Why not? For some years people have been questioning the state of English domestic cricket and there have been criticisms of the format of the domestic competitions for almost as long as I have been following the game. a parallel competition could be disruptive for a couple of years, but as Maranello suggests above and as we have seen happen with the Premier League, once it is a proven success it will become institutionalised. As long as the fundamentals of eleven men a side playing a bat and ball game with two sets of stumps are retained, there is no reason to suppose that a parallel competition spells the end of the world.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

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.

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)

But they can. They are totally independant from any other body, and do as they see fit.
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.


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.

There is a difference here. Packer also played super tests despite them being unprofitable.

Yes and i have an idea what that might entail. Bigger bats - shorter boundaries.

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.

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.

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.

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.

__________________

Seamer, it seems you are just repeating some fairly alarmist but completely irrelevant thoughts. Whilst your concern for the long-term survival of Test cricket is one we all share (I hope), I don't think you'lll find many takers for your "the end if nigh" reasoning, simply because it is not warranted by the facts.

I don't have time to go through the whole post here, just a few thoughts on your first paragraph: No it does not. The EPL is a private body, and is regulated by the English Football Association - FIFA has nothing to do with it. The ICL, similarly, will be regulated by the BCCI, if not in its first season, then later on. How do you know it won't? Did you speak with Chandra? Since there's nothing in the article that suggests that ICL will play by anything other than the 'normal' rules of cricket, which are set by the MCC.How do you know? Again, the article doesn't say so! And the same is true of every single domestic sports competition in the world, from EPL and other domestic football leagues, to English County Cricket! Developing the sport globally is never in the remit of any domestic sporting tournament, and why should it be?! That's the role of the sport's global governing body, whether the ICC, FIFA or the FIH.

__________________
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes
Mark Twain

Okay, I have just done a quick web search on the ICL, and it seems that, as pointed out by Seamer, the ICL is a Twenty-20 competition, being organised and led by Dean Jones working for Chandra. So apologies to Seamer and humble-pie for me. However, I still think there is not much to be alarmed about. In Jones' own words: Seems harmless enough to me. Jones, who alongwith Kapil Dev, Kiran More and Tony Greig will be running this show, further clarified: And what about Chandra's own motivation, apart from seeing a good business opportunity and making some money? Here is the man behing the ICL: Seems he is still interested in international cricket - and why wouldn't he be? Cricket support in India revolves around the Indian team; a smart businessman can use that support and start a regional competition, but only a fantasist would believe that he could replace the support that Team India has with some regional domestic competition. And Chandra's no fantasist, or a fool. In his words:

__________________
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes
Mark Twain

A vert apt comparison, though the woman in this case might actually need some of that money. I cannot believe that trained cricketers would turn to that sort of trash otherwise. I have seen the dedication with which some of the cricket coaching clubs and camps are run in India (as I am sure they are elsewhere) and it pains me to see that such technique is being wasted for the wrong purpose simply it make it more popular. It is like a technological innovation invented to operate a new and revolutionary wheelchair being stolen to be used in military aircraft.

I can just about accept the 50-over ODIs as a necessary evil; but 20-20? NO SIR!!!

I'm not sure how football is governed, but I think it is much more of a hierarchical sport than cricket, which really has no central governing body at all (the ICC only governs internationals, each national board sets its own governance in its own country and the MCC, a member club of one of the smaller playing nations, makes the Laws). Maranello is, I think, right that the EPL is governed by the FA, but the FA, I believe, is governed by FIFA, and the Laws are set at the top. The Premier League was indeed a breakaway competition, with twenty of England's top clubs leaving the Football League (which at the time was the whole professional game in England) to get it started. And whether you like or loathe some of the people who are involved these days, it is very difficult to argue that the Premier League has been bad for the game of football in England: without it, spectators would still be standing on windswept terraces in the pouring rain every Saturday, taking a leak at half time against a bitumen covered wall which might be sluiced down once a week. The fantastic stadiums which are now part and parcel of the game in England would still be pie in the sky.

With respect, Seamer, you still have not shown me anything to be concerned about. As you say, Australia and England will still be playing test cricket, as will New Zealand and maybe several other countries. That's fine with me: I'll still be able to see my favourite form of the game. Also fine with me is that fans in India will be able to see what they like best.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

Excellent research Maranello. But the last five words of the quoted sentence is the key, and shows quite clearly how the situation is untenable. The ICL will be running the show - not the BCCI. It would be the equivelent of the English county system being run by a body independent of the ECB or Australia's Pura cup being run by a body independant of the ACB. Such a situation would be totally unacceptable to the ECB and the ACB, and will likewise be totally unacceptable to the BCCI.

The crucial factor, but not the only one, will be money. The BCCI will want the revenue from a domestic Indian league, but their is no way the ICL will be willing walk away and surrender all that money. And i doubt the BCCI will even be prepared to share the money with the ICL. On this point, it is very difficult to envision any sembalnce of a compromise taking place and a bitter show down must be the inevitable consequence

Also, the BCCI will have no power to negotiate broadcasting deals of the domestic competition with other companies, as Zee will have the monopoly. Once again, this will be an unacceptable situation for the BCCI. Their is no way in the world the ACB, ECB or any of the worlds cricketing boards for that matter, would agree to such a thing. On this point, a show down between Zee/ICL and the BCCI will be inevitable.

In the event of this showdown, the BCCI will obviously not be willing to make available their players for the ICL competition. But with such money available, it is inevitable that many players will jump ship from the BCCI, and sign contracts with the ICL. Thus you will see a schism in Indian cricket. As India is the lynchpin of world cricket, this will have big ramifications for the rest of the world - in particular Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangledesh. Without all that BCCI money coming in for those three nations, what will be their fate? And the West Indies too - they have sold themselves to the BCCI and will fall into bankrupcy once the BCCI dollars stop flowing in. (We all know that the massive amount of infrastructure put into the West Indies for the 2007WC is totally unsustainable for such low density impoverished nations without outside aid)

You say the BCCI will move in and take over after a year or so. Sorry, from a hardass buisiness perspective i can't see that happening, and i seriously doubt Msrs Dev, More and Grieg will be willing to roll over in surrender. Why would they when they are in such a position of strength? I certainly would'nt if i was in their position - in fact, i would instead aim to take control the BCCI

I will also add that the dominance of the shortened version of the game in India will destroy their ability to play test cricket. If young players coming through are not invested with the skills, technique and the neccesary development of mental strength required to play test cricket, their ability to play the the longer game will be lost within a generation.

Firstly OF, i am not so sure that all 1 billion Indians have such a short attention span, that they will only enjoy 20-20 cricket. I bet their are many that hold a greater passion for test cricket - certainly Nostromo is one (i assume you are Indian Nostromo - appologies if not) The reason i suspect they are losing interest in tests is purely because they are not very good at it any more. Their skills have been watered down by such an overload of the shortened game. With the rise of ICL, this problem will only be compounded.

Secondly, if or when ICL takes off, how long before they, or some other body, attempts to pull off the same thing in Australia or England? There is certainly a hell of a lot of scope for such a thing to happen. Grieg in particular has a lot of experience in forming breakaway competitions. I'm sorry, but i doubt this issue is likely to fizzle away into nothing. The genie is out of the bottle now.

Amen to that Nostromo. I coach kids, and try to teach them things such as technique, thought processes such as how to compile innings, out-think a batsman ect, and respect for the history and traditions of the game. If 20-20 becomes the dominant form of the game, all that goes out the window. It will then simply be a matter of fielding drills, getting bowlers to forget about developing skills such as spinning and swing bowling (a dying art in Australia) and just get them to try to bowl on the spot, and the batsmen - hit the ball as hard as you can as often as you can.

__________________

Not really fussed if any of these ex-Test players (and Inzi) get involved. Think I would be more concerned if some of the current or up and coming stars were adding their name to this.

As it is, Warne is playing county cricket, McGrath and Lara have played county cricket in the past (as have most Test stars of the last twenty years) so what is the problem if they play in a domestic league in India?

The Kerry Packer era was critical to the way the game is now played, and did the game a lot of good. The best thing it did was to make players wages on a par with what a top sportsman should be being paid. The fact is now that most top Test players can make a very good wage playing Test cricket, so why do they need to play in a rogue league??

Finally, this view that 20-20 will take over from Test cricket is nonsense. It is another format to the game, it is accessible, and great fun. ODI's were supposed to have destroyed Test cricket 30 years ago, but they haven't, in fact in England Test cricket is stronger than ever, I can't see Test cricket dying in the near future, if anything if you can get new fans through the turnstiles for 20-20, it may get those same fans watching Tests. It has certainly done a lot for County Cricket attendance figurers, we can't it do the same at International level?

Well, my thoughts on this subject have been completely dismissed to date. I believe differently, and feel my concerns will be fully justified in the end. This thread will probably serve well as a timeline of developments for archival purposes if anything else.

The latest development in Australia

Cricinfo - IPL signings anger Cricket Australia

__________________