Topic: Cricket match prediction discussions - page 130. (Read 608028 times)

Do you believe that the stance will change, in case someone from the opposition replaces Jay Shah? The blanket ban on touring Pakistan was imposed when the current opposition (UPA) was in power. The NDA just continued with the same policy. And IMO, an NDA government is more likely to approve cricket tours to Pakistan when compared to UPA, since the latter is already under pressure for their soft stance against extremism. But then, Jay Shah seems to be one of the hawks within the NDA appointed administrators. Someone like Anurag Thakur maybe more favorable to resuming cricket ties with Pakistan.

Agreed, the religious extremists won't let the players to Pakistan. In simple the government which is running based on religion will try to do some politics out of it. This drama will continue, because within two years the election is scheduled. Jay Shah who is the son of Amit Shah, so what the ruling government orders will be revealed through his mouth. Lets wait and see, once some incident took place and for the same we can't mark the country to be the same all the time.

Aray Bhai chor do Pakistan aur India ki siaset or khel bas dosry batai karo acha lagta hai yaha sirf nafrat hai aur kuch bee nahi. Payar mohabat pahlai films, dramo aur ghazalo mai tha ab wo bee social media nai hatam ker dia hai.

a part from security - INdian would always be denying to travel to Pakistan - be it politicians - players or artists.
But Pakistani celebrities do visit India - I think the religious extremist do not let the Indians go to Pakistan.

Migration only becoming easy in modern times and If they are naturalized then why it's an absurd idea? Middle eastern countries are on steroids due to their fuckery but in western sphere it's not a problem.

You making sound like only BCCI will object to this idea. Do other subcontinent cricketing boards have any sort of will despite being a freeloader or to some extent CSA, NZC?

Something that is happening now cannot be compared with something that happened 100 years ago because they are different events. The truth is that this is an absolutely bogus rule that, as far as I'm aware, only exists in cricket. I really do not believe that the national team should be made up of foreign players. There is no way that is fair for everyone in that situation.

In addition, if we talk about equal distribution of revenue, I don't think that it is going to happen because it is obvious that India will oppose any idea that promotes an equal distribution of revenue. This is because they are the ones who bring in the most revenue.


Regards

Duke

Look at it that way.

100 years back British officers and nationals used to feature in Indian, Australian and SA teams (although it was amateur level) regularly so building teams and cricket culture through migration is a process IMO. This might look dodgy at the start when compared to a team with local players but in a long term, this should help at least for a few countries. 

Really good for both the teams to improve their performance. Slowly Women's cricket is growing and this tour is really good decision. When controversy keeps circulation, Ireland women's team touring Pakistan will have positive thoughts. Maybe more other countries will tour Pakistan and in the upcoming days we can see more Pakistan people support Ireland team while playing against other teams.

Already completed very long debate about this all which was useless because ICC is not going to change attitude and their way of work which is never been suitable for this game and many countries which are looking for funds as they are able to develop this game in their countries but sadly no positive development happening and ICC is also never been interested because they are looking for deep pockets which helps them for increasing their profit, and they are able to do things which they want to do by their own without doing any positive work.

Few countries which can do good, but sadly they have no funds are also ignored by ICC and few countries which are not having any native player, and they can't do anything for the development of this game are having good links here in this organization it's simple end of this all talk.

ICC is a sports body and the point of having a sports body is that it will make equality among all the teams. But the ICC is not being able to do that. ICC is favoring the BCCI nowadays a lot.

And honestly, I do not mind ICC favoring the BCCI as long as it does not create any problems with the other cricket boards or teams. But the way ICC is going about things it feels like India is the only team that they care about. The others are just there to participate. What is going to happen if the venue of the Asia cup is moved away from Pakistan?

Ireland women cricket team has arrived in Lahore - Pakistan. They will be playing 3 one day and 3 T20 match with Pakistani Women Cricket team.
This is the first time Ireland team visited Pakistan - the matches will be held in Qaddafi stadium from Monday.

As cricket expands globally, competition in cricket will increase and cricket organizations will also be able to collect large amounts of revenue from it. However, to make the potential source of income, the highest organization of cricket, ICC, has to come forward. ICC's dedicated role will enable cricket to expand further.

I am also in favor of equal revenue distribution. But then, there is a counter argument to this. Look at the so called "national teams" in Europe and West Asia. Most of them are 100% comprised of medical students, expat businessmen and even tourists. Do you believe that allotting millions of USD to such teams would be a good idea? If that happens, then half of all the first class cricketers in India will pack up their bags and move to European and Middle Eastern countries the next day. Funding for associate countries should be increased only if the team is comprised of citizens.   

Generating revenue is one of the most efficient ways of earning in cricket or in any sport. But the revenue will be greater when more people become interested in that particular sport. But cricket is not very popular around the world. Also, ICC is not doing a good job of keeping the spectators interested in cricket, who are already watching as well. I know that hosting a cricket match costs a lot to arrange. But I believe if many more teams were playing cricket all these things that we are talking about (not generating enough revenue, a certain board being the most powerful) wouldn't have been any problem.

@Sithara007, I agree with you. But my opinion is that no cricket board should be more powerful than the other. I believe that all that frequent boards should be treated equally. Regardless of which cricket board is bringing the most money to the ICC.

That's the only way for ICC to compensate BCCI and if other boards were in a similar situation then they would've liked similar arrangements as well, that's how all disputes are settled when the playing field is not the same.

On BCCI 3x funding, the counter argument would be, they contribute 80% of revenue so getting back 15-20% is only fair.

Personally, I am in favor of equal distribution of revenue among all members, not just full test nation but associates too. But we know if it happens then the very same test nations who complain about BCCI on daily basis will strike down this proposal because it'll directly affect their pocket too.

All teams are equal on the ground but Cricket boards aren't. When teams compete, they have the same playing field but it's a completely different ball game when it comes to Cricket boards., simply look at the voting system.

Like it or not Money is the most important thing for the ICC. That's how they subsidize test cricket for small full test members and associate nations, it's not perfect by any means but at least they have a system in place, even though it's crumbling.

Just to give you one small example of why money is important for ICC and every board; DRS and Hotspot Tech facilities cost $60-80K per match day. Every international match has this system in place (barring hotspot sometimes) and not every international match generate enough revenue. I hope you get the gist.

Nothing is permanent. Two decades ago, India was a nobody in terms of TV revenues. There were too many government regulations and it was impossible for the private broadcasters to get a return from their investment. Rules were changed and only after that sports broadcasting became profitable in India. Pakistan and Bangladesh at this point are where India were in the late 90s. If the full potential in these two countries are realized, then they can also emerge as major markets for the ICC. But at this point, combined revenue from these two countries stand at around 2% of the revenues from India.

I just want to add one point here. We go so crazy for money sometime that we forget that at the end we will be worrying about our health and safety
All these players and the hi-fi profile retire at the end. And nothing helps them but their good dealing. Sometime this is all stuff goes beyond the crazy

If money is the most significant thing for the ICC, and if India is the favorite of the ICC because they are bringing in the most amount of money, I think ICC should be renamed from the international cricket council to the Indian cricket council. 😒

And if money is all that matters, award every title possible to India. Because no one else is contributing to the Treasury and that's why no one else has the right to win the title, right?

What's the point of having a sports body when that certain sports body is not going to be able to bring equality among all the teams and cricket boards?

I agree that India contribute the most to the ICC revenues, both directly and indirectly (through the diaspora). But at the same time, the BCCI is already receiving preferential treatment from the ICC. Every year two months of the cricketing calendar is blocked so that BCCI can schedule the IPL. None of the other boards are being given this luxury, and the ICC doesn't get anything in return. Also, the BCCI is given 3x funding from the ICC compared to other test nations (although they don't need it really). Even when it comes to hosting major tournaments, the BCCI is being given a preference.

I guess you missed out my response to the same user and towing with the favorable argument is not going to help in the discussion IMO but anyway

You brought up an excellent point about what gives BCCI any authority to impose its views on others, despite contributing most of the money to ICC's piggy bank, i completely agree with that.

But at the same time, why do other boards feel entitled to the same treatment when they are contributing virtually nothing to the treasury? Please answer this..