Re: South Africa reject tri-series proposal

by holcs Thu 11 Sep 2008, 16:21

I will state again and again and again and again.

The IPL has no link to any domestic structure in India, it is therefore not domestic, it is non-international.

by holcs Thu 11 Sep 2008, 16:22

JKLever wrote:
holcs wrote:
Chandan wrote:And what makes you think that IPL teams are not linked with the state associations? How are Sehwag Gambhir, Dhawan etc playing for Delhi as well as Delhi daredevil? How are Sachin, Rahane etc playing for Mumbai as well as Mubai Indians? How are Dravid, Kumble, Joshi etc playing for Karnataka as well as Bangalore too? Yuvraj, VRV, etc play for Punjab as well Kings Xi Punjab as well?

Where do you not find a link? Please tell me.

They are only playing there because they are purchased by those franchises, they are not there because that is their domestic team. It just happens that that franchise wanted their services.

There is NO LINK whatsoever because Sehwag could just have easily been bought by Chennai - assuming he wasn't the nominated player for that franchise.

Does it matter though? Any board has the right to run cricket in its country the way it wants to. If it falls under the banner of the home board it's domestic. Which is why the ICL is a rebel league.

I've got a lot of problems with IPL and I think it's the biggest danger to cricket for years but describing it as domestic ain't one of them!

No it doesn't matter, but at the same time it ain't a domestic comp.

by Chandan Thu 11 Sep 2008, 16:23

That is your thinking.

It is the only tourment in which Indians play T20 in our domestic season. And hence whether you agree or not, it is India's domestic T20 tournament.

by holcs Thu 11 Sep 2008, 16:25

Chandan wrote:That is your thinking.

It is the only tourment in which Indians play T20 in our domestic season. And hence whether you agree or not, it is India's domestic T20 tournament.

It is you are correct the only T20 tournament Indians can play in unless they are international correct Chandan.

It ain't in anyway a domestic based tournament.

I think we should leave it there. Its been good fun though at points.

by Chandan Thu 11 Sep 2008, 16:31

Anyway, my main discussion was something else. This was my last post on that discussion.

Chandan wrote:
Merlin wrote:
Chandan wrote:

Merlin,

Either read the whole thread to see what is being discussed or keep explaining each and every allegation of yours. Because your allegations are completely false and far far far away from truth.

Chandan,

I HAVE read this thread AND several others linked vaguely to the topic.
I just find it nauseating to continually read about how good the farkin' BCCI are to it's poorer neighbours.

The thread is not about how good or bad BCCI is to its neighbours, SA, Zim etc. The question we were discussing was why some countries do not have time to even catch a breath between the tours while some countries are cooling their heels not playing a single test match in a year.

Hope now it is clear to you.

There is a reason for that.
It is quite simply defined as bribery and corruption in another form.
We'll scratch your back and you make damned sure you vote with us on ALL ICC issues.
Get used to the fact.
Unless you see things in a different light!

I do not see things in a different light or whatever. If BCCI is asking some to support in the ICC meetings, do you think its opposition is twiddling its thumb? I hope you had heard about how England and Australia enjoyed the veto power once. Now why does it hurt them this bad when the shoe is on the other foot?

And why should this worry any of us fans? Whatever happens in the ICC meeting or happened before did not affect fans, nor will it affect now. But if we let few countries go down the drain like Pak is going without any competitive cricket now, the standard of test cricket will slip. And that will certainly hurt the fans

The BCCI do NO ONE any favours other than themselves. Nothing is given for nothing in their world -

Who is talking about BCCI here? I was talking about Pak and NZ. No board does any other board a favour unless that thing might be suiting its own agenda. Every board has an agenda-ECB, CA, CSA or even smaller board. Do you think ECB keeps on doing charity all along?

They even refrain from supporting their own cricketing starts, unless of course it only suits them!

So does every board. So what is new or unusual here?

They are systematically crumbling the very essence of crickets ethos by insisting, adopting and demanding
the game be played in their model - viz T20 ... ie., additional ODI's supplementing Tests ... and if they don't get their way,
it's table thumping and threats to withdraw the services of contracted players.... the list is endless.

So how do BCCI play it on their model? Every country has a domestic T20 system as does BCCI. What extra T20 is it playing?

Additional ODI : Who played the additional ODI first? In 2001 when England toured India, they played 6 ODIs. In 2002 when India toured England they played 7 ODIs. It was quite just of BCCI to demand 7 ODIs when England toured India next. They played 7 ODIs in 2006. ECB in turn demanded 7 ODIs from BCCI and India played 7 ODI when they toured in 2007. So once again BCCI is demanding 7 ODIs when England tour next?

Which is the year when it asked for additional ODIs, can you tell me. And If their demand is just why should they not persist? If ECB wanted fewer ODIs, they should have played fewer ODIs with India when India toured last?

