India VS South Africa
The first ODI will be played tomorrow. In total 3 ODI's will be played between these two teams. All three would be day and night matches. After defeating South Africa for the first time in T20 series in India, I am sure the men in blue would be trying to do the same in this ODI series. The Indian side will have a lot of new talents and it would be interesting to watch them.
Topic: ODI cricket and general cricketing discussion [self - mod] - page 838. (Read 171179 times)
I don't agree with this. Most of the teams still play 8 to 12 test matches per year, which translates to 40 to 60 days of test cricket. Much less amount of time is devoted for T20 cricket (if we count only international cricket and not the franchise leagues). IMO, there is no point for a team in playing more than 3-4 test matches, given the popularity of this specific format and the revenue it bring. In case they have separate teams for different formats, the this issue doesn't arise. But that is not the case now.
@Sithara007 the ODI format can be revamped by changing the existing rules for power play, and by arranging more Night ODI matches. Lastly in my personal opinion the ODI is a lucrative format that ICC will continue, but it needs more changes otherwise people will soon lose interest in this format too, thus it’ll be interesting to see what kind of changes does ICC implement for the ODI format.
Day/Night matches are also doing okay. Maybe it would be good if they come to some sort of consensus on boundaries, like minimum 75 meter boundaries (which should be implemented in T-20 too).
Yes this is true. When the viewers or audiences are losing interest, investment in test matches are expected to nothing but losses. Especially in Asia, the importance of test match is reduced day by day. Local cricket boards are not willing to keep test match in the series. Since T20 has more viewers, ICC should give more importance to T20 along with ODI format.
I don't agree with this. Most of the teams still play 8 to 12 test matches per year, which translates to 40 to 60 days of test cricket. Much less amount of time is devoted for T20 cricket (if we count only international cricket and not the franchise leagues). IMO, there is no point for a team in playing more than 3-4 test matches, given the popularity of this specific format and the revenue it bring. In case they have separate teams for different formats, the this issue doesn't arise. But that is not the case now.
@Sithara007 the ODI format can be revamped by changing the existing rules for power play, and by arranging more Night ODI matches. Lastly in my personal opinion the ODI is a lucrative format that ICC will continue, but it needs more changes otherwise people will soon lose interest in this format too, thus it’ll be interesting to see what kind of changes does ICC implement for the ODI format.
Yes this is true. When the viewers or audiences are losing interest, investment in test matches are expected to nothing but losses. Especially in Asia, the importance of test match is reduced day by day. Local cricket boards are not willing to keep test match in the series. Since T20 has more viewers, ICC should give more importance to T20 along with ODI format.
I don't agree with this. Most of the teams still play 8 to 12 test matches per year, which translates to 40 to 60 days of test cricket. Much less amount of time is devoted for T20 cricket (if we count only international cricket and not the franchise leagues). IMO, there is no point for a team in playing more than 3-4 test matches, given the popularity of this specific format and the revenue it bring. In case they have separate teams for different formats, the this issue doesn't arise. But that is not the case now.
For now ICC doesn't have any other go other than increasing the number of teams. Till date ICC tries to keep everything under control, and having more teams might affect the persons who are in the top authority. Real cricket lovers always stays with the test cricket, but the revenue making and time constraints have moved people to watch T20 and T10 matches more than the test and ODI matches.
The number of teams is being increased. But the problem is that most of the teams that qualify are "fake" national teams without any native players. And that is not going to do anything towards increasing the popularity of cricket. And in order to waste resources, the ICC need to cut down the number of test matches. Test cricket is dying, and there is no point in diverting the resources to a losing cause when it can be better utilized elsewhere. 3-4 test matches a year should be enough, and remaining time should be devoted to T20 cricket. I have to say that if there are absolutely no native players in a team, it is certain that the team and also the board are just trying to make some business through cricket. Eventually, that is not going to do any help for cricket in the long run. The only thing that is going to be done is those teams are going to beat the other teams which actually have native players and destroy any chances of them growing. ICC tries to do a lot of things to improve the current situation of cricket. But behind those decisions the main priority is money. Improvement of Cricket should not be the second priority of the sports body that controls cricket.
