Surely not.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

Well the ICC has been governing the world game since 1909 when the English formed it with the Aussies and Saffers. Nearly 100 years not 20.

And if you are talking about the laws of cricket, then they are still and always have been governed by the MCC.

You're just trying to set me off on one now.

Well I'm not going to start.

I'm not falling for it... in fact...

__________________
Red-it, Red-it, Read it and wept

Good point, good point. I suggest the two CCs were rather more closely linked then than they are now though.

__________________
Red-it, Red-it, Read it and wept

I couldn't really give a hoot if England are first or last in the ODI ranking system, they don't matter one inch to me and it shall stay like that for a long time to come. I only have the England ODI shirt because it's more colourful than the Test shirt, albeit the test shirt has a couple of lines on it now!

As far as appreciation goes, as I've stated, couldn't give a hoot who wins the World Cup, I would be happy if England won, but it would soon be forgotten as with most ODI's as what Oliver said.

If teams in the sub continent want to play tons of ODI's then that's their choice, good luck to you and enjoy the money of pyjama cricket. I would rather see the teams who want to play lots of ODI's play lots against each other. If England toured India (just using the current example) and India only wanted to play the three tests and not five, that would be fine with me but if only three ODI's were played and not seven! then English players could go home and rest and the Indian team can go and play more ODI's somewhere else. Everybody wins!

__________________
Watch this for a perfect about.
James May

They're not even landlord and tenant any more, with the ICC following our very own Maranello to Dubai. Something deep inside me says that increasing the distance between the MCC and the ICC ought to be a good thing - just as in principle it ought to be a good thing to have an elected House of Lords and a totally separate Supreme Court. But these quaint old arrangements - hereditary peers, blurred lines between judiciary and legislature, ICC being the governing body for the international version of a game for which the apparently subsidiary MCC makes the Laws - all seem to have worked pretty well for a number of decades or centuries, and sometimes the old adage about "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" seems to spring to mind.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

Dead right Vrock. Absolutely bang on the money.

I couldn't agree more.

I'm still to trying to fix it in my mind why it was that Australia went to India (was it?) last year. They played a Test series with no ODIs.

What was that all about? Why can't England do that?

__________________
Red-it, Red-it, Read it and wept

I have no idea why they only played Tests and not ODI's. Possibly because it was just after the ICCCCCCT so they felt that they had played too many ODI's for once. However, I would be over the moon if England could do that.

__________________
Watch this for a perfect about.
James May

Would the ICC actually let us stop playing ODI's without imposing a very large fine?

That's a good point Alison, but not being ever a supporter of international one dayers, )I thought the domestic competitions were the best) I think if a country wanted to opt their Test players out of one day cricket, but put a strong one day team out, then the ICC would have no choice but to accept that the best one day side had been fielded.

To make a point myself, England have been outplayed by India in this one day series, and this has been going on for some seasons, then I am sure England could find a better 11 than is out there at the moment.

The ICC would surley take note than a side can't do worse than lose all it's matches, so a fine would not be appropriate IMO.

__________________
Ern