Ever since I have been posting on this board, there has been a constant criticism of the actions or decisions of the ICC.

Personally, in my opinion and one I suspect is not very widely shared, some of the criticism of the ICC is disproportionate and unwarranted and a small amount is actually plain stupid.

This is not to say I don't have problems with decisions that come from the ICC especially with respect to umpiring and disciplinary measures.

As a large organisation with the need to run a global game it will always receive criticism, fair or foul.

In my own case, as a West Indian, we suffered under the hand of poor umpiring the last time we toured Australia. We would still have got the beating we deserved but the game should be umpired fairly. The ICC even admitted the slip in standards via letter. Sadly, we don't have the capacity or will to hire a plane to force the removal of Rudi Koertzen (that's a hint by the way ).

Likewise, our players get called in to disciplinary meetings for swearing or barging opponents and are punished (rightly) whilst offences against us like excessive appealing (e.g. Panesar) or practising on the strip (Harmison/Plunkett) are excused as the execution of common sense. I'm not picking on England by the way.

So whilst I believe they have made errors along the way and who doesn't? With experience at how big global organisations that must take account issues of diplomacy and influence work, I personally don't see them as the failing organisation that many others do.

It is on that note that I'd like to ask the other board members how they would run world cricket if they were head of the ICC.

You are obviously free to reply how you wish (assuming I actually get replies) but we must remember that you are running world cricket not individual national boards.

I open this question up to the floor.

Something I'd personally do is look at the huge amount ODI cricket is being played, as compared to Tests. So I'd impose guidelines such as:
No bilateral series comprised solely of ODIs
A minimum of three Tests to be played every series

And also the amount of cricket being played in general. So:
A maximum of four series to be played by each country in a calender year (because less is more, right?)
At least two warm-up games before the first match of a tour

And the real biggie:
The Champions Trophy to be abolished. The World Cup and the T20 World Cup are enough, aren't they?

And with good reason: Look at the fiasco that was the World Cup in 2003, the ICC just buried it's head in the sand and stck to ithe letter of the law, when it would have made much more sence to try and be flexable.

Again in 2006 Pakistan refused to carry on a test match in England, with no regard for the paying supporters of both sides, nor the fact that the ECB was likely to lose revenues - the dispute was between Pakistan and Darrell Hair, the ECB nor the England players were not involved: The ICC proved to be a body that could not run it's own house.

Australia v India in 2008 - what a fisco that turned out to be with the India cricket board making threats to pull out every other day, the ICC should have told India to wait for the outcome of any enquiry - and not be seen to be making public threats.

Who was right or wrong did not matter - the ICC should have ensured the series went on without threats, again like in 2006 - they failed.

After what has happened in 2006 and again in 2008 with Darrell Hair and Steve Buckner, umpires are now fair game at the mercy of all cricketing boards who don't like a particular umpire and this is because of a weak ICC that does not look after IT'S umpires.

The first point here should answer your own question, your second point makes me wonder if you are a plant from the ICC.

The short answer is that in five years the ICC would not exist, I would take many of the powers away from the governing body, along with the power to spend money - and let the national boards look after cricket in their own countries to a much larger degree.

As for umpires they would be selected and paid for by national bodies, this would be accross the board so it would be 100% fair.

There is a need for a body like the ICC, but a much smaller version - and the officials would be one member from one cricketing state - the size and finacial might of a nation would count for nothing, a much fairer system.

twenty - Thirty years ago, boards - players and officials behaved in a correct manner, the ICC has presided in letting cricket become a circus were people come to watch the off field dramas, rather than good natured on field cricket.

The ICC has failed, and if another body does not take over: Cricket is in danger of splitting, to me it's as simple as that.

__________________
Ern

So would you then be bringing Zimbabwe back into test matches or out of cricket totally since they don't play Tests?

Not a bad suggestion. Although when a super powerful team like Australia hammers a weak one in the first 2 games, you'll have to stomach the third game being declared a farce and the complaints to you that they are being forced to play a 3rd game that nobody wants.

Itineraries in tours is not the say of the ICC, it is the individual boards.

I have been following what has happened in cricket so I am fully aware of all the incidents you mention.
The post I hoped would be a chance for people to say how they would manage world cricket not to go through a timeline again.

So how would you then ensure that every nation plays everybody else?
How would that ensure that the more economicall powerful boards are not able to bully the weak ones?
Who would decide upon the rules or frameworks everybody agrees to work under?

Would you still then have neutral umpires?

So some umpires would be paid more than others for doing the same job?

One member, one vote? You mean like the ICC?

How would you ensure that financial might would have no influence?

They do? People watch cricket for the off field drama? Interesting.

So is the world cricket is played in now the same as it was 20 or 30 years ago?

Another body? How do you ensure that body doesn't go the way of the "failed" ICC?

I am saying how I would manage cricket - I can't realiy say I wanted to abolish the ICC with giving some reason why, that just what I have done.
Because if the system was fair on all - nations would want to play each othet, cricket will only split if 'anarchy' is allowed to flourish, IMO cricket is going down that road.
By changing the structure of the ICC, by making cricket more important than finance.
I don't know yet, a sumit individual cricketing national boddies would be a starting point.

No - neutral umpires have failed, look at 2006 and 2008. There were probelms at times with national umpires - but not on the scale we have seen over the past few years.
Also it would bring a bit more trust into the game given good will.
No - there would be some form of subsidisation to take this into account, a new body would have some teeth - to make crcket fair.
Do you believe it's as simple as that?, the power behind single votes would be lessened, a vote from a powerfull nation carries more weight than from a weaker nation at the moment - money talks.A single vote means nothing with no clout behind it.
By abolishing the ICC in it's present form - and by generating less income by allowing broadcasters other than Sky to broadcast free to view - thus attracting a larger viewing public, and making cricket more important than CASH.
Never said that - I said people are getting more interested in off field drama that cricket itself - look at the volume of posting on forums to back this view up
By and large - NO.
I can't ensure that - but the ICC or whatever it would be called would be a much smaller cricket manager, and not the huge bureaucracy that it is at the moment.

__________________
Ern

Wonderful vision but how do you do that exactly?

Now I'm not nitpicking or being facetious but I'd really like to know how you aim to remove the influence or need for money out of the game?

OK.

I disagree the media attention has increased now but not the issue of real or perceived unfair treatment by umpire decisions.

That is why we now have neutral umpires.

So what happens if, at your summit mentioned above, most of the nations do not agree to dispense with neutral umpires?

Also, do you believe the incidents of 2006 and just a few weeks ago would have been any different if Hair had been English and Bucknor, an Aussie (i.e. home umpires)?

Surely, the feeling of mistreatment would have been even greater? No?

Why would having home umpires introduce any more trust for an away side than a neutral umpire?

How strong would these teeth be?

Why would you need to have any subsidy for umpires if they are employees of the national boards?

No. I don't think it is simple at all. That's my point.

So how do you lessen the power behind single votes?

If, under your system, national boards run the game then they will do what they need to do to ensure the success of their national game.

So how does your system stop India playing Australia all the time, for example, because that is where the money is and force them to play Bangladesh/Zimbabwe?

If there's a vote taking place under your system and one country is in a position to cast the deciding vote, how do you stop back door dealing that puts financial incentives in place to sway a vote one way or another?

Sky don't have the rights for ALL of world cricket.

Remember, I'm talking about all world cricket not England.

So your vision of less income from TV would then end up causing a smaller board like the WI even more cash that it does not have?

Natural human reaction. Controversy, real or imagined, fuels debate.

Just start a thread slagging off Bob Taylor and watch Rachael carry it on to about ten pages!

So if the world has changed in 20-30 years why does anyone expect the game to still be run like it was 20-30 years ago?

