You don't need to be a mathematician gibbsy to realize that one vote with no power behind is equal to say the power behind Bangladesh.
Unfortunately money speaks and not only in cricket but in all walks of life. The sooner we accept this, the better.[/quote]
Money should not talk, and I would not hesitate in saying English cricket has been harmed by the amount of overseas players playing for the counties rather than bringing on English players, look at England's lack so it works both ways.
Although I have some sypathy for your point.

I also think Hair was a good umpire, don't forget he was not English but I have no complaints against Hair - or for that matter any umpire on the elite panel.
Now at last we have got to the point, problem is what is the ICC going to do to redress the problem?, hey it's under their durisdiction the the TV revenues from one day cricket has been allowed to shove test cricket on the back burner.The ICC needs to be disbanded and a body to unite cricket put in it's place.

No we managed without the huge amounts of cash for decades, lets separate one day cricket away from test cricket and let the ICC and THIER sponsors do their worst - test cricket will survive - but without a proper solution to the ongoing crisis in cricket, make no mistake cricket will split.
2003 - 2006 and 2008 all major crisis brought about by the ICC's ineptitude, not counting the was one day cricket is handled.
The way the ICC have let the authority of the umpires crumble, and the strong umpires were no match for the might of the ICC - have been banished.

For cricket.
Bats are needed.
Stumps are needed.
Good weather is needed.
Cricket balls are needed.
Cricket playing nations are needed.
Stong umpires are needed.
The ICC can be replaced, the others can't - cricket could survive with another governing body, in fact it would thrive IMO.

__________________
Ern

Rachael, I've noticed you raise this subject several times now, so perhaps its time to deal with it. You also like raising the subject of Dickie Bird so lets deal with Dickie Bird as well.

Dickie Bird was an eccentric egotist that often felt he was more important than the game he was umpiring. Yes, he was popular with the players, but was he a good Umpire in his decision making? Because ultimately that's all that counts at the end of the day. Being popular is NOT the same as being a good Umpire.

It's the same reason that Billy Bowden and Simon Taufel are considered amongst the two of the best Umpires on the circuit today, but it still doesn't stop them making mistakes as I've already demonstrated earlier in this thread. What it does do, is make the acceptance of those incorrect decisions more 'palatable' to the players. This is instanced by Bill Bowdens mistake in the Ashes which effeictvely cost Australia that series. It's also instanced by Simon Taufels mistake in the recent ODI which was simply ignored, presumably because India went on to win the game. One does have to wonder if they would have complained had they not won that game.

Can it not be seen pretty clearly from this that popularity is not a measure of effectiveness?

By this I beleive you're referring to his calling of Murali for 'chucking' in 1996 and of accusing the Pakistan side of cheating in 2006. The fact that the ICC changed the arm extension limits as a result of this rather vindicated Hair's call did it not?

Then I suggest you expand your reading because not everyone agrees with you on this -

"But the ICC will hardly be breathing a collective sigh of relief, for two things came out of the evidence that was heard.

One was that Hair was pretty shoddily treated in the aftermath of the Oval Test in August 2006. He was left very much to cope by himself while the establishment closed ranks. That's a million miles from racial discrimination, but it is an appalling way for any employer to treat a senior and (at the time) respected employee. It was a battening down of the hatches that would have done the MCC of a hundred years ago proud.

But more seriously, the executives that run the world game were shown to be a pretty rum bunch. Faced with a cunning QC, they not only fell into his traps but often appeared to give him a hand in digging them as well. If these are the men entrusted with the future of the game and its best interests, then we are all in trouble. "

Source: Cricinfo - A Pyrrhic victory for the ICC

Here's yet another example of the BCCI throwing its weight around and getting the ICC to do its bidding -

The International Cricket Council wants umpires to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to sledging after an appeal by the Indian board to introduce a ban.

Source: BBC SPORT | Cricket | ICC pledges to eliminate sledging

Sledging always has been and always will be part of the game. But the BCCI has decreed otherwise and the ICC just does what its told.

I fear for the International game and I have no confidence whatsoever in the ICC to do what's right for the game any more - it just does what the BCCI tells it to - quite disgusting.

From the link just posted



An excellent decision and well done.

There is no need for the underhand comments exchanged in cricket under the guise of "sledging".

There are a whole lot of other things that have always been in cricket but that doesn't mean we should still support them on that fact alone.

But then seeing as India proposed this motion, regardless that every other member agreed, let's just call it throwing their weight around.

