Wednesday, 10 October 2012

Our guide to the CLT20 - more popular than porn?

If sport is ruled by money these days, as opposed to history or rivalry, then the biggest event in cricket is taking place right at this very moment out in South Africa. Yes folks, the Champions League T20 tournament featuring the best T20 sides in the world are thrashing it out for a share in the $US 6 million prize money. Judging by our new search engine, T20 has become the second highest reason why people visit our site, behind pornography of all things (I kid you not), as opposed to cricket, and the success of the shorter format of the game can not be ignored. Here we give you a run down, ok maybe more of a thick edge, to the sides competing and as always give you the tips that will enable you to take some money from your favourite illegal Indian bookie...However we also have a pop at those running world cricket, and ask are we in danger of selling the game down the river just for a few extra rupees?

Narine...forced to play for Kolkata and not T&T
 

The tournament is owned by our good friends the BCCI (more about them later), Cricket Australia and Cricket South Africa. Funnily enough they also own the tv rights, hence why the Aussies have never hosted it due to cricket mad India not being awake unless the Aussies agreed to play games in the middle of the night.

Amazingly the nations from these countries also seem to qualify directly into the main tournament, leaving others to qualify. That includes two from England, previous holders of the ICC World T20 tournament, and one each from West Indies and Sri Lanka. Yes, that would be the finalists of the international tournament of exactly the same format that just finished last week, providing by far the best players in the tournament. The Saffas and Aussies have two sides apiece going straight in, no qualification, whilst our good friends from India, just get the mere four!

The BCCI, now thinks it is some sort of world super power in my own personal opinion, throwing their weight around like a spoilt child, and telling the world "it is my bat and my ball, and we will play our way". This is the country who were shouting the loudest against the South African system of apartheid, and rightly so given the discriminatory nature of that vile regime, although conveniently sweeps under the carpet their very own caste system, one of equal discrimination.

They have become the reason why people dislike the USA, a playground bully and more powerful now than the MCC or even, some would say, the ICC. The ECB have their tongue so far up the arse of the BCCI, that they can still taste our good friend Allen Stanford. Money talks!

In fact the BCCI have even gone as far as forcing certain West Indian players to play for their IPL teams, rumours reaching us that their contracts would be ripped up otherwise. Strangely, in another tactic of showing their strength, Trinidad and Tobago the most successful team in the history of this short lived tournament, have to qualify so that Mumbai Indians can get an automatic place.

Before anyone accuses me of being anti Indian, I can assure you I am not. I just hate people throwing their weight around and using their muscle to force the smaller guy to co-operate.

School bullies

Anyway, onto to the tournament. England have provided our good friends from 'oop north in Yorkshire and those from the South Coast in Hampshire. They won the right to be there by virtue of their results in the domestic tournament. Hampshire, having lost the first game look like they are doomed. Fly round the world, do not pass go, do not collect £200 and off you fuck. The Indians must have their teams playing you see.

As with all things razzmatazz, Yorkshire, where the people are most unrazzmatazzish (????) have become Yorkshire Carnegie, although our friend Fred Boycott wanted them to become the #Yorkshirediggers. Hampshire are the Hampshire Hawks. The other teams looking to qualify are, Auckland Aces, Trinidad and Tobago, Uva Next from Sri Lanka, who sound more like a cross between a paramilitary organisation from Northern Ireland and a retail outlet, and the first Pakistani team to take part in this tournament, the Sialkot Stallions.

Maynard...coach of the Titans

Straight through to the main tournament are, the Perth Scorchers and the Sydney Sixers from Australia. From South Africa we have the Highveld Lions, and the Titans coached by our good friend Matt Maynard, who did a hilarious interview in our upcoming book, Cricket Banter. If an English side can't win it, then let's hope the boys from Nashua do. From India, we have the Delhi Daredevils, the Chennai Super Kings, our good friends the Mumbai Indians and the Kolkata Knight Riders.

Whoever wins this tournament on October 28th now, I quite frankly do not give a flying fuck. The competition, if that is what you call it, stinks - ruined by corporate greed. Although T20 cricket is here to stay and is a great money spinner for the counties, cricket is in danger of over killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

65 comments:

  1. You write an almost 1000-word article about a tournament and end it saying that you "do not give a flying fuck" about the same. Interesting!

