ICC board set to discuss radical changes in Test and ODI structure in April

[Markhor]

Proposals for a radical change in the structure of Test and one-day international cricket will be discussed by the International Cricket Council (ICC) in April.

The proposals, agreed by the ICC's chief executives committee, could pave the way for a Test league to be run over each two-year period, as well as a 13-team ODI format to be introduced by 2019.

There will be no confirmation of plans set to be put forward to the ICC board until, at the earliest, the next meeting of the governing body's top brass in April.

However, indications are - after day two of three in the current round of talks in Dubai - that there is an agreement between administrators from member nations as to the best way forward for all Test-playing countries.

It follows several months of suggestions and consultations to try to identify the most advantageous method of reorganisation for Test cricket especially - in which competition has existed on a bi-lateral basis for almost 140 years without significant change.

ICC chief executive Dave Richardson made it clear, on a visit to Lord's during last summer's Test against Pakistan, that in his opinion evolution was nigh.

"Doing nothing is not an option any more," he said in July.

Full details of the proposals are yet to emerge, but the likelihood is that the top nine Test-playing countries will be joined by Zimbabwe and two others.

That will be heartening information for England's neighbours Ireland, who have long had their eyes on a Test as well as ODI and Twenty20 future.

It remains to be seen if there will be any implications for the staging of so-called 'icon' series such as the Ashes or several of those involving India.

ICC spokesmen have been at pains throughout, however, to confirm the status of such historic rivalries will remain protected and undiminished.

The ODI structure is expected to involve a bigger pool of 13 competing nations, in a league format over each three years and involving mechanism for World Cup qualification.

http://www.skysports.com/cricket/ne...al-changes-in-test-and-odi-structure-in-april

Details are still sketchy but I've been banging this drum for a long time. Every sport NEEDS context. Why play Golf without the majors ? Why play football without a World Cup ? Test cricket cannot survive on an endless stream of meaningless bilaterals. I hope the schedule, unlike the FTP, will be enforced so every team plays each other within a set timeframe. I hope there will be a final between the two top teams at the end of this two year period.

This 9-3 formula is different to the Test conference system proposed a few months ago where two groups of six were to play each other over two years before the top ranked team from each conference would play in a final.

Also good news is Afghanistan and Ireland appear on the verge of Test status. As for the ODI league - its great news for lower ranked teams as they'll be guaranteed international cricket against top sides. ODI series will have context as the rankings would form the basis for World Cup qualification.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

I'm still skeptical, but if this passes it's a watershed moment for the sport, as for the first time ever games will actually mean something

 

[street cricketer]

Will get scrapped in the next meeting.

 

[Zahid87]

The only major problem that was ever faced with getting bilateral games to mean anything was the insistence of England and Australia that 'The Ashes' meant more than any other game.

But still not sure if it makes things any better. To make things fair, there should be a set number of home and away games to be played by each team against each other. How can a two test series carry the same weight as a five test series.

And besides, how can you fit a set schedule when two teams are insistent on playing each other every other year, come what may. India will have problems playing Pakistan. Not sure where certain teams are on playing Zimbabwe either.

 

[Markhor]

The only major problem that was ever faced with getting bilateral games to mean anything was the insistence of England and Australia that 'The Ashes' meant more than any other game.

But still not sure if it makes things any better. To make things fair, there should be a set number of home and away games to be played by each team against each other. How can a two test series carry the same weight as a five test series.

And besides, how can you fit a set schedule when two teams are insistent on playing each other every other year, come what may. India will have problems playing Pakistan. Not sure where certain teams are on playing Zimbabwe either.

I can't post the source but some more details have emerged:

- Nine Full Members excluding Zimbabwe will play each other in Test series either home or away once over a two-year period, at the end of which there will be a play-off between the top two teams.

- The duration of the series will be up to the members - even a one-off Test can be considered a series. The system of how points will be awarded, given that each series will not be of the same length, is yet to be worked out.

- If one team refuses to play another - as has been the case with India playing Pakistan - they will forfeit points.

- Full Members will retain the power to schedule bilateral series should they wish outside of this league structure.

- The details of how the bottom three teams operate within this league are still to be fully worked out. They will play against each other in what will be Test matches, but essentially outside of the league structure and with no points at stake. Administrators, however, are also working out a way for the nine Full Members play a series against at least one of the three in a cycle.

