Defending the ICC? Someone's Got To Do It
Here's Tim May, mouthing off:
You know what? It is crazy that Australia and India will play each other 21 times in eight months. But the schedule is not the ICC's fault. The culpability lies with the respective boards, easily the two most money-grubbing in the game (if you need evidence for that statement, consider Australia's ridiculous annual exercise of taking 12 matches to trim a three-team competition down to a two-team one and India's six- and seven-match bilateral ODI series every home season). Let this point be clear: the ICC only requires teams play each other twice every six seasons, once home and once away. Now, if the Australian and Indian boards want to capitalize on the fact that they are huge draws for each others' crowds and television marketers, then that's their prerogative. Just don't lash out at the ICC. After all, seeing as how India and Australia played each other in Australia in 2003-04 and in India in late 2004, the ICC doesn't require a series between the two sides until the Australian summer of 2008-09 (and it certainly doesn't require the aforementioned six-week long triangular ODI series). So, please, Timmy, direct your ire at your board and the BCCI. The ICC get plenty of flak, much of it deserved, but they're not to be blamed here.
Here's Tim May, mouthing off:
We're very seriously worried that a few countries are playing too much cricket. It's our ongoing battle with the ICC. Australia will play India 21 times in the eight months from June this year. From the perspective of players and spectators, it's going to dampen your interest. And it detracts from the commercial value of the product. Vision has been lost about what's important and what is not.
You know what? It is crazy that Australia and India will play each other 21 times in eight months. But the schedule is not the ICC's fault. The culpability lies with the respective boards, easily the two most money-grubbing in the game (if you need evidence for that statement, consider Australia's ridiculous annual exercise of taking 12 matches to trim a three-team competition down to a two-team one and India's six- and seven-match bilateral ODI series every home season). Let this point be clear: the ICC only requires teams play each other twice every six seasons, once home and once away. Now, if the Australian and Indian boards want to capitalize on the fact that they are huge draws for each others' crowds and television marketers, then that's their prerogative. Just don't lash out at the ICC. After all, seeing as how India and Australia played each other in Australia in 2003-04 and in India in late 2004, the ICC doesn't require a series between the two sides until the Australian summer of 2008-09 (and it certainly doesn't require the aforementioned six-week long triangular ODI series). So, please, Timmy, direct your ire at your board and the BCCI. The ICC get plenty of flak, much of it deserved, but they're not to be blamed here.
Labels:
Cricket
4 comments:
21 times..woah
I heard NZ is playing almost nothing. What about Pak? Is our schedule easy?
we have a couple of random odi tournaments some time in the summer (asia cup type stuff i think) but nothing major. real fun starts around september or so. we play SA at home in a 2-5, then in india for a 3-5 (or maybe 3-7) around october-november, then at home against australia around jan-feb for another 3-5. im glad we're playing a good number of test matches after that bullshit period in the late 90s, early 00s where we just played ODIs and nothing else.
yeah i swear - i love test matches so much - and pak is also getting a bit better at them.
incidently, have you considered posting your cricket articles up on cricket.bloggers.pk?
no, seems a little too complicated. i'd probably mess it up...i mean look at this blog now. it looked fine a couple of weeks ago; i tried to change one thing and i ended up changing the entire fucking template. im bound to mess these technological things up, it's best i stick to what i know.
Post a Comment