    I'll quickly get to the point I want to make here. This tournament may be called a 'Champions' League, but in reality, it is not so. It is a tournament, privately conceived by the three Cricket Boards of India, Australia and South Africa, to cater to the likes and interests of their audiences and earn the money that is present in a large quantity in the shortest format of cricket. That's it, period.

    The organisers may give some crap excuses for allowing 4 IPL teams and just 1 each from West Indies and Sri Lanka (through a qualification process, no less), who are, like you mentioned, the finalists of the recently concluded World Twenty20 Championships. I don't care about those reasons or excuses, and hence I haven't even bothered to look them up.

    I look at this entire scenario in this way:-

    The Champions League Twenty20 Tournament in owned, managed and run by BCCI (50% stake), CA (25% stake) and CSA (25% stake). Thus, it is only fair that they should have teams from their region participating in the ratio of their ownership shares. As for the remaining countries' representation, it is upto the three Boards to decide on that.

    For what it's worth, I wouldn't be surprised to see this tournament restricted to the teams of the owners alone if they decide tomorrow that the others aren't adding the value that they have been brought in for. As of today they think that they'd like to have 2 more teams but also want to invite 5 other Member nations' Boards, so they have set up a Qualifying system to fit their requirements.

    I don't see why anyone should have a problem with that. It is a privately-run organisation that invited 6 teams from 5 other countries to be a part of their show. If they didn't want to, the invitees could reject their invitations. If what I hear is true, the English counties plan to do that from next year, because the cricket season would need to be curtailed/altered otherwise.

    I don't care what the holier-than-thou white-hats from the Governing Board of the Champions League T20 Tournament have to say, I treat it as a tournament run for commercial interests, and as a matter of fact, I have no objections to institutions run as such.

    I don't have a problem with private hospitals run with a profit-motive as long as they provide the medical services. I don't have a problem with private schools and colleges run with a profit-motive as long as they provide education. Similarly, I don't have a problem with a privately-governed tournament run solely with profit-motive as long as it provides cricket.

    As far as participation of Trinidad and Tobago players in their IPL teams is concerned, the reason is not a secret. Every player signs a contract with the IPL team that he plays for, with a clause committing him to the same team in case they qualify for the Champions League. It may not be fair, and like you said, it follows the we-are-the-owners-and-these-are-our-rules scenario, but then that is how it is. The players know about this beforehand, and when they sign up with a franchise, they are admitting to have no objection to this clause. There is no coercion, and this has been the system since the very first edition of this tournament.

    (contd...)

    ReplyDelete
  2. (contd...)

    Like I have tried to stress on in my previous comment (almost as big as a blog on its own), it all comes down to choice - choice of the part of invited Boards, choice of the players, and ultimately, choice of the spectators. I am an Indian, but not very interested in this tournament (despite the presence of 4 IPL teams). Hence, I am not going to follow it as studiously as I usually do for other cricket tournaments. I will give myself the time to catch up on my work that lagged behind during the World Twenyt20 Championships in Sri Lanka, and hence will catch up only on the night matches at this Champions League.

    But even if I were to not give a 'flying fuck' about the tournament, I would still respect its right to be a part of the cricket calender and its objective to earn money as a privately-formed and -funded institution.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Naveen, thanks for your comments, well written and valid points. I still care about cricket, I'm passionate about cricket and only time will tell if the English counties turn down an invite when this sort of money is on the table. I would love them to, to be honest as our county season in the UK has now been affected by this form of cricket.
    And then everyone knows about the KP saga...

    Thanks for the points and keep following the blog. Dan

    ReplyDelete
  4. i would like to add one particular thing. the precedence for the champions league t20 is the uefa champions league.i assume the blog writer knows all about the setup of how the teams are chosen there(four teams for some countries only one for some). you dont hear anyone complaining about that. more importantly the money given to the participating clubs is related to where they are from(one of the previous years man utd made more money than the eventual champs even as they went out in the quarterfinal i think).

    so please, the blog writer, discuss these issues. dont exaggerate them. they are just being realistic. the only thing you can accuse them of is not being idealistic. the champions league t20 is not fair, but what else in life is?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Prabhat, Firstly thanks for your comments. UEFA are also bullies along the lines of the BCCI, and have a specific interest in their little boys club. The Dutch got to the last World Cup final but only have one side to being from a smaller country is wrong. At least in football the players play for one side though, and aren't forced by the majority shareholder to play for their own countries clubs.

    Agree with you that life is not fair though - haha!

