Snoozers agree to BCCI demands . . .

well, india didnt plan to have a two-match series. the series got cut into

its a good thing the nz tour is a 3 test series now. 2 test series should be restricted to any series involving the bangles or zim. all others should be a minimum of three

india-aus has been made into a 4 test series (hopefully 5 soon) and india-england seems to be heading towards 5 as well. our tours of the windies usually involve 5 as well. would like to see a long series against the saffers as well

India won the series 1-0

Australia won their series 2-0

A third test would have been a decider for Ind vs Eng ...and a dead rubber for Oz

The main criticism of the 2 Test India v England series was they lost a Test (to the Champions League and Xmas) and still had a heap of JAMODIs

Aust has dropped back to 3 test series against WI but I guess that relates to the loss of class by the latter team.

Ashes to go to 3 test series?

taipan wrote:Ashes to go to 3 test series?

Still a bit of demand to see the poms

We could 5 Tests vs the Saffies too ...but it would be too hard to reciprocate the tour AND still have a home Test season

embee wrote:India won the series 1-0

Australia won their series 2-0

A third test would have been a decider for Ind vs Eng ...and a dead rubber for Oz

The main criticism of the 2 Test India v England series was they lost a Test (to the Champions League and Xmas) and still had a heap of JAMODIs

Then by that logic Aus would never have lost by 2-1 scoreline against India in 1998 and would have actually lost [hypothetically] 2-0. The great 2001 series would have hypothetically ended 1-1 and not 2-1 and one of the greatest fightbacks to come back and win from behind wouldn't have been as great as it is now after a 3 test series. In the end a lot of it lies hypothetically in the realm of Ifs and Buts. For sure a side will prepare a lot more differently if they know before hand they are not playing short series. Similiarly a 3-0 whitewash in a proper series assumes that much more significance then a 2 test 2-0 scorecard.

I feel the circumstances of 2 tests can't be compared to 3 or more test series is all. I agree with TO in that respect. Barring the minnows most proper test sides should play at least a 3 test series at minimum.


I think Most Indians have said this before that the BCCI should have at least entertained a 3 test/5 ODI deal in the end where ECB was concerned. I said it was apt that in the end they lost out on both the third test as well as the two extra JAMODIs in the aftermath of the Mumbai 26/11. The one day series stayed frozen at 5 matches and BCCI lost out on the third test that England would have played on return back if BCCI had planned it that way earlier.

But this addition of one test has come at a price of scratching the only practice FC match down.

Wonder how will Indian players, who do not play ODIs like Dravid, Mishra, Laxman etc acclimatise. Sachin will have to play the meaningless ODIs to get used to the condition.

NZC extracted a price for adding this extra test, playing an extra, absolutely meaningless and idiotic Twenty20.

Aren't NZC part of the axis of evil consisting also of the ECB and CA who are supposed to be the upholders of all things 'cricket'?

Wasn't it a 'request' rather than a 'demand'?

Pfft, BCCI + Request = Demand

Did they threaten to kidnap all their sheep if they didn't agree?

No, to send Ramesh Powar as part of the squad so there would be no sheep left to kidnap, or do other things to/with.

doremi wrote:Aren't NZC part of the axis of evil consisting also of the ECB and CA who are supposed to be the upholders of all things 'cricket'?

Pft.

The ECB are the upholders of all things 'cricket'.... CA sold their arses to the BCCI devils. Get it right...

JKLever wrote:

doremi wrote:Aren't NZC part of the axis of evil consisting also of the ECB and CA who are supposed to be the upholders of all things 'cricket'?

Pft.

The ECB are the upholders of all things 'cricket'.... CA sold their arses to the BCCI devils. Get it right...

Merlo will let you know it's 'Headquarters' that is the upholders of all things cricket ...

embee wrote:

JKLever wrote:

doremi wrote:Aren't NZC part of the axis of evil consisting also of the ECB and CA who are supposed to be the upholders of all things 'cricket'?

Pft.

The ECB are the upholders of all things 'cricket'.... CA sold their arses to the BCCI devils. Get it right...

Merlo will let you know it's 'Headquarters' that is the upholders of all things cricket ...

Dello never said that.

Go NZ Go.

So, have we agreed to ban India yet?