Twenty20 and the IPL (Indian Premer League)
Years from now, heck perhaps even just months from now, the purists (because all such people are obviously cricket lovers) will look back at three unrelated events that changed the course of cricketing history for ever. First there was Subhash Chandra's Zee TV losing out the rights to broadcast half a decade's worth (or maybe more) of Indian
( Read more... )
I think I know what you're trying to say here, but this isn't it. Purists are certainly cricket lovers, otherwise they wouldn't be purists.
Though it will probably result in the untimely demise of traditional cricket as we know it
How will it result in the demise of traditional cricket? There seems to be huge demand for a window to be made for the IPL, especially from the players - the Australians certainly seem to have bonded with their teammates, and there's talk about how they'll all be keeping in touch with them from the West Indies.
Make that window, and you don't have the two important forms of cricket competing against each other.
James Sutherland appears to be against the IPL, to my amusement. He's said that they're struggling financially, and he's rescheduled the Pakistan tour to clash with next year's IPL.
the fact is no single country dominates over all others [in soccer] the way England and India do at the ICC
I assume you mean "England did and India do". England clearly no longer dominates the ICC.
The recent Malcolm Speed controversy perfectly illustrates the problems at hand.
I agree entirely. Let's review why he was thrown out. He wanted Zimbabwe Cricket punished because of deliberately falsified accounts. India and Ray Mali didn't - India because the Zim vote is in their pocket, Mali because he's one of those despicable South Africans who feels more loyalty to people of his skin colour than to such antiquated principles as not stealing ICC money for personal gain, not letting cricket be run down into Associate-class, and democracy.
How could cricket possibly be worse if the MCC ran the game? We'd still have administrative cock-ups, since all recent ICC administrators have been pretty awful most of the time. But there's not even a veneer of respectability about ICC politics these days, and the outcomes (ie, keeping Zimbabwe as a full member) go counter to any sane cricketing thought.
The best fix as far as I can see is for Zimbabwe to be suspended (which probably won't happen, for the reasons above, but you never know - the ICC did try to have that player-based committee thingy and they recommended banning them) and Ireland to become a Test nation. Then we'd have a 5-5 split on the ICC Board.
England's next tour of India got truncated because the ECB promises its players no non-Ashes tours over Christmas. A good board, one that I would be happy to see running world cricket, would have rescheduled the tour so that there were five ODI's and three Tests. Instead, we'll get a montrosity of seven ODI's and two Tests. A two-Test England-India series! The BCCI is not worthy of running world cricket.
Reply
But not all purists are cricket lovers, right?
>Make that window, and you don't have the two important forms of cricket competing against each other.
True but if the IPL turns out to be a major success and the BCCI gets ever more greedy (which is not entirely inconceivable), they might use the IPL as a stepping stone to destroy traditional cricket.
>Instead, we'll get a montrosity of seven ODI's and two Tests. A two-Test England-India series!
If that's what the TV audience wants, that's what they'll get!
>The BCCI is not worthy of running world cricket.
I don't disagree. Two things, it's inevitable that they will because of India's TV audience and the fact that cricket is not a global sport (for audiences in the US/China/EU to act as a counter-balance to all the money being pumped in India). Secondly, I'd rather India be given the opportunity to run world cricket (while making many mistakes along the way) than not have the opportunity at all. Given the inevitability of the first point, it will probably take a long time for the BCCI (if at all) to develop any sense of neutrality or fairness in running global cricket affairs. The chances of Ireland gaining Test-status is very low in the near future but that is certainly one half of the strategy that the Anglo-countries will need to pursue. The other would be to invest in non-traditional cricketing centres (ie, China, the rest of Europe and America) to bring them into the fold (eventually) to counter-balance the dominance of the BCCI.
Reply
I can't think of a purist who isn't a cricket lover. Having strong opinions about cricket almost necessarily pre-supposes that you love the game.
The other would be to invest in non-traditional cricketing centres (ie, China, the rest of Europe and America) to bring them into the fold (eventually) to counter-balance the dominance of the BCCI.
This one's a non-starter, at least as long as the ICC Board comprises the Test nations. I can't see any country that doesn't have some link to the old Empire gaining Test status (Ireland and Nepal aren't Commonwealth countries, but they're close to major cricket countries). And even if I'm wrong there, India's already stolen a run on the rest of the world in investing in Chinese cricket.
Reply
Leave a comment