Let's not let your bias get in the way of a good argument!

Where? In the UK and Aus the practice may "always" have been prevalent (though I suspect the acceptability of sledging has always been contested in the UK, with a vocal minority tending to get away with it despite widespread revulsion). Are you sufficiently well read in the history of the many, diverse regions of the world in which cricket is ALSO played that you can really sustain an argument that sledging has always been a part of the game no matter where it has been played?

No it's not Ninjaman - to me it smacks of change for change sake.

There has always been sledging, and I must admit that India are not great believers in sledging, although on occasions when it has suited them - they have not been found wanting.

To many changes is cricket, sledging is just meaningless banter most of the time - so why did the ICC find fit to emasculate the game furthur.

Pointless lawmaking.

__________________
Ern

Rachael you really do appear to be as bureacratic and as out of touch with the practicalities of cricket as the numbskull executives of the ICC who govern the game.

If you'd actually played a competitive game of cricket in your life (which I'm pretty sure you haven't, but I'm willing to retract if you have) then you'd know that sledging goes on and it will continue to go on regardless of what the ICC might say on the matter.

By their own admission it's going to be very difficult to enforce and the only reason it's been brought in is because the BCCI, still reeling from the Harbajhan incident wanted it brought in.

Does it not worry you, that first they got Bucknor removed from a Test series, now they've got their way over sledging because of the Harbajhan incident and they're even trying to mess with the tours program to fit it in around their damned IPL!

Where and when is it going to stop? International Cricket is NOT run for the benefit of the BCCI.

Are you sufficiently knowledgeable about the game to say that it doesn't occur in other countries?

To even suggest that only Australia and England engage in 'sledging' (because that's what you're implying) is to be perfectly honest with you very naive.

First off, read the article.

It makes no mention of stopping "meaningless banter".

It makes no mention of stopping interaction between players.

Personally I don't care that there has always been sledging.

This is thrown about as if it means anything.

What I do care is that some of the crass and filthy things players say to each other under the guise of trying to get under their skins which is then laughed off as being tough and the essence of what "Test cricket" is supposed to mean is cut out.

Player's have always cursed (e.g. the f word etc...) on the field. Yet, players receive fines nowadays for bad language.

As the article states, THE MEMBER BOARDS agree on this decision. Thus the ICC acts upon the decision.

But I guess that means nothing when the decision goes against what you believe to be correct.

Then ask yourself a couple of questions. How long has Cricket been played? Ill give you a clue, it started around the turn of the 17th century. Now ask yourself why 'sledging' has suddenly become an 'issue', over and above the fact that fairly recently a prominent Indian player was in trouble for it.

Oh please, your naivety and willingness to swallow the 'spin' the ICC wants to feed you knows no bounds.

You know as well as I do (or at least you shoud, but no doubt you'll deny it, because it suits you to do so) that the ICC NEVER acts swiftly on anything. It creates committees to investigate the facts and to consider possible changes and this can sometimes take years to complete. Yet, on this issue the ICC acts within months if not weeks with no consultation, no committees just a recomendation from the BCCI!

There was no consultation, there were no committees, so what are the other member countries actually agreeing to and exactly how is this going to be enforced? Have the ICC actually thought this through or is it likely to cause more problems than it actually solves? Just like the ball tampering laws that no Umpire is now ever likely to want to get involved with following the fall out from the Hair case.

The ICC is making things worse - not better.

It means nothing at all because I know how the ICC operates and this is very much out of keeping with what they usually do and the only reason for that is because of the BCCI's involvement.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, (you and lots of naive people like you) but not all the people all the time, some of us have a modicum of common sense and intellect to know when the ICC is pulling a fast one.

Every single action the ICC is currently taking is benefitting the BCCI - you want to think of that as just coincidence don't you?

Ninjaman I have , and have come to the conclusion that the ICC have now lost the plot completely.

First they take all authority away from umpire, then give them the job of policing a jumble of words.
See what I mean? - umpiring on the hoof.I can see confusion and tantrums galore when a matter like this has been left to the discretion of the umpires with no authority or credibility left.
This could only have come from the ICC.

No:
This is one of the most muddled statements ever from any organisation, I must say the ICC are if nothing else consistent with putting umpires in an impossible position due to their incompetence.

With respect Ninjaman - if "meaningless banter" is still going to be allowed, then how can the ICC take a Zero-tolerance approach.
Why can't the ICC just leave well alone?.

__________________
Ern