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  6. An english guy complaining that CLT20 is wrong is very funny.How about 4 english footie clubs in footie champions league ? Nothing wrong with that,eh ?
    Also you have the galls to call the BCCI a bully.When this tournament was set up BCCI invited cricket boards from SA,OZ,WI and UK to be partners in this venture.However,they decided to sit in the lap of Stanford.Is that BCCI's fault.This is the most biased and shittiest article on BCCI which i believe has many faults to begin with but still they don't associate with criminals who loot people's money like stanford.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Can I just point out that the UEFA Champions League qualification is based on a merit orientated coefficient. The better your teams perform the more places you get. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_coefficient#Current_ranking

    The Champions League T20 is a different kettle of fish altogether. The reason why the India, Australia and South Africa get direct entry is because they own the competition and they make the rules. India does not have 4 teams on playing merit it has 4 teams because it provides the money.

    Personally I despise the BCCI and all it stands for. Actually there is plenty to dislike in about India society in general. Gross economic inequality, greed, an entrenched and discriminatory class system, the condescending and hypocritical arrogance of the ruling classes etc. etc.

    Unfortunately, through TV contracts, the BCCI happens to own World cricket. Giles Clarke should have realised that and compromised and negotiated with the BCCI and the IPL rather than fight them. The simple fact is that the Indians have more money and more power. English cricket might be wealthy by its own but it can't buy the compliance of other countries the way that the BCCI can.

    All I can say is that cricketing neutrals now view India as an unattractive bully and from now on neutrals will always want to see India lose no matter who they are playing. You already started to see that in Sri Lanka.

    ReplyDelete
  8. To the earlier poster,UEFA champions league is not based on any better method.Holland reached the world cup final still only 1 team of theirs plays in the champions league while the piss poor english loosers have 4.Howzat ???

    As for your hatred of indians and indian society it is nothing new to hear an englishmnen say that.English people are the biggest racists in the world with their colonial history and we welcome that you hate us.

    As for neutrals not liking indian team we don't care.All the neutral cricket supporters combined are still less than the indian team supporters.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Boys, debate cricket as much as you want but any racism here will be deleted straight away. I'm English and welcome much of what India has given to the world. I have many Indian friends. I just do not like the BCCI.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  10. The UEFA coefficient is based on the performances of a country's clubs not the national team. Holland might have a good national team but is clubs are rubbish. Same with Portugal and any other of the smaller countries.

    Ha ha. Keep reminding yourself of the hundreds of millions of your own people living in abject poverty before you start criticising others. Wealthy Indians should be ashamed of themselves. The British didn't hate India otherwise they wouldn't have colonised it. Anyway being ruled by the British was preferable to being ruled by the Muslims before them. Why do you think the Indian ruling classes supported the British until the 1920s. Also if you hate the English so much why are you speaking and writing English?

    Also it is likely that sooner or later the IPL will cannibalise Indian cricket. Your batsmen struggle outside Asian conditions, you don't have any decent fast bowlers and your fielding is woeful. Playing T20 won't solve any of that.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dan i only responded on what the earlier poster had said about indian society in general which the author of this article also seem to touch upon.
    Does he understand what aparthied is and what is the indian caste system about ? It is such an insulting comparison to every indian.It is like saying Hitlers nazi army and the british forces in afghanistan are one and the same.
    You may or may not like the BCCI but to comment on such sensitive issues in a cricket article is just not done.For the fact i also don't like the BCCI politics but the truth remains that it did no go running into the arms of Stanford like your messiah ECB did.So be fair and sensitive when you write articles.

    ReplyDelete
  12. What I said wasn't racist it was the truth. Hundreds of millions of Indians live in abject poverty whilst the well off live lives of luxury. I happen to think that is wrong. They justify this through the Hindu religion and the associated caste system.

    Look in up in a book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So are all britishers equally wealthy ? I don't think so.What has hindu religion got to do with this.Do you know that almost all religions in india practice some form of caste system at the micro level.It is a cultural thing not a religious thing.

      Delete
  13. Dan and the rest. As I tried to point out in my previous article re the scheduling the world T20 and various football tournaments, its not about the BCCI specifically but sports organisations in general. Allboth clubs and governing bodies have sold out to corporate greed. A few examples are Arsenal FC, the most cash rich club in the world, charging the highest admission prices yet year on year short changing its fans by making transfer profit by selling its best players. Look at Newcastle FC selling its shirt sponsorship to Wonga.com, a company that capitalises on those fiscally challenged charging crazy interest rates to cause misery and may hem. FIFA just read my thoughts on the world cup bidding process. UEFA, staging champions league finals ay grounds stuffed to the hilt by suit wearing chronies, while the loyal fans are shut out. The list goes on, fans are disregarded as the dough is trousered!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yes I know what apartheid is. A system of discrimination based upon the colour of your skin, which you cannot change.

