Topic: Cricket match prediction discussions - page 62. (Read 598783 times)

I understand about the fine that was given by the ICC because of the slow overrate. It is the rule and if someone breaks the rule they should be punished. I absolutely agree.

But I do not understand why someone should be punished because they just do not agree on something with the ICC. The player can post about anything he wants as long as it does not cause any problems to any place, religion, or ethnicity. He thought it was controversial and probably should’ve gone the other way and that’s why he posted about that. I don’t see anything wrong with that. And one player saying that it should have gone the other way does not prove the ICC wrong. Giving him a fine is something that indicates ICC being wrong.

ICC fined India 100%, Australia 80%, Shubman Gill 15%.

ICC fined India and Australia separately for the World Test Championship final, ICC fined India 100% and Australia 80%. India penalized 100% for going 5 overs short of the allotted time and Australia 80% for going 4 overs short. The ICC rules state that failure to complete an over within the stipulated time will result in a fine of 20% per over.

Additionally, Indian cricketer Shubman Gill was fined 15 per cent of his match fee and given a demerit point for his controversial post on social media following a controversial dismissal. According to ICC rules, no player can make any controversial post about the game on social media. However, he posted a social media post with an emoji caption of Cameron Greene's controversial catch and the ICC punished him based on that post.

If the ICC act the way they should, then there would be no requirement for any help from anyone else to popularize cricket in countries such as the Netherlands. I agree that Netherlands is a rich country. But cricket is not eligible for fund allocation from the Dutch government. There are two reasons - first of all, cricket is not an Olympic sport. And secondly "national" cricket teams in many instances are comprised entirely of foreigners. None of the governments would allocate funds to a sport that is exclusively played by foreigners.

Cricket in Netherlands is increasingly becoming a sport dominated by expats. Back in 1990s, club players were 70-80% native. Now almost 80% of the club players are non-citizens. The Royal Dutch Cricket Association (KNCB) has a policy of including only citizens in their national team. That is the reason why players like Roelof van der Merwe and Timm van der Gugten were first asked to get a Dutch passport before representing the national team. Some other teams like Namibia also follow the same approach. But that doesn't take away the fact that grass-roots cricket in Netherlands is being entirely dominated by expats now.

If cricket was an Olympic sport, then boards such as KNCB would be receiving significant amounts of funds from the national government. But the ICC has no interest in doing so. All they are doing is a hogwash. The ICC sent a proposal to IOC, for a 6-team event. They also demanded that there should be no qualifier tournament, and teams should be selected as per the ICC rankings. And this happened then:

https://www.sportskeeda.com/cricket/news-ioc-reject-icc-s-bid-included-2028-los-angeles-olympics-fresh-pitch-set-made-cricket-s-inclusion-2032-edition

IPL is not only popular in India but I think IPL is a popular name for all the cricket lovers all over the world. The IPL game has been popular since its inception.  But day by day its popularity has increased many times. When our players from Bangladesh go to play, we eagerly sit to watch that team play. And I enjoy the IPL games. The best players from all over the world are selected for IPL. It seems to me that if India was not in conflict with Pakistan then we could have enjoyed the good players of Pakistan in big events like IPL. Maybe because of the conflict between these two countries, cricket lovers cannot enjoy playing the good quality players of Pakistan.

True and for some weird reason people don't take this into account when it comes to bashing BCCI. They indeed deserve the criticism but give credit where it's due. 

Having said that spectator experience in the stadium is still horrible and needs a drastic change in mindset of BCCI's think tank.


It's a good point but at the same time why should BCCI do all the sacrifices or have a responsibility to promote cricket in rich countries like the Netherlands and ignore the poor parts of India? India is still a poor country don't you agree? If it's about supporting developing cricketing setup then BCCI definitely should do more, I agree on that.

But if the main goal is to suck out all possible revenue from India and hand them out to everyone, including rich countries and freeloaders by organizing an ICC tournament every year (Every single board supported this, except BCCI) and not addressing BCCI's concerns then somehow it looks like a new type of colonization because after all BCCI is generating 90% of revenue and not getting its fair share.

One of the reasons why the share of salary in IPL is quite low (18% is still decent, I would say) is because the BCCI uses a large part of that revenue to construct infrastructural facilities, and to fund domestic cricket. India has the largest and most complicated domestic system in the world with a total of 38 first class teams. And there are U-23, U-19 and U-16 competitions for both men and women. In the end, IPL revenues trickles down to these less known plyers and a part of that also ends up with non-playing staff such as groundmen and curators. In a way you are right. If there is no purse limit, then this distribution will cease to exist and a few top players will pocket lion's share of the revenues.

But at the same time, this is what the BCCI is doing at international level. Rather than sharing revenue with the smaller nations, they are now pocketing 38.5% of the funds. Is it that difficult for them to practice what they do at home at international level?

Well, you are free to disagree, which is fine with me but these are not my views but facts.

Atm it's around 18% but I would be very pleased and surprised if it goes to even 25-30%. Also i think we shouldn't compare Cricket with other sports leagues as cricket is a private club IMO, be it ICC or IPL and need a ridiculous amount of reforms.

And one major reason is there is no competition for IPL in cricket so hardly any pushback against the system but If by any chance some other cricket league rises up and starts spending a big percentage on players then there might be some pressure on BCCI, also don't forget there is no player's union in India.