Where does the law says thay that ECB can demand whatever it wants. But if the other board does the same, then that board is corrupt, is systematically crumbling the very essence of crickets ethos etc etc.?

Even SG in his response cannot help but mention the word "power" ... relative to other Boards vs the BCCI.
It's got f**k all to do with power ... it's aiding and abetting other less fortunate countries ... enhancing the spirit of cricket,
and yes, making money along the way .... but the BCCI's main concern is the latter ... sod the poor buggers who struggle.

Every board has equal power. It is not that BCCI possesses 10 votes in comparison to other boards.
BCCI is making money. But if the other boards are not able to, how is BCCI responsible for that? Why not ECB or CA instead? Aren't these destroying the cricket in Pak?

Hope that answer satisfies Chandan.

Nope it didn't. You answer all the questions I have raised and say how your allegations are correct.

by Merlin Thu 11 Sep 2008, 16:40

And my response was :

There is absolutely no point whatsoever in trying to disseminate the Indian cricket structure in its present form, nor is there any mileage in explaining it to their die-hard supporters - as the system is reconstructed in whatever form it suits the BCCI in order to tailor fit the franchises which cough up the most amount of money.

Chandan - my initial outburst was against the patronising platitudes inferring that the BCCI effectively go out of their way to help the "poorer cricketing nations" ... blah blah blah ...

Like I said - it's only done FOR A PRICE.
And that price is to secure their votes at the ICC table.
Nothing more - nothing less.
In my book - that's bribery **.... NOT the profiligated rubbish of "helping poor little Pakistan and Bangladesh" !!

** Bribery perhaps is too strong a word ... let's try BUYING the votes of other malleable Boards in order to pursue their own self centered needs and to hell with everything and everyone else.

Do you disagree with that statement ?

by PearlJ Thu 11 Sep 2008, 16:46

holcs wrote:
Chandan wrote:That is your thinking.

It is the only tourment in which Indians play T20 in our domestic season. And hence whether you agree or not, it is India's domestic T20 tournament.

It is you are correct the only T20 tournament Indians can play in unless they are international correct Chandan.

It ain't in anyway a domestic based tournament.

I think we should leave it there. Its been good fun though at points.

What is your definition of the word 'domestic'?

by holcs Thu 11 Sep 2008, 16:48

PearlJ wrote:
holcs wrote:
Chandan wrote:That is your thinking.

It is the only tourment in which Indians play T20 in our domestic season. And hence whether you agree or not, it is India's domestic T20 tournament.

It is you are correct the only T20 tournament Indians can play in unless they are international correct Chandan.

It ain't in anyway a domestic based tournament.

I think we should leave it there. Its been good fun though at points.

What is your definition of the word 'domestic'?

I see where you are going PJ.

In the cricketing sense it is the Domestic Cricket structure and all that that entails.

In this instance the IPL has no links to that structure and is more a non-international tournament.

As JK said its mere Symantics at best.

by PearlJ Thu 11 Sep 2008, 16:58

holcs wrote:
PearlJ wrote:
holcs wrote:
Chandan wrote:That is your thinking.

It is the only tourment in which Indians play T20 in our domestic season. And hence whether you agree or not, it is India's domestic T20 tournament.

It is you are correct the only T20 tournament Indians can play in unless they are international correct Chandan.

It ain't in anyway a domestic based tournament.

I think we should leave it there. Its been good fun though at points.

What is your definition of the word 'domestic'?

I see where you are going PJ.

In the cricketing sense it is the Domestic Cricket structure and all that that entails.

In this instance the IPL has no links to that structure and is more a non-international tournament.

As JK said its mere Symantics at best.

Hmm..... but surely the domestic cricket structure is formed by the countries board in whatever form that is in. The IPL may not follow India's traditional domestic structure but it is definitely a 'domestic' competition.

As you could also level that accusation at all the other franchise tournaments around the world.

by holcs Thu 11 Sep 2008, 17:02

PearlJ wrote:
holcs wrote:
PearlJ wrote:
holcs wrote:
Chandan wrote:That is your thinking.

It is the only tourment in which Indians play T20 in our domestic season. And hence whether you agree or not, it is India's domestic T20 tournament.

It is you are correct the only T20 tournament Indians can play in unless they are international correct Chandan.

It ain't in anyway a domestic based tournament.

I think we should leave it there. Its been good fun though at points.

What is your definition of the word 'domestic'?

I see where you are going PJ.

In the cricketing sense it is the Domestic Cricket structure and all that that entails.

In this instance the IPL has no links to that structure and is more a non-international tournament.

As JK said its mere Symantics at best.

Hmm..... but surely the domestic cricket structure is formed by the countries board in whatever form that is in. The IPL may not follow India's traditional domestic structure but it is definitely a 'domestic' competition.