One would suspect that the very idea of a body need to run a major world sport would requires a certain level of bureaucracy

I don't wish to remove the need for money from the game - but at the end of the day all the money that cricket has generated - has not improved cricket one iota IMO.
All it has done is to put all the power into the hands of a few.
What has the ICC done for the West Indies?, I would think it was urgent that cricket is promoted in those islands - who's people seem to be leaning towards the better managed and better behaved sports in the USA.
You say it all "perceived" unfair treatment" - as far as I am concerned an umpires decission is final, why do captains have to resort to taking players of the park - why can't they just report an umpire that most countries think is poor or biased to the ICC, who could then look at the evidence without the pressure of cricket boards - threats and on the spot media attention.

These umpires that have been in the firing line have been neutral, but have failed to control players, or the ones that stuck to their guns were banished by the ICC.
Then cricket will carry on as it is with umpires being undermined, and the result will be a split in cricket.

I doubt any side would have took on a national umpire like they did with Hair and Buckner, they had nothing to lose because they Knew the ICC would cave in:Which they did.
Looking back at the last few weeks: NO! - how could it have been?.

Simple because an Aussie umpire like Hair was percieved to be biased in favour of England, had Hair been Englsih -then they would have had to trust him being fair.
Also this is my main point - national umpires have to be seen to be being fair, bias is not an option.
Strong enough to make decissions that might not favour any particular board, instead of appeasment which I believe happens.
Simply because some countries are richer than others, and some boards would be able to afford to pay their umpires more - a subsidy may be needed to attract the right people for the job, nobody will work for peanuts.

There may be single votes now, but really the boards with the most power will ultimatly get their way - put the purse strings into the hands of the individual boards and the power shifts away from just the major powers.
Also it makes sence for a reformed ICC, or a new body to have a constitution.
Hence the need to subsidise some nations boards to ensure that their cricket also develops, also all nations would keep the bulk of TV rights, so why should some nations suffer.
There will still be a governing body - and that simply would not be allowed to happen, if nothing is done cricket will split in any case - so worth the risk.
I can't say this would not happen - but any new body would have rules in place, I agree that enforcing them would need goodwill.
There could be a system were a country has an extra vote if needed for deadlocks, they would be changed every year - and maybe voted for to ensure such a delegate would have the trust off all.
Fair enough - but I still say cricket should be free to all. I am sure not just England has the system of cricket for some.
Yes that's true. look how many posters were on last week, and now vanished - are they real cricket supporters?.
Some degree of Controversy is fine, but it's getting worse - we don't want it to overshadow the cricket every year, and that could well happen: The precident has been set.
Yes - I know it's a joke, but Rachael would argue that slagging off Bob Taylor was just NOT cricket
This is the easiest question of all for me to answer, the world changing does not mean cricket has to change (for the worse) - I would hope we could go back to the standards of 20-30 years ago, and I would jhope that an 20-30 years time the standard of cricket and it's supporters will be the same.
Cricket HAS changed - and look at the state it's in.
Well I agree and said:-
I would settle for a certain level of bureaucracy, rather than a "huge" bureaucracy" we seem to have.
In short I would like to see a smaller ICC with less power, with more power to the cricketing nations.
The ICC has IMO let us down, and sold it's employees short.
I would just like to see the ICC reformed - mine are just ideas, I am sure that others would have better ideas, but IMO coninuing as we are is not an option.

As a by the way - I don't like one day cricket that much, but I don't want it abolished even if it is coaching test players into making poor selected shots, noy to mention overloading players with to much cricket.
The ICC should have seen test standards slipping, and address the situation - they could call for seperate teams and managers for example, but no they think of the cash it generates - stuff the players and falling standards of test cricket.

__________________
Ern

Ninjaman, excellent post, you raise some very interesting points and I'd like to put forward my views on this.

You're right in the sense that as a large organisation running a large international game, the ICC are not going to please all the people all the time, but at the moment as far as most people are concerned they don't please anyone any of the time - unless you happen to play your cricket on the sub-continent that it.

As far as I'm concerned (I can't speak for others, although I suspect their grumbles aren't far away from my own) the ICC is far too interested in the financial aspects of the game rather than the actual running of the game itself, and why are so many paper pushing bureaucrats running the game when most of them have never picked up a cricket bat in their life?

