Either the ICC has grown a pair, or developed a death wish

http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan/content/current/story/518030.html

It seems that the idea of 'preventing' political interference in national boards is being considered.

Of course, this would f*ck over Pakistan very quickly, but it may also hurt Sri Lanka, and possibly Bangladesh. The clincher is that maybe even India could be damaged by it.

So maybe it's a very clever piece of politics by the BCCI to back this one. It could give them the excuse they need to leave the ICC and genuinely run their own show instead of effectively doing so.

Zat wrote:http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan/content/current/story/518030.html

It seems that the idea of 'preventing' political interference in national boards is being considered.

Of course, this would f*ck over Pakistan very quickly, but it may also hurt Sri Lanka, and possibly Bangladesh. The clincher is that maybe even India could be damaged by it.

So maybe it's a very clever piece of politics by the BCCI to back this one. It could give them the excuse they need to leave the ICC and genuinely run their own show instead of effectively doing so.

Fark me. I have been psuhing for this since C4 days. It would fark up CSA quota policy.

good move. most international sporting bodies have this rule

Mark Gay. Heh.

Haha, he's called Mark.

The One wrote:good move. most international sporting bodies have this rule

I've always hated that one with FIFA, simply because I'd trust most governments above FIFA for acting in the best interests of football!

beamer wrote:

The One wrote:good move. most international sporting bodies have this rule

I've always hated that one with FIFA, simply because I'd trust most governments above FIFA for acting in the best interests of football!

Funnily enough that is the only FIFA rule I agree with.

"Either the ICC has grown a pair, or developed a death wish"

Preferably both.

Won’t effect India much with the exception of diminishing its vote bank within the ICC, so one can pretty much reckon with India’s veto at the HK meeting. Unless, of course, the boot has exclusively Pakistan written on it.

Personally, I think this move has been initiated by others precisely for the reasons mentioned above; i.e. to loosen India’s hold on the ICC. If so, bad move and doomed to fail. By expunging Pakistan from the ICC, you are not eliminating the evil of politics from sport. The two cannot be divorced anyway. Without back-staging the rights and wrongs, one only has to consider the politics involved with the attempted exclusion of Zimbabwe. It didn’t work then and it won’t work now.

mirchy wrote:Personally, I think this move has been initiated by others precisely for the reasons mentioned above; i.e. to loosen India’s hold on the ICC. If so, bad move

Isn't the I in ICC supposed to stand for 'International'? It is supposed to be a body that takes care of cricket at the international level. So why would it be a 'bad move' to loosen the hold of the BCCI, a corrupt body seemingly dedicated to promoting its own cause and not remotely interested in the game at a global level, on it?

Zat wrote:

mirchy wrote:Personally, I think this move has been initiated by others precisely for the reasons mentioned above; i.e. to loosen India’s hold on the ICC. If so, bad move

Isn't the I in ICC supposed to stand for 'International'? It is supposed to be a body that takes care of cricket at the international level. So why would it be a 'bad move' to loosen the hold of the BCCI, a corrupt body seemingly dedicated to promoting its own cause and not remotely interested in the game at a global level, on it?

I think the bannies are so used to ingrained corruption they don't notice it any longer.

Zat wrote:

mirchy wrote:Personally, I think this move has been initiated by others precisely for the reasons mentioned above; i.e. to loosen India’s hold on the ICC. If so, bad move

Isn't the I in ICC supposed to stand for 'International'? It is supposed to be a body that takes care of cricket at the international level. So why would it be a 'bad move' to loosen the hold of the BCCI, a corrupt body seemingly dedicated to promoting its own cause and not remotely interested in the game at a global level, on it?

I’ll tell you why it’s a bad move. Ever since India’s emergence as a driving force in cricket, not only has cricket profited through an enhanced international itinerary, but it now has the finances to be wooed by other sports organisations. Compare that to the cronyism displayed during the anglo-australian monopoly reign when cricket, as a sport, stagnated to become the laughing stock – as far as fan base is concerned - of the sports world. It couldn’t even attract management professionals to internationally market and further the sport. As much as I despise the sob, it was Dalmiya who weaned the sport away from the clutches of its inherent inbreeding. Today cricket is being wooed even by the IOC, whereas an earlier application – admittedly before the T20 days – was decisively turned down.

Maybe you’d like cricket to go back to the “good old days” and I can’t even blame you for that, but, like it or not, you’re going to have to accept that the “traditional” governance of the sport has now become extinct – never to return. Cricket now caters to a worldwide population of close to two billion instead of the hundred million it once did. As you yourself said; the I in ICC stands for international. It’s the majority that calls the shots now. If India presently leads, you’ll learn to live with it.

The highlighted part of your opinion is unsubstantiated junk and doesn't warrant a response.

