarrassment to Indian cricket but should not affect either the game or anyone else in a big way. The third part is the problem with Srinivasan's multiple roles and conflict of interest, but at the worst that would cast a doubt on the credibility of the IPL and wouldn't affect anyone else.

(vii) DRS: This is a major point that is discussed later.

(viii) John Howard: Whatever. It's possible there was a lot of wheeling and dealing, but the ICC Vice-president's post isn't something that bothers me a lot

> In my view, every international team should be required to play at
> least three Tests, three ODIs and three Twenty/20 matches against all
> the other teams in a given home and away cycle. The Future Tours
> Programme is managed by the ICC and it provides guidelines to its
> members. The ICC tries to impose 'minimums'. However, the various 'big
> guns' didn't like the idea of being tied to these 'minimums' so they
> agreed to the minimums but introduced an "unless otherwise agreed
> clause", which in effect allows all full members to do as they please.
>

There needs to be a lot of justification that all of this would lead to anything useful. Let's take the three test minimum - assuming 10 teams this leads to 270 matches per cycle. Only those tests held in Australia, England and (maybe) RSA would have a decent crowd, that is a total of 81 at best. In practice, not even all of these have a good crowd. What steps is the ICC taking towards increasing the popularity of the others? Making these tests mandatory by means of the FTP without taking any other remedial steps only irritates.

> In a perfect world no consideration should be given to any domestic
> tournaments - that is IPL, Big Bash, Champions League etc - before the
> international calendar is set in stone. No domestic competitions
> should take precedence over international matches. Unfortunately,
> India is pre-occupied with money and Twenty/20 cricket, and sees its
> IPL and Champions League as more important than a proper international
> calendar.

This is Greig's opinion as to what a perfect world is, something which is very contentious. In India's case, the IPL and the Champions league take up a maximum of 3 months of every year. A large part of the other 9 months is taken up in playing futile international matches which aren't of good quality and which are played in empty grounds. Why does Greig think that this is in any way useful?

> To compound the problems, India has not only sold part of
> the game to private interests but some of her administrators are seen
> to have a conflict of interest, which makes it more difficult for it
> to act in the spirit of the game.
>

Why should the participation of private interests be a problem at all (I agree that the conflict of interest should be avoided)? And why does it encourage the violation of anything that is in "http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/preamble-to-the-laws,475,ar.html"?

> Twenty/20 has played a crucial role in creating interest in cricket to
> a new audience. The funds it generates at both international and
> domestic levels also helps under-write all other cricket.

IPL (a domestic tournament) has definitely done so, but is there any evidence that *International* Twenty/20 cricket has taken the game to a new audience? Again, what is the quantum of funds generated by *International* T20?

> The IPL has
> produced a wonderful opportunity for players from all cricketing
> countries to mix in a way that Martin Luther King would never have
> dreamed. But the IPL is too long in its current form;

Says who? As said before, 9 months in every year is left to International cricket. Can we look at how the ICC uses it?

> many players are paid ridiculous sums of money;

Can we leave pricing to the market and assume that a leveling will take place eventually?

> young players are brought from other
> countries when they should be learning their craft in their domestic
> competitions;

Due to the limit on foreign players, the IPL seems to take only the finished product (KP, Kallis etc.) from other countries. Who are these up and coming players who have been seduced away from their study time by the IPL? How many of them are there?

> and the Indian board is more beholden to the private
> franchise owners than it is to fellow ICC members.
>

Even assuming that this is true, why is it a bad thing?

> The net result of this is Test cricket is suffering; some players
> appear not to have the same feeling for Test matches as their
> predecessors;

This is absolute rubbish. Test cricket suffering is definitely not due to any of the above. And the players can't be faulted for preferring a profitable concern rather than remaining with one which would be subsidised for God knows how long.

> there are more and more meaningless ODI matches;

It can be argued that setting artificial lower limits such as the 3 ODI minimum mentioned above also contributes to meaninglessness.

> governing bodies have lost some control of their players; and some
> players are abandoning their responsibilities to their home countries.
>

OK, whatever. The solution seems to be to increase the popularity of the game and the revenue generated in these players' own countries, something that is not covered in the lecture at all.

> We can huff and puff as much as we like and have all sorts of external
> reports but this situation can only be resolved by India accepting
> that the spirit of cricket is more important than generating billions
> of dollars; it's more important than turning out multi-millionaire
> players; and it's more important than getting square with Australia
> and England for their bully-boy tactics towards India over the years.
> It's ironic that the world, including India, rightly worships at the
> Nelson Mandela altar because of his conciliatory attitude but then
> India eschews his approach by indulging in a little pay back.
>

The beginning of the attack. Let's see how well the case is made.

> Although the current Test ranking system is working well, I think a
> play-off for the Test crown is essential.

His opinion. Test cricket has never needed a test crown and it's not at all obvious that introducing one now would lead to any significant benefit.

> Test cricket is still
> paramount in England, South Africa and Australia but disappointingly
> it is no longer as important in India as it once was.

And is a basket case everywhere else.

> Sadly, Pakistan
> can't play Tests at home and the West Indies has big problems, which
> have diminished the standing of their Tests.

Pakistan's main problem is not cricket-related.

> The euphoria in India
> after it won the ODI World Cup was amazing. That euphoria was not
> duplicated when India became number one in the Test rankings.

However, it was duplicated, at least to some extent, when KKR won the IPL. They actually had to chase people away with sticks because there was no room for them in a stadium with a capacity of 100,000. And this was a victory celebration, not a cricket match. There's a lesson in it somewhere for Greig.

> Cricket
> will only have its priorities right when Pakistan and the West Indies
> are given a helping hand and their Tests become more meaningful, and
> when Indian players and people celebrate success at Test level as much
> as it did when it won the ODI World Cup. That can probably only happen
> by having a playoff for Test supremacy, say once every four years.

No evidence for this at all.

<snip stuff on the DRS>

Usual rant against the BCCI. If however, the BCCI doesn't want it for India's matches, it doesn't stop other teams from adopting it wholesale. Why doesn't that happen? Once reason is the cost involved, in which case can a portion of the money given by the ICC for cricket development be set aside for this purpose. And even if the BCCI were to agree to the mandatory use of the DRS, where would this money which other countries lack today come from? India's opposition to the DRS is raw use of power, but cricket today has much bigger problems.

> These days you can't talk about cricket without dwelling on the on-
> going damage match fixing or game manipulation has caused the sport. I
> share the world's view that it is repugnant and the cricket
> administrators should adopt a zero-tolerance policy.
>
> Currently, all ICC Member player contracts contain clauses prohibiting
> match fixing, etc and all contracted players are required to sign-off
> on the education program provided by the ICC, prior to taking part in
> any international match. The Boards have also spelt out exactly what a
> player's obligations are if any approach is made by anyone in relation
> to corruption. For example, there is an ICC Anti-Corruption and
> Security representative at every international match. Players are
> encouraged to go to either their management, or alternatively, go
> directly to the ICC Anti-Corruption & Security representative. Sadly,
> this hasn't been sufficient to eliminate corruption.
>
> Short of all players agreeing to take lie detector tests, I don't know
> how corruption can be eliminated completely. I think all players
> should agree to take lie detector tests and all should agree that if
> they failed the tests, they would give the officials access to their
> bank account records and phone records. My expectation is that only a
> handful of players might fail the test and therefore it would not be
> an onerous commitment by 99.9% of the players.
>

This is insane. The ruckus about the effectiveness of the DRS is nothing compared to the doubts cast on lie detector tests. Even apart from that, there is a regular set of scandals in the corporate world about insider trading etc. A fair number of posters here probably work in the private sector and are in senior positions. Would all of you be willing to take regular lie-detector tests to prove that you are innocent of any wrong-doing? Or would you say that unless there is some evidence of wrong-doing you should be left alone and not investigated?

> Some players embrace the bookies or their representatives for
> financial gain or because of threats to their family or because a
> young naïve player feels beholden to a captain he idolizes.
> Ironically, I think taking lie detector tests would be in the
> interests of the vulnerable players because it would lessen the
> chances of approaches from bookies and captains. Knowing that they
> would be caught through the lie detector tests would lessen the
> chances of the players trying to either make a quick dollar or
> capitulating to the bookmakers' threats. Obviously, agreeing to take
> lie detector tests would be a huge invasion of privacy - but no more
> so than accepting strangers knocking on your door at 5.00am asking you
> to provide a urine sample. It's a huge sacrifice but I think it would
> be in the spirit of cricket for the players to agree to it.
>

I think it's asking for too much and would not yield much benefit. And if lie detector tests can be beaten and are found to be unreliable, what's next? Sodium pentothal?

> I should like to express my dismay at not only the proliferation of
> external reports telling us what changes need to be made, but also
> governments throughout the cricket world telling us how to run the
> game. I don't know whether current administrators lack the knowledge
> and courage to make decisions for the sport. Perhaps it's both or more
> likely they are being sneaky in pushing responsibility for unpopular
> decisions to an external source.
>
> In recent times Cricket Australia, the ECB and the ICC all
> commissioned external reports. The ICC investigation was undertaken by
> Lord Woolf, and his key recommendations were never going to be
> accepted. Basically, Lord Woolf was recommending the equivalent of the
> United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom and France giving up
> their vetoes in the Security Council, or the House of Lords voting
> itself out of existence. Believe it or not, the reason for outside
> independent 'expert' reports is that anything put forward by say the
> ICC executive is perceived to be agenda driven by someone. What a
> sorry state of affairs. What a cop out. I want cricket people running
> cricket in the best interests of cricket, not outsiders reading from a
> text book.
>
> Over the years cricket has been severely damaged by government
> interference in South Africa, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and India.

Some details, please. I can recall instances of government interference in Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Zimbabwe and I assume he is talking about the racial composition rules in South Africa. What exactly happened in India?

> England has been subjected to government interference and recently the
> Australian Government urged Cricket Australia to improve its
> governance. Obviously, all cricketing boards need to comply with the
> laws of the land, re corruption etc, and all need to improve their
> governance, but the governance should be done at their own initiative
> and members behest, and not with governments holding a gun at their
> heads.
>
> There is obviously a substantial difference in available resources
> between the haves - India, England, Australia and South Africa - and
> the have-nots - West Indies, Pakistan, New Zealand, Sri Lanka,
> Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. This creates many problems. The have-nots'
> youngsters are less likely to be attracted to cricket; it is far more
> difficult for those countries to develop the players; and perhaps more
> importantly, players from the have-not countries are more likely to be
> attracted to the big money in Twenty/20 competitions than in playing
> Tests for their own countries. Once again, this problem could be
> addressed if all countries invoked the spirit of cricket and made some
> sacrifices. The following comments provide a solution to my earlier
> observations about the International Calendar and the IPL, and,
> paradoxically, the IPL might just provide a solution.
>
> One, India should agree to reduce the length of the IPL in its current
> form as a trade-off for the other countries not scheduling
> Internationals in opposition to it. That is, unless it adopts my Asian
> League proposal which I shall discuss in a minute.
>

To what extent should the IPL be reduced in length? I am not opposed to this idea at all as I believe the length of the contest is a matter of detail and there's no big deal in it. In fact, it might be better if the IPL went back to the old scheme of 8 teams.

> Two, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, New Zealand and the West Indies agree not
> to schedule any Internationals in opposition to the IPL. These
> countries will never be able to generate enough income to make
> Internationals in the long term more attractive to their players than
> the IPL money.
>
> Three, India should agree to expand the IPL to say an Asian League and
> include extra teams from Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan. The
> cricket boards of these countries should be given a financial interest
> in the competition, which would enable them to under-write most of
> their cricket. Those funds would compensate the boards for not running
> domestic Twenty/20 competitions of their own as they are planning to
> do now. This expanded league would enable players from the have-not
> countries to earn good money and still be available for
> Internationals.
>

This is rubbish, to say the least. A big problem in Bangladesh, say, is that they don't have a source of revenue of their own and are dependent on ICC handouts. The best thing they can do is try to generate some crowds and money of their own and reduce their dependence on the ICC. The domestic T20 competitions should be encouraged rather than increase the dependence on the IPL.

> Four, England should set up its equivalent of the IPL and include
> teams from the West Indies and one team from Ireland, which would have
> a financial interest in the competition. Similar arrangements should
> be made by South Africa for Zimbabwe and Kenya. And Australia's Big
> Bash should include New Zealand teams.
>

No comment on this, but I would sympathise with the boards if they were not to want foreign teams in their domestic competitions.

> Five, World cricket should do everything possible to not only help the
> West Indies become a dominant Test force again but to ensure Pakistan
> cricket survives the extraordinary situation it finds itself.
>

Pakistan may have its cricketing ups and downs, but is frequently capable of fielding pretty good teams. If their country is viewed as being terrorist-ridden and no one wants to have anything to do with them, what is World Cricket to do?

And though the West Indian cricket team shows recent signs of improvement, it doesn't seem to significantly alter the fact that cricket is a game that very few in the Carribean islands want to play or watch. What can World cricket do here?

> As I have expressed a number of times throughout this speech, I
> believe most of the existing problems can be solved by India if it
> embraces the spirit of cricket and leads for world cricket, not just
> for India.

I suspect that Cowdrey would turn in his grave if he finds that the Spirit of Cricket is now used not to guide the way the game is played but to govern the doling out of moolah.

<snip>

[Jayen]

If one follow-up is bad, two's doubly so. Sorry about that.

Greig's world view seems to start and end with the pre-eminence of the ICC. The only good cricket, in his opinion, is ICC-managed cricket and it's an article of faith with him that any ICC-organised cricket is good, is in healthy shape and all we need to do is to have more of it. Where he does acknowledge problems, his solution somehow seems to involve increasing ICC's money and power, with no thoughts as to exactly how that would solve or alleviate the basic problem.

Take the case of the decline in the popularity of Indian test cricket. It's almost exactly 10 years from the end of the IvA series in 2001 and the World cup in 2011. During this decade there were hardly any tests with large crowds, say which had 75% of the ground being full. Hell, for most of these tests, the ground was not even 20% full. Especially on weekdays, there is frequently no one around, despite the fact that the Indian test team has been reasonably successul in this decade. Just compare that to the match reports of IvA 2001, all of which talked about the large and noisy crowds for each match.