This is such a huge subject that I can't possibly cover everything in a couple of paragraphs reply, but I'll throw out a couple of examples to you of exactly why people don't like the ICC, criticise them and why they're not fit to run our International game.

Can you please explain to me in the simplest possible terms exactly why Zimbabwe are still playing International Cricket, when anyone with half a braincell can see that they're clearly not good enough at either form of the game to be considered an International Cricket side?

Zimbabwe should have been kicked out of International Cricket years ago, and only allowed to rejoin when they could demonstrate that they could compete at the highest level in both forms of the game. Allowing them to continue in 'ODI' only is a poor compromise simply because the ICC does not have the balls to kick them out. No International side wants to play them either at home or away so why are they still there? Are the ICC working on behalf of the International game or do they have other agendas they're looking after?

What's even more bizarre is the guidelines the ICC sets down for entry to the Test and ODI arena are fairly strict and have to be met for admission, yet any country it seems can fall below those standards and get away with it once they've been admitted.

Likewise, Bangladesh were admitted to International Cricket (even by the ICC's own admission) far too early, yet instead of acting decisively and reversing that decision when it became apparent that Bangladesh were going to struggle, they simply perpetuated that mistake and did nothing about it!

Why are the ICC so desperate to keep both Zimbabwe and Bangladesh in International Cricket, when they're clearly not good enough? Money. So when moneys involved, the ICC are quite happy to ignore their own standards and guidelines - this in my opinion is most certainly not the way International Cricket should be run.

Talking of money, why is it that the ICC snap to attention and come out with a bunch of utter gibberish to support their appalling decision to pull Steve Bucknor, the games most experienced and senior umpire out of a game with India, because India were not happy with his Umpiring decisions? Money again! The ICC are scared witless of the BCCI who supposedly bring more money into the international game than pretty much all the other countries put together - a stat I may add I do not agree with..

Likewise the hanging out to dry of yet another umpire who dared to incur the wrath of a Palistan side by merely taking a decision he felt was the right one.

Can you honestly say with any conviction at all that the ICC are actually running International Cricket in the best interests of ALL it's members or do they just pander to the sub-continental sides who wield a lot of power and money and influence on the ICC boards?

Um, one parting thought - are you surprised Harbhajan escaped his 'racial jibe' charge? Or is this just another example of India twisting the ICC round it's little finger? How about the pathetic, you'd have got a much stiffer punishment had I known about... Please! Some of us happen to have at least 1 braincell thanks very much.

I'll leave you to decide that one.

Scott, I am fully aware of many of the gripes people have with the ICC.

Like Ernest, before you, there was no need for you to go back through them.

I was more interested in the people's solutions be they subtle changes or a revolution.

Most of your points are asking me to reply as to the ICC's motives or as if I am a spokesman for them.

The answer to that should be obvious. Of course those who have the financial power get to wield the influence.

It is the way of the world.

Money and the power it has talk.

Which is why every suggestion Ernest has made so far is completely unworkable because you can't remove the influence of money unless you change money's influence in the world as a whole. Furthermore. no national board (another body set up to preserve its own interest) is never going to agree to any decision that undermines itself in the favour of another.

But I'm glad we have got here because is the problem,

a) The reality that a few boards wield money and power and influence way more than others, or
b) The identity of which boards hold the money and power and influence?

Cricket has never been run with all boards having equal power and for most of its years of international existence, England and Australia, have had far more power.

But apparently some want to go back to those times because the game was "better run".

He escaped?

I thought it was never proven.

I didn't now having a decision overturned on appeal meant escaping.

Considering it was not caught on a stump mic or no umpire heard it, how else would you have decided to come to a decision?

I believe in innocent until proven guilty for racial abuse and other matters like whether a player in a team tampered with the ball. for example.

Once those in officialdom are able to punish people with no proof of their misdemeanour (Oval 2006 and Sydney 2008) you get the reactions you are now seeing.

And on another note, Hair was removed by vote 7-3, I believe

Players get dropped and so can umpires too. I see nothing wrong with that.