Interesting development with ICL & ICC

Wonder if this is because ICC feels threatened, by the potential of a parallel Cricketing universe that could come about with ICL's country based competitions or ICC just sees this as an oppourunity to settle scores with BCCI.

link

Maybe they see ICL has having a better chance at long-term success . . .

In other matters, the ICC have confirmed that all tests played by South Africa between 1961 and 1970 were actually "unofficial" but that they wouldn't request that statistical records be amended to exclude them (disappointingly for some Aussies).

The ICC has also said that it does not see the rebel tours as First Class but again recognises that statisticians (incl Wisden) do recognise them as FC.

Finally, the ICC have confirmed that the leading domestic comp in SAf during the isolation period should have first class status (which is how statisticians have treated them anyway).

I see that the ICC is dealing with all the really important stuff once again....

More developments

Click on the ICC revolt story (Hindustan times special)

Where is the money coming from ?

Another one

JGK wrote:In other matters, the ICC have confirmed that all tests played by South Africa between 1961 and 1970 were actually "unofficial" but that they wouldn't request that statistical records be amended to exclude them (disappointingly for some Aussies).

What the hell is that all about?

What do you mean?

Well I have never heard any mention of these tests not being official.

Yeah, I was suprised at that as well given that all the stats I have ever seen include them in the test figures. That might have been during the period where Saf were only playing "white" countries and therefore the ICC didn't formally recognise them notwithstanding that each individual board did.

Maybe peterg, tya or Wally know a bit more...

JGK wrote:Yeah, I was suprised at that as well given that all the stats I have ever seen include them in the test figures. That might have been during the period where Saf were only playing "white" countries and therefore the ICC didn't formally recognise them notwithstanding that each individual board did.

Maybe peterg, tya or Wally know a bit more...

Even stranger. Surely they must have been on some sort of international roster. Even the ROW games which were scheduled to replace the England tour were originally given test status.

taipan wrote:

JGK wrote:Yeah, I was suprised at that as well given that all the stats I have ever seen include them in the test figures. That might have been during the period where Saf were only playing "white" countries and therefore the ICC didn't formally recognise them notwithstanding that each individual board did.

Maybe peterg, tya or Wally know a bit more...

Even stranger. Surely they must have been on some sort of international roster. Even the ROW games which were scheduled to replace the England tour were originally given test status.

They still should be - given the standard of cricket served up by Zim and Bangladesh, which masquerades as "tests".

we are in need of a one off correction to the records...to ensure good performances against good opposition are recognised and good performances against ordinairy opposition/minnows are discounted...it should be possible to develop a weighted mathematical model that can deal with this ...eg performances against good opposition are rated as 1.0 and against ordinairy opposition (zim, bangles) as 0.7