During this time, I can remember two domestic FC matches which were pretty well attended (I am sure there were others too) - the Iranis in 2003 and the Karnataka Mumbai final 2010 which Mumbai won by six runs. Thus it's not as though the market is completely absent, it's just that the right product has not been put in front of it. It's difficult to describe my discomfort when I saw absolutely no corridor discussion at my workspot of the ongoing cricket during the England and Australia tours last year. On the other hand, a lot of people seem quite keen about the IPL.

Given the widespread rolling out of T20 tournaments which are held outside the control of the ICC, maybe we should be looking for more solutions there. This is something which is completely against the main recommendation of Greig in his lecture.

Having said all this, the lecture is a good thing to have and a good place to start a discussion/debate on various topics, some quite controversial. Let's see if we can use it to bash each other and get some traffic going on RSC.

Regards,
Jayen

[cricketrulez]

> Why should the participation of private interests be a problem at all (I agree that the conflict of interest should be avoided)? And why does it encourage the violation of anything that is in "http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/preamble-to-the-..."?

Jayen,

Great take down. Kudos.

[Uday Rajan]

On Saturday, June 30, 2012 3:26:13 PM UTC-4, Jayen wrote:
> > To compound the problems, India has not only sold part of
> > the game to private interests but some of her administrators are seen
> > to have a conflict of interest, which makes it more difficult for it
> > to act in the spirit of the game.
> >
> Why should the participation of private interests be a problem at all
> (I agree that the conflict of interest should be avoided)? And why does
> it encourage the violation of anything that is in
>"http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/preamble-to-the-laws,475,ar.html"?

Bit of a strange comment (Greig's, not Jayen's), coming from someone who was quite happy to serve the cause of private interests at one point (Packer).

> > Twenty/20 has played a crucial role in creating interest in cricket to
> > a new audience. The funds it generates at both international and
> > domestic levels also helps under-write all other cricket.
>
> IPL (a domestic tournament) has definitely done so, but is there any
> evidence that *International* Twenty/20 cricket has taken the game to
> a new audience? Again, what is the quantum of funds generated by
> *International* T20?

I agree with your point on international T20 cricket, but it's worth remembering that on domestic cricket it's not just the IPL that has brought new people to cricket. IIRC, one of the reasons that T20 cricket was introduced into England (where, like odo cricket, it first emerged) was to increase the reach of cricket and to bring people to the domestic game who were unlikely to show up for a first-class match or even a dodo. From whatever I have read, it's been successful at that too.

> > many players are paid ridiculous sums of money;
>
> Can we leave pricing to the market and assume that a leveling
> will take place eventually?

Yes, I don't see why there is a problem if players are paid ridiculous sums of money. Or, more fundamentally, who has either the authority or the ability to decide what a ridiculous sum of money is. I may think cricket commentators are paid ridiculous sums of money, but there is a market out there.

> > The net result of this is Test cricket is suffering; some players
> > appear not to have the same feeling for Test matches as their
> > predecessors;
>
> This is absolute rubbish. Test cricket suffering is definitely not
> due to any of the above. And the players can't be faulted for
> preferring a profitable concern rather than remaining with one
> which would be subsidised for God knows how long.

Yes. There is no reason why all players must love Test cricket above anything else. Most cricketers have short working lives (in cricket, I mean) and they are entitled to try and maximize their career earnings. If that means giving Test cricket short shrift, so be it.

> > The euphoria in India
> > after it won the ODI World Cup was amazing. That euphoria was not
> > duplicated when India became number one in the Test rankings.
>
> However, it was duplicated, at least to some extent, when KKR won the
> IPL. They actually had to chase people away with sticks because there was
> no room for them in a stadium with a capacity of 100,000.

Hmm. I thought I read that after the reconstruction a year or two ago, the capacity of Eden Gardens had been reduced to 63,000. Is it still 100,000?

> >
> > Short of all players agreeing to take lie detector tests, I don't know
> > how corruption can be eliminated completely. I think all players
> > should agree to take lie detector tests and all should agree that if
> > they failed the tests, they would give the officials access to their
> > bank account records and phone records. My expectation is that only a
> > handful of players might fail the test and therefore it would not be
> > an onerous commitment by 99.9% of the players.
> >
>
> This is insane. The ruckus about the effectiveness of the DRS is
> nothing compared to the doubts cast on lie detector tests.

Agreed. Asking all players to take lie detector tests is completely insane. I'm not sure about the law in other parts of the world, but in the US lie detector tests are inadmissible in court because they are notoriously unreliable. There are, of course, serious invasion of privacy issues too. But sport seems to have dealt with the invasion of privacy issues when it comes to drug testing, so perhaps it can deal with those for lie detector tests.

[Jayen]

On Sunday, July 1, 2012 9:03:59 AM UTC+5:30, Uday Rajan wrote:
> On Saturday, June 30, 2012 3:26:13 PM UTC-4, Jayen wrote:

<snip>

>
> > > The euphoria in India
> > > after it won the ODI World Cup was amazing. That euphoria was not
> > > duplicated when India became number one in the Test rankings.
> >
> > However, it was duplicated, at least to some extent, when KKR won the
> > IPL. They actually had to chase people away with sticks because there was
> > no room for them in a stadium with a capacity of 100,000.
>

> Hmm. I thought I read that after the reconstruction a year or two ago, the capacity of Eden Gardens had been reduced to 63,000. Is it still 100,000?

Yes, the capacity has been reduced to 63,000. Sorry about the error.

Regards,
Jayen

[Vijay Sharma]

I posted last night on this thread but it didn't show up and I am not gonna type it all over again but the gist is that Greig has lost his bearings.

It is fashionable these days to blame BCCI for all the ills plaguing cricket. And Greig has been shunted by the BCCI in the past so there is some bias in his opinions too.

What I absolutely don't like is Greig using the word "India" without qualification. It comes across as if he is blaming the nation and its people for BCCI's alleged crimes

[Bob Dubery]

On Jul 4, 8:03 am, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I posted last night on this thread but it didn't show up and I am not gonna type it all over again but the gist is that Greig has lost his bearings.

I think he has a bit of a point about IPL and it's potential to damage
the greater game. But it might be seen as a bit rich coming from
somebody who was himself part of another series that was perceived as
a threat to the game.

The BCCI would be fools indeed if they could not see what was likely
to happen as regards the IPL. With the amount of money involved OF
COURSE star players would be tempted to earn themselves big and
perhaps easy (or easier) bucks in the IPL even if it meant sacrificing
or reducing their ambitions at representative level. How could it be
otherwise?

They're not the first of course, and there's a part of me that says
that a board's first obligation is to the wellness of the game in it's
own backyard. Charity begins at home and all that.

England's opening of the county competitions to overseas players was
motivated by self interest, as were subsequent moves to curtail the
number of overseas players. When Darryll Cullinan signed a contract
that bound him to a county at the expense of some international
fixtures they didn't council him about not being able to play for his
country and the problems that might cause when his contract with the
UCB expired - and why should they have?

When the UCB's predecessors arranged the "rebel" tours to SA, starting
with an "England" side they must have expected that there would be
some unhappiness about this (and after the "Sri Lanka" tour they knew
it for sure) but they were motivated by keeping the game alive and
healthy at home.

One of the greatest bowlers the game has ever seen chose to play
league cricket in England rather than county cricket because he could
make a better living that way and for less work. Nobody took the
leagues to task for not putting the counties or the country first.

So I think that the IPL does have serious ramifications for the
cricketing world. I think the BCCI are in it because it's going to
make money for them that the ICL never would OR because the ICL was
the genie being let out of the bottle and all the BCCI could do was to
get the genie on their side. I think they're entitled to do it, even
if it's not good for the greater game (it isn't). I think players are
entitled to seek their fortune in the IPL. And I think that national
boards are entitled to get peeved at such players.

>
> It is fashionable these days to blame BCCI for all the ills plaguing cricket. And Greig has been shunted by the BCCI in the past so there is some bias in his opinions too.
>
> What I absolutely don't like is Greig using the word "India" without qualification. It comes across as if he is blaming the nation and its people for BCCI's alleged crimes

I think it's OK in the context in which Greig was speaking. If he got
stuck into "South Africa" I think most people at the event and most
cricket followers would understand him to be speaking about the South
African board.

[jzfredricks]

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 4:03:40 PM UTC+10, Vijay Sharma wrote:
> What I absolutely don't like is Greig using the word "India" without qualification.

Good point.
However it's fine for you to say Mike is "anti-India", right?

[Vijay Sharma]

JZ, I am just not going to discuss these kinda things anymore...I have clarified my stance quite a few times and that's that...u can infer whatever u want from it

[Vijay Sharma]

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 3:02:37 PM UTC+5:30, Bob Dubery wrote:
> On Jul 4, 8:03 am, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I posted last night on this thread but it didn't show up and I am not gonna type it all over again but the gist is that Greig has lost his bearings.
>
> I think he has a bit of a point about IPL and it's potential to damage
> the greater game. But it might be seen as a bit rich coming from
> somebody who was himself part of another series that was perceived as
> a threat to the game.
>

I am not saying IPL is the answer to all of cricket's ills. But I don't think that IPL itself is an ill.
Every activity has potential to damage or improve. IPL has provided a platform for lesser cricketers to compete with the greater ones and also make a career out of cricket (which in India is a big thing). Yes they may not become good first class players but they may become good T20 players.

While you and I still stick by the primacy of Test cricket, father time will decide whether that will remain so. And there is nothing wrong with other forms of cricket taking center stage

> The BCCI would be fools indeed if they could not see what was likely
> to happen as regards the IPL. With the amount of money involved OF
> COURSE star players would be tempted to earn themselves big and
> perhaps easy (or easier) bucks in the IPL even if it meant sacrificing
> or reducing their ambitions at representative level. How could it be
> otherwise?

Players get paid so heavily because the market is there for T20 / IPL. If there was a market for Test cricket then even Test cricketers will earn so much. Also just coz India has a great market for cricket and say NZ doesn't why shouldn't professional cricketers make use of the market forces in India.

>
> They're not the first of course, and there's a part of me that says
> that a board's first obligation is to the wellness of the game in it's
> own backyard. Charity begins at home and all that.
>

On this point I think the BCCI has been doing decently when it comes to Indian cricket. It was not long ago that we became number 1 in Tests, we won the ODO WC. Despite the 0-8 battering we received at the hands of Eng and Aus last year I think our system is strong enough to not go the WI way. We will be back as a Test force soon enough.

Can BCCI improve its act? You bet they can and they should. But are BCCI not doing any good to Indian cricket? No, BCCI are helping Indian cricket improve.

> England's opening of the county competitions to overseas players was
> motivated by self interest, as were subsequent moves to curtail the
> number of overseas players. When Darryll Cullinan signed a contract
> that bound him to a county at the expense of some international
> fixtures they didn't council him about not being able to play for his
> country and the problems that might cause when his contract with the
> UCB expired - and why should they have?
>
> When the UCB's predecessors arranged the "rebel" tours to SA, starting
> with an "England" side they must have expected that there would be
> some unhappiness about this (and after the "Sri Lanka" tour they knew
> it for sure) but they were motivated by keeping the game alive and
> healthy at home.

Yeah! Were they right or wrong? I really dont wanna sit in judgment

>
> One of the greatest bowlers the game has ever seen chose to play
> league cricket in England rather than county cricket because he could
> make a better living that way and for less work. Nobody took the
> leagues to task for not putting the counties or the country first.

Who is the bowler you are referring to?

>
> So I think that the IPL does have serious ramifications for the
> cricketing world. I think the BCCI are in it because it's going to
> make money for them that the ICL never would OR because the ICL was
> the genie being let out of the bottle and all the BCCI could do was to
> get the genie on their side. I think they're entitled to do it, even
> if it's not good for the greater game (it isn't). I think players are
> entitled to seek their fortune in the IPL. And I think that national
> boards are entitled to get peeved at such players.

BCCI are in it to make money..sure. But while doing so, the eco-system is also benefiting - players are making more money, public is getting entertained, sponsors are getting more faces to market their products, new fans are coming to the game, experience of spectators in India has improved by leaps and bounds (and this is one area I cannot thank the IPL enough for)

Every board also makes money out of IPL...I think 10% of the player salaries go to their home boards.

Secondly, ICL wouldn't have done much. The idea of a franchise league like this one was presented by Lalit Modi way back in the mid-late 90s (that time it was for 50 over games). It wasn't seen thru then but India's victory in the T20 WC forced ppl to take Modi seriously. And in the interim years Modi himself had learned the tricks of the trade better. Even given all his misgivings Modi is chiefly responsible for making IPL what it is - a great league very popular in a country that loves its cricket (may not be the Test type).

>
> >
> > It is fashionable these days to blame BCCI for all the ills plaguing cricket. And Greig has been shunted by the BCCI in the past so there is some bias in his opinions too.
> >
> > What I absolutely don't like is Greig using the word "India" without qualification. It comes across as if he is blaming the nation and its people for BCCI's alleged crimes
>
> I think it's OK in the context in which Greig was speaking. If he got
> stuck into "South Africa" I think most people at the event and most
> cricket followers would understand him to be speaking about the South
> African board.

Later on this

[Bob Dubery]

On Jul 5, 2:00 pm, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 3:02:37 PM UTC+5:30, Bob Dubery wrote:
> > On Jul 4, 8:03 am, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I posted last night on this thread but it didn't show up and I am not gonna type it all over again but the gist is that Greig has lost his bearings.
>
> > I think he has a bit of a point about IPL and it's potential to damage
> > the greater game. But it might be seen as a bit rich coming from
> > somebody who was himself part of another series that was perceived as
> > a threat to the game.
>
> I am not saying IPL is the answer to all of cricket's ills. But I don't think that IPL itself is an ill.

It depends on perspective. I don't think it's good for the
international game, but it's not intended to be. It's like the rebel
tours to SA, from one perspective they were justifiable, even
desirable because they gave the players in SA something to aim at and
thus a reason to keep on playing. From another POV they were very
undesirable and totally indefensible.

> Every activity has potential to damage or improve. IPL has provided a platform for lesser cricketers to compete with the greater ones and also make a career out of cricket (which in India is a big thing). Yes they may not become good first class players but they may become good T20 players.
>
> While you and I still stick by the primacy of Test cricket, father time will decide whether that will remain so. And there is nothing wrong with other forms of cricket taking center stage

It's not "wrong", but it bores the pants off of me. It attracts more
fans, but I got to tell you: I don't care to go to those games (or
even ODIs these days). I like a mode of cricket watching in which
everybody stayed seated during an over, in which people didn't stand
up to wave to the guy on the other side of the ground that they've
been texting just as Dale Steyn is releasing the ball. But it makes a
lot of money for the grounds and for the boards and for the players.