    The caste system is a system of discrimination based on your social class, which you cannot change.

    The parallels are striking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha,ha! Then it shows that your knowledge of the caste system is very poor.Also,to mention there is no widespread discrimination based on caste anymore.In fact as a % it will be less than the widespread racist discrimination that exists in UK.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  15. Millions of indian people live in poverty because of the looting of the british.I believe your queen still has our Kohinoor diamond.Has she returned it ? No,just like ECB didn't return the money to Stanford investors.
    Don't worry we are sending thousand of people by immigration every year to recover our wealth and soon there will be more people from india in the england.Then we will talk in english or any other language you will be forced to understand then.Which one would you like to learn,punjabi eh ?
    As for cricket,world cups will keep happening in india every few years and we will keep winning them.Thats all i care.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. India is a wealthy country. The problem is not a lack of wealth it is the way that the wealth is distributed. If you think it is morally justifiable for cricketers to get paid millions in the IPL whilst hundreds of millions live in abject poverty then so be it. I just happen to believe that it is wrong.

      Delete
  16. I wrote the article above. If it has caused offence I apologise but thought it was relevant. As mentioned earlier I have many Indian friends and team mates cricket wise. In no way are we racist or discriminatory - we rip the piss out of everyone, most of all ourselves. Let's stick to discussing cricket chaps shall we? And cut the hatred, no need for it - handshake after the game and let's go and have a beer together :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dan take your apology but the comparison between aparthied and caste system was totally ridiculous and you don't need to qualify it by saying you have indian friends.You know thats what a racist says after offending black people that he/she has black friends.
      At least you are man enough to consider the sensivities involved and apologised for offence caused.
      I have a kind suggestion and hope you take it in the right manner.You hate the BCCI and i also don't like it.But the manner in which your article conveyed it with comparisons to indian society and caste system made it sound very rich,pompous and particularly Racist coming from an english person.So my advise is continue criticising BCCI for all its offences which maybe right or wrong as they are in the CLt20 case but don't generalise the BCCI to indian society or people at large

      Delete
  17. Final warning. Stick to cricket or I'm barring people.

    ReplyDelete
  18. By the way here is the article we wrote about Stanford in April of this year.

    http://www.themiddlestump.com/2012/05/seduced-by-slimy-stanford.html

    ReplyDelete
  19. Why is it that there is never a discussion about the CLT20 without it ending is comparisons to UEFA or shouts of racism. At the root of it all is money, it makes no difference which sport you look at those with the cash are those with the power and the only way that will change is by teams/countries making a stand and saying no. It will be interesting to see if the English counties turn down the invites next year but to be honest I dont think a lot of them can afford to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Point taken my Indian friend :) Neil, I believe from no less a source than George Dobell, that we are turning it down next year.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think we all know the game here.

    The BCCI made up the game - whoever plays - need to abide by their rules. Dont like the rules? Then dont play.

    It's all about the money - the fact that cricket is the avenue is but a coincidence.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  23. It's quite strange how some people flare up with someone who gives a different opinon to their own. I personally don't think the BCCI are an admirable bunch but I do not save that criticism for them as anyone who has read numerous articles on this site will know. I hate greed, corruption and simple dough trousering at the expense of the fans, who whether administrators/highway man like it or not are the lifeblood of the game. Without passionate fans sport will die. But the sickening governing bodies don't realise it. Look at Richard Scudamores infamouts 39th game/step aka the premier league international round, where a season ticket holder shelling out a small fortune would have to travel to Mumbai to watch a home game. Personally I would like to push Scudamore down 39 steps. Clubs and governing bodies pump out propaganda. When anyone dares criticise them an army of drones go ballistic and shoot from the lip rather than offering reasoned opinion. Arsenal are the worst as if anyone dares question Mr Wenger an army of yes men are mobilised to defend him. That is beacuse he is the ultimate cash cow for Stanley Kroenke aka the Denver Dough trouserer. I think in future more sports fans will rebel as they realise they are being sold down the river by the likes of the BCCI, ECB, ICC, EPL etc.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Very interesting debate guys - you know me and cricket, I just love the game, love what the guys at the Middle Stump do for Factor 50 and love the passion contained herein!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hello my Lancashire lovely, good to see you on here! As for other comments - if they have fuck all to do with cricket or sport in general, they're getting deleted straight away. Happy to listen to sensible debate, but will not tolerate comments that are racist, or accuse people of colonialism etc etc.