For now ICC doesn't have any other go other than increasing the number of teams. Till date ICC tries to keep everything under control, and having more teams might affect the persons who are in the top authority. Real cricket lovers always stays with the test cricket, but the revenue making and time constraints have moved people to watch T20 and T10 matches more than the test and ODI matches.
The number of teams is being increased. But the problem is that most of the teams that qualify are "fake" national teams without any native players. And that is not going to do anything towards increasing the popularity of cricket. And in order to waste resources, the ICC need to cut down the number of test matches. Test cricket is dying, and there is no point in diverting the resources to a losing cause when it can be better utilized elsewhere. 3-4 test matches a year should be enough, and remaining time should be devoted to T20 cricket.
For now ICC doesn't have any other go other than increasing the number of teams. Till date ICC tries to keep everything under control, and having more teams might affect the persons who are in the top authority. Real cricket lovers always stays with the test cricket, but the revenue making and time constraints have moved people to watch T20 and T10 matches more than the test and ODI matches.
The number of teams is being increased. But the problem is that most of the teams that qualify are "fake" national teams without any native players. And that is not going to do anything towards increasing the popularity of cricket. And in order to waste resources, the ICC need to cut down the number of test matches. Test cricket is dying, and there is no point in diverting the resources to a losing cause when it can be better utilized elsewhere. 3-4 test matches a year should be enough, and remaining time should be devoted to T20 cricket.
For now ICC doesn't have any other go other than increasing the number of teams. Till date ICC tries to keep everything under control, and having more teams might affect the persons who are in the top authority. Real cricket lovers always stays with the test cricket, but the revenue making and time constraints have moved people to watch T20 and T10 matches more than the test and ODI matches.
The number of teams is being increased. But the problem is that most of the teams that qualify are "fake" national teams without any native players. And that is not going to do anything towards increasing the popularity of cricket. And in order to waste resources, the ICC need to cut down the number of test matches. Test cricket is dying, and there is no point in diverting the resources to a losing cause when it can be better utilized elsewhere. 3-4 test matches a year should be enough, and remaining time should be devoted to T20 cricket.
@BobK71 you are right, that even though ICC is actually trying to do better it probably seems too late. The era of test cricket and One-Day Internationals are going to be dead very soon. The era of T20 and t10 is going to start very soon as well and ICC will not have any options other than increasing the number of teams in the tournaments.
I agree with @Sithara007 because I really think that the qualification process is not fair in the ICC in almost any competition. And not only talking about the men's competition. We have recently seen how unfair it was for Thailand women not to get qualified. Instead, ICC decided to give the spot to Pakistani women.
@BobK71 you are right, that even though ICC is actually trying to do better it probably seems too late. The era of test cricket and One-Day Internationals are going to be dead very soon. The era of T20 and t10 is going to start very soon as well and ICC will not have any options other than increasing the number of teams in the tournaments.
they are. more fan of fast cricket - the coulour and glittz is always so attractive to the people and fan
From ICC and the broadcaster's point of view, 70% of revenue loss is not so little and it comes from just 1 source.
We've discussed many times here and everyone is very critical on how unfair is to organize only 10-12 team WC, including the qualification process. But at the same time we have to be practical as well, after all, this money subsidizes cricket in smaller cricketing nations.
If the ICC want to limit the number of teams to 10 or 12, it is OK. But then there should be a fair qualification pathway. What happens now is that ODI ranking decides the 8 slots (where associate nations are not included), and the qualification tournament decides only the last two slots. In other sports, direct qualification is provided to only one team (hosts). Even giving direct entry to 2-3 teams is OK. But doing so for 80% of the participants is a sham. In FIFA World Cup, even teams like Brazil and Germany needs to play the qualifying tournament. We've discussed many times here and everyone is very critical on how unfair is to organize only 10-12 team WC, including the qualification process. But at the same time we have to be practical as well, after all, this money subsidizes cricket in smaller cricketing nations.