>
> > The BCCI would be fools indeed if they could not see what was likely
> > to happen as regards the IPL. With the amount of money involved OF
> > COURSE star players would be tempted to earn themselves big and
> > perhaps easy (or easier) bucks in the IPL even if it meant sacrificing
> > or reducing their ambitions at representative level. How could it be
> > otherwise?
>
> Players get paid so heavily because the market is there for T20 / IPL. If there was a market for Test cricket then even Test cricketers will earn so much. Also just coz India has a great market for cricket and say NZ doesn't why shouldn't professional cricketers make use of the market forces in India.

Oh I understand the principle of the free market, of supply and
demand. But see above, IPL is good from some perspectives, not so good
from others. I don't see why India should be branded as some kind of
devils for giving IPL to the world, but they're no saints either.

>
>
>
> > They're not the first of course, and there's a part of me that says
> > that a board's first obligation is to the wellness of the game in it's
> > own backyard. Charity begins at home and all that.
>
> On this point I think the BCCI has been doing decently when it comes to Indian cricket. It was not long ago that we became number 1 in Tests, we won the ODO WC. Despite the 0-8 battering we received at the hands of Eng and Aus last year I think our system is strong enough to not go the WI way. We will be back as a Test force soon enough.

Well I was thinking more about financial well being, and keeping
players motivated and having lots of people wanting to play cricket.
Not just rankings, though I suppose rankings help to bring money in.

>
> Can BCCI improve its act? You bet they can and they should. But are BCCI not doing any good to Indian cricket? No, BCCI are helping Indian cricket improve.

<snip>

> > One of the greatest bowlers the game has ever seen chose to play
> > league cricket in England rather than county cricket because he could
> > make a better living that way and for less work. Nobody took the
> > leagues to task for not putting the counties or the country first.
>
> Who is the bowler you are referring to?

SF Barnes.

[jzfredricks]

Fair enough. As you know, I was just trolling :)

[Vijay Sharma]

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 3:02:37 PM UTC+5:30, Bob Dubery wrote:

<snip the previous stuff>

> > What I absolutely don't like is Greig using the word "India" without qualification. It comes across as if he is blaming the nation and its people for BCCI's alleged crimes
>
> I think it's OK in the context in which Greig was speaking. If he got
> stuck into "South Africa" I think most people at the event and most
> cricket followers would understand him to be speaking about the South
> African board.

If this was the first time I heard Greig using "India" so generically then I'd be ok with it. But I have noticed him use the word India rather carelessly on numerous occasions in the recent past.

Having said that, I do not discount the possibility that I am reading too much into it

[Vijay Sharma]

On Thursday, July 5, 2012 5:54:14 PM UTC+5:30, Bob Dubery wrote:
> On Jul 5, 2:00 pm, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 3:02:37 PM UTC+5:30, Bob Dubery wrote:
> > > On Jul 4, 8:03 am, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I posted last night on this thread but it didn't show up and I am not gonna type it all over again but the gist is that Greig has lost his bearings.
> >
> > > I think he has a bit of a point about IPL and it's potential to damage
> > > the greater game. But it might be seen as a bit rich coming from
> > > somebody who was himself part of another series that was perceived as
> > > a threat to the game.
> >
> > I am not saying IPL is the answer to all of cricket's ills. But I don't think that IPL itself is an ill.
> It depends on perspective. I don't think it's good for the
> international game, but it's not intended to be. It's like the rebel
> tours to SA, from one perspective they were justifiable, even
> desirable because they gave the players in SA something to aim at and
> thus a reason to keep on playing. From another POV they were very
> undesirable and totally indefensible.

The example of rebel tours is not at all in the ball-park of IPL. I think a better example would be WSC

>
> > Every activity has potential to damage or improve. IPL has provided a platform for lesser cricketers to compete with the greater ones and also make a career out of cricket (which in India is a big thing). Yes they may not become good first class players but they may become good T20 players.
> >
> > While you and I still stick by the primacy of Test cricket, father time will decide whether that will remain so. And there is nothing wrong with other forms of cricket taking center stage
>
> It's not "wrong", but it bores the pants off of me. It attracts more
> fans, but I got to tell you: I don't care to go to those games (or
> even ODIs these days). I like a mode of cricket watching in which
> everybody stayed seated during an over, in which people didn't stand
> up to wave to the guy on the other side of the ground that they've
> been texting just as Dale Steyn is releasing the ball. But it makes a
> lot of money for the grounds and for the boards and for the players.
>

Dale Steyn delivering venom is noticeable even in IPL.

But the larger point is that I guess it is all a matter of perspective. While the individual might not like the IPL, the collective do (or should it be "does"?). Why do you want others to not have fun just coz you are not having it :-)?

> >
> > > The BCCI would be fools indeed if they could not see what was likely
> > > to happen as regards the IPL. With the amount of money involved OF
> > > COURSE star players would be tempted to earn themselves big and
> > > perhaps easy (or easier) bucks in the IPL even if it meant sacrificing
> > > or reducing their ambitions at representative level. How could it be
> > > otherwise?
> >
> > Players get paid so heavily because the market is there for T20 / IPL. If there was a market for Test cricket then even Test cricketers will earn so much. Also just coz India has a great market for cricket and say NZ doesn't why shouldn't professional cricketers make use of the market forces in India.
>
> Oh I understand the principle of the free market, of supply and
> demand. But see above, IPL is good from some perspectives, not so good
> from others. I don't see why India should be branded as some kind of
> devils for giving IPL to the world, but they're no saints either.

We agree

> >
> >
> >
> > > They're not the first of course, and there's a part of me that says
> > > that a board's first obligation is to the wellness of the game in it's
> > > own backyard. Charity begins at home and all that.
> >
> > On this point I think the BCCI has been doing decently when it comes to Indian cricket. It was not long ago that we became number 1 in Tests, we won the ODO WC. Despite the 0-8 battering we received at the hands of Eng and Aus last year I think our system is strong enough to not go the WI way. We will be back as a Test force soon enough.
>
> Well I was thinking more about financial well being, and keeping
> players motivated and having lots of people wanting to play cricket.
> Not just rankings, though I suppose rankings help to bring money in.

Standing on the field of play is a culmination, in a way, of the things you mentioned. Sure you can still be great without being paid peanuts even.

But to address your points - do people wanna play cricket in India? You bet they do. The Indian team is a prime example. Up until early 2000's Indian teams were basically constituted by players from Mumbai, Bangalore, Delhi, Chennai, and occasionally Kolkata, Chandigarh, Hyderabad, etc. Now, the majority of the players come from smaller towns. This is the spread of cricket in India. BCCI has done some wonderful things to enable the process, and more importantly they haven't hindered the evolutionary processes much.

Financial well being - Today cricket is a legit profession in India. Back in 1995 I ran away from home coz I wanted to be a cricketer and my parents wouldn't agree with that. Cricket was too risky a career...only 15 people out of 85 crore could make a living off it. These days even first class cricketers earn enough to take up cricket as a career. And with IPL things have become even better

Motivation of cricketers - There is no dearth of it. Yes the 0-8 drubbing sent a message that we were not motivated enough. But I think that was just a few rough months. If you look at the way players have played in the IPL you would know motivation is not a huge issue

> >
> > Can BCCI improve its act? You bet they can and they should. But are BCCI not doing any good to Indian cricket? No, BCCI are helping Indian cricket improve.
> <snip>
> > > One of the greatest bowlers the game has ever seen chose to play
> > > league cricket in England rather than county cricket because he could
> > > make a better living that way and for less work. Nobody took the
> > > leagues to task for not putting the counties or the country first.
> >
> > Who is the bowler you are referring to?
> SF Barnes.

ahha, so this problem has been around for sometime now :-)

[Bob Dubery]

On Jul 5, 4:27 pm, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, July 5, 2012 5:54:14 PM UTC+5:30, Bob Dubery wrote:


> The example of rebel tours is not at all in the ball-park of IPL. I think a better example would be WSC

Point was that boards ultimately put their own constituencies before
the greater game.

I'm not saying that's bad or good. I'm saying that's the way it is.

[Vijay Sharma]

The "greater game" is a new phrase that is doing the rounds. What really is this "greater game". What exactly must BCCI do that entails the greater game.

The BCCI have ensured they play Test cricket and have been averaging at least 10 tests per year in the last few years.

What else? Do you want BCCI to adopt all the other boards and make money for them / keep doling out to them?

[Bob Dubery]

On Jul 6, 5:23 pm, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, July 6, 2012 11:05:58 AM UTC+5:30, Bob Dubery wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 4:27 pm, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 5, 2012 5:54:14 PM UTC+5:30, Bob Dubery wrote:
>
> > > The example of rebel tours is not at all in the ball-park of IPL. I think a better example would be WSC
> > Point was that boards ultimately put their own constituencies before
> > the greater game.
>
> > I'm not saying that's bad or good. I'm saying that's the way it is.
>
> The "greater game" is a new phrase that is doing the rounds. What really is this "greater game". What exactly must BCCI do that entails the greater game.

I think it's been trotted out before - or something similar. I'm
talking about Packer. Brearley said that WSC was a threat to the
livelihoods of players who were not involved. But the ICC wouldn't
have been making those kinds of noises as they were much less
organised and business like back then.

>
> The BCCI have ensured they play Test cricket and have been averaging at least 10 tests per year in the last few years.
>
> What else? Do you want BCCI to adopt all the other boards and make money for them / keep doling out to them?

I'm not levelling any accusations really against the BCCI. I'm saying
that boards tend to look out for number one. OK... I'm not saying
that's a good thing at every level, but I think it's what happens and
I think it's not new and not Indian and maybe everybody needs to face
that fact. In the 80s there were grumblings about the West Indies and
all their fast bowlers and the way that the game should be played, but
I think most countries would have done the same if they had the raw
material and thus the opportunity. And I think that other boards
would, if they had India's commercial power in the game, flex their
muscles and kick sand in the ICC's eyes.

[Vijay Sharma]

On Monday, July 9, 2012 9:06:49 AM UTC+5:30, Bob Dubery wrote:
> On Jul 6, 5:23 pm, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, July 6, 2012 11:05:58 AM UTC+5:30, Bob Dubery wrote:
> > > On Jul 5, 4:27 pm, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, July 5, 2012 5:54:14 PM UTC+5:30, Bob Dubery wrote:
> >
> > > > The example of rebel tours is not at all in the ball-park of IPL. I think a better example would be WSC
> > > Point was that boards ultimately put their own constituencies before
> > > the greater game.
> >
> > > I'm not saying that's bad or good. I'm saying that's the way it is.
> >
> > The "greater game" is a new phrase that is doing the rounds. What really is this "greater game". What exactly must BCCI do that entails the greater game.
>
> I think it's been trotted out before - or something similar. I'm
> talking about Packer. Brearley said that WSC was a threat to the
> livelihoods of players who were not involved. But the ICC wouldn't
> have been making those kinds of noises as they were much less
> organised and business like back then.

How exactly is IPL affecting the greater game then. If it is improving player earning standards, bringing new fans to the game, improving spectator experience, in general providing more opportunity to more people, then how exactly is it affecting the greater game

[Bob Dubery]

On Jul 9, 7:54 am, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, July 9, 2012 9:06:49 AM UTC+5:30, Bob Dubery wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 5:23 pm, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 6, 2012 11:05:58 AM UTC+5:30, Bob Dubery wrote:
> > > > On Jul 5, 4:27 pm, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, July 5, 2012 5:54:14 PM UTC+5:30, Bob Dubery wrote:
>
> > > > > The example of rebel tours is not at all in the ball-park of IPL. I think a better example would be WSC
> > > > Point was that boards ultimately put their own constituencies before
> > > > the greater game.
>
> > > > I'm not saying that's bad or good. I'm saying that's the way it is.
>
> > > The "greater game" is a new phrase that is doing the rounds. What really is this "greater game". What exactly must BCCI do that entails the greater game.
>
> > I think it's been trotted out before - or something similar. I'm
> > talking about Packer. Brearley said that WSC was a threat to the
> > livelihoods of players who were not involved. But the ICC wouldn't
> > have been making those kinds of noises as they were much less
> > organised and business like back then.
>
> How exactly is IPL affecting the greater game then. If it is improving player earning standards, bringing new fans to the game, improving spectator experience, in general providing more opportunity to more people, then how exactly is it affecting the greater game

Because, like WSC, like the rebel tours to SA, it's a big carrot,
consisting of lots of money, that may tempt a player to put his
earnings ahead of playing for his country. I'm not even sure that
that's wrong, and it's certainly the player's right to pursue that
opportunity.

So we end up with a Kevin Pietersen who wants some respite from what
he says is a heavy schedule and has had to choose between IPL or
playing one day cricket for England. Or you get an Andrew Symonds who
chucked it all in to play 20 over games.

I'm not saying any of this is "wrong" or "bad", just that IPL quite
clearly has ramifications beyond the IPL and I can't see how the BCCI
couldn't have seen that this sort of thing would happen.

[patt...@gmail.com]

> > > > I'm not saying that's bad or good. I'm saying that's the way it is.
> > >
> > > The "greater game" is a new phrase that is doing the rounds. What really is this "greater game". What exactly must BCCI do that entails the greater game.
> >
> > I think it's been trotted out before - or something similar. I'm
> > talking about Packer. Brearley said that WSC was a threat to the
> > livelihoods of players who were not involved. But the ICC wouldn't
> > have been making those kinds of noises as they were much less
> > organised and business like back then.
>
> How exactly is IPL affecting the greater game then. If it is improving player earning standards, bringing new fans to the game, improving spectator experience, in general providing more opportunity to more people, then how exactly is it affecting the greater game

Because it's not cricket, and it is attracting spectators who don't actually like cricket.

What if they say, OK volleyball is becoming really popular let's change the rules of cricket so it is the same as volleyball and call it T20 and we can have 10 games per day and 50 franchises. Would that be OK? It would improve player earning standards, bringing new fans to the game (who don't like cricket), improve spectator experience, provide more opportunity to more people.

As a cricket fan I want to see cricket, not some retarded version of baseball.