    Keep the sensible cricketing comments coming though?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Fantastic piece.
    Few interesting points that I would like to point out. Why are Hampshire the Hawks when I thought they signed an agreement with the Rajasthan Royals to become the Hampshire Royals.
    The tournament is a Mickey Mouse tournament that few outside of India care about, until it becomes fair and an even spilt of 2 teams per test playing nation with players like Narine playing for their home team not their pension funding IPL team.
    BCCI shouldn't be involved it should be the ICC, you don't see Michele Platini demanding that his native France should have more teams than the English in the Champions league. (Although deep down I'm sure he would.)

    Keep up the entertaining work TMS

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thanks Greg. Our Southampton correspondent, Tom Huelin pointed out two things this morning. 1)They are the Hampshire Royals 2)I'm going to cop a lot of shit from Indian fans. He was right on both counts.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Just pointing out that Nashua are a sponsor not the place where the Titans come from. The Titans in fact come from Pretoria and used to be called Northern Transvaal before the new franchise teams were created. The Lions on the other hand used to be called Transvaal and come from Johannesburg. Confusing? Maybe.

    Now all you need to work out is where the Dolphins, Cobras, Warriors and Knights come from and who they represent!

    ReplyDelete
  29. There'll be dancing in the streets of Nashua then if they win it? A bit like in the Welsh League when TNS win?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Now the "Razzamatazz" names, there is a debate worth having! Does any real cricket fan use the full names? Thankfully I now only have to go to watch Somerset play, they quick-sharp dropped the "sabres" bit. Not sure if its just because it is rubbish or if it was sulking because the pesky Welsh pipped them to the post in using "Dragons"
    that said I believe the Welsh Dragons will next season be good old Glamorgan again. ........ hussah!

    ReplyDelete
  31. I have since found out that while the Titans are based around what was Northern Transvaal they in fact play in Centurion, which is a town between Joburg and Pretoria, nearer to Pretoria though.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperSport_Series

    ReplyDelete
  32. Good article Dan!!! Myself a big hatter of BCCI. but a big Indian cricket team fan. Cricketers are fine. Administrators are greedy, selfish and horrible.


    Didn't get your point - 'They have become the reason why people dislike the USA,..' Just out of curiosity..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By cricketers I mean Indian cricketers. Administrators - BCCI

      Delete
  33. We should have known where Nashua was as we spoke at length with Matt Maynard this summer. LalAlex, most of the world hates the States don't they? Often bullying smaller countries to get their own way, a bit like the BCCI! :) Thanks for the comments and glad you are enjoying the site. I don't know how old you are but article on India v Aus tied test from 86 in the previous article.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Extremely interested in this concept you have mentioned -BCCI bullying.Can you give any specific examples ? I believe that all decisions at ICC level are taken in the presence of all board members of the ICC.Isn't so ? Has the BCCI got more than 1 vote at the ICC table or the power of veto which a few years ago the english board had and now misses it so much ? Is this what you call bullying - the lack of power of the ECB ? Would really like to understand this concept.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "BCCI has been known to use its power to influence the ICC's decisions over scheduling, player suspensions and ICC appointments. As India is by far the biggest market in terms of international cricket revenue, the BCCI's opinions tend to gain a large weighting within the ICC's decision making process, with other cricketing nations unwilling to oppose due the potential loss of financial benefits associated with Indian cricket"

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the reply neil.However,its all assumption,isn't it ? I mean there is no specific evidence for all that.Still will keep an eye open at all icc media releases to find out the occurence of this unique concept.

      Delete
  35. I've really enjoyed this debate (racist comments) aside. I must admit the Champions League doesn't get the attention the IPL gets with the probable exception of India. My worry is the BCCI is becoming too big and may start to flex it's muscles even more with ICC in terms of the timings of Test matches and ODIs. There is no doubt the BCCI needs its wings clipping! Neil@ReedCC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So an asian cricket board becoming too big worries you and you want to clip its wings !!!! How gentlemenantly of you to say that.Chip of the old colonial block,eh ?
      You could have made suggestions on how the other boards can improve their game both in spectator interest and hence increasing commerical revenue.All boards getting stronger could lead to overall growth of the game and the ICC would also become stronger and could concentrate on spreading our noble game to other associate countries.Spreading the game worldwide should be the major focus of the ICC as cricket is a very small sport worldwide.