I agree with @Sithara007 because I really think that the qualification process is not fair in the ICC in almost any competition. And not only talking about the men's competition. We have recently seen how unfair it was for Thailand women not to get qualified. Instead, ICC decided to give the spot to Pakistani women.
@BobK71 you are right, that even though ICC is actually trying to do better it probably seems too late. The era of test cricket and One-Day Internationals are going to be dead very soon. The era of T20 and t10 is going to start very soon as well and ICC will not have any options other than increasing the number of teams in the tournaments.
From ICC and the broadcaster's point of view, 70% of revenue loss is not so little and it comes from just 1 source.
We've discussed many times here and everyone is very critical on how unfair is to organize only 10-12 team WC, including the qualification process. But at the same time we have to be practical as well, after all, this money subsidizes cricket in smaller cricketing nations.
We've discussed many times here and everyone is very critical on how unfair is to organize only 10-12 team WC, including the qualification process. But at the same time we have to be practical as well, after all, this money subsidizes cricket in smaller cricketing nations.
If the ICC want to limit the number of teams to 10 or 12, it is OK. But then there should be a fair qualification pathway. What happens now is that ODI ranking decides the 8 slots (where associate nations are not included), and the qualification tournament decides only the last two slots. In other sports, direct qualification is provided to only one team (hosts). Even giving direct entry to 2-3 teams is OK. But doing so for 80% of the participants is a sham. In FIFA World Cup, even teams like Brazil and Germany needs to play the qualifying tournament.
Once again, there are attempts to reform the ICC voting structure, to be discussed during the board meeting next month:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tristanlavalette/2022/09/21/a-push-for-full-membership-to-be-scrapped-amid-proposed-cricket-governance-overhaul/
I am not expecting much, and even the proposals doesn't sound unbiased. Once again, they want to distribute funds based on performance of the teams, which would result in more teams importing players from India and Pakistan and then fielding a playing XI comprised of zero citizens.
BTW, Emirates Cricket Board boss Mubashshir Usmani has once again renewed his demand for full membership status for the United Arab Emirates. If granted, it will just destroy associate cricket. A large chunk of the funds earmarked for associates will be eaten up by a team that has no citizens in the team, and they will use that funds to import more mercenary players.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tristanlavalette/2022/09/21/a-push-for-full-membership-to-be-scrapped-amid-proposed-cricket-governance-overhaul/
I am not expecting much, and even the proposals doesn't sound unbiased. Once again, they want to distribute funds based on performance of the teams, which would result in more teams importing players from India and Pakistan and then fielding a playing XI comprised of zero citizens.
BTW, Emirates Cricket Board boss Mubashshir Usmani has once again renewed his demand for full membership status for the United Arab Emirates. If granted, it will just destroy associate cricket. A large chunk of the funds earmarked for associates will be eaten up by a team that has no citizens in the team, and they will use that funds to import more mercenary players.
Right, when everyone is talking about reducing the number of foreign players on the team it feels like ICC is trying to give more credibility to this. They are not at all worried about improving cricket as a game. All they are concerned about is generating more revenue and doing so as quickly as possible. I strongly believe that if the fund is distributed based on performance, then it would be extremely unfair for those teams, which are actually made up of players from their own country, to receive money from the fund. If that happens usually every team is going to try to get foreign players on the team. For some reason, I think that it is going to be a really bad decision for the future of cricket.
some rich country can buy players but the real essence of playing for the country is lost then
Once again, there are attempts to reform the ICC voting structure, to be discussed during the board meeting next month:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tristanlavalette/2022/09/21/a-push-for-full-membership-to-be-scrapped-amid-proposed-cricket-governance-overhaul/
I am not expecting much, and even the proposals doesn't sound unbiased. Once again, they want to distribute funds based on performance of the teams, which would result in more teams importing players from India and Pakistan and then fielding a playing XI comprised of zero citizens.