Hmmmm.... I've never heard such an incredible load bullsh!t, mirchy. But it's nice to see you all the same.

Brass Monkey wrote:Hmmmm.... I've never heard such an incredible load bullsh!t, mirchy. But it's nice to see you all the same.

Thanks, Danny. BS is what you read into it. Read it again in context of the quote.

I can't imagine in what regard a national body that wants the international body to change the entire international schedule for a domestic competition and wants an inordinate amount of ODIs in comparison to Tests has in the international game at its purest level.

Furthermore, since the time that 'the big bad Anglo-aussie coalition' the whole world has changed due to the full acceptance of globalisation - teams were touring back then, they are now - it's just the frequency has changed. Not sure what the BCCI has to do with that.

Brass Monkey wrote:I can't imagine in what regard a national body that wants the international body to change the entire international schedule for a domestic competition and wants an inordinate amount of ODIs in comparison to Tests has in the international game at its purest level.

Furthermore, since the time that 'the big bad Anglo-aussie coalition' the whole world has changed due to the full acceptance of globalisation - teams were touring back then, they are now - it's just the frequency has changed. Not sure what the BCCI has to do with that.

Dan, its a waste of time trying to debate with one eyed qunts who see everything through racist specs.

Well, I wouldn't go that far man - it's from an Indiocentric perspective, I'm sure they don't look as bad to the outside world - being from England I can somewhat understand his position. It's always good to debate anyway, taips

mirchy, I'd like to offer an unconditional apology.

An unconditional apology for thinking you may have some shred of intelligence and be open to discuss the issue at hand, when instead you are quite plainly, a jingoistic moron of the highest order.

Cricket being run to suit the agenda of one country, any country, at the expense of the international game is bad. You cannot argue with that, for that is a fact. The BCCI has no interest in p[romoting anything outside of India.

has Taips ever had anything positive to say about a person who is not white?

the deafening silence provides the answer I guess

horace wrote:the deafening silence provides the answer I guess

Obviously the mysteries of time zones has eluded the old qunt, but seeing as he has now been reduced to playing the race card that is not surprising.

Brass Monkey wrote:I can't imagine in what regard a national body that wants the international body to change the entire international schedule for a domestic competition and wants an inordinate amount of ODIs in comparison to Tests has in the international game at its purest level.

Furthermore, since the time that 'the big bad Anglo-aussie coalition' the whole world has changed due to the full acceptance of globalisation - teams were touring back then, they are now - it's just the frequency has changed. Not sure what the BCCI has to do with that.

There are just too many flaws in your thinking because you have aligned yourself to tests being the only form of cricket worth any application. That's a bit impudent, don't you think? There are other schools of thought that think cricket will only succeed as an international sport when the stage actors themselves earn enough to put dessert on the table. Test cricket won't cut it alone, I'm sure you'll agree. With the BCCI having introduced a business-like approach - sometimes overcooked, I agree - there's enough monetary incentive for the cricketers to find a way to those riches via the test platform, which brings them the recognition and the entree into the more lucrative T20 and fifty-over formats.

Coming to your comment “a national body that wants the international body to change the entire international schedule for a domestic competition”, which I think is a pretty blinkered view and expressed without consideration to the fact that four years of IPL have
a) brought riches to the cricketers like never before
b) brought conflict to the whole cricketing fraternity
To obliterate such conflict situations the BCCI probably welcomes a window for the IPL That alone would dismiss the issue of country before club. Let’s be honest, if you were offered 1,000,000 for the same job for which you are now getting a 100,000, where would you go? Please don’t retaliate with some crap about national pride. Family before nation is the only sane and human consideration. Which is exactly what is happening. Proponents of test cricket tend to forget the human aspect purely because they are not at the receiving end. I guess its easy to overlook that 50/50 and T20 are actually furthering the cause of test cricket.
Maybe you haven’t realised it, but I do believe India has played the most number of tests after Australia in the recent past (I believe 5 years) and the least amount of T20 internationals. That should put your lackadaisical comment “and wants an inordinate amount of ODIs in comparison to Tests has in the international game at its purest level “ to bed.

The 'the big bad Anglo-aussie coalition' as you put it weren’t my words and were never meant to sound that way. It was a trend of those times and the Asian countries learnt to live with it. It would seem the shoe’s on the other foot now. I understand why the “Anglo-Aussie” fan turns green at the thought of having lost control of the game to a point where legitimate player needs are done away with with meaningless and more often senseless “arguments”. The Boards of those countries don’t seem to have a problem with it. For the first time in their existence they have surplus coffers without subsidies and can play tests without having to worry about liquidity. They can’t wait for the next India visit. You aren’t going to change it, so live with it.

^^ What?

I can't see it either.