To answer your original question, this is what I would do -

Firstly, I'd dismantle the ICC from the top down and rebuild it as a flat management structure rather than the pyramid hierarchical one they have now. There's far too much power centered in the bureacratic ICC hierarchy and that needs to be removed and placed back into the full, associate and affiliate member countries.

I accept the ICC needs a figurehead/spokesperson and that person should selected from the full member country board representatives either voted for or in rotation. I'd also reciprocate the representatives by having an ICC representative sitting on all Country Cricket Boards that reports a liases with ICC boards - this is specifically so the ICC can be kept up to date on the progress, problems and running of national Cricket boards.

That would effectively end the influence any country can wield with the ICC hierarchy and have decisions based on an entirely democratic process.

Secondly, I'd create a tiered Cricket league along the lines of any other type of league system all countries operate when they have more than a handful of sides who compete against each other.

Our current system of 8 or 9 countries battling it out for the No1 spot is old, hackneyed, boring and produces staid static cricket. Sides need motivation - something to play for, whether to be crowned yearly champions or avoid relegation to a lower league. This system works very effectively in many other sports, why is it not applied to cricket? Is Cricket exempt?

I would create 3 or 4 league systems with an appropriate number of sides in each to make progression and relegation relevant. The top tier would naturally contain the majority of the current full member test playing countries, with the next tier the remainder of the Test playing countries and made up with the best of the associate countries. The next tier would be made up with the best of the associate and possibly some of the affiliate countries as well and the final one probably just affiliate countries.

The ICC talk about how important the emerging Cricket playing countries are, yet what do they do to encourage them to progress to higher levels? Nothing apart from a waste of everyones time ICC Champions Trophy once every two years - big deal.

I'd also ensure that any proposed changes to the playing rules and conditions are throughly researched and thought through before they're implemented. Unlike the hasty, flawed and botched introduction of ODI changes that were simply unworkable because they hadn't been thought through properly and were promptly dropped never to be heard of again. This is absolutely typical of the inept, incompetent management the ICC only seems capable of producing with its ridiculously top heavy bureacratic structure and is also typical of the people who have never played the game at the top level who appear to make the majority of decisions.

I'm referring of course to the selection of 11 players from 12 they introduced into ODI cricket. People complained bitterly that with that system, the side winning the toss had a significant advantage over the side losing the toss - which of course they did, because they could choose whether to bat or bowl with the knowledge of the player selection they had made before the toss.

This simply was not thought through very thoroughly, because if it had been, a simple change in allowing both sides to select their 11 from the 12 AFTER the toss rather than before it would not have given either side an advantage and would have produced the exact result the initial idea was meant to achieve.

But I suppose that was far too obvious to have been seen as the solution to an otherwise unworkable proposal which was promptly scrapped because no-one thought it through.

Is this the ICC you see nothing basically wrong with? That can't seem to implement a simple change in playing conditions and rules without making a complete balls of it?

Thats all we need.., perfectly said...

__________________
"They look like a team destined to win the world cup"......
Ian Chappel during Ind v SA in the World Cup 20-20

An interesting idea. Would you then strip the lower Test countries of Test status, or would you create a new status that applies to international games that aren't Test level (eg. the Intercontinental Cup)? And when would relegation and progression take place? I think once every two years would be enough. Would you use a points system, or just base it on victories and defeats? I'm only asking because I'm very interested in the idea.

Because your claim that the ICC is just like the UN because "it lives and does nothing for it's keep" is both wrong and nothing but a whinge cause it is not true.

The individual board, you know the ones you say you want to run the game, voted 7-3 for Darrell Hair's removal.

It is that simple. Democracy at work.

You sometimes might not like the decision but it is exactly the way I think you claim you want decisions to be made.

The boards voted and the ICC was forced to carry out their will

No umpire in the history of the game can make anyone do something they don't want to do once they have made up their mind as Inzamam and his team had.

But that is not the meaning of authority.

Hair had the authority to make his decision and he did and Inzamam had the authority within his team to do what he did.

Hair could have had all the authority in the world but authority does not make you budge, it is force. And seeing as only physical force (outside the remit of Hair, the ICC, ECB or PCB) would have got Inzi and co. back on the field what is it you want.

Hair made the decision. His authority

Hair called the match over. His authority.

Inzi took his team off. His authority.

Inzamam got banned. ICC's authority

Hair was removed following a vote amongst member nations. Their authority.

The outcome might not have been to your liking but no one overstepped the limits of their authority.

He can make all the decisions that his authority allows he to make.

And umpires still do. They have not lost that power at all.

What he has never had, never will, never can and never should have is the power to determine how the players on the pitch react to how he exercises his authority.

Players should respect his decisions, should treat him with respect etc...

However, when they don't, there are steps put in place to punish them for doing so

Well they stood by their employee for as long as they possibly could.

I thought that was one of the things you wanted them to do?

How were they supposed to know Bucknor would mess up and make such poor umpiring decisions?

Where have you been? I did so a long time ago?