[Jayen]

On Jul 9, 6:17 pm, Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 7:54 am, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Monday, July 9, 2012 9:06:49 AM UTC+5:30, Bob Dubery wrote:
> > > On Jul 6, 5:23 pm, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Friday, July 6, 2012 11:05:58 AM UTC+5:30, Bob Dubery wrote:
> > > > > On Jul 5, 4:27 pm, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, July 5, 2012 5:54:14 PM UTC+5:30, Bob Dubery wrote:
>
> > > > > > The example of rebel tours is not at all in the ball-park of IPL. I think a better example would be WSC
> > > > > Point was that boards ultimately put their own constituencies before
> > > > > the greater game.
>
> > > > > I'm not saying that's bad or good. I'm saying that's the way it is.
>
> > > > The "greater game" is a new phrase that is doing the rounds. What really is this "greater game". What exactly must BCCI do that entails the greater game.
>
> > > I think it's been trotted out before - or something similar. I'm
> > > talking about Packer. Brearley said that WSC was a threat to the
> > > livelihoods of players who were not involved. But the ICC wouldn't
> > > have been making those kinds of noises as they were much less
> > > organised and business like back then.
>
> > How exactly is IPL affecting the greater game then. If it is improving player earning standards, bringing new fans to the game, improving spectator experience, in general providing more opportunity to more people, then how exactly is it affecting the greater game
>
> Because, like WSC, like the rebel tours to SA, it's a big carrot,
> consisting of lots of money, that may tempt a player to put his
> earnings ahead of playing for his country. I'm not even sure that
> that's wrong, and it's certainly the player's right to pursue that
> opportunity.

That's not entire correct as the IPL is only for 2 months of the year
and the other 10 months are open for Country-vs-Country cricket.
Playing in IPL only means that the player is available for his country
for 10 months and not all 12 months of the year.

The problem seems to be the rest of the *PLs (the Big Bash, the South
African variety, the Bangladesh tournament etc.) which cumulatively
account for a much larger portion of the year, and enable Chris Gayle
to play throughout and make a fair amount of cash without turning out
for the West Indies. This might be what is getting the ICC all hot and
bothered.

>
> So we end up with a Kevin Pietersen who wants some respite from what
> he says is a heavy schedule and has had to choose between IPL or
> playing one day cricket for England. Or you get an Andrew Symonds who
> chucked it all in to play 20 over games.
>
> I'm not saying any of this is "wrong" or "bad", just that IPL quite
> clearly has ramifications beyond the IPL and I can't see how the BCCI
> couldn't have seen that this sort of thing would happen.

Regards,
Jayen

[Jayen]

Your argument is more against T-20s than against the IPL.

Greig in his lecture didn't have anything against T-20s as such, but
he was strongly against any form of domestic cricket overshadowing
International cricket.

Regards,
Jayen

[Vijay Sharma]

On Monday, July 9, 2012 6:47:51 PM UTC+5:30, Bob Dubery wrote:
> On Jul 9, 7:54 am, Vijay Sharma &lt;viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> &gt; On Monday, July 9, 2012 9:06:49 AM UTC+5:30, Bob Dubery wrote:
> &gt; &gt; On Jul 6, 5:23 pm, Vijay Sharma &lt;viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> &gt; &gt; &gt; On Friday, July 6, 2012 11:05:58 AM UTC+5:30, Bob Dubery wrote:
> &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; On Jul 5, 4:27 pm, Vijay Sharma &lt;viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; On Thursday, July 5, 2012 5:54:14 PM UTC+5:30, Bob Dubery wrote:
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; The example of rebel tours is not at all in the ball-park of IPL. I think a better example would be WSC
> &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Point was that boards ultimately put their own constituencies before
> &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; the greater game.
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; I&#39;m not saying that&#39;s bad or good. I&#39;m saying that&#39;s the way it is.
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt; &gt; The &quot;greater game&quot; is a new phrase that is doing the rounds. What really is this &quot;greater game&quot;. What exactly must BCCI do that entails the greater game.
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt; I think it&#39;s been trotted out before - or something similar. I&#39;m
> &gt; &gt; talking about Packer. Brearley said that WSC was a threat to the
> &gt; &gt; livelihoods of players who were not involved. But the ICC wouldn&#39;t
> &gt; &gt; have been making those kinds of noises as they were much less
> &gt; &gt; organised and business like back then.
> &gt;
> &gt; How exactly is IPL affecting the greater game then. If it is improving player earning standards, bringing new fans to the game, improving spectator experience, in general providing more opportunity to more people, then how exactly is it affecting the greater game
>
> Because, like WSC, like the rebel tours to SA, it&#39;s a big carrot,

> consisting of lots of money, that may tempt a player to put his

> earnings ahead of playing for his country. I&#39;m not even sure that
> that&#39;s wrong, and it&#39;s certainly the player&#39;s right to pursue that

> opportunity.
>
> So we end up with a Kevin Pietersen who wants some respite from what
> he says is a heavy schedule and has had to choose between IPL or
> playing one day cricket for England. Or you get an Andrew Symonds who
> chucked it all in to play 20 over games.
>

> I&#39;m not saying any of this is &quot;wrong&quot; or &quot;bad&quot;, just that IPL quite
> clearly has ramifications beyond the IPL and I can&#39;t see how the BCCI
> couldn&#39;t have seen that this sort of thing would happen.

I don't think BCCI or anyone in the cricket world could have predicted what kinda animal the IPL would become back in 2008.

However, maybe after the first couple of seasons most people could tell that IPL is going to impact the game big time. The question is, what would you expect the BCCI to have done then? Kill the IPL? Regulate it? I think BCCI has done all it can. Let's see

a. BCCI has actually asked the players to get an NOC from their respective boards. What more can they do?
b. BCCI has given a cut to the boards - 10% of every player's salary to the home board.
c. The tournament itself is held at a time that conflicts with the least "home" seasons of other international teams. SA, Aus, NZ, Ind, Pak, Ban, Zim, SL have their seasons ranging from July to March. 8 out of 10 test teams are free during April/May
d. April/May is the time of summer holidays for kids in India. Games are played generally at night and it has brought in so many new fans to the grounds. Had the IPL been held during school days (June-March) I am not sure we woulda seen such full stadiums
e. Kids are the biggest reason for IPL becoming such a huge success. I can tell you from personal experience. Every friend of mine who has a child older than 5 years has been relentlessly pestered by their kid(s) to take them to an IPL game. And they have given in

KP's case has more to do with ECB having different standards for him and for other English players. Symonds was out of the Aussie team. CA kicked him out because of his antics. I know you meant these guys as just examples but really for every such case there is a very valid explanation. Chris Gayle has had problems with his board. Malinga had an injury that could allow him to bowl 4 overs a game but not play a 5 day game. SLC shoulda let him be but they pushed it too far and now he has retired from Test cricket. His body can't take Test cricket.

Who else are the big losses to international cricket?

[Vijay Sharma]

On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 12:25:50 AM UTC+5:30, (unknown) wrote:
> &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; I&#39;m not saying that&#39;s bad or good. I&#39;m saying that&#39;s the way it is.
> &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt; &gt; &gt; The &quot;greater game&quot; is a new phrase that is doing the rounds. What really is this &quot;greater game&quot;. What exactly must BCCI do that entails the greater game.
> &gt; &gt;
> &gt; &gt; I think it&#39;s been trotted out before - or something similar. I&#39;m
> &gt; &gt; talking about Packer. Brearley said that WSC was a threat to the
> &gt; &gt; livelihoods of players who were not involved. But the ICC wouldn&#39;t
> &gt; &gt; have been making those kinds of noises as they were much less
> &gt; &gt; organised and business like back then.
> &gt;
> &gt; How exactly is IPL affecting the greater game then. If it is improving player earning standards, bringing new fans to the game, improving spectator experience, in general providing more opportunity to more people, then how exactly is it affecting the greater game
>
>
> Because it&#39;s not cricket, and it is attracting spectators who don&#39;t actually like cricket.
>
> What if they say, OK volleyball is becoming really popular let&#39;s change the rules of cricket so it is the same as volleyball and call it T20 and we can have 10 games per day and 50 franchises. Would that be OK? It would improve player earning standards, bringing new fans to the game (who don&#39;t like cricket), improve spectator experience, provide more opportunity to more people.

>
> As a cricket fan I want to see cricket, not some retarded version of baseball.

I think you need to understand that you do not hold the rights to fan-hood. Anyone can become a fan and each individual is free enough to like the version of the game that they find most attractive.

As I had mentioned in my reply to Bob, IPL has brought small kids to the game more than any other thing I have seen. These kids when they grow up will understand the nuances of the game (hopefully) and begin to like Test cricket (I already know of one kid - and she's a girl of just 9 yrs - who loves Test cricket. she started watching cricket since IPL 2010)

If you don't like it then don't watch it. Why frown at others having fun and enjoying the game (no matter what version it is)?

[Bob Dubery]

On Jul 10, 6:46 am, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Well I suppose there was a chance that it might sink like a stone. But
when you start chucking that kind of money around it doesn't take a
lot of foresight to see the likely outcome.

>
> However, maybe after the first couple of seasons most people could tell that IPL is going to impact the game big time. The question is, what would you expect the BCCI to have done then? Kill the IPL? Regulate it? I think BCCI has done all it can. Let's see

Once again, I'm not point an accusatory finger at the BCCI. They
should do whatever they think best for cricket in India.

[jzfredricks]

On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 5:30:11 PM UTC+10, Bob Dubery wrote:
> Once again, I&#39;m not point an accusatory finger at the BCCI. They

> should do whatever they think best for cricket in India.

So long as they do so with the long term in mind.

[Jayen]

On Jul 10, 9:54 am, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Of course, the question as to whether we want a cricketer to wear
white or coloured clothing becomes moot once he becomes a man of the
cloth.

http://sports.ndtv.com/cricket/news/item/193276-tatenda-taibu-quits-cricket-for-church-aged-29?google_editors_picks=true

"Tatenda Taibu, the Zimbabwe wicketkeeper-batsman, has announced his
retirement, stating that he wants to focus on working for the church."

Regards,
Jayen

[Bharat Rao]

On Monday, July 9, 2012 2:55:50 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:

> Because it&#39;s not cricket, and it is attracting spectators who don&#39;t actually like cricket.
>
> What if they say, OK volleyball is becoming really popular let&#39;s change the rules of cricket so it is the same as volleyball and call it T20 and we can have 10 games per day and 50 franchises. Would that be OK? It would improve player earning standards, bringing new fans to the game (who don&#39;t like cricket), improve spectator experience, provide more opportunity to more people.

>
> As a cricket fan I want to see cricket, not some retarded version of baseball.

Fair enough, but if I were a cricketer and had just 5-15 years of earning potential, I would welcome any chance to maximize my earnings.

Cricketers have long been underpaid, and the recent boom is starting to bring them on par with other athletes (witness Dhoni & Tendulkar making the top-100 earning sports athletes in Forbes).

I don't like 20-20 and deplore the fact that Test cricket in losing spectator (and cricketer) interest. But if I got offered 10x my current salary to use my skills in a related area of my expertise, as long as it didn't violate any fundamental principles of mine, wasn't too inconvenient, and was legal, I would consider it strongly and would probably do it. As would the majority of humans on this planet.

So, I can't really complain about the IPL -- ignoring all the glitz, a lot of cricketers are making some serious dosh, and are hopefully investing it wisely and setting themselves up for life. There are many pauper ex-cricketers -- even a great like Chandra was in dire straits after he lost his leg in an accident -- and for every one we hear about, another 10 languish in silence. So I can't really complain too hard about cricketers making merry and lining their pockets (even if it means they play less country cricket), as most of us would probably do the same in a similar situation...

Bharat

[Vijay Sharma]

On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 1:02:47 PM UTC+5:30, jzfredricks wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 5:30:11 PM UTC+10, Bob Dubery wrote:

> &gt; Once again, I&amp;#39;m not point an accusatory finger at the BCCI. They
> &gt; should do whatever they think best for cricket in India.

>
> So long as they do so with the long term in mind.

Do you think they don't? Or a better question(s) would be to ask you what exactly are these parameters that define "long term"? And are there any precedents to go by about how to manage these "long term" things well?

[patt...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 3:03:15 PM UTC+9, Bharat Rao wrote:
> On Monday, July 9, 2012 2:55:50 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
>

> &gt; Because it&amp;#39;s not cricket, and it is attracting spectators who don&amp;#39;t actually like cricket.
> &gt;
> &gt; What if they say, OK volleyball is becoming really popular let&amp;#39;s change the rules of cricket so it is the same as volleyball and call it T20 and we can have 10 games per day and 50 franchises. Would that be OK? It would improve player earning standards, bringing new fans to the game (who don&amp;#39;t like cricket), improve spectator experience, provide more opportunity to more people.
> &gt;
> &gt; As a cricket fan I want to see cricket, not some retarded version of baseball.

>
> Fair enough, but if I were a cricketer and had just 5-15 years of earning potential, I would welcome any chance to maximize my earnings.
>

> Cricketers have long been underpaid, and the recent boom is starting to bring them on par with other athletes (witness Dhoni &amp; Tendulkar making the top-100 earning sports athletes in Forbes).
>
> I don&#39;t like 20-20 and deplore the fact that Test cricket in losing spectator (and cricketer) interest. But if I got offered 10x my current salary to use my skills in a related area of my expertise, as long as it didn&#39;t violate any fundamental principles of mine, wasn&#39;t too inconvenient, and was legal, I would consider it strongly and would probably do it. As would the majority of humans on this planet.
>
> So, I can&#39;t really complain about the IPL -- ignoring all the glitz, a lot of cricketers are making some serious dosh, and are hopefully investing it wisely and setting themselves up for life. There are many pauper ex-cricketers -- even a great like Chandra was in dire straits after he lost his leg in an accident -- and for every one we hear about, another 10 languish in silence. So I can&#39;t really complain too hard about cricketers making merry and lining their pockets (even if it means they play less country cricket), as most of us would probably do the same in a similar situation...
>
> Bharat

This is true, however we are talking about what is good for cricket not what is good for some cricketers. Encouraging players to play a different sport is not good for cricket.

