What Ninjaman has asked for, quite consistently, is some sort of alternative to what exists... and my impression is that he grasps the failings of the ICC with greater subtlety and sophistication than anyone else on this board.
The ICC is committed to whatever the boards (collectively) decide it should be committed to: EVERY board schedules more ODIs than the ICC require... and most also schedule more Tests.

I think Ninjaman is satisfied with the way the ICC is run at the moment Rachael, and this is the problem.
He is inviting people to put up alternatives to the present system, while he just defends the status quo.
Look how Ninjaman evades the point that the executive of the ICC could have recommended more flexibility to England's predicament in 2003, by just reverting to the rule book - subtle it may be, there certainly is no risk in his none alternative arguments with all respect to Ninjaman.
You put the point well Rachael, but I think you know as well as I that one day cricket is ruining what is left of traditional test cricket, long before this thread of Ninjaman I was warning that the unorthodox play on one day cricket would creep into test cricket, and that is exactly what has happened.

The reason one day cricket is so popular with some boards is simply cash, and that's why the ICC is happy to continue down that road.
Look at what is happening is test cricket.
Look how unfair the rules are:
Nations can prepare dead (none cricket) wickets for test cricket without sanctions against them.

But look at one day cricket - the ICC voted to fine players/teams for slow over rates.

This can't be fair because countries with harder wickets tend to use pace and seam bowlers with longer run up, and countries with wickets with no life in them play medium pacers and spin bowlers - how Rachael can you or Ninjaman defend that?.

__________________
Ern

I gave him an alternative which he ignored - very subtle.

Ninjaman has at no point indicated satsifaction with the way the ICC is run: he's merely pointed out that many (not all) of the charges commonly laid at the door of the ICC are being laid at the wrong door (that the ICC is getting the blame for matters that are the responsibility of - and in many cases quite rightly - individual boards).

I'm not quite sure what specific charge you are laying at the door of the ICC re: the 2003 World Cup. So far as most folk in the world were concerned it was a spectacularly successful event. I can only think that you refer to England's rather pathetic decision to boycott the game in Zimbabwe citing spurious reasons of "players' safety".

Would it have been nice to see the cricketing world agree to make a major political statement about the Mugabe regime by refusing to even consider holding matches there? Sure... I'd have been happy with that... but who else thought that? Hardly anyone: you are talking a minority view. The ICC wasn't weak or ineffective... it took a very firm line with the ECB (and rightly so given than the majority of the cricketing world wanted England to go to Zimbabwe and play).

I'm struck that your irritation is with what world cricket wants rather than with the way the ICC is run: I (and many others) share your enthusiasm for Test cricket... and would rather see it have a higher profile... but if the majority of the cricketing world thinks ODI cricket is the future (either as an end in its own right, or as a means of funding Test cricket) then the failure is not the ICC's... the failure is ours, as we have not managed to convince the rest of the world that we are right.

If we (those of us who would prefer the focus to shift attention to Test cricket) could win the political argument then then we'd have grounds for complaint... but it's not the job of the ICC to win that argument for us.

Your point about slow over rates is equally misguided: you say the ICC voted to fine players/teams for slow over rates... but that's not true. The BOARDS voted to fine players / teams for slow over rates... and whilst I don't have the information to hand, I wouldn't be surprised if the vote was unanimous - I'd certainly be surprised if the ECB were against that decision.

I, personally, don't have ANY problem with penalising slow over rates: I'd happily see the penalties increased. In fact, I've often thought any side that fails to meet the minimum over rates for two sessions in an day should simply forfeit the match,

To me, failing to bowl 15 overs an hour is seeking an unfair advantage. Captains SHOULD be faced with difficult decisions over how to meet that (not very demanding) target. Captains SHOULD have to think and re-adjust without a time-out for consultation when a batsman starts making a mockery of the field placings. Captains SHOULD have to worry about seamers with long run-ups getting tired and ragged through steaming in: juggling their available resources is part of the challenge.

Ninjaman may or may not agree with you on this matter... but at least we should all agree on one thing: if the boards are agreed that sides should be penalised for slow over rates... then the ICC should make sure it happens!

Rachael: Ninjaman supports the ICC full stop, short of very small points that are not significant.

I think the ICC hit a low in the WC in 2003 when they fined the England team and docked them points.

Ninjaman says there was no threat to the England side from the S&D Of Zimbabwe because the SA intelligence said so, LOL the UK intelligence told us Saddam had a 45 minute capability to threaten the West, and although he did possess and had used WOMD in the past - the UK intelligence service assessment was a joke, so why should the SA equivalent be any better?.

OK lets look at slow over rates and fines for the same. I don't agree this is right for two reasons:

1) Some countries develop pace bowlers to suit their pitches, and as such will take longer to complete overs, than those countries who are better suited to developing spin and medium pace bowlers.

2) The timescale is stupid, fines can be levied on just a thirty minute 'run - over', lots of things cause delays - and long run up have to be taken into consideration.

Why do the ICC or if you prepare the collective boards of the cricketing world (some with much greater power than others) promote Ono's in reference to test cricket?, I think you know the answer is cash.

Test cricket is being ruined by players taking their improvised shots/deliveries into test cricket.

Players have been injured with to much cricket - Harmison - Flintoff - Vaughan - Shoaib and Simon Jones comeback was hindered by to much cricket he had to play.

What master plan have the ICC come up with to help players from being injured due to far to much cricket, and the running technique of our best players at test level: They give us an extra tier called the ICCC Champions Trophy (or a near enough name).
I am sure the ICC would agree Rachael, not sure about Ninjaman - but I suspect so.

__________________
Ern

Ninjaman defends the ICC from unwarranted attack, which is not the same thing as supporting the ICC.
Shock horror... the ECB signed up to an agreement and the ICC made them honour it: big deal. Like it or not, the world is far from united in believing Mugabe should be treated as a pariah... and the argument from England that the fine for avoiding the domestic political embarrassment playing in Zimbabwe should have been avoided on spurious grounds of "player safety" was never taken seriously by most of us here let alone by folk in the wider world.

Whilst that may not please you, it doesn't warrant an attack on the ICC.

Any side can manage fifteen overs a day: the only reason a four man attack of seamers bowls at twelve overs a day is to pace itself so that everyone remains fresh enough to bowl with total commitment thoughout long spells and right through to the end of the day, enabling them to manage without a fifth bowler (and allowing them to play six specialist batsmen).

Cricket is not well served by such sides. The contest sucks on two fronts. Firstly, the variety of bowling that existed (for instance) when England played the classic side of two new-ball bowlers with either Bedser and a spinner or two spinners has gone (and the glorious prospect of two spinners bowling in tandem is removed). Secondly, the contest is diminished by the sense that one side is trying to gain an unreasonable advantage.

Aside from that... how often do you see a pitch that favours a side with strong spinners and classic seamers? Since pitches have been covered, and since pitches have been prepared to wear well over five days, the game has swung ever more in the direction of one-dimensional speedsters who aren't fit to be compared with (say) Bedser and Underwood.. but who might be almost equally (in)effective on most modern pitches.Why is this an ICC issue? Either boards protect their players or they suffer the consequences. No one makes the boards choosethe schedules they do... and no-one obliges any board to select any player who is in need of a rest or less than fit.

Now... if you want to say that if YOU were head of the ICC... you'd be pressing for international agreement to limit the number of ODIs, to prioritise the protection of players and so on... then greay: Ninjaman's quite clearly stated that he's appreciate exactly that type of contribution to this thread.

I am changing this post because the original was just repeating myself.

I think we have got to look at some facts.
The first version of the ICC was the" Imperial Cricket Conference", that became the "International Cricket Conference" in 1965.

Now under these bodies there were no neutral umpires and yet the home umpires were a success.

Look at the provocation the Australian umpires: 'EG Brown and GA Hele' had to contend with in the Bodyline Ashes Series of 1932/33.

There were no claims of unsporting umpiring by the England team, and looking at records the England bowlers who did bowl quite quite a number of full balls got their quota's of LBWs.
My point of this is that home umpires did work.
Under the second ICC sportsmanship was excellent, look no further than the losing captain of the Bodyline series "Bill Woodfull" who refused to retaliate - this was sportsmanship not seen today.
Had England had a Bradman then the Aussie's would have done the same as Jardine IMO, and employed fast leg theory.

OK so there were diplomatic incidents, but this was government and not the players or the ICC.

In 1989 the ICC became the "International Cricket Council", and since then we have had a catalogue of disaster - World Cup 2003, England v Pakistan 2006 and Australia v India in 2008.

So under the old system home umpires worked, under the new ICC there all of a sudden is a need for neutral umpires - WHY? - has sportsmanship dropped that bad that there is now a perceived need for neutral umpires, or as the ICC naused cricket goodwill up for good.
No way am I saying go back to the days of the thirty's, but lets see some flexibility from the ICC so teams like England get a fair crack of the whip.
Or better still lets have a neutral ICC that knows what harm cash and ODI cricket is doing to cricket as a cricket as a whole, lets have a cricket body that understands players and officials - and lets have a body fair to all teams unlike the WC in 2003.Rules or no rules.

Also we need a governing body that will back it's employees, mainly in this case its umpires - I don't believe that since 1989 all the umpires have gone crap and unfair.

My post cites fair umpiring and good sportsmanship under great pressure, I wonder how the modern day ICC would have coped in 1032/32?.
Rachael - If Ninjaman is defending the ICC from unwarranted attacks then fair play, but I hope he respects my position in defending vulnerable umpires from unwarranted attacks and being put on the dole so to speak.
I would hope that new cricketing managers would instruct national groundsmen to produce a strip resembling a sporting wicket, the ICC have dot even addressed this deteriating problem.

I would hope also that new cricket managers would put cricket before profit, address the needs of all test nations, not just the lucky few.

And a new cricket body should promote test cricket at the expense of one day cricket, and 20/20 cricket should never be regarded as first class - because the shorter form corrupt the technique of our best test players.
Also players should be protected from to much cricket, a governing body should unlike the ICC make sure that players aren't allowed to endure long ODI series after a long and hard tour - other reasons than corrupting technique are cricket burn out.
The ICC IMO has failed in every aspect of the game, where it matters anyway.

__________________
Ern

It's interesting watching this exchange between Ernest and Rachael, and whilst both acknowledge that ODI Cricket is on the increase, in my opinion neither really appear to understand the reasons behind it, although Ernest is much closer to the mark.

Let's look at the facts and then draw a conclusion as to what the facts tell us.

Fact: ODI and the 'short game form' is immensely popular in India drawing much larger crowds than Test Matches.
Fact: ODI and the 'short game form' are far more lucrative in terms of the finances they bring in via media rights, sponsorship etc due to the simple fact that ODI's are simply more popular than Test Cricket with the crowds.
Fact: The gate receipts from Tests or ODI's are minimal when compared to the media rights and sponsors, mainly because far fewer people watch Tests and the entrance costs in GBP terms are pence to the average supporter.
Fact: the BCCI recognising that ODI and T20 is far more lucrative than Tests and want to play more of them.

So from that can we agree that the BCCI are much more in favour of ODI's and T20 than they are of Test Match Cricket?

So what initiatives have the ICC brought in recent times and what are the trends?

Fact: We now have a 50 over tournament (World Cup and ICC 50 over tournament) bi-annually.
Fact: T20 is now set to get it's own World cup and so we'll now pretty much have a 50 over or 20 over World Cup almost every single year.
Fact: England when visiting India had to play 7 ODI's and only 3 Test matches.
Fact: England are now having to play their ODI games T20 and 50 over games in NZ BEFORE the Test Matches.
Fact: Even England now appear to have switched focus to the 50 over format game, almost at the expense of the Test 5 day format.

What does all this actually tell us? I know what it tells me, that the BCCI want to play more ODI's and short format games because they know that's where the money lies, so what have the ICC done? Increased coverage and attention to the 50 over and T20 games, primarily because thats what the BCCI WANT the ICC to do.

Why are you surprised at this? Why are you surprised that the 5 day Test format is suffering at the hands of 50 over ODI's and T20 when I've stated on here repeatedly that the BCCI now pull the ICC strings like a puppet master and the ICC merely dances to its tune. The ICC does what the BCCI tells it to.

I really don't know what more evidence you need to be honest that the ICC is being controlled by the BCCI, all the facts point to it. I'm sure ninjaman will stick his head in the sand and ignore it, as it doesn't fit in with what he wants to beleive, presumably because there is no irrevocable proof of what's being said, apart from a whole load of facts that can only point to one possible conclusion.

I've no major problems with most of your "facts"... merely with the significance you attach to them: there's nothing new in any of what you suggest... but it all leaves me thinking "so what"? The commercial realities are unavoidable facts for all the boards... all have a common interest in adapting the game to those commercial realities... and given the commercial realities, the room for manouvre of ALL of the boards is contrained, with some being more constrained than others. This obviously has implications at ICC meetings: big deal.

Does any of this constitute a problem? Not necessarily: depends how you view the way the boards have been responding to the situation. I've no more enthusiasm than Ern for some of the implications... but do I see any of this as evidence that the ICC has "failed"? Not really.

Sure, I can think of some things I'd like to see done a little differently... but I can see sound reasons for most of the decisions taken... and unlike Ern, I don't see that the decisions made are poor: they take the game in directions I'm not keen on, and away from things I'd prefer... but does that make them "wrong"? I don't see that it does.

I'm not defending anyone.

You are free to attack who you want over whatever you want.

I'm trying to highlight to you that an issue like, for example, how much games England play when they tour country X or invite country Y, that is an issue for the ECB.

Likewise, when one country's board sells its TV rights to the highest bidder and a portion of the people cannot see it, then surely the board should be the one harassed.

The runniong of each country's games is in the hands of the national boards (the WI are in a unique position there is no politically binding entity called the West Indies and there is another level) so issues for each country should receive criticism on the national level.

I see relatively little of that, so that is why I have spent some time highlighting that NOT ALL (notice I have not said none) of the problems manifest themselves because of an error of the ICC and how it functions because well, that is outside its remit.

You are totally in your right to have an issue with how the Oval 2006 & recent Ind/Aus issue have gone.

However, whilst what occured should never have taken place (something I'm sure we both agree on?) we disagree on differences with how the ICC should have handled.

Under the guise of "What would you do?", I would have removed Hair years before that all happened likewise Bucknor.

And I say that as someone who actually knows Steve Bucknor and received lifts in his van into Montego Bay on some mornings!!

Neither of these happened and events unfolded as they did and as it is you and I disagree with what took place after that.

There is no need to go back over these issues.

I was over of your opinion from the numerous threads that were on this site when the actual incidents happened.

This thread I started was never about going over that ground.

It was so you could offer what you would do if you took over the ICC NOW.

Not had you been in control in 2006 or any previous date.

From the very first post I said I have problems with the ICC but yet this was ignored and questions were thrown at me as if I had either,

1) no problems at all,
2) because I did not agree with your problems then I was "wrong".

I stated my belief (and nothing has changed on that front either) that some people lay problems at the ICC's door when it actually is not the ICC's fault. In fact, I am now more convinced of that fact.

As a result I was cast as the ICC's defender which I am categorically not!!

Now, you made a suggestion about wanting to see the effect of money reduced in the game.

On at least two occasions I have stated I agree and wholeheartedly acknowledge that it is a wonderful idea.

I then followed that by asking HOW you intend to bring that about?

Now if you have never fully fleshed out the detail further I am more than willing to leave it at that. This is after all, merely a messageboard!

My point about seeing it as difficult is that under the current arrangement we now have, where boards carry out their business and vote the way they wish, those national boards already sell TV rights for lots of money to satellite channels, schedule lots of ODIs and 20/20 games some dislike and do things in their own self interest, yet we expect a new body to work differently just because it is new.

And if we introduce something in the new body that forces them along a certain path, whatever that may be, then is it really a democratic meeting of the world's body.

You want decisions for the "good of the game" but my point is different people will ALWAYS have differing opinions as to what constitutes "good of the game".

On another issue, is the idea that somehow I can't see the fact that some board are able to exert greater influence over others due to the fact they have bigger purses and earning potential.

I've acknowledged that from early on and have in many of my posts about the WI have stated that our dire economic position (not just cricket-wise but ultimately as world countries) has led us to where we are.

My whole viewpoint of the problem is that this is NOT new in world cricket. As someone already posted when they thought they were making a point, England and Australia used to have veto, that is the ultimate power in a voting body. Basically, nothing gets done unless they agree.

Now. Does the BCCI exert too much power over what happens in world cricket? YES

I've never denied it so why does Scott, or anybody else, try to act like I can't see this.

Does England have more say in world cricket than the West Indies or Zimbabwe? YES

And all countries align themselves in a league table of financial clout, naturally because of the way things are.

These power dynamics have always been in cricket but this thread and recent developments on it have confirmed without a shadow of a doubt that some people have a far greater problem with who and where the powerful come from.