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... )
Comments 3
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 ICCI assume you mean "England did and India do ( ... )
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 ( ... )
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