[Vijay Sharma]

On Thursday, July 12, 2012 1:40:08 PM UTC+5:30, (unknown) wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 3:03:15 PM UTC+9, Bharat Rao wrote:

> &gt; On Monday, July 9, 2012 2:55:50 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
> &gt;

> &gt; &amp;gt; Because it&amp;amp;#39;s not cricket, and it is attracting spectators who don&amp;amp;#39;t actually like cricket.
> &gt; &amp;gt;
> &gt; &amp;gt; What if they say, OK volleyball is becoming really popular let&amp;amp;#39;s change the rules of cricket so it is the same as volleyball and call it T20 and we can have 10 games per day and 50 franchises. Would that be OK? It would improve player earning standards, bringing new fans to the game (who don&amp;amp;#39;t like cricket), improve spectator experience, provide more opportunity to more people.
> &gt; &amp;gt;
> &gt; &amp;gt; As a cricket fan I want to see cricket, not some retarded version of baseball.
> &gt;
> &gt; Fair enough, but if I were a cricketer and had just 5-15 years of earning potential, I would welcome any chance to maximize my earnings.
> &gt;
> &gt; Cricketers have long been underpaid, and the recent boom is starting to bring them on par with other athletes (witness Dhoni &amp;amp; Tendulkar making the top-100 earning sports athletes in Forbes).
> &gt;
> &gt; I don&amp;#39;t like 20-20 and deplore the fact that Test cricket in losing spectator (and cricketer) interest. But if I got offered 10x my current salary to use my skills in a related area of my expertise, as long as it didn&amp;#39;t violate any fundamental principles of mine, wasn&amp;#39;t too inconvenient, and was legal, I would consider it strongly and would probably do it. As would the majority of humans on this planet.
> &gt;
> &gt; So, I can&amp;#39;t really complain about the IPL -- ignoring all the glitz, a lot of cricketers are making some serious dosh, and are hopefully investing it wisely and setting themselves up for life. There are many pauper ex-cricketers -- even a great like Chandra was in dire straits after he lost his leg in an accident -- and for every one we hear about, another 10 languish in silence. So I can&amp;#39;t really complain too hard about cricketers making merry and lining their pockets (even if it means they play less country cricket), as most of us would probably do the same in a similar situation...
> &gt;
> &gt; Bharat

>
> This is true, however we are talking about what is good for cricket not what is good for some cricketers. Encouraging players to play a different sport is not good for cricket.

What is "good for cricket" - can you please define that? Secondly, who decides what is good for cricket?

[patt...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 12, 2012 5:21:25 PM UTC+9, Vijay Sharma wrote:
> On Thursday, July 12, 2012 1:40:08 PM UTC+5:30, (unknown) wrote:

> &gt; On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 3:03:15 PM UTC+9, Bharat Rao wrote:

> &gt; &amp;gt; On Monday, July 9, 2012 2:55:50 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
> &gt; &amp;gt;

> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; Because it&amp;amp;amp;#39;s not cricket, and it is attracting spectators who don&amp;amp;amp;#39;t actually like cricket.
> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; What if they say, OK volleyball is becoming really popular let&amp;amp;amp;#39;s change the rules of cricket so it is the same as volleyball and call it T20 and we can have 10 games per day and 50 franchises. Would that be OK? It would improve player earning standards, bringing new fans to the game (who don&amp;amp;amp;#39;t like cricket), improve spectator experience, provide more opportunity to more people.
> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; As a cricket fan I want to see cricket, not some retarded version of baseball.
> &gt; &amp;gt;
> &gt; &amp;gt; Fair enough, but if I were a cricketer and had just 5-15 years of earning potential, I would welcome any chance to maximize my earnings.
> &gt; &amp;gt;
> &gt; &amp;gt; Cricketers have long been underpaid, and the recent boom is starting to bring them on par with other athletes (witness Dhoni &amp;amp;amp; Tendulkar making the top-100 earning sports athletes in Forbes).
> &gt; &amp;gt;
> &gt; &amp;gt; I don&amp;amp;#39;t like 20-20 and deplore the fact that Test cricket in losing spectator (and cricketer) interest. But if I got offered 10x my current salary to use my skills in a related area of my expertise, as long as it didn&amp;amp;#39;t violate any fundamental principles of mine, wasn&amp;amp;#39;t too inconvenient, and was legal, I would consider it strongly and would probably do it. As would the majority of humans on this planet.
> &gt; &amp;gt;
> &gt; &amp;gt; So, I can&amp;amp;#39;t really complain about the IPL -- ignoring all the glitz, a lot of cricketers are making some serious dosh, and are hopefully investing it wisely and setting themselves up for life. There are many pauper ex-cricketers -- even a great like Chandra was in dire straits after he lost his leg in an accident -- and for every one we hear about, another 10 languish in silence. So I can&amp;amp;#39;t really complain too hard about cricketers making merry and lining their pockets (even if it means they play less country cricket), as most of us would probably do the same in a similar situation...
> &gt; &amp;gt;
> &gt; &amp;gt; Bharat
> &gt;
> &gt; This is true, however we are talking about what is good for cricket not what is good for some cricketers. Encouraging players to play a different sport is not good for cricket.
>
> What is &quot;good for cricket&quot; - can you please define that? Secondly, who decides what is good for cricket?

I know English is probably not your first language, but do you really need me to define what "good for cricket means"? And who decides what is good for cricket? We all do, it's an opinion. However I think it's not a stretch to consider that encouraging cricket players to play a game other than cricket, such as T20, is not good for cricket.

[cricketrulez]

Patty,

I think it is bit of a stretch to say T20 is not cricket. It is not
your preferred version of cricket is more like it.

I think the snicker you from Indians towards Grieg's line has some
geniune foundation

1) Under England and austarlia's control, how much good for cricket
happened? It ashes and ashes and that was the end of story. I think
australia toured india just once between 1975 and 1995.

2) Besides, as Greig pointed out, test cricket was being kept afloat
by BCCI/Indian market even before IPL (almost a decade now). SO test
cricket as a sport was suffering in most of the country's well before
advent of t20.

So there is considerable cynicism on the part of BCCI and indian fans
that "greater good for the game" is code word for raid BCCI coffers
and indian market even more and elicits derisive laughter when it
comes from a man who has done nothing but undermine International
cricket either thro' WSC or ICL

Fortunately for India, BCCI has enough tough characters who know when
to say enough. If this weakens test cricket in some country's, that is
life. Look at it this way, it was way worse before in terms of ICC
support.

[Bharat Rao]

On Thursday, July 12, 2012 4:10:08 AM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:

> This is true, however we are talking about what is good for cricket not what is good for some cricketers. Encouraging players to play a different sport is not good for cricket.

I will bite, and as a so called "non native English speaker" (who by the way is not afraid to identify himself by name) can you please define what is cricket (or better yet "CRICKET" to identify with whatever ideal you have in mind)?

Lets start with the assumption that cricket was certainly CRICKET, when the first Test match was played.. I'd like to understand when it ceased to become "CRICKET" so humor me please?

When the lbw law was changed, did cricket not remain CRICKET?
When instant replay was introduced for run outs did cricket not remain CRICKET?
When better bats were introduced did cricket not remain CRICKET?
When players stopped "walking" did cricket not remain CRICKET?
What about better fitness regimens, video analysis, floodlights, covered pitches, central contracts, player's unions, -- did they stop cricket from remaining CRICKET?


Regarding ODO's
When ODI's with its notion of limiting overs per bowler and per inning came into vogue, did cricket not remain CRICKET?
What about World Series Cricket and its aftermath when cricketers were paid a semi-decent wage -- did that make cricket not CRICKET?
Was it allowing foreign players en masse to begin playing county cricket?
Surely covered clothing made cricket no longer CRICKET, or was it holding the World Cup outside England?
Maybe it was reducing cricket to 50 overs that killed CRICKET?
Or was it the 40 over league played in county cricket?

Or somehow magically, was the changing to 20 overs, introducing of franchises the magical switch that made cricket become not CRICKET?

Kindly elucidate, explain, enlighten me as to how this final change makes cricket NOT CRICKET?

Bharat

[Bharat Rao]

On Thursday, July 12, 2012 4:10:08 AM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:

> On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 3:03:15 PM UTC+9, Bharat Rao wrote:

> This is true, however we are talking about what is good for cricket not what is good for some cricketers. Encouraging players to play a different sport is not good for cricket.

I'm sorry. I would say the "good of the players who play cricket" far outweighs the rather quaint notion your promulgate as fact that "T20 is NOT cricket."

It uses the exact same laws of the game. If ODI's are cricket, then certainly T20 is cricket. If ODI's are not cricket, then I would agree that T20 is not cricket... But I didn't see any thing like the vehement protests we see today when England hosted the first 3 World Cups...

Bharat

[Mike Holmans]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 04:41:02 -0700 (PDT), Bharat Rao
<rao.b...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>Or somehow magically, was the changing to 20 overs, introducing of franchises the magical switch that made cricket become not CRICKET?
>
>Kindly elucidate, explain, enlighten me as to how this final change makes cricket NOT CRICKET?

It doesn't.

But one thing certainly bothers me about some of the arguments being
made against Greig, which seem to be based on the idea that India is
the most powerful ICC member and it has most of the money, so it
should be able to do as it likes, and if Test cricket suffers, that's
just too bad because that's how the market works.

It seems impossible to me to praise India throwing its weight about in
the cricket world while having an iota of criticism of US foregin
policy which does exactly the same. If there are Indians who object to
the US being in Afghaistan or thought the Iraq war was a crime or
think that the US being heavily on the side of the Israelis in the
Middle East, then they have no right to object if people criticise the
BCCI for flexing its muscles as and when it likes.

But the pernicious idea is "that's how the market works", as if it
were impossible to affect how the market works or that it would be a
bad idea to attempt to affect it.

Free-market capitalism has been graphically demonstrated over the last
few years to be a busted flush. Left to itself, "the market" leads to
planetary destruction and destitution for all but a few. The point of
governments is to intervene in the market, whether through government
procurement policies, differential taxes on various forms of economic
activity, legislation to ban certain activities, subsidy in certain
areas or whatever else, to try and ensure the maximum wellbeing of the
citizenry at large.

That is not to argue for a centrally-planned economy with everything
regulated to the last jot and tittle, but for governments to nudge the
tiller and make sure that some things happen properly even if they may
depress overall profits.

It is not unreasonable to want the BCCI to use its dominant position
in a way which helps the game to be healthy everywhere, not just in
Chennai and Bangalore.

If for no other reason than that if the IPL's success is partly based
on the presence of foreign stars, it's not going to help much if there
aren't any foreign stars because the game is dying everywhere else.

The BCCI gives the overwhelming impression that it is solely concerned
with making as much money as it can, and hang the rest of the world.
In appealing for the BCCI to show some positive leadership on behalf
of the game rather than itself, Greig is articulating a pretty decent
principle. You might want to disagree with an individual point, but
the spirit is well worth engaging with constructively.

Cheers,

Mike
--

[Vijay Sharma]

On Friday, July 13, 2012 6:40:54 AM UTC+5:30, (unknown) wrote:
> On Thursday, July 12, 2012 5:21:25 PM UTC+9, Vijay Sharma wrote:

> &gt; On Thursday, July 12, 2012 1:40:08 PM UTC+5:30, (unknown) wrote:
> &gt; &amp;gt; On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 3:03:15 PM UTC+9, Bharat Rao wrote:

> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; On Monday, July 9, 2012 2:55:50 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;

> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;gt; Because it&amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;s not cricket, and it is attracting spectators who don&amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;t actually like cricket.
> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;gt;
> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;gt; What if they say, OK volleyball is becoming really popular let&amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;s change the rules of cricket so it is the same as volleyball and call it T20 and we can have 10 games per day and 50 franchises. Would that be OK? It would improve player earning standards, bringing new fans to the game (who don&amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;t like cricket), improve spectator experience, provide more opportunity to more people.
> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;gt;
> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;gt; As a cricket fan I want to see cricket, not some retarded version of baseball.

> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;

> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; Fair enough, but if I were a cricketer and had just 5-15 years of earning potential, I would welcome any chance to maximize my earnings.

> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;

> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; Cricketers have long been underpaid, and the recent boom is starting to bring them on par with other athletes (witness Dhoni &amp;amp;amp;amp; Tendulkar making the top-100 earning sports athletes in Forbes).

> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;

> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; I don&amp;amp;amp;#39;t like 20-20 and deplore the fact that Test cricket in losing spectator (and cricketer) interest. But if I got offered 10x my current salary to use my skills in a related area of my expertise, as long as it didn&amp;amp;amp;#39;t violate any fundamental principles of mine, wasn&amp;amp;amp;#39;t too inconvenient, and was legal, I would consider it strongly and would probably do it. As would the majority of humans on this planet.

> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;

> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; So, I can&amp;amp;amp;#39;t really complain about the IPL -- ignoring all the glitz, a lot of cricketers are making some serious dosh, and are hopefully investing it wisely and setting themselves up for life. There are many pauper ex-cricketers -- even a great like Chandra was in dire straits after he lost his leg in an accident -- and for every one we hear about, another 10 languish in silence. So I can&amp;amp;amp;#39;t really complain too hard about cricketers making merry and lining their pockets (even if it means they play less country cricket), as most of us would probably do the same in a similar situation...

> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;

> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; Bharat
> &gt; &amp;gt;
> &gt; &amp;gt; This is true, however we are talking about what is good for cricket not what is good for some cricketers. Encouraging players to play a different sport is not good for cricket.
> &gt;
> &gt; What is &amp;quot;good for cricket&amp;quot; - can you please define that? Secondly, who decides what is good for cricket?
>
> I know English is probably not your first language, but do you really need me to define what &quot;good for cricket means&quot;? And who decides what is good for cricket? We all do, it&#39;s an opinion. However I think it&#39;s not a stretch to consider that encouraging cricket players to play a game other than cricket, such as T20, is not good for cricket.

Have you considered that you might be in the minority when you consider T20 as not a legit form of cricket?

I don't know if I can debate with you if you come across so rigidly and are not ready to elaborate on what constitutes good cricket

[Vijay Sharma]

On Friday, July 13, 2012 5:43:38 PM UTC+5:30, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 04:41:02 -0700 (PDT), Bharat Rao

> &lt;rao.b...@gmail.com&gt; tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>
> &gt;Or somehow magically, was the changing to 20 overs, introducing of franchises the magical switch that made cricket become not CRICKET?
> &gt;
> &gt;Kindly elucidate, explain, enlighten me as to how this final change makes cricket NOT CRICKET?
>

Mike you have presented your argument in a nice way and I think it is better than the previous poster's rigidity. However, if I may interest you in a conversation...

> It doesn&#39;t.

>
> But one thing certainly bothers me about some of the arguments being
> made against Greig, which seem to be based on the idea that India is
> the most powerful ICC member and it has most of the money, so it

> should be able to do as it likes, and if Test cricket suffers, that&#39;s
> just too bad because that&#39;s how the market works.

