South Africa reject tri-series proposal

...and umpires and "cheating" opposition players

embee wrote:...and umpires and "cheating" opposition players

Yep, them too are honored like that.

Bruce Oxenford was so impressed that his effigy was a Television

with all this effigy burning maybe zimmy has a long term plan to move to India

horace wrote:with all this effigy burning maybe zimmy has a long term plan to move to India

no ...he's worried about his carbon foot print

embee wrote:

horace wrote:with all this effigy burning maybe zimmy has a long term plan to move to India

no ...he's worried about his carbon foot print

turn it up, VoR thinks a carbon foot print is what you leave on the carpet after you've been out burning crosses.

He very Green ...apart from his Martian heritage

Crosses are made from plantation timber and he uses BP Ultimate to get a cleaner burn

Merlin wrote: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.

wgaf about the counties? thats england's problem, that there is too much resistance to reform in the country. its not in any way related to whether the ipl is an indian domestic competition or not

Merlin wrote: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.

Hey Merlin,

Why on earth should I worry what BCCI does in an ICC meeting? If it secures votes through financial clout, the rest of the board fall for and that is why.
The same boards DO NOT give BCCI its vote when they do not agree to it. I gave you examples.

But why does it rile YOU so much? How are you as a cricket fan affected by it?

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.

Wrong and blatantly wrong. If other boards are inflamed it is their problem. They can always stop their players from coming. The moment a board gives a NOC to its players, means IT HAS NO OBJECTION in sending its players ti IPL. They can deny their players NOC if they want. Players without NOC from particular boards are allowed to play in IPL.

And you are living in cuckoo la-la land if you did not notice that Australian players left after just 4 games because they a camp before they toured WI and then had to play warm up games there before the tests. So where did BCCI demand them to forgo their committments?

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.

I gave you the example to show how this allegation of yours is horrendously wrong.

If you still insist, show me where has BCCI asked for more ODIs at home? Give me examples!

Away ODIs are in not demanded by BCCI. It is demanded by the board which hosts it, if you did not know

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

No. Didn't anwer anything.

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.

You have to see who asked for more ODIs first. If other board like ECB asks it, it is fine but if BCCI asks for it in turn, it is wrong? How? This was the question I asked by giving you the ODIs played in each tour. You go ahead and show me how is BCCI asking for more than what ECB demanded?

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.

You have not given me any one example of the the allegations that YOU have put on BCCI. You do so and I'll think your allegations have some base. At the moment they are absolutely baseless.

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 !!

I never tried to convince anyone anything about BCCI. I had asked a simple question which had no connection with BCCI and it is the other forummers who have brought BCCI in the discussion.

Once it came in the discussion I had to reply about how baseless their allegations were like I did in this post.

Yes Chandan.

Mea culpa.

If it wasn't for the BCCI world cricket would have collapsed in a shambles decades ago.

Indeed, as I have posted on another thread, the BCCI are the only cricket board doing their job efficiently . . . they deserve to run cricket on a global level

Agree completely.

Efficient. Courageous. Forward thinking. Money grabbing. sorry ...
Putting cricket first and foremost. Caring towards minnows. Accommodating with other Boards. Guiding the ICC.

The BCCI set a fundemental example to all on how corruption really CAN work.

I wish Cricket SA was as half as good as the BCCI.

Chandan wrote:

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.

I gave you the example to show how this allegation of yours is horrendously wrong.

If you still insist, show me where has BCCI asked for more ODIs at home? Give me examples!

Example, and I am not getting into this debate is - The forthcoming England Tour.

England wanted one more test match and less ODI's. BCCI refused.

Do not try and think that the BCCI is interested in the prevelance of Test cricket Chandan. They are only interested in the shorter form of the game as thats where the bucks are.

A brain dead idiot could profitably run the BCCI. Just like a brain dead idiot could profitably run Manchester United or the NY Yankees.

It's called "distressingly obsesive fan base".

And might I add that I consider Chandan the most knowledgeable poster on this board.

I wish Cricket SA was as half as good as the BCCI.

Aye, know what you mean.
My wish is that the BCCI take over the ECB, the FA, the Olympic Committee, the Cycling Assocn., and the LTA here in the UK.
Just think - we could all then have our snouts in the trough!

holcs wrote:Example, and I am not getting into this debate is - The forthcoming England Tour.

England wanted one more test match and less ODI's. BCCI refused.

the whole quid pro quo started in 2002. ind played 4 tests in england, eng refused to play 4 in india. ind played 3 tests and 7 odis in england, eng refused to play for the same number of games in india as the poor babies wanted to be home for christmas. so the bcci kept the odis and cut the tests instead of the english request to cut out the odis. if england stayed for another 10-12 days they would have got the 3rd test

The One wrote:

holcs wrote:Example, and I am not getting into this debate is - The forthcoming England Tour.

England wanted one more test match and less ODI's. BCCI refused.

the whole quid pro quo started in 2002. ind played 4 tests in england, eng refused to play 4 in india. ind played 3 tests and 7 odis in england, eng refused to play for the same number of games in india as the poor babies wanted to be home for christmas. so the bcci kept the odis and cut the tests instead of the english request to cut out the odis. if england stayed for another 10-12 days they would have got the 3rd test

Poor babies? England would have gone in this year:

NZ Away - 4 tests
NZ Home - 4 tests
SA Home - 4 tests
Stanford
Champions Trophy - month tourney
India Away

Now for them to prefer to play more tests and less ODI's off the back of that itinery is hardly poor babies.

The fact remains, that the BCCI refused to play 3 tests - not England.

holcs wrote:

The One wrote:

holcs wrote:Example, and I am not getting into this debate is - The forthcoming England Tour.

England wanted one more test match and less ODI's. BCCI refused.

the whole quid pro quo started in 2002. ind played 4 tests in england, eng refused to play 4 in india. ind played 3 tests and 7 odis in england, eng refused to play for the same number of games in india as the poor babies wanted to be home for christmas. so the bcci kept the odis and cut the tests instead of the english request to cut out the odis. if england stayed for another 10-12 days they would have got the 3rd test

Poor babies? England would have gone in this year:

NZ Away - 4 tests
NZ Home - 4 tests
SA Home - 4 tests
Stanford
Champions Trophy - month tourney
India Away

Now for them to prefer to play more tests and less ODI's off the back of that itinery is hardly poor babies.

The fact remains, that the BCCI refused to play 3 tests - not England.

FFS Charlie, don't let the facts get in the way.

You know the BCCI has the best interests of cricket at heart.

Poor babies? England would have gone in this year:

NZ Away - 4 tests
NZ Home - 4 tests
SA Home - 4 tests
Stanford
Champions Trophy - month tourney
India Away

Now for them to prefer to play more tests and less ODI's off the back of that itinery is hardly poor babies.

The fact remains, that the BCCI refused to play 3 tests - not England.

Whilst in the same period India will have managed 372 ODI's against the bangles, pak, SL and all comers ... and a couple of token tests!
FFS

are you saying playing in stanford is making england give up a test match in india? whouda thunk it?

england refused to stay for a 3rd test. almost every other nation has or will have played the same number of tests this year and a whole lot more odis. cant see england going back from australia for a christmas break

besides eng played 3 tests each against nz home and away. total of 12 tests in the year. other countries

aus - 15 (18 if pak tour took place)
eng - 12
ind - 15
nz - 10
pak - 0 (3 if aus tour took place)
sa - 15
sl - 5
wi - 9

so eng play less tests than india? ergo the ecb must care less for tests than the bcci

One day gents one day I will crack one of these nuts!!!

Merlin wrote:Whilst in the same period India will have managed 372 ODI's against the bangles, pak, SL and all comers ... and a couple of token tests!
FFS

why use facts when you can use rhetoric

yeah them damn injuns! them dont play as much real cricket as we do. the savages