![]() |
Comments on this story Comments have now been closed for this article
Posted by Calavai on February 21 2008, 06:32 AM GMT I find it funny when cricketers (current, old), administrators and some fans talk about their "national teams", patriotism and national loyalty. The team that calls itself Team India is chosen by a private entity BCCI with no transparency, accountability or most important, say of the Indian public. So the team is really BCCI's eleven - that's it, with an artificial construct they all players hold the same passport. I do not know of other nations but suspect this is the case. Would rather prefer ICLs and IPLs where teams can compete for talent without passport limitations and on an even keel. Better for cricket. As for the format, let those who pay (fans) decide what they want to see as opposed to those who get paid. Posted by Ash_V on February 20 2008, 17:10 PM GMT Playing devil's advocate, is it possible for IPL to be a complete flop. Dhoni playing with Hayden and Hussey? Is team spirit possible here? If not the concept is doomed from beginning. Posted by Sujay_Dallas on February 20 2008, 16:37 PM GMT On a different note, and with a hindsight, I feel Saurav Ganguly's exclusion for the ODI team was well planned and Saurav might be a party to that. Saurav is presently playing a critical role in forming the Kolkata IPL team. Wonder what SRK would have done with Saurav playing the CB Series being played in Australia! On the success of IPL, I feel it would be hugely successful. But who is paying for it? Finally the money would be coming out from the pocket of consumers and spectators. Also, with the success of IPL, bilateral cricket tours could get affected. I think ICI should try to create a Test World Cup. So three tournaments could get held in future: IPL, ODI World Cup, Test World Cup and may be 4th & 5th ones with Cricket getting included in the Olympics and Asian Games. Thats a prediction - time would tell... Posted by masterblaster666 on February 18 2008, 09:40 AM GMT Actually, if the BCCI didn't take such a tough stand on ICL (whereas logically there is nothing else one would expect them to do), IPL itself wouldn't create such a conundrum. Why can't players who play in the rebel league come back to represent the national team....what's wrong if they play for some private club, which is what ICL essentially is. Remember, BCCI's XI doesn't even legally represent the Indian national cricket team, it's a fact. It's plain unseemly coercion. IPL and ICL, together with the domestic structure of all the various countries, have the potential to provide high-quality exposure to upcoming cricketers. As for Twenty20, well even if the crowd wants "only entertainment", only cricketers with strong foundation in the basics will do well ultimately. Even in the T20 Cup, clean-striking Yuvi, Rohit Sharma and Uthappa stole a march over pros England and South Africa...and Harbhajan was tossing it up, something he doesn't do even in Tests these days!! Posted by AussiDesi on February 17 2008, 21:58 PM GMT I think the real conflict for players and the boards will come when IPL schedule expands and demands more than few weeks' commitment from players. Only time will tell how things will play out but I have a stinking suspicion that lure of money will thump country loyalty and purity of the game. On the plus side though, Cricket finally seems to be getting the right formula to sell to new countries such as here in U.S. Posted by Nampally on February 17 2008, 19:36 PM GMT Ian Chappell's opinions are personal reflection of his foresight. Money always talks in any walk of life. The older super stars will clamour for their share. A 20/20 format may be fun to watch but it is mainly for younger skilled players with fast reflexes & good eye sight. Also the very existence of IPL depends upon milking the Indian fans financially. Is Competing to produce the best city team in India adequate incentive for such high gate fee? As I see it the younger players from Indian cities will learn their game the wrong way and the older super stars will find it challenging in their aging years. Most likely, the fans will find better ways to spend their money than on IPL games, to spell the end of IPL. Hence the real 5 day Tests and ODI's will still be attractive for true cricket fans. Hopefully the ICC and all cricketing countries tailor their incentives to bring them a better brand of cricket to counter IPL decisively. Failure to act now will perish true Cricket. Posted by honjumark on February 17 2008, 17:50 PM GMT Over the last decade, there has been a handful of series, both Tests and Odis, that have provided quality cricket as well as tight contests. There is just no way you can ensure competitive matches between countries of varying resources, both human and financial, over any length of time. Add to this equation the future tours program, and you have more mismatches than contests . Clubs are the only way to ensure you have teams that can consistently compete with each other while continually raising the standard of play ( see NBA,EPL,NFL..). If cricket comes before your passport you must support this format. Let it start with 20/20, as soon as mass affinity to clubs has been established, may they move steadily up the ladder to Test Cricket. Posted by weststigersbob on February 17 2008, 14:17 PM GMT The only problem I have with the IPL is if it becomes the 'higher' of the cricketing spheres over international matches - something similar to what is happening in European Football. The IPL will give cricket new fans, and more supporters is never a bad thing. 20/20 cricket, like ODI's before them, may seem like an abomination now, but it is proven that batsmen with rock solid techniques thrive in 20/20 cricket more so than sloggers, and bowlers prepared to improvise and mix their skills also do well. Remember, a jaffa is a jaffa in any form of the game, and provided that bowlers don't have more idiotic restrictions placd on them than at present, then 20/20 cricket will have a beneficial, flow-on effect to ODI's and Tests similar to what ODI's had on Tests previously. Posted by Sanjivwin on February 17 2008, 12:20 PM GMT Whatever, IC has said is all correct in context of cricket and its longivity but my problem with this is people don't come to see the technique or skills of the cricketers. They just want the entertainment. The other factor is that Twenty20 provides the thrill of anticipating of which team is going to win because of the short nature of the game. On the one side of the coin it provides quick fire of boundries but other side of the coin is the fall of quick wickets with a blink of an eye which one day or test cricket hardly provides. Twenty20 is a seed which has germinated and the plant is rapidly spreading its branches though it requires proper management to gel with one day and test cricket. I think all forms of the cricket will survive but twenty20 may dominate in the short future though time will tell. Sanjiv Gupta Perth Australia Posted by Aditya_mookerjee on February 17 2008, 12:02 PM GMT The players and administrators must respect each other, whether they represent the same country, or other countries. We must respect the situation, that cricket is being played, even if we are not playing it. If any effort is true,then it is bound to be appreciated. Let the different leagues accommodate each other, and they will become one. Any effort will bear fruit, even if it is not apparent.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||
|