I am not of the view that BCCI should be able to do things based on its whims and fancies. And I don't believe there are many Indians on this ng that think so either. Maybe you have misunderstood me (or us). Maybe you can point to specific case(s).

I've not held back from saying that BCCI has been pig-headed on the DRS issue and on certain other issues as well.

>
> It seems impossible to me to praise India throwing its weight about in
> the cricket world while having an iota of criticism of US foregin
> policy which does exactly the same. If there are Indians who object to
> the US being in Afghaistan or thought the Iraq war was a crime or
> think that the US being heavily on the side of the Israelis in the
> Middle East, then they have no right to object if people criticise the
> BCCI for flexing its muscles as and when it likes.

I too agree that just coz someone has money he should not dictate to others. But why do the others get dictated? Okay, this might lead to a cyclic argument so let me leave that.

Could you please tell what is it that BCCI has done wrongly - some specific examples - so that we can at least test the validity of those statements. And when you give those specific examples may I request you to also propose what shoulda been done instead

>
> But the pernicious idea is &quot;that&#39;s how the market works&quot;, as if it

> were impossible to affect how the market works or that it would be a
> bad idea to attempt to affect it.
>
> Free-market capitalism has been graphically demonstrated over the last

> few years to be a busted flush. Left to itself, &quot;the market&quot; leads to

> planetary destruction and destitution for all but a few. The point of
> governments is to intervene in the market, whether through government
> procurement policies, differential taxes on various forms of economic
> activity, legislation to ban certain activities, subsidy in certain
> areas or whatever else, to try and ensure the maximum wellbeing of the
> citizenry at large.

Totally agree with that...we share the same thoughts on that aspect.

>
> That is not to argue for a centrally-planned economy with everything
> regulated to the last jot and tittle, but for governments to nudge the
> tiller and make sure that some things happen properly even if they may
> depress overall profits.
>
> It is not unreasonable to want the BCCI to use its dominant position
> in a way which helps the game to be healthy everywhere, not just in
> Chennai and Bangalore.
>

Fair enough. So what are they doing to disrupt the cricket community right now? What can be done to fix it? And what else do you think that they can do to enable "betterment" of cricket?

> If for no other reason than that if the IPL&#39;s success is partly based
> on the presence of foreign stars, it&#39;s not going to help much if there
> aren&#39;t any foreign stars because the game is dying everywhere else.

That is true and the BCCI has also given the foreign boards a cut from the money it makes...10% of player salaries. It has also told the boards in very clear terms that they control their players by making it mandatory for foreign players to get NOCs from their boards.

It has used the popularity of T20 to share with the SA and Aus boards for the CL. It invited England too but Eng didn't want in. It sends out invitations to other nations to send their teams to play in the CL. This year they may invite a Pakistani team as well which I am personally against (and I dont wanna discuss it either. IndoPak relations have too many terrorist attacks involved for me to say we should leave politics outside cricket especially when Pak players make condescending statements about Indians and harbor their terrorist kin)

What else should/can BCCI do?

>
> The BCCI gives the overwhelming impression that it is solely concerned
> with making as much money as it can, and hang the rest of the world.
> In appealing for the BCCI to show some positive leadership on behalf
> of the game rather than itself, Greig is articulating a pretty decent
> principle. You might want to disagree with an individual point, but
> the spirit is well worth engaging with constructively.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
> --

I thought Greig's lecture did make some decent points but his solutions and his accusatory tone towards India (o ya he meant BCCI) were not substantiated well. If you are going to say someone is causing harm t the game then you better substantiate it with facts. The majority were just sweeping generalizations without factual considerations when it came to his allegations against BCCI.

[Vijay Sharma]

On Friday, July 13, 2012 5:11:02 PM UTC+5:30, Bharat Rao wrote:
> On Thursday, July 12, 2012 4:10:08 AM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
>

> &gt; This is true, however we are talking about what is good for cricket not what is good for some cricketers. Encouraging players to play a different sport is not good for cricket.
>
> I will bite, and as a so called &quot;non native English speaker&quot; (who by the way is not afraid to identify himself by name)

Thanks for that :-)

<snip a very good argument>

[Vijay Sharma]

On Friday, July 13, 2012 9:42:27 AM UTC+5:30, cricketrulez wrote:
> On Jul 12, 6:10 pm, patty...@gmail.com wrote:

> &gt; On Thursday, July 12, 2012 5:21:25 PM UTC+9, Vijay Sharma wrote:
> &gt; &gt; On Thursday, July 12, 2012 1:40:08 PM UTC+5:30, (unknown) wrote:
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 3:03:15 PM UTC+9, Bharat Rao wrote:
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; On Monday, July 9, 2012 2:55:50 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;gt; Because it&amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;s not cricket, and it is attracting spectators who don&amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;t actually like cricket.
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;gt;
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;gt; What if they say, OK volleyball is becoming really popular let&amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;s change the rules of cricket so it is the same as volleyball and call it T20 and we can have 10 games per day and 50 franchises. Would that be OK? It would improve player earning standards, bringing new fans to the game (who don&amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;t like cricket), improve spectator experience, provide more opportunity to more people.
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;gt;
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;gt; As a cricket fan I want to see cricket, not some retarded version of baseball.
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; Fair enough, but if I were a cricketer and had just 5-15 years of earning potential, I would welcome any chance to maximize my earnings.
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; Cricketers have long been underpaid, and the recent boom is starting to bring them on par with other athletes (witness Dhoni &amp;amp;amp;amp; Tendulkar making the top-100 earning sports athletes in Forbes).
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; I don&amp;amp;amp;#39;t like 20-20 and deplore the fact that Test cricket in losing spectator (and cricketer) interest.  But if I got offered 10x my current salary to use my skills in a related area of my expertise, as long as it didn&amp;amp;amp;#39;t violate any fundamental principles of mine, wasn&amp;amp;amp;#39;t too inconvenient, and was legal, I would consider it strongly and would probably do it.  As would the majority of humans on this planet.
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; So, I can&amp;amp;amp;#39;t really complain about the IPL -- ignoring all the glitz, a lot of cricketers are making some serious dosh, and are hopefully investing it wisely and setting themselves up for life.  There are many pauper ex-cricketers -- even a great like Chandra was in dire straits after he lost his leg in an accident -- and for every one we hear about, another 10 languish in silence.  So I can&amp;amp;amp;#39;t really complain too hard about cricketers making merry and lining their pockets (even if it means they play less country cricket), as most of us would probably do the same in a similar situation...
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; Bharat
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; This is true, however we are talking about what is good for cricket not what is good for some cricketers.  Encouraging players to play a different sport is not good for cricket.
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt; What is &amp;quot;good for cricket&amp;quot; - can you please define that? Secondly, who decides what is good for cricket?
> &gt;
> &gt; I know English is probably not your first language, but do you really need me to define what &quot;good for cricket means&quot;?  And who decides what is good for cricket?  We all do, it&#39;s an opinion.  However I think it&#39;s not a stretch to consider that encouraging cricket players to play a game other than cricket, such as T20, is not good for cricket.

>
> Patty,
>
> I think it is bit of a stretch to say T20 is not cricket. It is not
> your preferred version of cricket is more like it.
>

> I think the snicker you from Indians towards Grieg&#39;s line has some
> geniune foundation
>
> 1) Under England and austarlia&#39;s control, how much good for cricket

> happened? It ashes and ashes and that was the end of story. I think
> australia toured india just once between 1975 and 1995.
>
> 2) Besides, as Greig pointed out, test cricket was being kept afloat
> by BCCI/Indian market even before IPL (almost a decade now). SO test

> cricket as a sport was suffering in most of the country&#39;s well before

> advent of t20.
>
> So there is considerable cynicism on the part of BCCI and indian fans

> that &quot;greater good for the game&quot; is code word for raid BCCI coffers

> and indian market even more and elicits derisive laughter when it
> comes from a man who has done nothing but undermine International

> cricket either thro&#39; WSC or ICL

>
> Fortunately for India, BCCI has enough tough characters who know when

> to say enough. If this weakens test cricket in some country&#39;s, that is

> life. Look at it this way, it was way worse before in terms of ICC
> support.

Well said!

[Mike Holmans]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 05:59:30 -0700 (PDT), Vijay Sharma
<viz.nirva...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>On Friday, July 13, 2012 5:43:38 PM UTC+5:30, Mike Holmans wrote:

>> It is not unreasonable to want the BCCI to use its dominant position
>> in a way which helps the game to be healthy everywhere, not just in
>> Chennai and Bangalore.
>>
>
>Fair enough. So what are they doing to disrupt the cricket community right now? What can be done to fix it? And what else do you think that they can do to enable "betterment" of cricket?

Everybody who understands the game wants Test cricket to be a
flourishing form.

It is the supreme test of cricketing skill, and without people
aspiring to excellence, the game as a spectacle across all forms of
the game deteriorates.

If the IPL sucks people away from Test cricket, that's bad. The BCCI
seems not to care, or thinks other people having Tests is just
irrelevant.

Does the BCCI do much to promote Test cricket either at home or
abroad?

To take a particular example, how often have Bangladesh undertaken a
Test tour of India since India pushed so hard for their premature
elevation to Full Membership of ICC? Getting the Bangles vote in the
councils of the ICC was obviously important to the BCCI, but
fulfilling the concomitant responsibility of getting them to be
competitive internationally isn't a concern of the BCCI, apparently,
unless they can make oodles of money while doing it.

As to providing lots of specific examples, it's a bit like showing the
influence of Rupert Murdoch over British Government policy. There have
been parades of ministers of the present and previous government as
well as endless Murdochs testifying to the Leveson inquiry, and it's
not very surprising at all to me that there is no evidence of actual
agreements between politicians and Rupert Murdoch, but plenty of
evidence that government policy was often affected by people knowing
roughly how Murdoch would react. Governments avoided even trying to do
some things they would otherwise have wanted to simply because they
didn't want to annoy him. There was no point in having a vote at the
ICC on DRS because everyone knew how India would behave, which would
make the whole thing a waste of time.

The ICC's cricket committee consists of people who know what they're
talking about appointed to make suggestions to improve the game and
safeguard its interests as a game. The BCCI's attitude to any given
proposal, at least from their public pronouncements, is that if it
doesn't help them make more money, it's a bad proposal. That is
government by special interest rather than govenment in the interests
of all.

Cheers,

Mike

--

[patt...@gmail.com]

On Friday, July 13, 2012 1:12:27 PM UTC+9, cricketrulez wrote:
> On Jul 12, 6:10 pm, patty...@gmail.com wrote:

> &gt; On Thursday, July 12, 2012 5:21:25 PM UTC+9, Vijay Sharma wrote:
> &gt; &gt; On Thursday, July 12, 2012 1:40:08 PM UTC+5:30, (unknown) wrote:
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 3:03:15 PM UTC+9, Bharat Rao wrote:
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; On Monday, July 9, 2012 2:55:50 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;gt; Because it&amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;s not cricket, and it is attracting spectators who don&amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;t actually like cricket.
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;gt;

> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;gt; What if they say, OK volleyball is becoming really popular let&amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;s change the rules of cricket so it is the same as volleyball and call it T20 and we can have 10 games per day and 50 franchises. Would that be OK? It would improve player earning standards, bringing new fans to the game (who don&amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;t like cricket), improve spectator experience, provide more opportunity to more people.

> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;gt;

> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;gt; As a cricket fan I want to see cricket, not some retarded version of baseball.
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; Fair enough, but if I were a cricketer and had just 5-15 years of earning potential, I would welcome any chance to maximize my earnings.
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; Cricketers have long been underpaid, and the recent boom is starting to bring them on par with other athletes (witness Dhoni &amp;amp;amp;amp; Tendulkar making the top-100 earning sports athletes in Forbes).
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; I don&amp;amp;amp;#39;t like 20-20 and deplore the fact that Test cricket in losing spectator (and cricketer) interest.  But if I got offered 10x my current salary to use my skills in a related area of my expertise, as long as it didn&amp;amp;amp;#39;t violate any fundamental principles of mine, wasn&amp;amp;amp;#39;t too inconvenient, and was legal, I would consider it strongly and would probably do it.  As would the majority of humans on this planet.
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; So, I can&amp;amp;amp;#39;t really complain about the IPL -- ignoring all the glitz, a lot of cricketers are making some serious dosh, and are hopefully investing it wisely and setting themselves up for life.  There are many pauper ex-cricketers -- even a great like Chandra was in dire straits after he lost his leg in an accident -- and for every one we hear about, another 10 languish in silence.  So I can&amp;amp;amp;#39;t really complain too hard about cricketers making merry and lining their pockets (even if it means they play less country cricket), as most of us would probably do the same in a similar situation...
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; Bharat
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; This is true, however we are talking about what is good for cricket not what is good for some cricketers.  Encouraging players to play a different sport is not good for cricket.
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt; What is &amp;quot;good for cricket&amp;quot; - can you please define that? Secondly, who decides what is good for cricket?
> &gt;

> &gt; I know English is probably not your first language, but do you really need me to define what &quot;good for cricket means&quot;?  And who decides what is good for cricket?  We all do, it&#39;s an opinion.  However I think it&#39;s not a stretch to consider that encouraging cricket players to play a game other than cricket, such as T20, is not good for cricket.

>
> Patty,
>
> I think it is bit of a stretch to say T20 is not cricket. It is not
> your preferred version of cricket is more like it.

Of course, it's hyperbole. But it is a form of cricket that takes away what is best in the game. Batsmen place little value on their wicket, and the pitches are such roads and the boundaries so short that they may as well use a bowling machine and 11 batsmen.

>
> I think the snicker you from Indians towards Grieg&#39;s line has some
> geniune foundation
>
> 1) Under England and austarlia&#39;s control, how much good for cricket

> happened? It ashes and ashes and that was the end of story. I think
> australia toured india just once between 1975 and 1995.

Two wrongs ...

>
> 2) Besides, as Greig pointed out, test cricket was being kept afloat
> by BCCI/Indian market even before IPL (almost a decade now). SO test

> cricket as a sport was suffering in most of the country&#39;s well before
> advent of t20.

So the final nail? Mercy killing?

>
> So there is considerable cynicism on the part of BCCI and indian fans

> that &quot;greater good for the game&quot; is code word for raid BCCI coffers

> and indian market even more and elicits derisive laughter when it
> comes from a man who has done nothing but undermine International

> cricket either thro&#39; WSC or ICL
>
> Fortunately for India,

But not cricket

> BCCI has enough tough characters who know when

> to say enough. If this weakens test cricket in some country&#39;s, that is
> life.

So it's just life that the ultimate form of the game is weakened, and that's not bad for the game? Wow.

[patt...@gmail.com]

On Friday, July 13, 2012 8:41:02 PM UTC+9, Bharat Rao wrote:
> On Thursday, July 12, 2012 4:10:08 AM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
>

> &gt; This is true, however we are talking about what is good for cricket not what is good for some cricketers. Encouraging players to play a different sport is not good for cricket.
>

> I will bite, and as a so called &quot;non native English speaker&quot; (who by the way is not afraid to identify himself by name)

How is this at all relevant to a discussion about a game? By the by I don't commend you for identifying yourself by name, have you seen some of the nutbags who post on this group?

(In before, yeah you're one of them)

can you please define what is cricket (or better yet &quot;CRICKET&quot; to identify with whatever ideal you have in mind)?
>
> Lets start with the assumption that cricket was certainly CRICKET, when the first Test match was played.. I&#39;d like to understand when it ceased to become &quot;CRICKET&quot; so humor me please?

>
> When the lbw law was changed, did cricket not remain CRICKET?
> When instant replay was introduced for run outs did cricket not remain CRICKET?
> When better bats were introduced did cricket not remain CRICKET?

> When players stopped &quot;walking&quot; did cricket not remain CRICKET?
> What about better fitness regimens, video analysis, floodlights, covered pitches, central contracts, player&#39;s unions, -- did they stop cricket from remaining CRICKET?
>
>
> Regarding ODO&#39;s
> When ODI&#39;s with its notion of limiting overs per bowler and per inning came into vogue, did cricket not remain CRICKET?

> What about World Series Cricket and its aftermath when cricketers were paid a semi-decent wage -- did that make cricket not CRICKET?
> Was it allowing foreign players en masse to begin playing county cricket?
> Surely covered clothing made cricket no longer CRICKET, or was it holding the World Cup outside England?
> Maybe it was reducing cricket to 50 overs that killed CRICKET?
> Or was it the 40 over league played in county cricket?
>
> Or somehow magically, was the changing to 20 overs, introducing of franchises the magical switch that made cricket become not CRICKET?
>
> Kindly elucidate, explain, enlighten me as to how this final change makes cricket NOT CRICKET?
>
> Bharat

When did Homo erectus become Homo sapiens? There is no sharp dividing line but in my opinion T20 may as well be baseball. It's about as interesting and it has eliminated many of the best parts of the game. When was the last (or first) time in T20 that you saw a batsman digging in to protect his wicket against the moving ball with 3 slips a gully and short leg only to battle himself into some nick and then be able to exploit the gaps in the field to score boundaries? When was the last (or first) time you heard the crowd chanting a bowlers name as he turned around at the top of his run up? Bowlers may as well not exist in T20 and if that's the case then it isn't cricket. Much like T-Ball isn't baseball. It's a modified version of cricket for people who don't actually like cricket.

[patt...@gmail.com]

> Have you considered that you might be in the minority when you consider T20 as not a legit form of cricket?

Ummm I know I'm in the minority, doesn't mean I'm wrong. T20 is good for T20 and for people who don't actually like cricket.

>
> I don&#39;t know if I can debate with you if you come across so rigidly and are not ready to elaborate on what constitutes good cricket

[Vijay Sharma]

On Friday, July 13, 2012 11:17:03 PM UTC+5:30, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 05:59:30 -0700 (PDT), Vijay Sharma

> &lt;viz.nirva...@gmail.com&gt; tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
> &gt;On Friday, July 13, 2012 5:43:38 PM UTC+5:30, Mike Holmans wrote:
>
> &gt;&gt; It is not unreasonable to want the BCCI to use its dominant position
> &gt;&gt; in a way which helps the game to be healthy everywhere, not just in
> &gt;&gt; Chennai and Bangalore.
> &gt;&gt;
> &gt;
> &gt;Fair enough. So what are they doing to disrupt the cricket community right now? What can be done to fix it? And what else do you think that they can do to enable &quot;betterment&quot; of cricket?

>
> Everybody who understands the game wants Test cricket to be a
> flourishing form.

While I want Test cricket to flourish I am not sure we can make a generalization that everybody who understands the game wants it to flourish. I think there are lotsa people who understand the game as well as (if not better) us Test fans but don't prefer Test cricket to other forms. It's a valid viewpoint.

>
> It is the supreme test of cricketing skill, and without people
> aspiring to excellence, the game as a spectacle across all forms of
> the game deteriorates.

Although I agree that Test cricket is a supreme test of cricketing skill, I can also see the other view where cricket is a game of making most runs in as less number of deliveries as possible or getting most wickets in as less number of deliveries as possible - so maximizing every delivery is also one way of defining the supremacy of cricketing skill
>
> If the IPL sucks people away from Test cricket, that&#39;s bad. The BCCI

> seems not to care, or thinks other people having Tests is just
> irrelevant.

I don't agree with that observation. Anyway, let us assume it is true. Now what must the BCCI do to stop IPL sucking away all the Test players? Realistic solutions would help

>
> Does the BCCI do much to promote Test cricket either at home or
> abroad?

Playing the most number of Tests last year (India might have even be among the top 3 teams as far as number of Tests played is concerned since 2007).

Yes, one legit area of concern is that BCCI can host these Tests in cities where there is audience for Test cricket - Bangalore, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, and Delhi and not host them in Nagpur and Mohali and the like. That even I'd like. Unfortunately the legend of Test venues in India is still nascent and historically hasn't been looked after like it is in Aus and Eng.

> To take a particular example, how often have Bangladesh undertaken a
> Test tour of India since India pushed so hard for their premature
> elevation to Full Membership of ICC? Getting the Bangles vote in the
> councils of the ICC was obviously important to the BCCI, but
> fulfilling the concomitant responsibility of getting them to be

> competitive internationally isn&#39;t a concern of the BCCI, apparently,

> unless they can make oodles of money while doing it.

I don't think playing a Test series in India versus Bangles is going to solve the problem of Test cricket.

Politics is something that one needs to accept if they want to live in a democratic environment.

>
There was no point in having a vote at the
> ICC on DRS because everyone knew how India would behave, which would
> make the whole thing a waste of time.

Why isn't the SL-Pak series using DRS?

>
> The ICC&#39;s cricket committee consists of people who know what they&#39;re

> talking about appointed to make suggestions to improve the game and

> safeguard its interests as a game. The BCCI&#39;s attitude to any given

> proposal, at least from their public pronouncements, is that if it

> doesn&#39;t help them make more money, it&#39;s a bad proposal. That is

> government by special interest rather than govenment in the interests
> of all.

BCCI represents India's interests. The ICC is there to take care of the interests of all. I don't see other boards representing interests of all...everyone is representing their own interests. Currently (and always has been and maybe will be too) the interests of other boards seem to be to go where the moolah is i.e. the Indian market and they are doing it. If they are really interested in the benefit of all why don't they give up the moolah they get by towing BCCI's line and do "good for the game"?

[Vijay Sharma]

On Saturday, July 14, 2012 4:50:04 PM UTC+5:30, (unknown) wrote:
> &gt; Have you considered that you might be in the minority when you consider T20 as not a legit form of cricket?
>
> Ummm I know I&#39;m in the minority, doesn&#39;t mean I&#39;m wrong.

You are wrong on this one.

When in human communities we agree to refer to a particular spherical object as a "ball" then those who refuse to accept the definition may not be "wrong" but most likely "uninformed"

The above is not an argument for 'majority is right'. It is an argument about society's accepted conventions.

T20 is good for T20 and for people who don&#39;t actually like cricket.

Oh by the way I love cricket....have grown up on the game...played the game to a decent level too...I love Test cricket like mad...and I also like T20. What more, there are quite a few ppl like me out there who like Test, ODI, and T20 cricket. Test cricket fans and T20 fans are not mutually exclusive

>
> &gt;
> &gt; I don&amp;#39;t know if I can debate with you if you come across so rigidly and are not ready to elaborate on what constitutes good cricket



On Saturday, July 14, 2012 4:50:04 PM UTC+5:30, (unknown) wrote:
> &gt; Have you considered that you might be in the minority when you consider T20 as not a legit form of cricket?
>
> Ummm I know I&#39;m in the minority, doesn&#39;t mean I&#39;m wrong. T20 is good for T20 and for people who don&#39;t actually like cricket.
>
> &gt;
> &gt; I don&amp;#39;t know if I can debate with you if you come across so rigidly and are not ready to elaborate on what constitutes good cricket



On Saturday, July 14, 2012 4:50:04 PM UTC+5:30, (unknown) wrote:
> &gt; Have you considered that you might be in the minority when you consider T20 as not a legit form of cricket?
>
> Ummm I know I&#39;m in the minority, doesn&#39;t mean I&#39;m wrong. T20 is good for T20 and for people who don&#39;t actually like cricket.
>
> &gt;
> &gt; I don&amp;#39;t know if I can debate with you if you come across so rigidly and are not ready to elaborate on what constitutes good cricket

[Bharat Rao]

On Friday, July 13, 2012 8:13:38 AM UTC-4, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 04:41:02 -0700 (PDT), Bharat Rao

> It seems impossible to me to praise India throwing its weight about in
> the cricket world while having an iota of criticism o

> The BCCI gives the overwhelming impression that it is solely concerned
> with making as much money as it can, and hang the rest of the world.
> In appealing for the BCCI to show some positive leadership on behalf
> of the game rather than itself, Greig is articulating a pretty decent
> principle. You might want to disagree with an individual point, but
> the spirit is well worth engaging with constructively.

I agree with your points. I was simply pointing out that the flip side to "Its all fine" is the "IPL is all evil" view that many have. I simply pointed out some of the benefits of the IPL, chief among which is more money for a lot more cricketers -- many Indian cricketers have slaved in poverty for decades and this is very good indeed.

The "T20 is not cricket" argument is rubbish, IMO. Cricket has evolved dramatically among many dimensions in the last 100 years, and remained cricket -- T20 is also cricket. It emphasizes certain skills over others..

As to the central thesis, that the BCCI has a responsibility not to act like a petulant monarch is well taken. The justification that the English and Australians did this for nearly 70 years, when India was treated like a second-class member does not make it right -- but I would imagine that some of the administrators want to give it back to those Boards. Short-sighted perhaps, childish for sure, indefensible definitely, but understandable...

I want Tests to flourish, I want India to win Tests and stay #1, rather than a brief flirtation with that spot, but I fear that once Tendulkar retires India will stop playing Tests for practical purposes. The youth icon Dhoni will certainly retire from Tests in the next 2-3 years.

I am conflicted. I can hardly blame individuals with a 10 year earning span from pursuing the big money -- as many of us would cheerfully foresake our employers for 2x let alone 10x.

Believe it or not, there have been a LOT of changes in the cricket setup in India, many for the good. Ranji players make a decent wage. There are payments to previous stars, and there is talk of some sort of health coverage. So it is not as though the men in charge are acting in total disregard of the game..

Also, the $$ in Indian cricket have brought money everywhere. I doubt the Australian and English cricket boards would have the coffers they have without some of the mega-market in India spilling over.

This is my position. The BCCI is not required to support cricket outside India. Nor are they obliged to do so. But I wish they would.. But I also wish they would make wholesale improvements to the cricket infrastructure in India, move away from the system of patronage and favoritism that pervades the lower structures, and run the whole selection and organization process more responsibly and professionally.

I suspect the two go hand-in-hand, and you won't have one without the other. However, we are slowly moving to a more professional structure -- the accountability is not there yet, but will come over time... And hopefully, so will other changes.

There things take time...

Bharat

Mao "It is too early to judge" on the French Revolution.

[cricketrulez]

On Jul 14, 3:56 am, patty...@gmail.com wrote:

> Two wrongs ...

1) Its the don't make the mistake I made line. It works only when the
entity saying that has no conflict of interest and doesn't stand to
gain from it.

2) Wrong? That implies a sense of entitlement. As Bharat pointed out
BCCI primary responsibilty is to indan cricket and indian cricketers.
They come first, even if its at the cost of international cricket in
country A or B or C

> So the final nail? Mercy killing?

you speak as if cricket was a flourishing thing all over the world and
its getting killed by BCCI/IPL. The situation has always been one or
two powerhouses and rest barely survived. If the a sport can't survive
withe enormous amount of resources and wealth BCCI has spread around
int he past decade, then yeah, it can rot and go away for all I care.

> But not cricket

Some times it is a zero sum game. get on with it.

> So it's just life that the ultimate form of the game is weakened, and that's not bad for the game?  Wow.

I don't get how a league which lasts all of six weeks during a time
when no test cricket is possible in most countries due to weather can
weaken it.

Weather during IPL is

1) too hot for test cricket in india, pak, SL and bangladesh,
2) too rainy and cold in england
3) winter in oz, NZ and SA

That leaves windies and they have played their test series during IPL.

SO how exactly does IPL weaken test cricket?

[Mike Holmans]

On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 07:18:04 -0700 (PDT), Vijay Sharma
<viz.nirva...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>On Friday, July 13, 2012 11:17:03 PM UTC+5:30, Mike Holmans wrote:

>> To take a particular example, how often have Bangladesh undertaken a
>> Test tour of India since India pushed so hard for their premature
>> elevation to Full Membership of ICC? Getting the Bangles vote in the
>> councils of the ICC was obviously important to the BCCI, but
>> fulfilling the concomitant responsibility of getting them to be
>> competitive internationally isn&#39;t a concern of the BCCI, apparently,
>> unless they can make oodles of money while doing it.
>
>I don't think playing a Test series in India versus Bangles is going to solve the problem of Test cricket.
>
>Politics is something that one needs to accept if they want to live in a democratic environment.

I'm not suggesting that the world would suddenly be all sweetness and
light if the Bangles toured India.

But the ICC said that every country should be playing against every
other country home and away, and the BCCI have effectively added their
own rider "unless we don't want to".

Far from accepting that the ICC are making decisions for the benefit
of the sport as a whole and going along with things they don't
necessarily like for the greater good, the BCCI treats ICC decisions
as vague pieces of advice which they'll go along with as and when it's
convenient, if they do so at all.

I'm sure some rational justification can be found for any individual
case, but it's the general impression of the BCCI deciding that ICC
decisions are advisory rather than binding on the ICC members that
gets everyone else's back up. You're keen on specific examples, but
it's not any one decision that matters: it's the general impression
created.