      However,the only solution you came up with was clipping the wings of BCCI and reducing all the ills of the game !!! Wow,the old boys club doesn't like to grow up,do they ?

      Delete
    2. The problem with the BCCI is that it blatantly acts in its own commercial self interest. The BCCI couldn't give a damn about cricket in the West Indies, Bangladesh or New Zealand. It has immense power and with that power comes the responsibility to act in the best interests of the game in general and not just Indian cricket's.

      The refusal of the BCCI to use endorse the Decision Review System being the most lamentable case of bizarre self interest. Also I don't think that the BCCI's obsession with money is particularly good for Indian cricket either. If it is not careful the IPL could cannibalise the Indian national team. Already India has seem its overseas Test form suffer badly and the lack of decent fast bowlers remains a problem.

      The difference between the way that the BCCI behaves and the MCC used to do is that the BCCI is inherently commercial operation that values it financial self interest first and foremost. The MCC was a private members' club whose only interest was spreading the game of cricket. Why do you think it elected India, the West Indies and New Zealand to the ICC in 1926, Pakistan in 1952 and Sri Lanka in 1981? After electing these countries it also ensured that England teams would visit them to play Test Matches. The MCC also sanctioned the creation of ODIs, the World Cup and then willing gave up its administrative role in 1993.

      What exactly did the MCC do to Indian cricket anyway? They always ensured that England played them regularly home and away. I struggle to understand where this anger and resentment comes from in a cricketing perspective.

      Delete
    3. So you think MCC was a noble organisation spreading the game hence england sides continue to play in south africa.Even when world cricket boycotted them they organised rebel tours to go there to support apartheid.
      To understand the problems in world cricket we need a brief history of cricket's administration down the years. International cricket used to be governed by England, Australia and South Africa under the aegis of the Imperial Cricket Conference which was later rechristened the International Cricket Conference (ICC). Until recently cricket was run primarily by England and Australia who enjoyed veto powers on the game's decisions and which they used to advance their own interest with occasional decisions of noblesse oblige. It was only in 1993 did the ICC become a truly democratic organisation and when the veto powers were rescinded. Today for any ICC decision to be applicable it needs a 70% vote and is hence now a truly democratic organisation.Do you have a problem with that ?

      As for MCC willingly giving up its role but sorry to inform you that it had no choice on that whatsoever.World cricket had moved on and people didn't want an elitist organisation like MCC heading it.

      With regards to DRS it is just a computer generated gimmick which has been questioned time and again by not just indian players but leading players of other countries as well.Kallis in newzealand being a recent example.DRS is just like a computer game and its results can be easily manipuated so why should the BCCI accept it ? You still want to force it down the throat of anybody without respecting others opinions.Sorry but this is not how things work in the mordern world,
      It was BCCI who gave the decisive push to bangladesh attaining test status and also has played a major role in protecting zimbabwe's full member status.So don't preach when you don't know stuff.

      Delete
  36. If you want to understand why the Indian's control World cricket you need to understand the economics and structure of the World game. Unlike the IOC, FIFA, the IAAF etc the ICC is not an independent governing body. It is merely a partnership between the 10 full member countries. ICC doesn't actually run, or profit from, the vast majority of international cricket as they are only responsible for organising the World Cup, the Champions Trophy and the World T20. All the other international matches are organised on a bilateral basis. As such the ICC has limited funds and power.

    As international cricket is run on a bilateral basis cricket boards make money from agreeing to play other countries. This means that apart from England and maybe Australia all the other countries biggest earner is playing India. By playing India, especially hosting India, the board in question gets the chance to sell the lucrative TV rights to the massive Indian market. Through this economic dependence the BCCI wields massive power that really only England and Australia are really immune from. If a country like New Zealand, West Indies, Sri Lanka etc gets in the way of the BCCI then they could well be punished by India refusing to play them. The smaller countries simply can't afford to lose the opportunity to play India so they tend to agree with what the BCCI wants.

    Why does the BCCI want to act in its own self interest some much? A couple of reasons really. The most obvious one is money. Cricket in India is a massive money maker and the BCCI will challenge anything and anyone that gets in the way of it generating and making money. Secondly there is undoubted some sense that the BCCI views that it has the right to take retribution against the 'Western cricket boards' for real or perceived grievances that they suffered when the ICC was run by the MCC and the Australians. This attitude means that the BCCI are never shy of acting antagonistically, especially towards England, due to lingering hang ups about the past. The BCCI also exploits similar feelings that exist in some of the other non-Western full members when attempting to get its own way. The case of Zimbabwe's full member status being protected by the BCCI being an excellent case in point.

    As a result most of the cricketing World realises the necessity of co-operating with the BCCI for want of offending it and so damaging their economic self interests. Australia has clearly realised this and has tended to adopt a policy of compromise and negotiation over the IPL and the Champions League T20 etc. England under the guidance of Giles Clarke on the other hand as adopted a more aggressive stance and originally attempted to fight the IPL rather than co-operate with it. A decision which I believe was a regrettable mistake and lead to the disgraceful arrangements with Allen Stanford which were an effort to head off the IPL and 'protect' England from the IPL's influence. The collapse of that deal and the subsequent Pietersen furore has shown that such a policy was a massive mistake and one which Clarke should be held accountable for.

    English cricket may well be able to operate without Indian cash but majority of the other full members can't. That economic power is the core reason behind the BCCI's dominance and control.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. well written piece, makes some good points. I agree that Giles Clarke has made some terrible decisions that yes he should be accountable for but I do not think that taking the aggressive stance was the wrong decision but rather the choices he made thereafter. I am under no illusion that the agreesive stance England has taken is somewhat futile but its good to see a good old fashioned english stance on the ground of principles.

      Delete
  37. I don't agree. England should have negotiated and compromised from a position of strength regarding the IPL. The unfortunate truth is that India are richer more powerful than England in terms of World cricket, accept the fact. England should have brokered a deal that would have served the interests of English cricket. An international window in March and April for the IPL for example and an opportunity for all English players to play it in. Maybe even a franchise based on ECB contracted England players. Who knows, there were plenty of options that could have be agreed upon. At least the ECB would have been in a position to influence from the inside like the Australians and South Africans.

    Instead Clarke let his ego get in the way and in desperation turned to the Stanford concept which had absolutely zero sporting credibility at all. Far less than the IPL. The whole Stanford episode was a shameful disgrace and throughout the whole thing the ECB came across as panicked and clueless. Once the Stanford deal collapsed the relative weaknesses of the ECB compared to the BCCI were exposed.

    Also the issue of ECB contracted players playing in the IPL remains unresolved. It is unfair and unsustainable for the ECB to prevent its players from earning more money in one month than the rest of the year by going to the IPL. Especially when inferior players from Australia, SA and NZ are raking it in. The ECB will never be able to match the IPL's money. The Pietersen episode is just the tip of the ice berg. The other players know what they are missing out on and it is going to store up trouble in the future.

    Unfortunately Clarke has the backing of the Counties that elected him and is as safe as houses. Hostility to the IPL by English cricket was a massive mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Why would it mean anything that West Indies won the World T20? English teams win the Champions League and UEFA semi-regularly and they are never in with a look-in at the Euros.

    Some of the points made against the Champion's League I'll put down to silliness rather than disingenous reasoning.

    It's pretty much a private tournament that other countries are invited to qualify for. Sure the ICC maybe shouldn't be backing it, but they organise almost everything to keep the main players happy so expecting them to have nothing to do with it is unrealistic.

    ReplyDelete
  39. You are right. It is a tournament owned by the BCCI, CA and CSA. They therefore decide the rules. If the ECB wanted to call the shots they should have laid their money on the table and got involved. As I have already said Giles Clarke decided not to get involved.

    Of all the T20 tournaments the Champions League should have been the least worrying from an ECB point of view. The ECB contracted players would not even have to play to as the counties would be using their own contracted players instead.

    Giles Clarke made a massive strategic mistake by not co-operating with the BCCI over the IPL and the Champions League. England will have difficulty managing their players in the future if they wouldn't be able to play in the full IPL. If you were an English player you would be very annoyed that you are denied a chance to make the sort of money that very average players in the rest of the world can earn.

    ReplyDelete
  40. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  41. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  42. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  43. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  44. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  45. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  46. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  47. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  48. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete