Hmm. I suppose I'd have to amend that statement to include only Full Members. Ireland, Scotland, Kenya etc. would still play series solely of ODIs- the alternative would be either to grant them Test status (which would be a mistake at this stage IMO) or cut them off completely (which would also be a mistake. Encouraging greater participation by the Associate countries is one of the best things the ICC has ever done.)

Maybe so, but on the flipside two-test series don't really achieve anything. How are countries like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe supposed to improve at Test level if they only play a couple of tests, months apart? Three-test series, plus ample warm-up time while on tour, should give the weaker teams a chance to play in a really substantial series, and perhaps even gain momentum if they punch above their weight (eg. Bangladesh vs. Australia 2005).

This is true. All I'm suggesting is that there should be stricter guidelines in place for itineraries, so as to (hopefully) correct the amount of cricket being played in general, assist the weaker teams in their development, and to improve the Test:ODI ratio being played, which seems to be skewed far too heavily in favour of the ODIs.

Nice thread, Ninjaman.

Right now I'm unclear about one crucial thing: just how "the ICC" differs from "the boards". As far as I can tell, the ICC not a huge bureaucracy at all... it's pretty much exactly what Ern wants... "a sumit [of] individual cricketing national bod[]ies".

You get to the nub of this issue here:I do think a lot of the criticism of the ICC I've encountered is basically a matter of folk who know and like British / Australian ways of viewing issues and just don't "get" other ways of looking at the issues.

Sure, the Indian board controls the purse strings and excercises a lot of influence... but very often the board gets accused (over here) of abusing that power simply because what the Indian board sees as "right" isn't "right" according to a stereo-typical Anglo-centric viewpoint.

We get the same thing in a different context with lunatic fringe UKIP rants

For what it's worth... my "reforms" of the ICC would simply be of agenda.

Aurelius spells out a reasonable manifesto (more proper 1st class tour games and Tests, less pyjama cricket and an end to the Champions Trophy). To this I'd simply add a few things to counter the Aussie-led drift towards treating Test cricket as 5-day pyjama cricket:

{i} Get Kookaburra (and possibly SG) to come out with a better cricket ball: one on which the seam stays prominent for at least as long as it does on a duke (and ideally for longer).

{ii} Change the bat regulations so that bats have a more classical performance range (smaller sweet spot, no light bats offering the advantages one used to associate with heavy bats).

{iii} Change the ball-tampering regulations so that conventional practices like picking at the seam with fingers (for example) is acceptable.

{iv} Issue revised guidelines on pitch and ground preparation: specify a length of grass on the outfield that gives fielders a chance of chasing the ball down (and stops the wear on the ball); specify a minimum bounce and carry; set day 1- day 5 targets for minimum break-up of the pitch (as measured, perhaps, by percentage of balls that don't bounce evenly or deviate wickedly off a crack).

That's a start and my 3 year old says that's enough: she wants some breakfast!

No not really Rachael - it's a bit like the UN - it lives and does nothing for it's keep.
I don't have a problem with who controls what, but I do have a problem were one day cricket is promoted as being more important than test cricket - and where money is god.
And Rachael one nation state should NOT control the purse strings, that will always invoke critisism - the ICC needs to be lessened.
You don't have to be "Anglo-centric" - to want a fair deal for all, to want umpires to be given their authority back, or the promotion of PJ cricket rather than test cricket stopped.
With respect Rachael open your eyes and your mind, and look 20 years down the track.
Also was it being "Anglo-centric" to want your countries players fears to be addressed in the World Cup in 2003?.
Was it "Anglo-centric" that failed the umpires in England in 2006, and allowed a game to be abandoned even though the England players, paying public and the ECB were not even involved in the dispute.
Nothing "Anglo-centric" about what happened in Australia 2008, just another fiaso that the iCC presided over.

Why was Hair made the only scapegoat, what about the other umpire - the third umpire and the match referee, how can anyone resepct an organisation like that.

This has nothing to do with cricket, but this party must not be confused with the ultra right wing British Party or the National Front, the UKIP is legintimate insomuch as it realises than the UK is mearly an off shore extention the the EU.
A party I would not vote for as they are not big enough to have any clout, and voting for them would be counterproductive.

The ICC has failed Rachael - look at the list of crocked cricketers brought about by the ICC sanctioning far to much cricket.

Also they have failed to keep their own house in order - and have allowed umpires to be undermined to the fulest extent.
Neutral Umpires have failed, and if serious dissent carries on at it's present rate - then there will be no umpires left.

And if the ICC is not seem to be being fair, then cricket will split - won't take to many more incidens like 2006 and 2008 to achieve that.
Support the ICC in it's present state Rachael, and there will soon be les test cricket, more money spinning 20/20 and PJ cricket - and no respect at all for the umpires.
Well if that's what you want - it's a free world......

__________________
Ern

That is what it is.

The frameworks under which all the nations work now are all agreed upon by them for a set period of time and then administered by the ICC.

So who plays who and when is agreed years in advance under the Future Tours Programme whoch everybody has signed up to.

The penalties for not fulfilling your obligation are agreed up on before so when one country chooses not to go to another or invite them and need to pay £X in compensation, it is no the ICC forcing them to do so, it is the ICC saying to them you must maintain your end of the agreement as we all signed up to.

The minimum number of Tests/ODIs is agreed upon under the same agreement and left to the 2 boards to decide the final figure.

So if A and B choose to play just 2 Tests but 15 one days, the fault lies with the two national boards.

Yet, apparently when the ICC goes those 2 national boards are going to stop doing the same thing.

A Damascene conversion one might say!

If one board chooses to turn up and jump straight into the games, likewise, their decision.

Not a bad recommendation at all.

But surely it would be better to make regulations for the ball and then whoever makes a sufficient ball is used?

Just like you are changing bat regulations...

Don't agree with that. But would you need to if the ball you are suggesting above arrives?

The only change to the ball tampering rules I would bring in is if an umpire is going to accuse any team of tampering with the ball, he should have evidence of someone actually doing it. You never know he might lose his job otherwise

Ground preparation should be left in the hands of what national/regional boards and their groundsmen require IMO.

What you are suggesting seems very hard to police and create uniformity and does not take into account different national or regional conditions.

Either way, this is the type of response I hoped we'd see. In agreement or not.

Which is basically what Ern wants: the boards calling the shots and the ICC ensuring that all concerned do actually deliver on what they agreed to deliver.Quite. If the boards want to see 4 Tests in all series between major Test nations and no more than 5 ODIs in any series and no Champions Trophy... it's their call: if they agreed on this the ICC would then be perfectly capable of ensuring it happened.Agreed, but I'd do that in consultation / partnership with the major ball manufacturers with a view to getting them being pro-active (signed up to achieving common outputs, outcomes and impacts for the benefot of the sport) rather than reactive (concerned only to get around whatever the regulations stipulate).

Re: lifting the seam - I'd simply like to see what folk regarded as acceptable practice in the past made officially acceptable. I don't think anyone's ever suggested that using bottle-top to scratch the ball, attacking the ball with scissors or carrying special pastes to rub into the ball should be acceptable... but just pulling at the seam with you finger nails strikes me as part of the game.

That's quite a mild proposition: someone on TMS suggested "anything goes... but you can't get the ball replaced"... so if you abuse the ball in the hope of getting it to reverse swing and then find it goes out of shape and is awful to bowl with... tough

Re: ground preparation... I quite agree that the scope for the groundsman should be huge... and I really do NOT want uniformity... but I do think groundsmen should be made more wary of favouring the batsmen: right now, they only seem to get into trouble with pitch inspectors if the bowlers dominate - the pitch inspectors should be just as prominent when sides start racking up 300 runs in a 90 over day!

And as I have said to you before as someone who has worked within the UN, it does a lot of good through many of its agencies. Much behind the scene. But leave this whinge to another point in the off topic thread because it has got nothing to do with cricket.

Suffice to say, for India and the ICC read the USA and the UK at the UN.

Because no one brought a motion of lost confidence in Billy Doctrove. But they did in Darrell Hair. And it passed 7-3. I guess you don't believe in democracy.

Umpires and match referees still have a lot of authority.

The problem occurs when they make their decisions and refuse to account for how they got to them. Such authority always grates

In short, Darrell Hair accused the Pakistan team of being ball tampering cheats. Yet, could not pick out a single Pakistani player he saw tamper with the ball. Considering the whole history of accusations against Pakistani players, people would be mad to feel that such an action would be accepted just like that even if it was over the top.

Added to his previous indiscretions and his arrogant demeanour, it all came to a head.

Steve Bucknor has been making mistakes for some time now (many of them against India) and nothing was done for a long time. The recent 2nd Test, like what happened with Hair, was the straw that broke the camel's back.

These 2 umpires did not get to this position just like that. It was a process of malcontent with them.

The ICC did make mistakes by actually not having a word with them and how they had been performing before either of these 2 decisions occurred.

And seeing as India accepted Bucknor's mistakes and the subsequent 2nd Test loss at no point was he undermined.

I don't see why they then had to accept that he stood as an umpire in the 3rd Test.

The FTP as agreed by all countries states a minimum of two Tests and 3 ODIs.

That's all.

So how do you reconcile your claim that the ICC sanctions too much cricket?

It's the national boards that agree to all the cricket that is played. The very same boards that, according to you, once the ICC goes are apparently going to run the game so well.

I have my own criticisms of the ICC. I already mentioned minor ones in my very first post.

As a West Indian our game has been affected from the change in 2000 of how the proceeds and costs of away tours are shared.

This was, once again, agreed by all members democratically and so everyone has to abide by it.

But I won't criticise the ICC for that because they put that to the vote and the powerful like IND/ENG/AUS held the sway over the weak like the WI.

With or without the ICC, that would be the case.

The ICC don't have to help, tell or show Australia, South Africa or England how to run their national game but some how they are failing the WI because they are not doing something to help them.

Why should they?

Why do you hold their non-action with regards to the WI as a criticism when no reasonable West Indians themselves are blaming the ICC?

And I'm still unable to get my head around the idea that in the world we are living in, any world sport governing body could actually set itself up to govern disparate and unequal national bodies and remove the concept that those with the power of money not wield it?

Quite. But it seems as if he is inferring that this is not the case now.

Also, when England say they are going to Zimbabwe at a certain particular time and sign to it in an offical document but then say they are not as the time approaches, he doesn't say England's insistence to not go is fracturing the agreement everyone signed up to.

He attacks the ICC telling England that if you don't go, as per the agreement you signed. He calls it forcing England as if they are going to bundle Vaughan and co. on to a plane SAS style.

The callas to what happens still lies with the ECB and British government but the ICC get all the blame for daring to more or less say "Go if you want to or not, ut if you don't, under the rules we all agreed, if you don't go you need to pay £X"

Agreed. But you also see that all it takes is 2 or more boards to want more and any potential agreement is scuppered.

Because after all, if India and Australia, for example, wanted to play more regular Test series and 7 match ODI series, then who stops them?

Barring Zimbabwe, the West Indies probably has the weakest board.

They make virtually no money on away tours with sponsorship just breaking them even.

Home series are only lucrative when England and Australia visit.

I would suspect that very few, if any, other countries actually make money anymore when the WI visit. Even more so when the draw of a Lara has gone.

So what incentive is there for a national board with a profit & loss sheet to consider to invite the WI?

We used to play 5 Tests vs Australia, the last time we played 3 and were rightly moved to Oct-Nov instead of the usual over Xmas/New Year schedule.

Like him, I'd love for the influence of money to diminish (I hope he doesn't feel I disagree with him there) but it's never going to happen is it? It's the reality of every existence of our lives.

You don't think it's a bureaucracy Rachael?.
Well the ICC has:-
10 Full members that play official test matches.
33 Associate members.
58 Affiliate members.
The ICC is responsible for the organization and governance of cricket's major international tournaments,[..] most notably the Cricket World Cup.
It promulgates the ICC Code of Conduct, which sets professional standards of discipline for international crickets[], and also co-ordinates action against corruption and match-fixing through its Anti-Corruption and Security Unit (ACSU).

In 1965, the Imperial Cricket Conference was renamed the International Cricket Conference and new rules adopted to permit the election of countries from outside the Commonwealth. This led to the expansion of the Conference, with the admission of Associate Members. Associates were each entitled to one vote, while the Foundation and Full Members were entitled to two votes on ICC resolutions. Foundation Members retained a right of vito.
This is from the deffinition of the ICC on Wikipedia on the net.
It shows where the power is though, Full members 2 votes, and foundation members get a veto - no wonder my comparason with the UN Ninjaman, not that far off topic.
All the other members just make up a bureaucracy, it's not what Ninjaman and Rachael say - one member one vote - it's a certain class on member one member one vote.

No Rachael with respect - look for cricketing issues, not racial issues.
The only problem I have with that is a difference in emphasis - Indian cricket want to go down the one day road -I don't.
Take note here Rachael off topic here Ninjaman - NOT I.
I wonder if you are confusing the UKIP with the National Front? , I would not vote for the UKIP for the same reason I would never vote Lib Dem (a wasted vote)- all the UKIP are is an anto EU party so why is that lunatic, makes sence to me.

Really Rachael - and how do the browbeaten Aussies manage to do that?.
That's taking even more power from the national boards.
What's the point in this if we don't have classical cricket?, what does it matter if people like you get your way and PJ cricket is the major format.
Rachael - why don't you just take this ludicous suggestion just one step further,and have ready finger picked balls available to buy off the shelf, and then players who are so inclined to pick the seam of balls - in otherwords "cheat" could just shout at a given time "New balls Please".
The ICC already have that power.
Rachael with respect you have not even started to address the problems, the decline in cricket standards, the demise of the authority of the umpires.
What are you going to do to bring some respect towards the umpires back?.
what are you going to do to stop the inevitable march towards the cash rich one day cricket, leading the the dimise of test cricket?.
What are you going to do about stopping tantrums on the field, and threats and intimidation towards the ICC of the field?.
With respect Rachael - these are the real urgent issues, not whether we should allow "ball tampering" or not.

What are you going to do given you accept the ICC in it's present form to ensure we the paying public are not ripped off with unsporting none cricket wicket?.
The ICC have not addressed this issue, then again do you agree that flat wicket are helpfull to the one day game?.

__________________
Ern

I have been at least 99.99% on topic even if you are right, how on Earth could I be off topic if the ICC allow the UN agencies UNAIDS and Unicef to be sponcered on their official site?.
LINK:International Cricket Council
Are you saying that if Darrell Hair had done wrong after he had consulted Billy Doctrove, the third umpire and the match referee had let his decission stand, that at least one of the three other officials had been so incompitent has to not pick up on Hair, they still have the confidence of the ICC - LOL beggers belief.
With respect Ninjaman are you telling me that had an umpire other than Hair "the respected Billy Doctrove" could have have told Inzi to get back on the park until the matter was sorted, then he would have, I don't think so.
Oh I see - an umpire has auhority as long as the players allow, I am sure al umpires say how they reached their decisions - rightly or wrongly.
If what you say is true - the ICC failed by allowing him to be appointed - they made a major blunder.
The ICC knew that it had got so bad that there would be a major incident, and yet they allowed Bucknor to stand as umpire - is that what you are really saying?, agreeing that the ICC did not learn the lesson of England 2006.

India never really accepted that, they threatened to go home unless his decission was overturned.

Yes: That wants regulating.

Well then Ninjaman accept a weak West Indies, a weak Bangladesh and English supporters had better get ready for the dominence of ODI's withing 10-15 years.
I might sound like a left winger preaching the politics of envy - well that could not be further from the truth in real life.
But cricket unlike soccer has a very limited number of rich teams, and they should not be allowed to dominate and also the power of the umpire has to be restored.
Has as the importence of test cricket IMO.
A little melodrama here I think, are you saying Ninjaman that everything is set in concrete?, taking England situation into account - would it not have been wise for the ICC to have been more flexable - it's not as if England have a reputation for refusing to play.
Good point - I said the same on many occasions.
Being that Tony Blair had asked the ECB not to tour Zimbabwe, then he along with the ECB should have held talks with the ICC to explain the UK possition, and the ICC should have respected the view of a nations state government when the issues were so clear.
If the ICC still docked unfair points and imposed and unfair fine - then I agree the UK goverments were just as poor as the ICC for not agreeing to pay Englands fine.

We still need more people watching cricket, and in some countries that means accepting less TV revenues so there would be universal free to view cricket - which could be recouped in part by people attending cricket.
Cash should not dominate sport, to keep teams down is close to being corrupt IMO.
By the way - free to view cricket would still cost the broadcasters quite large sums, and there is a lot of competition to screen the matches now, not just the BBC.

Umpires should be reviewed annually, and the poor ones weeded out - but walking out on matches should never be an option.

Lesser teams should have some access to the larger richer teams to generate some cash (that is needed).

To save players being injured one day cricket and test cricket should be seperated (to avoid undue wear and tear), it's a players choice which format they choose.

If we keep allowing dissent at the level it is now - then cricket will IMO split within 10 years or so, or maybe sooner.
If poorer countries don't get a chance to generate some cash - then in the West Indies case at least, will soon be playing baseball, the US will unlike the ICC be ready to sponcer.
I agree with Rachael that the reformed ICC should have the right to insist on fair pitches, and the ICC at the moment have that right,

__________________
Ern

You're the one claiming that whilst you disagree with 'some' of their decisions you basically see nothing wrong with the ICC, then you explain some of their more 'bizzare' actions then and when I gave you the opportunity to do so, you just shrug your shoulders and say I'm not their spokesman!

You appear to be positioning yourself to play off both sides against the middle - a very dangerous stance to take if I might suggest.

And that's where you're entirely and completely wrong and probably one of the reasons you view the ICC with less hostility than many other people on this board and probably also the reason why you see nothing supposedly wrong with the ICC.

The ICC exist as a governing body for world cricket, where does it say in their 'constitution' that the Cricket Boards with the most money get the most say in how world Cricket is governed? This is precisely the kind of corrupt, dishonest manner in which the BCCI likes to do business and you counternance that as being 'the way of the world'?

Money has no place in the ICC, it does not exist to make massive profits so why is it so keen on all these countries that 'supposedly' input masive amounts of money? Where's all this money supposedly going anyway? As far as I understand it any excess income over expenditure the ICC receives goes towards the development of cricket in associate countries - where are the results of all this desperate investment?

Why is Bangladesh the ONLY associate country in the last 20 or 30 years to be admitted into Test Cricket and even then prematurely? Are you really saying all these associate countries aren't good enough despite the 'supposed' huge investments the ICC is making in their Cricket infrastructures?

There's no doubt that IS a bone of contention for many people, specifically the way the Asian bloc countries appear to have massive sway with the ICC hierarchy ad there's plenty of precedence to support that as well.

Does the reasoning behind the ICC's desperation to not only bring in Bangladesh far earlier than they should have done and then ignore the fact that they simply wern't good enough and STILL aren't good enough to compete in Test Cricket now make any sense to you?

It couldn't be because the Asian bloc countries (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and now Bangladesh) wanted to equalise their voting with the rest of the world could it by any chance?

This is just wrong pure and simple, all full member countries have exactly the same voting rights. To help you understand -

"On June 15, 1909 representatives from England, Australia and South Africa met at Lord's and founded the Imperial Cricket Conference. Membership was confined to the governing bodies of cricket within the British Empire where Test cricket was played. India, New Zealand and West Indies were elected as Full Members in 1926, doubling the number of Test-playing nations to six. After the formation of Pakistan in 1947, it was given Test status in 1953, becoming the seventh Test-playing nation. South Africa resigned from the ICC in 1961 due to apartheid.

In 1965, the Imperial Cricket Conference was renamed the International Cricket Conference and new rules adopted to permit the election of countries from outside the Commonwealth. This led to the expansion of the Conference, with the admission of Associate Members. Associates were each entitled to one vote, while the Foundation and Full Members were entitled to two votes on ICC resolutions. Foundation Members retained a right of veto.

Sri Lanka was admitted as a Full Member in 1981, returning the number of Test-playing nations to seven. In 1989, new rules were adopted and International Cricket Conference changed its name to the current name, the International Cricket Council. South Africa was re-elected as a Full Member of the ICC in 1991, after the end of apartheid; this was followed in 1992 by the admission of Zimbabwe as the ninth Test-playing nation. Bangladesh was admitted as the tenth Test-playing nation in 2000."

Source: International Cricket Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps you ought to be a little better read on subjects you're supposed to be debating -

Harbhajan was lucky, says judge

The judge who cleared India's Harbhajan Singh of racial abusing Australia's Andrew Symonds says human error saved the player from a bigger punishment.

Harbhajan was fined for a lesser charge of verbal abuse but John Hansen said he could have imposed a different penalty had he been aware of his past record.

In 2001 Harbhajan was fined and banned for attempting to intimidate umpires.

"He can feel himself fortunate that he reaped the benefit of these database and human errors," he said.

Hansen revealed Harbhajan could have received a one-match ban had he known about the event, which occurred in a series against South Africa.

Source: BBC SPORT | Cricket | Harbhajan was lucky, says judge

If that's not 'escaping' I don't really know what is. Human and database errors? What utter bull. Don't you think it amazing this stuff nearly always happens with players from the sub-contintent? The ICC are scared witless of them and their money.

There's no smoke without fire. The ICC appoints its umpires on the basis of their integrity and inpartiality to make decisions on a Cricket field, yet as soon as one of those decisions impacts on a sub-continental side or one of it's players, the ICC refuses to back up and support it's selected umpires and in the case of Bucknor and Hair hang them out to dry.

So are you now saying that you want concrete evidence every time an LBW decision has to be made? They trust their judgement to make LBW decisions but not in disciplining players it seems or players from sub-continental sides at least.

I couldn't disagree more to be honest. Umpires are selected to officiate Test Matches and their word is final and non-negotiable. If those umpires are unfit for whatever reason to officiate, don't select them to officiate. But what you cannot do is cherry pick which decisions umpires make that you choose to agree or disagree with, and neither should the ICC get involved in arbitrating those decisions.

There was plenty of evidence to support Hairs decision, both he and Doctrove took that decision together, yet Hair was the only one disciplined? Why? Because the Pakistan side didn't like him perhaps?

What's that got to do with the price of bananas? The ICC should never have got involved in the Hair business it had no right to get involved in it, a decision had been made by BOTH umpires, yet the ICC decided to go after only one of them? Why? Because Pakistan unfairly influenced them to do so perhaps?

Neither do I, but you're not really being consistent are you? Players cannot be dropped mid match and neither should umpires, regardless of what the sides may think of them or their decision making. If an umpire is considered fit and capable enough to start a match or a series then surely he should be competent enough to complete that match or series, barring ilness or course?

It will be interesting to see what happens with Bucknor because the ICC have got themselves trapped between a rock and a hard place. IF they don't think he's competent enough to officiate in the Aus v India Tests then he's clearly not competent enough to officiate at any other Test match either is he? And if he is, then India got their way again didn't they?

It's precisely this unfair influence over the ICC that the sub-continental countries appear to be wielding that's upsetting people and why many now view the ICC as a biased organisation incapable of being inpartial and unbiased in handling world crickets affairs.