Support the BCCI's right to do whatever it thinks best for India and
hang everyone else if you like, but don't expect people from elsewhere
to have any respect for the BCCI while they carry on in that fashion.
And expect people in the cricket world to equate "BCCI" and "India",
and for people to talk of "India" being bully-boys or being selfish
turds without necessarily being anti-Indian on some kind of racist
level. I didn't like it much when foreigners used to talk of Britain
being dreadful when Margaret Thatcher lectured them on what Britain
thought and why Britain wouldn't be taking part, but at least I
realised that they were being rude about those who represented Britain
on the international stage rather than hating the whole country.


Cheers,

Mike


--

[Vijay Sharma]

On Sunday, July 15, 2012 6:21:50 PM UTC+5:30, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 07:18:04 -0700 (PDT), Vijay Sharma

> &lt;viz.nirva...@gmail.com&gt; tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
> &gt;On Friday, July 13, 2012 11:17:03 PM UTC+5:30, Mike Holmans wrote:
>
> &gt;&gt; To take a particular example, how often have Bangladesh undertaken a
> &gt;&gt; Test tour of India since India pushed so hard for their premature
> &gt;&gt; elevation to Full Membership of ICC? Getting the Bangles vote in the
> &gt;&gt; councils of the ICC was obviously important to the BCCI, but
> &gt;&gt; fulfilling the concomitant responsibility of getting them to be
> &gt;&gt; competitive internationally isn&amp;#39;t a concern of the BCCI, apparently,
> &gt;&gt; unless they can make oodles of money while doing it.
> &gt;
> &gt;I don&#39;t think playing a Test series in India versus Bangles is going to solve the problem of Test cricket.
> &gt;
> &gt;Politics is something that one needs to accept if they want to live in a democratic environment.
>
> I&#39;m not suggesting that the world would suddenly be all sweetness and

> light if the Bangles toured India.
>
> But the ICC said that every country should be playing against every
> other country home and away, and the BCCI have effectively added their

> own rider &quot;unless we don&#39;t want to&quot;.

Why did the other 9 members agree to it then? And I am not sure if BCCI is solely responsible for that rider

>
> Far from accepting that the ICC are making decisions for the benefit

> of the sport as a whole and going along with things they don&#39;t

> necessarily like for the greater good, the BCCI treats ICC decisions

> as vague pieces of advice which they&#39;ll go along with as and when it&#39;s

> convenient, if they do so at all.

I think all the powerful boards do that...in fact even the not-so-powerful boards also do it. Two wrongs don't make a right kind of arguments don't matter here because there is no "wrong" being done.
>
> I&#39;m sure some rational justification can be found for any individual
> case, but it&#39;s the general impression of the BCCI deciding that ICC

> decisions are advisory rather than binding on the ICC members that

> gets everyone else&#39;s back up. You&#39;re keen on specific examples, but
> it&#39;s not any one decision that matters: it&#39;s the general impression
> created.

I am afraid that is something both BCCI and the other boards will have to learn to live with. When power is accumulated at one place then such feelings are natural

> Support the BCCI&#39;s right to do whatever it thinks best for India and
> hang everyone else if you like, but don&#39;t expect people from elsewhere

> to have any respect for the BCCI while they carry on in that fashion.

I think all of us want the game to flourish...we don't agree on the details

> And expect people in the cricket world to equate &quot;BCCI&quot; and &quot;India&quot;,

OK, context makes it fine

> and for people to talk of &quot;India&quot; being bully-boys or being selfish

> turds without necessarily being anti-Indian on some kind of racist
> level.

Everybody is selfish and there are no two ways about it...just that right now BCCI is more powerful than the other boards and they are being perceived to be more selfish than others.

I always believe that power is a "given" trait and hence can be taken away too. Strength is inherent and BCCI's focus should be on becoming strong not just powerful. If BCCI is powerful today it will lose its power tomorrow. What happened to ECB and CA will happen to BCCI too.

I'd like BCCI to focus on its strength - Indian cricket. As long as Indian cricket remains strong and there is a market for cricket in India, BCCI will be strong and grow powerful. Other boards make BCCI powerful and they can make BCCI lose its power on them.

The reality is that equilibrium will be maintained somehow or the other - some boards will always be more powerful than others. I don't think human systems are built for equality for all. It is something we need to learn to accept and live with.

Having said that I am definitely not suggesting that we sit quiet when power is being abused by someone. Like I said, power is given and can be taken away. Power was given to TCCB and ACB and was taken away from them. When BCCI becomes too abusive its power will be taken away. It is a very natural and repeatable process.

Right now I don't think BCCI is as abusive as people are making them out to be. Like you said it, rational justifications can be found for every single case where BCCI has been alleged to have abused its power. It doesn't mean I will accept those justifications as valid. For ex, their stance on not using DRS at all is pig-headed. But that is not power abuse. I think we disagree here.

[patt...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, July 15, 2012 10:48:22 AM UTC+9, cricketrulez wrote:
> On Jul 14, 3:56 am, patty...@gmail.com wrote:
>

> &gt; Two wrongs ...
>
> 1) Its the don&#39;t make the mistake I made line. It works only when the
> entity saying that has no conflict of interest and doesn&#39;t stand to
> gain from it.

It's not "the don"t make the same mistake I made line". I'm the entity saying it, I didn't make a mistake and I don't stand to gain from it.

>
> 2) Wrong? That implies a sense of entitlement. As Bharat pointed out
> BCCI primary responsibilty is to indan cricket and indian cricketers.
> They come first, even if its at the cost of international cricket in
> country A or B or C

Perhaps so, but if the BCCI acts to the detriment of cricket as a whole then the other boards should grow a pair and sanction them. (never happen because most of them are craven lickspittles to the BCCI and their money). For example after the Sydney affair when Indian threatened to abandon the tour, Cricket Australia should have said, "OK, fuck off and never come back".

>
> &gt; So the final nail? Mercy killing?
>
> If the a sport can&#39;t survive

> withe enormous amount of resources and wealth BCCI has spread around
> int he past decade, then yeah, it can rot and go away for all I care.

So you don't like cricket, why are you posting in a cricket group?

>
> &gt; But not cricket

>
> Some times it is a zero sum game. get on with it.
>

> &gt; So it&#39;s just life that the ultimate form of the game is weakened, and that&#39;s not bad for the game?  Wow.
>
> I don&#39;t get how a league which lasts all of six weeks during a time

> when no test cricket is possible in most countries due to weather can
> weaken it.

> SO how exactly does IPL weaken test cricket?

"It also takes quite an ego for Pietersen to allow his representatives to float an alternative suggestion that he will make himself available for England's one-day fixtures if he is allowed to fulfil the whole of his $2m (£1.3m) IPL contract with Delhi Daredevils next season and skip England's May Tests against New Zealand in the process".
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/572662.html

[cricketrulez]

On Jul 17, 8:17 am, patty...@gmail.com wrote:

> It's not "the don"t make the same mistake I made line". I'm the entity saying it, I didn't make a mistake and I don't stand to gain from it.

I'm sure its just coincidence that ECB, CA would play the same line.

> Perhaps so,

Its that sense of entitlement which makes even reasonable indian fan
to act out.

> but if the BCCI acts to the detriment of cricket as a whole then the other boards should grow a pair and >sanction them.  >(never happen because most of them are craven lickspittles to the BCCI and their money).

And don't you forget it. What this also means is Aus and Eng boards
aren't exactly acting in the best interest of cricket. So Zip it with
henon stop BCCI bashing

>For example after the Sydney affair when Indian threatened to abandon the tour, Cricket Australia should have said, >"OK, fuck off and never come back".

Regarding Sydney, BCCI raped CA, pup, haydos and gilly properly at the
second hearing. And we all knwo how symo ended up. Fuckwit should have
had his head cracked open by bhajji. I would have.

Ona separate note, If something as trivial as that from 4 years ago
riles you up, imagine what BCCI and indian fans must feel from all
that BS Aus and England pulled fro decades

> So you don't like cricket, why are you posting in a cricket group?

I like cricket just fine. I believe the sport will do just fine. If it
means that NZ, SL, Pak and WI test players have to make a shit living
so be it.

> "It also takes quite an ego for Pietersen to allow his representatives to float an alternative suggestion that he will make >himself available for England's one-day fixtures if he is allowed to fulfil the whole of his $2m (£1.3m) IPL contract with >Delhi Daredevils next season and skip England's May Tests against New Zealand in the >process".http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/572662.html

don't blame IPL for poor player management skills of ECB. ECB was
stupid enough hire a mercenary to represent their country. If they
have a pair, they wil deny NOC for the kolpak. if they don't have bal
to take on KP, good luck taking on BCCI.

[patt...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 11:01:04 AM UTC+9, cricketrulez wrote:
> On Jul 17, 8:17 am, patty...@gmail.com wrote:
>

> &gt; It&#39;s not &quot;the don&quot;t make the same mistake I made line&quot;. I&#39;m the entity saying it, I didn&#39;t make a mistake and I don&#39;t stand to gain from it.
>
> I&#39;m sure its just coincidence that ECB, CA would play the same line.

And we're back to two wrongs don't make a right.

And yeah it would be a coincidence unless you think I'm somehow involved with a national cricket board. Although I did ring Jack Clarke and James Sutherland before I posted and asked if they agreed with my post.

Looney

>
> &gt; Perhaps so,

>
> Its that sense of entitlement which makes even reasonable indian fan
> to act out.

What sense of entitlement are you talking about. This is where news groups are inferior to the web. On the web I would just use an emoticon showing that you are a looney.

>
> &gt; but if the BCCI acts to the detriment of cricket as a whole then the other boards should grow a pair and &gt;sanction them.  &gt;(never happen because most of them are craven lickspittles to the BCCI and their money).
>
> And don&#39;t you forget it. What this also means is Aus and Eng boards
> aren&#39;t exactly acting in the best interest of cricket. So Zip it with
> henon stop BCCI bashing

Zip it with the putting words into other peoples mouths.

I hadn't even mentioned the BCCI until the previous post, and that post I was obviously of the opinion that the other boards were not acting in the interest of cricket by pandering to the BCCI.

>
> &gt;For example after the Sydney affair when Indian threatened to abandon the tour, Cricket Australia should have said, &gt;&quot;OK, fuck off and never come back&quot;.

>
>
>
> Regarding Sydney, BCCI raped CA, pup, haydos and gilly properly at the
> second hearing. And we all knwo how symo ended up. Fuckwit should have
> had his head cracked open by bhajji. I would have.

So how you are supporting racism and violence, and trivialising sexual assault, showing your true colours, you disgusting excuse.

By the by have you seen Andrew Symonds? He would've snapped Bhaji in half like a twig.

>
> Ona separate note, If something as trivial as that from 4 years ago
> riles you up, imagine what BCCI and indian fans must feel from all
> that BS Aus and England pulled fro decades

Umm you do know what "For example" means don't you? And blatant covering up of racism and threatening to call off a tour if you don't get your own way is trivial? Again showing your true colours. (Plus two wrongs and everything).

>
> &gt; So you don&#39;t like cricket, why are you posting in a cricket group?

>
> I like cricket just fine. I believe the sport will do just fine. If it
> means that NZ, SL, Pak and WI test players have to make a shit living
> so be it.

Nice attitude. And if you do like cricket why do all your posts scream otherwise.

>
>
> &gt; &quot;It also takes quite an ego for Pietersen to allow his representatives to float an alternative suggestion that he will make &gt;himself available for England&#39;s one-day fixtures if he is allowed to fulfil the whole of his $2m (£1.3m) IPL contract with &gt;Delhi Daredevils next season and skip England&#39;s May Tests against New Zealand in the &gt;process&quot;.http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/572662.html
>
> don&#39;t blame IPL for poor player management skills of ECB. ECB was

> stupid enough hire a mercenary to represent their country. If they

> have a pair, they wil deny NOC for the kolpak. if they don&#39;t have bal

> to take on KP, good luck taking on BCCI.

And the IPL isn't complicit at all? You asked how IPL could hurt Test cricket, I gave you an example. When a cricketer as talented as Pietersen is tempted to play a retarded cross between baseball and cricket rather than play tests then IPL is obviously and clearly bad for cricket. Unless of course you are a blind looney.

[cricketrulez]

On Jul 17, 8:37 pm, patty...@gmail.com wrote:
> Looney

Whatever bat shit crazy sheila.

> What sense of entitlement are you talking about.  This is where news groups are inferior to the web.  On the web I would >just use an emoticon showing that you are a looney.

sure, thats the ticket, bat shit crazy sheila.

> Zip it with the putting words into other peoples mouths.
> I hadn't even mentioned the BCCI until the previous post, and that post I was obviously of the opinion that the other boards were not acting in the interest of cricket by pandering to the BCCI.

What do you this whole thread has been about? Non stop whining about
how BCCI is kiling cricket all the while crkcet reamins a viable sport
thanks to BCCI funds. So ZIP it bat shit crazy sheila.

> So how you are supporting racism and violence, and trivialising sexual assault, showing your true colours, you disgusting >excuse.

Oh boohoo, if there was clear evidence, why did those lying pieces of
born again Christian garbage hayden, pussy ass pup and cheat gilly
change their story in front of the judge? Why exactly were those
scumbags considered more crdible than bhajji and SRT?

> By the by have you seen Andrew Symonds? He would've snapped Bhaji in half like a twig.

I'm sure after a week in the hospital for a concussion from the blow
from the bat maybe.

> Umm you do know what "For example" means don't you?  And blatant covering up of racism and threatening to call off a >tour if you don't get your own way is trivial?  Again showing your true colours.  (Plus two wrongs and everything).

Pot, kettle and all that .....

> Nice attitude.  And if you do like cricket why do all your posts scream otherwise.

Here we go again with the holier than thou attitude.

> And the IPL isn't complicit at all?  You asked how IPL could hurt Test cricket, I gave you an example.  When a cricketer >as talented as Pietersen is tempted to play a retarded cross between baseball and cricket rather than play tests then IPL >is obviously and clearly bad for cricket.  Unless of course you are a blind looney.

Nope, IPL has clear defined rules about who will be allowed to play
and under what conditions. Sudden retirement from test cricket to play
in IPL has already been ruled out with the clear stament that such
players would either need to sit out two years or need NOC from the
home board. time for ECB to make an example of KP for the sake of Test
cricket. i.e., if the inventors of the game really do care of the
"purest" form of it, batshit crazy looney