@Sithara007 I too doubt that we will see a free market strategy for IPL player’s salary unless player’s collectively raise their voice against this system but then there’s always a risk that those player’s could then be boycotted by the franchise clubs. Lastly in the current scenario the only way a player can get a pay rise is by performing better then other’s or risk being getting the same low salary.

Those who can buy teams for IPL can never have less money. Maybe Mukesh Ambani has a huge amount of money so the rest of the team owners are not financially weak. They usually express their willingness to buy a team by calculating how much an IPL can cost. Mumbai Indians bought players for a lot of money but other teams couldn't buy players for that much money seeing that other teams have less money.  If you look at Gujarat Titans you will see that the team did not buy that many notable players but still they finished runners up in this IPL. 

We always have to use money at the right time at the right place.

Well.. I don't agree with that. If there is free market, then the tier-2 player salaries are going to increase more than the top players. As of now, not enough purse is left after the franchises purchase their top players. This will change if the free market strategy is followed. Anyway, this will not happen until there is a major revamp of the Indian Premier League, which I am not expecting for the next 10-15 years. The current purse seems too low to compensate all the players adequately. Only around 10% to 15% of the IPL salaries are currently being spent on player salaries, which is very low when compared to other leagues. The media rights revenues have gone up steeply over the years. But player salaries have not witnessed any such raise.

Yes, it does but a restriction on the purse came after all stakeholder consensus, hence the model was approved and they are gradually increasing the cap.

There is no doubt that it will definitely benefit the players but the way the auction goes I reckon a majority of the money would go to limited players.

I remember reading some reports last year that the franchise exhausts their 80%-85% purse on 4-5 players max and the rest of the 15%-20% goes to the remaining squad.

Of course, every country in Asia is very much prominent in cricket. Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Afghanistan are each quite advanced in cricket. They certainly deserve praise. However, these countries are not equal to India or Pakistan, they are not behind in any area. I would agree with you that India is now a very suitable country to host almost all forms of cricket. To get this position, they have sacrificed almost many things like time, money, effort  hard work etc. Moreover, since franchise leagues are held at different times, each league in these countries is popular.

Well.. that's what free market means. And don't underestimate the other players. Ambani and Adani maybe rich, but other franchise owners are also billionaires. For example, Lucknow Super Giants was purchased by Sanjiv Goenka for a massive amount of ₹7,090 crores. If he can spend this much for the franchise, then what stops him from spending ₹50 crore for Virat Kohli or Mohammad Shami? If such a system is in place, it will benefit the players immensely. Their salaries are going to go up by 5x or even 10x. IPL players will become some of the most expensive athletes in the world.

I agree. Giving any/all franchises an unlimited amount of money is going to be a very bad decision to take. We will see that those who have money are going to get almost all the important and good players. There is going to be a huge imbalance and it is certainly not going to work out.

And about the relegation system, I also agree that if the franchise who are very big does get relegated, it is going to be a big problem and there will be a dip in the viewership. BCCI does not want that. So that is a big reason why I think we might not ever see a relegation system in the IPL.

It would be wrong to say that cricket is popular only in India and Pakistan because cricket is very popular in several Asian countries including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. But India will undoubtedly go all the way in terms of hosting and supporting cricket.  Because only India created a stir in the cricket world by starting the domestic league, various countries such as Australia (BBL), Bangladesh, (BPL), Pakistan (PSL), West Indies (CPL), Sri Lanka (LPL), organized these domestic leagues. And every country is getting huge popularity by organizing these leagues, the main reason is that domestic and foreign cricketers have great games in these domestic leagues. These franchise leagues in different countries have taken cricket to another level.

If they do then Ambani and Adani will sweep every auction and buy every major player by outbidding everyone. RCB and CSK's owners do have money but i guess they won't be able to compete with the former duo.

So overall putting a cap on team purse is not a bad idea as it provides a level playing field to every stakeholder.

The best thing to do is to remove the limit on team purse and allow them to purchase players as they please (similar to the case with English Premier League). The franchises that you have mentioned (CSK, RCB, MI, KKR.etc) are quite rich, and maybe able to afford the top players. This will eliminate any chances of these franchises getting relegated. But then, even if they get relegated, it will have its own benefits. The division 2 league in that case will get a lot of attention, and in the end the BCCI will end up even richer. But none of this is going to happen for the next 20 years at least.

Or worse if big money making franchises like CSK, MI and RCB go down at the point table.

These guys attract the maximum number of eyeballs and contribute significantly in IPL's revenue pot so one can imagine, what would happen if there is a relegation system in place.

Agreed. It took them 15 years to start the WPL, because the franchises were concerned that it will impact the popularity of the Indian Premier League. Under these circumstances, there is zero chance that they will agree for a second division franchise league for men, especially if there are clauses for promotion and relegation. Imagine the two bottom ranking teams - Hyderabad Sunrisers and Delhi Capitals not playing in the next season's IPL. How much losses will the owners of these two franchises incur? It is simply not practical.

Right now 10 teams system is really impressive for them with BCCI needs to work on all aspects because jumping into any other way because they need to check all plus and negative points as well which are most important because as they are going this could be one of the most profitable in sports history and if I am not going wrong then surely they need to study about the USA sports system because this could be more profitable for them as there is also no relegation system, and they are growing sports positively here if they do few changes and work on structure and system cricket could be at his best here in this region.

Three, four months game and player could be most beneficial with this and franchise will be also having good revenue from this all but in near future surely these things also need few changes as well.