BTW, Emirates Cricket Board boss Mubashshir Usmani has once again renewed his demand for full membership status for the United Arab Emirates. If granted, it will just destroy associate cricket. A large chunk of the funds earmarked for associates will be eaten up by a team that has no citizens in the team, and they will use that funds to import more mercenary players.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tristanlavalette/2022/09/21/a-push-for-full-membership-to-be-scrapped-amid-proposed-cricket-governance-overhaul/
I am not expecting much, and even the proposals doesn't sound unbiased. Once again, they want to distribute funds based on performance of the teams, which would result in more teams importing players from India and Pakistan and then fielding a playing XI comprised of zero citizens.
BTW, Emirates Cricket Board boss Mubashshir Usmani has once again renewed his demand for full membership status for the United Arab Emirates. If granted, it will just destroy associate cricket. A large chunk of the funds earmarked for associates will be eaten up by a team that has no citizens in the team, and they will use that funds to import more mercenary players.
Right, when everyone is talking about reducing the number of foreign players on the team it feels like ICC is trying to give more credibility to this. They are not at all worried about improving cricket as a game. All they are concerned about is generating more revenue and doing so as quickly as possible. I strongly believe that if the fund is distributed based on performance, then it would be extremely unfair for those teams, which are actually made up of players from their own country, to receive money from the fund. If that happens usually every team is going to try to get foreign players on the team. For some reason, I think that it is going to be a really bad decision for the future of cricket.
From ICC and the broadcaster's point of view, 70% of revenue loss is not so little and it comes from just 1 source.
We've discussed many times here and everyone is very critical on how unfair is to organize only 10-12 team WC, including the qualification process. But at the same time we have to be practical as well, after all, this money subsidizes cricket in smaller cricketing nations.
We've discussed many times here and everyone is very critical on how unfair is to organize only 10-12 team WC, including the qualification process. But at the same time we have to be practical as well, after all, this money subsidizes cricket in smaller cricketing nations.
If the ICC want to limit the number of teams to 10 or 12, it is OK. But then there should be a fair qualification pathway. What happens now is that ODI ranking decides the 8 slots (where associate nations are not included), and the qualification tournament decides only the last two slots. In other sports, direct qualification is provided to only one team (hosts). Even giving direct entry to 2-3 teams is OK. But doing so for 80% of the participants is a sham. In FIFA World Cup, even teams like Brazil and Germany needs to play the qualifying tournament.
Once again, there are attempts to reform the ICC voting structure, to be discussed during the board meeting next month:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tristanlavalette/2022/09/21/a-push-for-full-membership-to-be-scrapped-amid-proposed-cricket-governance-overhaul/
I am not expecting much, and even the proposals doesn't sound unbiased. Once again, they want to distribute funds based on performance of the teams, which would result in more teams importing players from India and Pakistan and then fielding a playing XI comprised of zero citizens.
BTW, Emirates Cricket Board boss Mubashshir Usmani has once again renewed his demand for full membership status for the United Arab Emirates. If granted, it will just destroy associate cricket. A large chunk of the funds earmarked for associates will be eaten up by a team that has no citizens in the team, and they will use that funds to import more mercenary players.
Mubashshir Usmani is very enthusiastic about overseas players from various foreign countries. In this way they have given permission to their various agents. They want more players where almost everyone can be an outside player. Such a decision by him will definitely cause a backlash among the local players. They will be discouraged from cricket. As a result, their country's cricket will be more hindered in the future. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tristanlavalette/2022/09/21/a-push-for-full-membership-to-be-scrapped-amid-proposed-cricket-governance-overhaul/
I am not expecting much, and even the proposals doesn't sound unbiased. Once again, they want to distribute funds based on performance of the teams, which would result in more teams importing players from India and Pakistan and then fielding a playing XI comprised of zero citizens.
BTW, Emirates Cricket Board boss Mubashshir Usmani has once again renewed his demand for full membership status for the United Arab Emirates. If granted, it will just destroy associate cricket. A large chunk of the funds earmarked for associates will be eaten up by a team that has no citizens in the team, and they will use that funds to import more mercenary players.
