South Africa reject tri-series proposal

Brass Monkey wrote:

doremi wrote:2.5%, wasn't it? And Christmas is popular, maybe not to the extent in England and Australia.

And you know, if we started adjusting itineraries for important Indian festivals, taips' posts about BCCI messing with the FTP would actually make sense. So, personally I think it's quite weak from the ECB. I'm in college and I'll be away from home duing the festival season. Hurts, but you grin and bear it.

Totally agree it's weak. Still, I think I know exactly what is happening - any slight against the BCCI is a slight against India in yours, SG's, TO's eyes and expect a comment like that to hurt my national pride or something of similar ilk. My issues have always been with the fact you're all trying to blame shift.

The ECB weakly wanted their players to have Christmas off. This was mooted and accepted by the ICC in the FTP, India too concurred this OK. Then they changed their minds and said 'like it or lump it mates, we want to change the dates'.

We lumped it.

Hurt your national pride? FFS.

Thing is, because of the ICCCT the England original tour itinerary was not feasible. Maybe it's because the BCCI are full of idiots or the ICC or both. Couldn't care less. The revised itinerary also had 3 tests and 7 ODIs. England didn't agree with it and so the BCCI had to change it again. Fact is, if they'd stayed over for christmas, there'd have been 3 tests. Which, I'm sorry, I can't see any reason why they couldn't.

The Poms dont think they can get a decent Chicken Tikka in India

embee wrote:The Poms dont think they can get a decent Chicken Tikka in India

doremi wrote:
Hurt your national pride? FFS.

Thing is, because of the ICCCT the England original tour itinerary was not feasible. Maybe it's because the BCCI are full of idiots or the ICC or both. Couldn't care less. The revised itinerary also had 3 tests and 7 ODIs. England didn't agree with it and so the BCCI had to change it again. Fact is, if they'd stayed over for christmas, there'd have been 3 tests. Which, I'm sorry, I can't see any reason why they couldn't.

I don't get why all of a sudden anything other than 3 Tests and 7 ODIs are deemed 'too much' - they had respite between the trophy and the tour. The BCCI deemed it 'too much' because they had scheduled themselves chock-a-block. Yeah, it's the mess-up of both the ICC and BCCI. I agree, it's the 'weakos' at the ECB that nailed the coffin shut... no doubts. I got involved because of the bilious and jingoistic 'the one' placing the blame on the ECB and the premise we were dealing with facts and not opinion.

As I've re-iterated again and again the only factual basis we've had is the FTP itinerised the England tour as 3 Tests and 7 ODIs that ends on the 23rd December. The BCCI agreed to this. The ECB agreed to this. The ICC schduled this. That's all. They are points you simply cannot refute.

If we were dealing with opinions; which it seems SG and TO want to, not facts, then here is mine.

The greedy BCCI realised their eyes were bigger than their stomach, the incompetent and subservient ICC reneged and let them change the tour schedule and the trite ECB cut their nose off to spite their face by not adhering to the change.

Pick this post apart at your will, it'll be hard to. But mate, at least you aren't weak enough to either ignore it or take 8 words out of context and ignore the rest of a post just for a retort.

doremi wrote:

Merlin wrote:Yes Chandan.

Mea culpa.

All your posts here have been meaningless rhetoric without the aid of a single fact, and you still can be condescending? Bravo.

Anything invoving the BCCI is meaningless, any discussion involving you guys on here and the BCCI is meaningless - youre brainwashed .... however, I thank you nonetheless for your kind thoughts about the rhetoric.

I am understanding and not condescending where Chandan is concerned.

holcs wrote:

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.

My answer to this was few pages back, Holcs. I'm quoting it again for you:

Chandan wrote:

Merlin wrote:

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.?

I'm a big critic of BCCI but not for the reason you guys have been listing. Your criticisms are most wierd and without the backing of facts.

.

doremi wrote:India has plenty of grounds and associations which have to be given a game. Cutting ODIs is just not practical, and patently unfair on people who have to wait 2-3 years for a single ODI game.

I sort of think I said this earlier.

wow what a thread!

A question.

Since we have now established that tghe number of ODI's in India cannot be cut because the BBCI has to assauge the outlying areas neeeds for games, and that international teams are needlessly shunted around because of this, does the same happen in IPL?