So let me get on point as so many of these threads seem to push me into the position of "defending" the ICC.

Far from it.

I believe mistakes are made by them.

And I think that is where a lot of the confusion comes in between us.

Now, we can put forward that the ICC should be a smaller organisation with less bureaucracy.

Fine.

However, once an organisation puts itself forward as a global sport governing body with millions (or billions maybe) in the coffers, bureaucracy naturally increases.

The idea of a body with one member, one vote and the influence of money is diminished is noble.

No argument from me there

However, each board has its own self interest and barring decisions that obviously benefit all, all decisions will veer towards what each board can possibly get for themselves at the expense of another.

Thus, there is no way those with money (i.e. power) are going to vote on any measure that hits them financially.

They would not even bother entering into discussion about that.

The reality of the situation is that when it comes to generating and possessing money, countries like India, England and Australia will always have more than, say, WI and Zimbabwe.

Thus the changes in cricket will always be pushed by the agenda those countries wish to see.

You mention the WI, for example, 90% of the reasons for our decline are due to board failure and the decisions agreed upon by all the national boards that the ICC then has to follow.

I don't believe any of these issues are rectified by the solution you propose.

Money influences decisions the world over. If you don't remove that from society as a whole then how do you remove it from the professional industry that is cricket?

Well maybe because I am not their spokesman.

I stated my disbelief in their perfection from the very first post.

I also never said I see nothing wrong with the ICC.

What I said was I disagree with some of the criticism they receive. That's completely different.

I started the thread NOT to go through those criticisms but for people to offer what they, if they had the influence/power, would do.

Your later post on the topic actually starts with the phrase "...to answer your original question".

That's all I was looking for, not a series of questions for me to justify where and when I agree or disagree with ICC actions or your or anyone else's critique of their actions.

I'm not.

I'm trying to stimulate debate and start another thread on the messageboard.

You assume I see nothing wrong with the ICC because what I don't see some of the thing you see wrong as wrong.

Nothing in their constitution.

But nothing in the US constitution says so either.

However, the reality in life is that those with money have the most say.

And that's a small part of my point.

The theory states that it should not be like that, but the reality is that as long as money is in the game, decisions will align themselves with regards to that power.

Thus Ernest is correct. The power of money should be diminished.

However my follow up to that is: I agree with you, but how do you ensure money has no influence?

I've not heard a suggestion on that matter yet.

Well it is. I may not like how it is done but we have to be realistic don't we?

It can do it because it is in a position to wield the power to do so.

The WICB could not do so even if it wished.

Why? Because it has no power (i.e. money) to do so. Don't assume I agree with each decision.

You forgot Zimbabwe.

Probably had something to do with both teams being elected as members by the other ones.

I have no doubt of that.

But who cares if it is an Asian bloc? Would be bad if they were South American.

But where was all this vocal criticism when ENG/AUS carried the swing?

You mean they used their position for their own self interest and voted accordingly?

Probably.

And yet, I've seen no one offer a solution for eradicating that from ever happening again

Who were the foundation members who had a veto?

And which teams back then had the financial sway to pressure others?

That's escaping from a bigger punishment for his offence of VERBAL abuse.

The charge of RACIAL abuse was overturned. Two different things.

You asked about him escaping his "racial jibe" charge.

If you say so.

Now you are just being paranoid about everything sub-continental.

My point was about ball tampering.

Unless you actually see it being tampered,by someone, how can you accuse someone of doing it?

Way more compex than lbws or caught behinds.

There was no proof offered as to who tampered with the ball in 2006.

Can you tell me who Hair said tampered with the ball, when and how?

There was no proof offered that Harbhajan did say what he said last month.

Yet judgement was made.

When officials do that and you add in Pakistan's previous with Hair and India's with Denness (and Bucknor), dissent follows.

When you have an ICC match referee stating he took one team's "word" over another, if you can't see the stupidity in that then we'll never agree.

As for ball tampering, what was the ICC imposed fine when Atherton was caught rubbing dirt he had in his pocket on the ball?

Plenty of evidence except a name, picture, video or even inquiry as to who tampered with the ball.

And the 6 other boards that voted. Culminating in a 7-3 verdict. You can remove ZIM and BANG if you like,makes it 5-3

And as I have said many times, 7 of the 10 boards agreed that motion. Thus forcing the ICC, of which they are members, to act as it must.

If no motion had been brought he'd still be there.

I don't agree at all.

Mid match, no. But after a game, yes.

They lost confidence in his ability to make sound judgements. It was not a one off thing. They have the right to request someone they believe will be fair/competent.

It will be interesting, indeed.

It's not upsetting me.

What's upsets me is that nearly every board has more influence than my own!

Yours is nearer the top than mine though!

***

Anyway, let me ask you some question, if I may.

Considering it seems to you are advocating kicking Zimbabwe out of top level cricket and Bangladesh too by reversing the decision (forgive and correct me if I am wrong) when will you push for the removal of West Indies?