As you could also level that accusation at all the other franchise tournaments around the world.

Perhaps you could. But most franchise tournaments take thier roots from the original domestic structure that is in place???? Players for those franchises are selected from those core domestic teams etc.. in most cases.

However the IPL isn't a domestic comp, its purely an Indian based non-international tournament IMO.

Its a case of opinions, I wouldn't view an EPL like was mooted here as part of our domestic structure. Its an event based in England yes, but not part of the standard domestic fabric!

by Merlin Thu 11 Sep 2008, 17:12

I can just see the Counties reactions now to the ECB sanctioning the following entrepeneurs with wealth (a la the IPL) and their respective teams:

Andrew Lloyd Webber, - The Phantom Spectres
Philip Green, - The NEXT Tigers.
Cameron Macintosh - The Luvvie Brigade
Guy Ritchie - The Lock Stock and Two Smokin Barrels Beasties.

... create your own list ....

And then said entrepeneurs hold their own auction (under the auspices of the ECB naturally)for the services of Flintoff, Vaughan (heh heh heh) KP et al.

One guess what all the Counties would have to say about this NEW "Domestic" set up...

My verdict ... two words starting with F and O.

THAT's the difference Pearlie.

by PearlJ Thu 11 Sep 2008, 17:35

Merlin wrote:I can just see the Counties reactions now to the ECB sanctioning the following entrepeneurs with wealth (a la the IPL) and their respective teams:

Andrew Lloyd Webber, - The Phantom Spectres
Philip Green, - The NEXT Tigers.
Cameron Macintosh - The Luvvie Brigade
Guy Ritchie - The Lock Stock and Two Smokin Barrels Beasties.

... create your own list ....

And then said entrepeneurs hold their own auction (under the auspices of the ECB naturally)for the services of Flintoff, Vaughan (heh heh heh) KP et al.

One guess what all the Counties would have to say about this NEW "Domestic" set up...

My verdict ... two words starting with F and O.

THAT's the difference Pearlie.

Definition of the word 'domestic': Of or relating to a country's internal affairs

Unless you have made up your own definition for the word, then what you have described would be a domestic tournament. Just like the IPL is.

by Merlin Thu 11 Sep 2008, 17:50

PearlJ wrote:.... then what you have described would be a domestic tournament. Just like the IPL is.

yep ... Sure ... just tell the Counties that! Rolling Eyes

by PearlJ Thu 11 Sep 2008, 18:13

Merlin wrote:
PearlJ wrote:.... then what you have described would be a domestic tournament. Just like the IPL is.

yep ... Sure ... just tell the Counties that!

Tell the counties what?

by Chandan Thu 11 Sep 2008, 18:14

Merlin wrote:And my response was :

There is absolutely no point whatsoever in trying to disseminate the Indian cricket structure in its present form, nor is there any mileage in explaining it to their die-hard supporters - as the system is reconstructed in whatever form it suits the BCCI in order to tailor fit the franchises which cough up the most amount of money.

Chandan - my initial outburst was against the patronising platitudes inferring that the BCCI effectively go out of their way to help the "poorer cricketing nations" ... blah blah blah ...

Like I said - it's only done FOR A PRICE.
And that price is to secure their votes at the ICC table.
Nothing more - nothing less.
In my book - that's bribery **.... NOT the profiligated rubbish of "helping poor little Pakistan and Bangladesh" !!

** Bribery perhaps is too strong a word ... let's try BUYING the votes of other malleable Boards in order to pursue their own self centered needs and to hell with everything and everyone else.

Do you disagree with that statement ?

The the point we were discussing is completely different.

I'm not concerned with who BCCI helps or who it doesn't help. My concern is the slipping standard of test cricket because few nations like PCB and NZ are are also ready to join WI or have already joined now.

One of the main reason for Pak's demise is at least too little cricket with international team. They have not played tests since a year.

As for your other allegations, which country or board does not BUY a vote? I don't think Pak or SA support BCCI when they do not agreeto BCCI's idea. Like SA didn't agree visiting Pak this time for CT no matter what financial help they received by BCCI for playing 3 ODIs in June last year on a neutral venue. Pak once didn't agree with BCCI when BCCI wanted ICC to go for review system in umpiring 4 years back. So VOTES CAN"T JUST BE BOUGHT AS YOU THINK.

Still what has BCCI's voting support in ICC got to with the problem test cricket is facing right now? I've asked you this question many times.

by Merlin Thu 11 Sep 2008, 19:18

PearlJ wrote:
Merlin wrote:
PearlJ wrote:.... then what you have described would be a domestic tournament. Just like the IPL is.

yep ... Sure ... just tell the Counties that!

Tell the counties what?

Jebezus ....
That the big bucks are coming to bid for their players for a little jamboree amidst the CC season and as such
they (the County employers) have to stand aside in the name of "domestic cricket" and coz the ECB deems as such.