There's too many words in this thread.

taipan wrote:A question.

Since we have now established that tghe number of ODI's in India cannot be cut because the BBCI has to assauge the outlying areas neeeds for games, and that international teams are needlessly shunted around because of this, does the same happen in IPL?

I don't know if you are asking this question to know about facts genuinely to just to have a wierd kind of fun for which you post generally.

India will not cut the number of ODIs it has played in the other country. And every country does the same. I repeat---EVERY COUNTRY!! International teams are needlessly shuntesd around in Australia too, England too and even in SA. So I fail to see what different is BCCI doing.

Now what same are you asking for in IPL? Every team has to play home and away here. And that is all.

Chandan wrote:

taipan wrote:A question.

Since we have now established that tghe number of ODI's in India cannot be cut because the BBCI has to assauge the outlying areas neeeds for games, and that international teams are needlessly shunted around because of this, does the same happen in IPL?

I don't know if you are asking this question to know about facts genuinely to just to have a wierd kind of fun for which you post generally.

India will not cut the number of ODIs it has played in the other country. And every country does the same. I repeat---EVERY COUNTRY!! International teams are needlessly shuntesd around in Australia too, England too and even in SA. So I fail to see what different is BCCI doing.

Now what same are you asking for in IPL? Every team has to play home and away here. And that is all.

As usual you ignore the questions you don't like to answer.

Is the IPL played in the outlying areas as well?

I told you that there are 8 teams and every team has toi play home and away with every other team. This makes 7 matches at every centre plus semis and final.

I'm unable to understand what you are asking and what am I ignoring.

Chandan wrote:I told you that there are 8 teams and every team has toi play home and away with every other team. This makes 7 matches at every centre plus semis and final.

I'm unable to understand what you are asking and what am I ignoring.

So only the international teams have to play in the crappy stadiums in the outlying areas, while the "domestic" IPL gets played in the major cities with the decent stadiums.

Interesting set of priorities the BCCI has.

Which crappy stadiums do they play in, BTW? Care to name a few?

Well why do the international teams always complain they don't play in the main stadiums?

Yep, just because those stadiums are not regular stadiums, they are crap.

Interesting definition of a crap stadium. BTW have you researched about those stadiums?

I'm sure you won't be knowing it but Mumbai's regular stadium Wankhede is far worse than its non regular stadium Brabourne, in terms of facilities, beauty, pitch etc.

You are still avaoiding my main point.

Why are international matches played in outlying areas when "domestic" matches are not?

taipan wrote:Well why do the international teams always complain they don't play in the main stadiums?

Never heard any Australians complain about anything here, be it ODIs or tests.

Which international teams complain about not getting the main stadiums? And which stadiums they think is the main one? If it is England complaining about it, then that is not new. They complain about everything in India--heat, dust, pollution, cows on the roads and what not.

Australians enjoy the tour here and that is why they enjoy the success too.

taipan wrote:You are still avaoiding my main point.

Why are international matches played in outlying areas when "domestic" matches are not?

What are the outlying areas? Are you not avoiding my question?

Chandan wrote:

taipan wrote:You are still avaoiding my main point.

Why are international matches played in outlying areas when "domestic" matches are not?

What are the outlying areas? Are you not avoiding my question?

So you can't answer.

Thought so.

What ground is the Dr D Y Patil Sports Academy?

taipan wrote:

Chandan wrote:

taipan wrote:You are still avaoiding my main point.

Why are international matches played in outlying areas when "domestic" matches are not?

What are the outlying areas? Are you not avoiding my question?

So you can't answer.

Thought so.

I think you can't answer. You have not answered many of my questions! Looks like you yourself don't understand what are you asking.

I should have thought earlier that you don't even know what you are asking!

embee wrote:What ground is the Dr D Y Patil Sports Academy?

You are asking this question to me ot Taipan, MB?

taipan wrote:You are still avaoiding my main point.

Why are international matches played in outlying areas when "domestic" matches are not?

The "domestic" games of the IPL are played at the "home" grounds of the teams involved ...

You may as well ask why Oz doesn't play Sheffield Shield games in Darwin and Cairns but can play Tests and JAMODIs there