Considering I see the situation getting worse before it improves (if ever) will there not become a time when WI will be unable to show that they can compete at the highest level (assuming we aren't there already)?

Secondly, how does a team not playing at the highest level prove it deserves to?

In your opinion, of course.

No IMO it's not that simple - one vote per board does not equate to democracy, are you seriously saying that the Bangladesh single vote has the power of the mighty India vote?, I would doubt that anything is that simple.
One vote maybe has a lot more clout than others:-Yes?.
No but I would expect a board as big as the ICC to be able to work with a modicum of common sense, would you not agree that they should be flexible when the situation merits just that?.

This is what I am saying, the ICC would not take a stand and defend it's employees.
Hair did have the authority you are right, but who gave Inzi the right to deprive people who had paid for their tickets the right to watch cricket?, he never had that authority IMO.
Cricket is a sport, not a mega buck making commercial corporation, and if the ICC are behaving like they are - then an alternative must be found at the earliest opportunity.
Opening up broadcasting will lesson the influence of money to a large degree - at a stroke, it can be done given the will.

__________________
Ern

What, exactly, could the boardhavedone better? I thought the matter was handled pretty well.
If you think one of your employees is not up to the job... you take steps to address the situation (as the ICC did): no big deal.The Pakistan Cricket Board gave Inzi that right the moment they made him captain: any captain (at any level of cricket) has the right to refuse to forfeit the match and go home. It's a decision that almost always has consequences, like his employer (the Pakistan Cricket Board) being deemed liable for financial losses arising from the decision... but Inzi was well within his rights to make the decision.

I really don't see that the Hair affair undermined the authority of umpires: all it did was highlight a badly-drafted regulation that meant Hair doing his job as laid down in the regs was always going to create a major incident - something that would never have happened if the guidelines to umpires on the levels of proof needed before making serious allegations had been rather better.

The ECB could have backed the England players in 2003, and the ICC could have had the common sense and decency to recognise the players fears and should have been flexible - it was only a game.
Yes that's true, and without any regard for the paying public - all that palava could have been sorted AFTER the match.
NO what happened to Hair did undermine the authority of the umpires, ask Steve Buckner.

Rachael: Are you conceding that Darrell Hair was only doing his job?, and that it was an administrative error that caused the problems of 2006 at the Oval?
The proof IMO was what Hair said he saw, that was his job he was doing - he conveniently was not believed after all the palava.
Cricket in 2005 is little short of being in disgrace, I don't enjoy cricket as much as 30 years ago when players respected each other at least in public.

__________________
Ern

So let me get this right Rachael. Here you're claiming that the ICC didn't feel Hair was up to the job and that justified and vindicated them removing him from the elite panel of umpires. Despite the fact that BOTH Hair and Doctrove took that decision jointly, yet Hair was the only one punished for it. So Hair wasn't up to the job but presumably Doctrove was, now did I get that right?

Yet now you're saying that Hair merely followed a set of flawed guidelines that the ICC themselves expected their Umpires to follow.

Can you see how you're contradicting yourself?

In the case of the vote to remove Hair, it was one member one vote. If it had been 7-3 the other way around he'd still be around.

In the case of how those votes can be influenced, of course India can influence Bangladesh and not vice versa.

I'm fully aware of that as I understand that one has more power than the other.

I am waiting on you to offer me your solution of how all the member nations coming together for world cricket, as you desire, will remove that small fact.

Are you not advocating that all the countries knock their heads together and make decisions they agree on?

Forgive me if that is not your position.

But if it is, then you simply cannot then argue that all the countries knocking their heads together and voting no confidence in Darrell Hair is wrong.

How can they be flexible on an issue like that.

They are bound by their voting members who came together and said 7-3 that they have no confidence in him.

So would you have supported the head of the ICC going against the wish of its members?

How can it take a "stand" to defend its employee when its members, who get to vote on issues like that, are telling it what to do with regards its employee?

It was bound by its rules to act on what its members tell it to do.

The second C in ICC is council.

The PCB by virtue of appointing him captain.

I like how because there are people in the ground who paid for tickets that the team has to accept what actually was a slight on their character i.e. being ball tampering cheats. Never mind Hair could not say who did it or when it occured but docked the Pakistani team runs.

So I ask you, is there anything that could happen to a team on the field, barring imminent physical danger, that you would have no problem their captain taking his team off the field without having to be blackmailed that there are people who have paid money to buy tickets in the ground?

The ECB just pumped something like £30M extra into the English game. The ACB makes loads of money as, I have no doubt, do the PCB and BCCI and others.

The WICB makes much less than them but still realises it has to run as a business because the money to run the game comes from nobody else.

I don't know where you have been or are but cricket is still a sport but it has been run by corporations looking to maximise their earning potential for a long long time.

Now tell me why would anyone join up with your altenative and cut off their nose to spite their face?

You are still stuck on this opening up broadcasting as the saviour of world cricket. Maybe this is an issue in England.

Question for you, how would that help West Indian cricket, this miraculously opening up of broadcasting that can be done given the will?