Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Occasional Fan Of course not - but the EPL has taken a successful game and made it at least as successful as it always was and arguably more so and without making any fundamental changes - it's still eleven a side and played over ninety minutes........... Why do you think it would be different in cricket? . |
OF there is no comparison to be made between ICL and the EPL. Firstly, unlike the ICL, the EPL was not a breakaway competition and remained under the banner of the football world body (FINA?). Secondly, the EPL was subject to the rules outlined by FINA - the ICL will not be subject to rules/laws set by the ICC/MCC. Thirdly, ICL is based purely on 20-20 cricket - the fate of test cricket or the developing cricket nations is of no concern to them (unless there is $$ to be made)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Occasional Fan Essentially, the ICL can't do much to change cricket at its most fundamental level.. |
But they can. They are totally independant from any other body, and do as they see fit.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Occasional Fan And bringing money into the game will not ruin it any more than it has ruined football for those who enjoy that sport... |
Money in itself is not the problem. Placing a broadcasters desire for profits above all else, as in the ICL case, is the problem we have here. Look at Australia for example. India and England tours are very profitable for CA. S.A tours are slightly profitable. NZ tours allow CA to break even. When the rest of the test nations tour, the result is huge losses for CA. If CA, BCCI, ECB cancelled all non-profitable tours, where would this leave the rest of the test nations. Fortunately they don't, unlike Zee who will, as they are only concerned with the bottom line.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Occasional Fan The only way ICL could detract from international cricket would be by forbidding its players from playing in internationals - and frankly, if they try that and succeed, international cricket will not be losing anyone it wants to retain.... |
The ICL won't do that. Providing their contracted players are available for the ICL games, they won't care less what their players do in their spare time. But what of the established boards?
They will have the following choices:
(1)Continue with the ICC four year home-and-away plan, with or without ICL players depending on availability. If they take this option and tour without the big ICL stars, previously profitable tours may well be unprofitable. This will begin the process of emptying their coffers.
(2) Modify the four year plan by working around the ICL timetable. This means some tours will be cancelled and will signal the death knell for the smaller nations that don't provide profitable tours. This will prove disasterous for the world wide growth of the game.
(3) Cut the ICL players loose. Disillusioned fans will turn away from the game if the best players in the world are not playing. Tours will flop and the established boards will start incurring huge losses. The ICL on the other hand will continue making big profits and the disparity between the two bodies will increase.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Occasional Fan Seamer, when Kerry Packer launched World Series Cricket the establishment thought it was the end of the world. Now the establishment runs matches under floodlights with teams wearing coloured strips and playing with a white ball - unimaginable before Packer did it, routine now and I don't hear anyone complaining about it. |
There is a difference here. Packer also played super tests despite them being unprofitable.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Occasional Fan The ICL, if it gets off the ground, may have some more good ideas which can be run alongside the formats we are used to now or instead of some of them.. |
Yes and i have an idea what that might entail. Bigger bats - shorter boundaries.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Occasional Fan They might force test cricket to the margins in the sub-continent, but that is something which is happening already, not because the suppliers are forcing it but because test cricket is not what the public wants to buy over there. |
This is the crux of the issue for me. If profit decides what form of cricket is played, and where, the ICL will play 20-20 in India, Australia will play England and NZ in Ashes/trans tasman contests, and the rest will not be playing much cricket at all as they won't be turning a quick buck.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Occasional Fan Test cricket can live alongside the shorter formats and will do so in some areas of the world as long as the punters buy the tickets. I don't see the end of the world coming at us here. |
I don't think so. Apart from Australia and England, the stands at test matches are basically empty. If profits are the be all and end all, test cricket will inevitably die.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Andy Mellon However, unless you want a schizm within the game of cricket, I don't think there's much one (or even a group) can do about it. |
I think, and i have been saying this for a while, that a schism in the game is the only hope the traditionalists have. Those that focus on profits go one way and play their 20-20 or whatever horrid format they decise on, those that focus on the game itself go another, and while making less money, ensure the survival of the traditional game.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nostramo Sorry, I strongly disagree. More than anything else, Football and Cricket are completely different games with different ethos. The day Cricket starts to go the way of Premiership Football, it will be the death of the game and I for one will stop watching it.. |
I have watched at least one day of every test match played at the Gabba since 1982. This is what i fear. I find 20-20 cricket horrible and compare it to seeing a pure, beautiful woman that does'nt really need money, suddenly turn to prostitution. I still have faith that their is enough traditionalists out there to keep test cricket alive, but as i say, looks like some dark days ahead.