- At the end of a four-year period - of two cycles - the performances of these three teams will be assessed.

 

[Flat_Track_Bully]

The ODI league needs to be annual. Nobody cares about it 3 years later.

Scrap bilateal format for ODIs and introduce equal matches home and away for all teams over an annual season.

 

[JaDed]

Is this the reason for no IPL window?

 

[Donal Cozzie]

Big if, but if this goes through it would be such a wonderful change. Please for God's sake let this be the one thing the ICC won't ruin with politics and greed! (they will ruin it though)

 

[shah_1]

Something new

 

[Pakpak]

What is the point of the ODI WC if we have an ODI league system?

 

[Markhor]

What is the point of the ODI WC if we have an ODI league system?

League positions will serve basis for qualification to the WC.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

Is this the reason for no IPL window?

to expect 4 months to be no go for international cricket with 11 teams playing each other in 2 years? How is it going to be possible?

 

[JaDed]

to expect 4 months to be no go for international cricket with 11 teams playing each other in 2 years? How is it going to be possible?

Nope just 2 months, 2 is enough to make money and spread it to smaller towns.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

Nope just 2 months, 2 is enough to make money and spread it to smaller towns.

I meant 4 months for 2 years. Its difficult to see top 9 teams play each other and also best players being available for 2 months a year.

An ODI league sounds probable as ODI's don't consume large chunk of dates but tests definitely.

Also it will be interesting to see what this means for Ashes? Or marquee series like India-England.

 

[JaDed]

I meant 4 months for 2 years. Its difficult to see top 9 teams play each other and also best players being available for 2 months a year.

An ODI league sounds probable as ODI's don't consume large chunk of dates but tests definitely.

Also it will be interesting to see what this means for Ashes? Or marquee series like India-England.

True,that's why no window,if IPL ends up having only West Indies and Indian players lol then that BCCI can arrange on their own anyway without ICC's help.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

True,that's why no window,if IPL ends up having only West Indies and Indian players lol then that BCCI can arrange on their own anyway without ICC's help.

FICA has already given ICC the hint that whatever they plan they have to keep the t20 leagues in mind. To be honest ICC needs to keep a window preferably 4 months a year for countries to host their leagues, let the leagues compete with each other rather than leagues vs international cricket.

Problem solved, it will make poor leagues wither away and increase the quality of leagues over time in a bid to attract better international players.

Right now the attitude is to hurt BCCI's key interest IPL. Instead of making their own IPL style league, they are looking at ways to hurt India's product, which tbh is counter productive, because a financially healthy India = financially healthy ICC.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Nope just 2 months, 2 is enough to make money and spread it to smaller towns.

There are more than half a dozen pyjama cricket leagues. If ICC starts giving window to every league then when will we see international cricket?

 

[JaDed]

There are more than half a dozen pyjama cricket leagues. If ICC starts giving window to every league then when will we see international cricket?

Guess you are right as well and I know you see INTL cricket with nostalgic eyes but when I see many youngsters who will not make the cut for National team but have a very good chance of making good money in IPL ,I end up supporting the league much more so yeah maybe it doesn't matter if window is there or not but forcefully trying to keep INTL cricket then seems to be vengeful at the best.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Guess you are right as well and I know you see INTL cricket with nostalgic eyes but when I see many youngsters who will not make the cut for National team but have a very good chance of making good money in IPL ,I end up supporting the league much more so yeah maybe it doesn't matter if window is there or not but forcefully trying to keep INTL cricket then seems to be vengeful at the best.

No intl cricket means no intl superstar which will kill your Burger Leagues within 2 years.

The only spectators after 2-3 years will be 2 commentators, 2 on field umpires and 3 kabootar sitting on the roof of the commentary box.

 

[JaDed]

No intl cricket means no intl superstar which will kill your Burger Leagues within 2 years.

The only spectators after 2-3 years will be 2 commentators, 2 on field umpires and 3 kabootar sitting on the roof of the commentary box.

Who is saying No INTL cricket have the test cricket and ICC tournaments,Asia cups.Just talking about Indian cricket,mate you need to speak to younger kids when IPL is going on,its totally a different crowd that have taken to IPL.

Its not 90's anymore where no one cared ,these are not Duleep trophy matches.

 

[Madplayer]

Ai shabash

Maine ek mahal banaya, leher aayi to bikhar gaya. Raet ka tha na actually.

 

[USofA]

I think this is all eye wash. It does not take 2 years to set these things up. Either they do not have a revenue model to look at or they have it and the numbers do not add up. I think they still do not have a firm commitment from BCCI as the revenue model is based on them.

A lot can happen in two years. This is just setup for failure. It's more of the kicking the can down the road.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Who is saying No INTL cricket have the test cricket and ICC tournaments,Asia cups.Just talking about Indian cricket,mate you need to speak to younger kids when IPL is going on,its totally a different crowd that have taken to IPL.

Its not 90's anymore where no one cared ,these are not Duleep trophy matches.

I am talking about a scenario where ICC will assign 2 months window for each league.

 

[Drreddymd]

I am talking about a scenario where ICC will assign 2 months window for each league.

So what u want to do with t 20 leagues? Scrap them and play meaningless onesided series like sa and sl, aus vs wi? Prevent the lively hood of players who r never gonna make it to the top? Series between sl pak, sl wi, sl sa will lose money to the board making them bankrupt.

What is the use of international cricket if u cannot pay u r players decent salaries and board loses money by staging thoses matches

 

[Square Drive]

Great if this actually happens.

 

[WC-Passion]

It needs to happen. I'm sure many people are fed up watching meaningless bilateral series' year on year, only making a difference to the ever changing ranking system.

 

[Syed1]

Is this the reason for no IPL window?

There is not going to be an IPL window anymore?!?! :

 

[Syed1]

If they were going to give IPL a window it is only fair that every league gets a window otherwise nobody gets it. I wonder why our Indian friends are having a hard time wrapping their head around this concept.

 

[Gilly]

If the ICC take away the 5 test series from Aus and Eng then these boards make less money, which in turn means less money for the ICC. Then the ICC expect Aus and Eng to play more tests against teams like Ire and Afg which means that they will play series that make a loss which takes more money from the ICC.

So to make cricket successful the ICC is going to make it less profitable for the top teams which helps other sports compete against cricket in these countries. Now all this will reduce the quality of cricket in the bigger nations making it more competitive for the minnows.

What I can see happening is the top four or five teams will pull out of the ICC and form a coalition of boards that run independently. The ICC cannot survive by punishing teams for being strong and healthy.

 

[Convict]

I meant 4 months for 2 years. Its difficult to see top 9 teams play each other and also best players being available for 2 months a year.

An ODI league sounds probable as ODI's don't consume large chunk of dates but tests definitely.

Also it will be interesting to see what this means for Ashes? Or marquee series like India-England.

They will remain.

 

[Junaids]

Big if, but if this goes through it would be such a wonderful change. Please for God's sake let this be the one thing the ICC won't ruin with politics and greed! (they will ruin it though)

They can't ruin it.

Manohar is in charge of the ICC and is leading the reforms. And the BCCI reps have been appointed by the Supreme Court and are not people who need money to buy the votes of the cricket associations.

That's why this is going through now!

 

[Shutdown Corner]

They can't ruin it.

Manohar is in charge of the ICC and is leading the reforms. And the BCCI reps have been appointed by the Supreme Court and are not people who need money to buy the votes of the cricket associations.

That's why this is going through now!

Yeah Manohar is a man with a heart and more importantly a man with a brain. So there is hope, but I won't believe it till its actually ratified.

How broadcasters react is another issue, but I don't think they will mind for the following 2 reasons:

- top 9 teams are basically kept isolated from bottom 3
- Big 3 teams have flexibility of playing 1 off Tests vs financially nonviable teams and keeping 5 Test marquee clashes intact...thats all the broadcasters care about

Now to make this really good, there has to be guaranteed exposure of the bottom 3 teams to ALL of the top 9. For example, ZIM/IRE/AFG get to play a series home or away vs all 9 top tier teams over a 6 year period (3 cycles). That is fair, provides exposure to all, and won't be a money drain.

 

[Junaids]

If the ICC take away the 5 test series from Aus and Eng then these boards make less money, which in turn means less money for the ICC. Then the ICC expect Aus and Eng to play more tests against teams like Ire and Afg which means that they will play series that make a loss which takes more money from the ICC.

So to make cricket successful the ICC is going to make it less profitable for the top teams which helps other sports compete against cricket in these countries. Now all this will reduce the quality of cricket in the bigger nations making it more competitive for the minnows.

What I can see happening is the top four or five teams will pull out of the ICC and form a coalition of boards that run independently. The ICC cannot survive by punishing teams for being strong and healthy.

Nobody is suggesting that The Ashes can't be played. And the ECB and Cricket Australia are leading these reforms, now that Manohar's elevation has made them realise that the Big Three is a dead duck.

England have to play all 8 other Test teams (minus Zimbabwe) in at least 1 Test every 2 years. But they can play 25 Ashes Tests each year if they wish.

I think a typical pair of English calendar years might end up looking like this:

January: New Zealand away (3 Tests)
May: West Indies home (2 Tests)
July: Australia home (5 Tests)
December: South Africa away (4 Tests)

May: Pakistan home (2 Tests)
July: India home (4 Tests)
October: Sri Lanka away (2 Tests)
November: Bangladesh away (2 Tests)

Is that so onerous? They still optimise Big Three revenue!

 

[R0H1T]

If the ICC take away the 5 test series from Aus and Eng then these boards make less money, which in turn means less money for the ICC. Then the ICC expect Aus and Eng to play more tests against teams like Ire and Afg which means that they will play series that make a loss which takes more money from the ICC.

So to make cricket successful the ICC is going to make it less profitable for the top teams which helps other sports compete against cricket in these countries. Now all this will reduce the quality of cricket in the bigger nations making it more competitive for the minnows.

What I can see happening is the top four or five teams will pull out of the ICC and form a coalition of boards that run independently. The ICC cannot survive by punishing teams for being strong and healthy.

That's what I said in the other thread, the ICC is delusional

 

[Donal Cozzie]

If the ICC take away the 5 test series from Aus and Eng then these boards make less money, which in turn means less money for the ICC. Then the ICC expect Aus and Eng to play more tests against teams like Ire and Afg which means that they will play series that make a loss which takes more money from the ICC.

.

Aren't gonna do anything of the sort man, nobody wants to see that. More likely case is that Ireland/Zimbabwe/Afghanistan would be flown in for a quick test while England played a warm-up (Assuming that its an Australian Ashes tour)

Weaker side gets some exposure, Aussies get some practice before Ashes begin, nobody's hurt.

The big teams will play each other just as often as they do now, but there are more chances and games for the other sides as well. Plus it gives cricket games actual meaning for once

 

[Gilly]

Aren't gonna do anything of the sort man, nobody wants to see that. More likely case is that Ireland/Zimbabwe/Afghanistan would be flown in for a quick test while England played a warm-up (Assuming that its an Australian Ashes tour)

Weaker side gets some exposure, Aussies get some practice before Ashes begin, nobody's hurt.

The big teams will play each other just as often as they do now, but there are more chances and games for the other sides as well. Plus it gives cricket games actual meaning for once

What is missing here is how teams like Eng,Aus,Ind, Pak and SA became strong teams was decades of establishing domestic systems that could support test teams. Ire and Afg are not going to become strong teams by playing the bigger nations, it just doesent happen like that. Smaller nations have to develop a sound domestic competition that is robust and producing quality players. A good example in Zim, they had some good players but could not maintain the high quality needed to provide replacements for these players. Ire might play a few good test matches but most of the time will be thrashed by the bigger nations which will diminish the quality overall. People want quality cricket not quantity.

 

[ads101]

Very hard to implement an effective test championship when teams don't play each other very often. It takes years for every team to play every other team. And some play each other more often than others, and that isn't going to change. Not to mention the huge home advantage in tests, which means you can't run it the same way as football.

Test cricket will die eventually. It just doesn't fit the needs of the modern era.

If they want it to survive I'd do these things. Shorten it to 3 days and play on the weekends (so people can watch). Get rid of second innings, each team plays one and a half days. Introduce a max number of overs to bat and make pitches more bowling friendly. Get rid of the draw option. Emphasize all the good things about test cricket, the more unpredictable batting conditions, more room for bowlers to exploit pitch. Get rid of the negative things, e.g. too long, draws etc.

I'd also probably introduce a system where more points are given for away games too. Test series should also be only 3 tests long.

Because we are unwilling to implement radical changes to test cricket, to meet the demands of the modern era, it will die. That's the problem.

 

[Junaids]

Very hard to implement an effective test championship when teams don't play each other very often. It takes years for every team to play every other team. And some play each other more often than others, and that isn't going to change. Not to mention the huge home advantage in tests, which means you can't run it the same way as football.

Test cricket will die eventually. It just doesn't fit the needs of the modern era.

If they want it to survive I'd do these things. Shorten it to 3 days and play on the weekends (so people can watch). Get rid of second innings, each team plays one and a half days. Introduce a max number of overs to bat and make pitches more bowling friendly. Get rid of the draw option. Emphasize all the good things about test cricket, the more unpredictable batting conditions, more room for bowlers to exploit pitch. Get rid of the negative things, e.g. too long, draws etc.

I'd also probably introduce a system where more points are given for away games too. Test series should also be only 3 tests long.

Because we are unwilling to implement radical changes to test cricket, to meet the demands of the modern era, it will die. That's the problem.

Your comments really do seem to be those of a person from the Indian subcontinent living in a Third World country or working in the USA. They certainly don't apply to any of the "white" cricket countries.

The taste for Test cricket
Day/Night Tests in Australia - and Tests during the holiday period - rate more highly than ODIs and attract larger crowds to the ground.

People clearly prefer the format - and the ability to draw a Test your team is far behind in - to the shorter forms of the game. If my team is 200 all out and then by the end of Day 3 the opposition is 580-6, I like the fact that my team can save the Test by batting defensively for 2 days. I wouldn't watch if the only possible results were win/lose/tie.

The timing of the game
Your only semi-valid point is about "the needs of the modern era".

But you don't seem to understand what those needs are.

The working week shrinks smaller and smaller - currently 38 hours per week here in Australia (while in France 35 looks like turning into 32 after the Presidential election.)

The vast majority of cricket lovers are home by 6pm every night, and half of them - the children - are home by 4pm.

This means that Day/Night Test cricket is a surefire winner.

Pakistan has just toured Australia, and at all 3 grounds had the largest ever attendance there for a Test between the two countries. They also had the largest ever attendance for the two sides in the preceding Tests at Hamilton and Christchurch - even though the ground in Christchurch has 20% of the capacity of its predecessor.

Test cricket is alive and well in its traditional heartlands. And Day/Night Test cricket is just making it even stronger.

 

[aloo paratha]

I really hope this actually happens.

 

[Thivagar]

The ODI league needs to be annual. Nobody cares about it 3 years later.

Scrap bilateal format for ODIs and introduce equal matches home and away for all teams over an annual season.

Annual ODI league would have been interesting if we had 30 quality ODI teams. With about 7 proper ODI teams, it wouldn't be valuable.

 

[Thivagar]

Is this the reason for no IPL window?

IPL needs to be longer with more teams and less restriction on foreign players. It is the only cricket league that is very close professional.

 

[JaDed]

IPL needs to be longer with more teams and less restriction on foreign players. It is the only cricket league that is very close professional.

I like BBL as well problem being their are managed directly by CA and the franchise system is almost not there.
Agree in IPL there needs to be more teams,less discrimination but i would still only allow 5 foreign players at max atleast for another 10 years.

 

[Gilly]

IPL needs to be longer with more teams and less restriction on foreign players. It is the only cricket league that is very close professional.

Just out of interest what changes need to be made to make the IPL and BBL more professional?.

 

[ads101]

Your comments really do seem to be those of a person from the Indian subcontinent living in a Third World country or working in the USA. They certainly don't apply to any of the "white" cricket countries.

The taste for Test cricket
Day/Night Tests in Australia - and Tests during the holiday period - rate more highly than ODIs and attract larger crowds to the ground.

People clearly prefer the format - and the ability to draw a Test your team is far behind in - to the shorter forms of the game. If my team is 200 all out and then by the end of Day 3 the opposition is 580-6, I like the fact that my team can save the Test by batting defensively for 2 days. I wouldn't watch if the only possible results were win/lose/tie.