FFS pearlie ... keep up.

by PearlJ Thu 11 Sep 2008, 19:21

Merlin wrote:
PearlJ wrote:
Merlin wrote:
PearlJ wrote:.... then what you have described would be a domestic tournament. Just like the IPL is.

yep ... Sure ... just tell the Counties that!

Tell the counties what?

Jebezus ....
That the big bucks are coming to bid for their players for a little jamboree amidst the CC season and as such
they (the County employers) have to stand aside in the name of "domestic cricket" and coz the ECB deems as such.

FFS pearlie ... keep up.

Hmmm, that's not really my point. It would be domestic cricket. The relative merits of such are not what we were discussing.

by Merlin Thu 11 Sep 2008, 19:33

Chandan if you honestly believe your last statement that the BCCI are innocent of securing votes via the muscle they flex - you are living in cuckoo la-la land.

The BCCI's insistance on issues relating to the IPL have inflamed a situation in several of the cricketing nations, not least their demand that their auctioned players forego all else to be at the IPL when they are called, irrespective of other committments to their Counties.

The BCCI insist that MORE ODI's are played home and away - coerce other Boards to comply ... and therefore push Test match cricket to the background.

Does this answer your question :
what has BCCI's voting support in ICC got to with the problem test cricket is facing right now?

Don' you think that the BCCI create the problem by supplementing a bucket load of 50 over matches - cramming them in no less - and thus curtailing a full Test tour.

If you cannot see past those facts, then I'm afraid we won't see eye to eye on the matter - and perhaps it's best we agree to disagree.

But please try not to convince us here that the BCCI are a benevolent society whose concerns lie in assuaging the problems of other poorer test playing nations without seeking some form of repayment !! Rolling Eyes

by Merlin Thu 11 Sep 2008, 19:36

PearlJ wrote:

Hmmm, that's not really my point. It would be domestic cricket. The relative merits of such are not what we were discussing.

The original discussion revolved around whether the IPL was deemed domestic cricket, bearing in mind the set up and it's
disconnection from the other local tourneys like the Ranjit trophy.

I was creating a similar template here with the ECB / the entrepeneurs and the County employers .....

by PearlJ Thu 11 Sep 2008, 20:09

Merlin wrote:
PearlJ wrote:

Hmmm, that's not really my point. It would be domestic cricket. The relative merits of such are not what we were discussing.

The original discussion revolved around whether the IPL was deemed domestic cricket, bearing in mind the set up and it's
disconnection from the other local tourneys like the Ranjit trophy.

I was creating a similar template here with the ECB / the entrepeneurs and the County employers .....

Yeah I know. And the tournament you described and the IPL are domestic competitions. It's irrelevent what format they follow. They are contested between teams from the same country.

by Merlin Thu 11 Sep 2008, 20:18

Yeah okay.
The discussion wasn't about format...

But never mind.

by PearlJ Thu 11 Sep 2008, 20:24

Merlin wrote:Yeah okay.
The discussion wasn't about format...

But never mind.

Yeah I know, that's why I said it was irrelevent. Rolling Eyes

They are all domestic competitions. That's pretty obvious.

by The One Thu 11 Sep 2008, 20:57

wow! this has to be one of the weirdest dicussions ever

the ipl is a competition organised by the bcci, played in india by indian teams but not a domestic comp?

the reason it doesnt follow the ranji system is because we have more than 2 dozen teams. to do something like the ipl with that structure would mean a tournament lasting 6 months. its simply not possible. the ranji as well was a new tournament in the 1930s, the original major cricket comp was the bombay pentagular. i dont think anyone at that time said the ranji was not domestic cricket

it was a golden opportunity to reorganise the domestic structure in india for a new type of the game and its great that it was done

by Merlin Thu 11 Sep 2008, 21:07

It's not.

But I'm too tired and thus can't be arsed to argue the toss on the specific and pedantic meaning of the word domestic as opposed to the term when applied to tried, tested and unanimously approved affiliated competitions that currently take place in this country.

Like I said - try running an entrepreneurial IPL set up past the Counties.
Not much chance of them approving it or incorporating it as a "domestic tournament".
Why?
Because in its IPL form, it would be run by companies and wealthy individuals, and would not involve the Counties.

It would thus be deemed a totally separate entity - apart from all other competitions - run as an enterprise ... but sure ... domestically within the boundariess of the UK.

Anyway no worries ... let's agree to disagree.

by SG Fri 12 Sep 2008, 04:45

SG - Indian "fans" DO treat their cricketers as Bollywood prima donners mate ... accept the fact and move on.
God like worship with effigies at the ready for burning should things go pear shaped!!

Just because you think so doesn't make it true though.

BTW FYI, Indians don't burn effigies of their film stars. That honour is solely reserved for Indian cricketers and politicians.

by Sponsored content