Once again, there are attempts to reform the ICC voting structure, to be discussed during the board meeting next month:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tristanlavalette/2022/09/21/a-push-for-full-membership-to-be-scrapped-amid-proposed-cricket-governance-overhaul/
I am not expecting much, and even the proposals doesn't sound unbiased. Once again, they want to distribute funds based on performance of the teams, which would result in more teams importing players from India and Pakistan and then fielding a playing XI comprised of zero citizens.
BTW, Emirates Cricket Board boss Mubashshir Usmani has once again renewed his demand for full membership status for the United Arab Emirates. If granted, it will just destroy associate cricket. A large chunk of the funds earmarked for associates will be eaten up by a team that has no citizens in the team, and they will use that funds to import more mercenary players.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tristanlavalette/2022/09/21/a-push-for-full-membership-to-be-scrapped-amid-proposed-cricket-governance-overhaul/
I am not expecting much, and even the proposals doesn't sound unbiased. Once again, they want to distribute funds based on performance of the teams, which would result in more teams importing players from India and Pakistan and then fielding a playing XI comprised of zero citizens.
BTW, Emirates Cricket Board boss Mubashshir Usmani has once again renewed his demand for full membership status for the United Arab Emirates. If granted, it will just destroy associate cricket. A large chunk of the funds earmarked for associates will be eaten up by a team that has no citizens in the team, and they will use that funds to import more mercenary players.
It was a really shitty move and surprisingly no one from the cricketing world made any fuss except a couple of Op-ed.
ICC didn't even discuss this issue in their meetings so it's clear what their thought process is. Maybe the cricketing world would have taken this issue seriously if the Indian W team was the beneficiary of this fuckup.
ICC didn't even discuss this issue in their meetings so it's clear what their thought process is. Maybe the cricketing world would have taken this issue seriously if the Indian W team was the beneficiary of this fuckup.
The mainstream media hardly covers any of the qualifying matches. I mostly depend on blogs and social media to follow associate cricket, since ESPN-Cricinfo usually ignores such competitions. Another factor is that associate representation is very thin in the ICC. And now it is even thinner after the election of the pro-BCCI Pankaj Khimji (Oman) as one of the associate representative. The other two representatives (Imran Khwaja and Neil Speight) are unable to do much on their own, and constantly gets sidelined.
But those who survive are really iron ladies - those who stand by their will and makes a differences
September 30, 2022, 12:20:16 PM
It was a really shitty move and surprisingly no one from the cricketing world made any fuss except a couple of Op-ed.
ICC didn't even discuss this issue in their meetings so it's clear what their thought process is. Maybe the cricketing world would have taken this issue seriously if the Indian W team was the beneficiary of this fuckup.
ICC didn't even discuss this issue in their meetings so it's clear what their thought process is. Maybe the cricketing world would have taken this issue seriously if the Indian W team was the beneficiary of this fuckup.
The mainstream media hardly covers any of the qualifying matches. I mostly depend on blogs and social media to follow associate cricket, since ESPN-Cricinfo usually ignores such competitions. Another factor is that associate representation is very thin in the ICC. And now it is even thinner after the election of the pro-BCCI Pankaj Khimji (Oman) as one of the associate representative. The other two representatives (Imran Khwaja and Neil Speight) are unable to do much on their own, and constantly gets sidelined.
September 30, 2022, 05:08:14 AM
It was a really shitty move and surprisingly no one from the cricketing world made any fuss except a couple of Op-ed.
ICC didn't even discuss this issue in their meetings so it's clear what their thought process is. Maybe the cricketing world would have taken this issue seriously if the Indian W team was the beneficiary of this fuckup.
ICC didn't even discuss this issue in their meetings so it's clear what their thought process is. Maybe the cricketing world would have taken this issue seriously if the Indian W team was the beneficiary of this fuckup.
The mainstream media hardly covers any of the qualifying matches. I mostly depend on blogs and social media to follow associate cricket, since ESPN-Cricinfo usually ignores such competitions. Another factor is that associate representation is very thin in the ICC. And now it is even thinner after the election of the pro-BCCI Pankaj Khimji (Oman) as one of the associate representative. The other two representatives (Imran Khwaja and Neil Speight) are unable to do much on their own, and constantly gets sidelined.
Jump to: