Big Three take over ICC?

[mikesiva]

"The ICC is to consider a comprehensive structural overhaul of world cricket administration that will effectively cede most executive decision-making to the BCCI, Cricket Australia and the ECB. A draft proposal on these lines will be presented to the ICC Executive Board during its quarterly meeting in Dubai on January 28 and 29."

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/cont ... 10723.html

If this comes to pass, it will be a sad day for world cricket....

I always knew that the ICC only gave lip service to teams like the West Indies, but now there is no pretense any more.

And I suppose this means that the WIndies will play less Test cricket....

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/cont ... 10707.html

'The draft of the proposals, made available to member nations following a special Board meeting on January 9 in Dubai, seeks to detach the ICC from being involved in scheduling series between member nations. The alternative being recommended is a "series of contractually binding bi-lateral agreements with other full members they wish to play against." The proposal also specifies that "it is up to the full member to enter into as many or as few FTP agreements as they wish." It states that no member should be "forced to play" against another unless bilaterally agreed, or forced to host uneconomic tours with the "content and timing" of all tours being agreed to bilaterally. It could, if and when it is approved, lead to a radical change in how, and how often, the ICC's Full Members engage with each other. The reason the FTP is to be removed from central ICC control, according to the position paper, is because "the draft FTP, as it stands, contains a large number of unviable tours."'

It's this shift in dynamics which has contributed to me falling out of love with cricket, and turning towards athletics....

[DiligentDefence]

Frankly, mike, if this comes to pass it's the beginning of the end of world cricket. I would rapidly lose interest if England spent all their time playing India and Australia and I suspect I wouldn't be alone.

[meninblue]

A representative of a Full Member board outside the BCCI-CA-ECB triad said the proposals were a radical return to the old "veto system" in which England and Australia controlled all decision-making. The newest, richest and, therefore, most influential entrant into this club of power is the BCCI.

[Arthur Crabtree]

This looks like it makes manifest what happens already. The idea of two divisions, the top division from which three sides can't be relegated seems a bit shameful to me. Sport only really works if the element of competition is real. It doesn't make sense for India, or whoever to run the competition down, unless if for short term gain.

[D/L]

As, I think, the FTP provides for all countries playing each other at least once over a period of time, this seems to be a departure from the present situation.

The report mentions unviable tours that have to take place under the FTP and, in reality, some must fit into that category.

It's a bit worrying that the BCCI may become the loudest voice in a chorus reduced to just three members.

[alfie]

This looks like it makes manifest what happens already. The idea of two divisions, the top division from which three sides can't be relegated seems a bit shameful to me. Sport only really works if the element of competition is real. It doesn't make sense for India, or whoever to run the competition down, unless if for short term gain.

Well I agree the promotion/relegation makes no sense if three nations are exempt from it. But the idea of a top tier with any of those teams missing doesn't seem feasible either...economics suggests it would not remain viable.

I would not like to see Test Cricket reduced to a three or four cornered contest : not sure this would happen though. We might see less matches in New Zealand and Sri Lanka : more two-Test series ...but this seems to be happening anyway.

I don't have a problem with more four and five Test series between the leading countries , as long as the "lesser" teams are not frozen out. How often do anyone other than England , Australia , SA or India play more than three matches anyway ? And two seems to be on the way to becoming the new three..

Only a proposal at the moment. Lot of talk yet ; and they all get a vote. Will wait and see.

[hopeforthebest]

This looks like it makes manifest what happens already. The idea of two divisions, the top division from which three sides can't be relegated seems a bit shameful to me. Sport only really works if the element of competition is real. It doesn't make sense for India, or whoever to run the competition down, unless if for short term gain.

Well I agree the promotion/relegation makes no sense if three nations are exempt from it. But the idea of a top tier with any of those teams missing doesn't seem feasible either...economics suggests it would not remain viable.

I would not like to see Test Cricket reduced to a three or four cornered contest : not sure this would happen though. We might see less matches in New Zealand and Sri Lanka : more two-Test series ...but this seems to be happening anyway.

I don't have a problem with more four and five Test series between the leading countries , as long as the "lesser" teams are not frozen out. How often do anyone other than England , Australia , SA or India play more than three matches anyway ? And two seems to be on the way to becoming the new three..

Only a proposal at the moment. Lot of talk yet ; and they all get a vote. Will wait and see.

[from_the_stands]

This will be a disaster if it goes through. It will be the end of the game as we know it.

[from_the_stands]

If a cartel of power nations was to form, surely it would include South Africa.

[m@tt]

I've heard many Indians excuse BCCI management on the basis that England and Australia used to rule based on their own interests with scant regard for others.

Sadly this shows that they still don't want to learn the lessons of cricket pasts, and even worse - England and Australia are not learning from their own pasts. They should know better.

The three boards should be doing more to involve the other nations. Yet not only does this new system give them more power and influence, it gives them a greater share of the income. World cricket will not survive if there are only three nations allowed to be financially successful.

I fully understand that world cricket cannot stand still. But there are better ways to move forward. In terms of the FTP, the main things I want are:

- minimum of three Tests per series. 2 Test series are just too short.

- no back to back series. Whilst this year's Ashes were (I hope) a one-off, in recent years we have played such double-series against Bangaldesh, New Zealand and West Indies (though the latter was a late schedule change).

- more involvement for associate nations through tri-series (ODIs and T20s). Play each other twice for a total of 6 games (because it involves 3 teams you can play the matches closer together).

- a proper format for the World Cup. Group stage plus standard knockout. The Champions Trophy format works brilliantly, but doesn't involve the smaller nations.

Problem is, money rules and if anything my suggestions would mean less money (for the main nations). ODIs make more money than Tests, whilst the World Cup in 2007 (?) was a disaster from a money/sponsorship POV because India went out in the group stage.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Good points Matt.

I'd like to see India, England, South Africa and Australia take on some responsibility for developing the game in their own continent, even to the point of opening up its domestic cricket to neighbouring countries. Not saying Holland should play in the CC, but maybe scholarships, use of facilities and coaches. I know the MCC do this kind of thing.

At least with the ECB, you know that money within the game stays in the game. Is the same true in India? I think the IPL makes money for its suits. I don't think a national team should be a means of personal gain for people on the boards. They are curators of the sport, not owners of it. What is always called a 'business model' isn't really appropriate. The aim is a healthy sport, not a maximum profit for the shareholders.

[m@tt]

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/peti ... et-council

[biltongbek]

If a cartel of power nations was to form, surely it would include South Africa.

South africa doesn't have enough money to be part of the click. They don't carry any weight desite being the number one test nation.

Just look at what happened to their season this year.

Sri Lanka test series cancelled, Indian test series shortened, they try to arrange a return test series against Pakistan and it is blocked.

I wonder how much guts the cricket boards of Sri Lanka, Pakistan, SA, New Zealand, West Indies and Bangladesh have?

[Arthur Crabtree]

I think SA are financially indebted to India. They've always automatically voted with them at the ICC. I thought India kept Aussie cricket going actually. And only the ECB was independent. The BCCI so control world cricket that the idea of them running the game with the ECB and CA feels like they are thinking of conceding influence. Which doesn't seem likely.

[biltongbek]

How could CSA be indebted to the BCCI?

We have even hosted the IPL for them?