The timing of the game
Your only semi-valid point is about "the needs of the modern era".

But you don't seem to understand what those needs are.

The working week shrinks smaller and smaller - currently 38 hours per week here in Australia (while in France 35 looks like turning into 32 after the Presidential election.)

The vast majority of cricket lovers are home by 6pm every night, and half of them - the children - are home by 4pm.

This means that Day/Night Test cricket is a surefire winner.

Pakistan has just toured Australia, and at all 3 grounds had the largest ever attendance there for a Test between the two countries. They also had the largest ever attendance for the two sides in the preceding Tests at Hamilton and Christchurch - even though the ground in Christchurch has 20% of the capacity of its predecessor.

Test cricket is alive and well in its traditional heartlands. And Day/Night Test cricket is just making it even stronger.

Was born in the UK. Cricket has really died in popularity amongst the younger generation. Hardly any of my friends watch it. And the ones who do tend to be asian and support asian teams. Test cricket in particular is too long for the casual viewer (and I think why people stay away). Having said that LOI cricket isn't popular in UK either, cricket as a whole just isn't popular. It's being carried by the older generation. In Australia it is probably still popular, one of the few nations (if not the only). And especially amongst English fans, cricket is really all about the Ashes, the rest doesn't matter as much.

Cricket is a world game, we need to cater to the majority. The majority of cricket fans are indeed from the indian subcontinent anyway. The way it's looking now, feel like test cricket will be gone altogether except for the Ashes series, and the rest will be LOI. Because we refuse to adapt.

Day-Night cricket is a good step forward but it's not enough. Even with Day-Night, doubt people will watch much of the test series. If you come back at 6pm, you want to watch cricket for hours till night then go back to work next morning? Unlikely to happen. The main issue is it's just too long, too many days. This is why it loses out, and increasingly loses out to sports such as football, tennis etc.

Cricket can continue catering to the elitist or the traditionalist fans, but if we do expect it to die out, or just become a sport followed by a small minority.

 

[Thivagar]

I like BBL as well problem being their are managed directly by CA and the franchise system is almost not there.
Agree in IPL there needs to be more teams,less discrimination but i would still only allow 5 foreign players at max atleast for another 10 years.

Just out of interest what changes need to be made to make the IPL and BBL more professional?.

Maybe the word "professional" is not the right word. IPL and BBL have no intention of long term development, it is all about now and this season. There is no player development but rather "take the player who is in form at the shortest format". No specific scouts either, only Rajasthan Royals had Zubin Bharucha who happened to find Pravin Tambe. IPL and BBL are more of a tournament than a league.

 

[Junaids]

Was born in the UK. Cricket has really died in popularity amongst the younger generation. Hardly any of my friends watch it. And the ones who do tend to be asian and support asian teams. Test cricket in particular is too long for the casual viewer (and I think why people stay away). Having said that LOI cricket isn't popular in UK either, cricket as a whole just isn't popular. It's being carried by the older generation. In Australia it is probably still popular, one of the few nations (if not the only). And especially amongst English fans, cricket is really all about the Ashes, the rest doesn't matter as much.

Cricket is a world game, we need to cater to the majority. The majority of cricket fans are indeed from the indian subcontinent anyway. The way it's looking now, feel like test cricket will be gone altogether except for the Ashes series, and the rest will be LOI. Because we refuse to adapt.

Day-Night cricket is a good step forward but it's not enough. Even with Day-Night, doubt people will watch much of the test series. If you come back at 6pm, you want to watch cricket for hours till night then go back to work next morning? Unlikely to happen. The main issue is it's just too long, too many days. This is why it loses out, and increasingly loses out to sports such as football, tennis etc.

Cricket can continue catering to the elitist or the traditionalist fans, but if we do expect it to die out, or just become a sport followed by a small minority.

Thanks for your reply, and in retrospect I'm sorry for my condescending tone. It was good of you not to call me out for it!

I'd like to make two points though.

When the ECB sold cricket rights to Pay-TV from 2005, ratings were exceptionally high. But 12 years of cricket being hidden behind a pay wall has completely wrecked its popularity.

Secondly, I've attended 3 of the 4 Day/Night Tests ever played. And I have to say that I politely (this time!) disagree.

The timing is still not quite right - it's starting an hour early in Australia. But 90%+ of the viewing public can tune in from 6 pm onwards, and that makes the final session and a half viewable, which is just about ideal.

 

[Gilly]

Maybe the word "professional" is not the right word. IPL and BBL have no intention of long term development, it is all about now and this season. There is no player development but rather "take the player who is in form at the shortest format". No specific scouts either, only Rajasthan Royals had Zubin Bharucha who happened to find Pravin Tambe. IPL and BBL are more of a tournament than a league.

I cant speak for the IPL but you are 100% wrong on the BBL, the reason that CA went with the current system is that the profits produced from the BBL is pushed back into grassroot cricket. The biggest example of that is the funding and running of the womens BBL. CA is promoting womens cricket to grow the sport of cricket and is using the funds from the BBL instead of shareholders filling their pockets.

 

[Gilly]

Maybe the word "professional" is not the right word. IPL and BBL have no intention of long term development, it is all about now and this season. There is no player development but rather "take the player who is in form at the shortest format". No specific scouts either, only Rajasthan Royals had Zubin Bharucha who happened to find Pravin Tambe. IPL and BBL are more of a tournament than a league.

Just to show how wrong you are:

Grassroots cricket to benefit from Brisbane Heat’s incredible $1 million BBL06 profit

THE Brisbane Heat are set to post a seven figure profit for the season and it will be funnelled back to those who generated it.

A million dollar-plus profit awaits the Heat who sold out their entire four-match home season and are also set to sell out Wednesday’s semi-final against the Sydney Sixers.

The Heat takes 15 per cent of profits for the semi-final.

A crowd of around 17,000 is considered about break even at home games so this figure has been doubled at every game.

“It would be fair to say it will be seven figures,’’ Heat general manager Andrew McShea said of the likely Heat profit.

“Queensland Cricket is not for profit so the profits will continue to grow the game all over Queensland.
“It will help with more staff and helping with junior clubs and schools, more equipment, changes to facilities and improvements to grassroots cricket.’’

When the Big Bash was launched there was a massive push for the teams to be privately owned just as they are in the Indian Premier League.


Cricket Australia gave this concept careful consideration but elected to maintain the ownership of all franchises in the hope that the venture would take off and the teams would make money.

So it has proved.

CA is now greatly relieved it made this decision because not only is it reaping the financial benefits but with the state associations being the parent bodies it has access to all junior networks. Despite being owned by CA the Heat are allowed to disperse profits back into Queensland cricket.http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...t/news-story/5c9fe2c1a3d278870821c4e21de0dac6

 

[USofA]

What happens when/if the politicians get back to power at the BCCI. And they will find a way to power. Especially in the subcontinent. Will they abruptly pull the rug ($$$) on these changes just because?

The changes should not only be implemented on playing side but also from the financial/administrative side. Planning (and hopefully implementing) on the back of BCCI money again will change very little. Doing pretty much the same thing and expecting different results is just plain foolishness.

There has to be some form of radical change that does not give absolute power back to BCCI. It should be done in a way where the power is evenly distributed or in the hands of the ICC. A setup where everyone is not vulnerable to the opinions and wills of a single board.

Now this may mean less money and smaller profits. But a more balance in power. How and what to do accomplish this....I don't have any suggestions yet. Also is the ICC willing to take less money/revenue for more control?

 

[JaDed]

Just to show how wrong you are:

And so many posts on the forum still criticizing these leagues,must say such a model would never work in India due to obvious reasons but good for Aus cricket!

 

[Junaids]

What happens when/if the politicians get back to power at the BCCI. And they will find a way to power. Especially in the subcontinent. Will they abruptly pull the rug ($$$) on these changes just because?

The changes should not only be implemented on playing side but also from the financial/administrative side. Planning (and hopefully implementing) on the back of BCCI money again will change very little. Doing pretty much the same thing and expecting different results is just plain foolishness.

There has to be some form of radical change that does not give absolute power back to BCCI. It should be done in a way where the power is evenly distributed or in the hands of the ICC. A setup where everyone is not vulnerable to the opinions and wills of a single board.

Now this may mean less money and smaller profits. But a more balance in power. How and what to do accomplish this....I don't have any suggestions yet. Also is the ICC willing to take less money/revenue for more control?

This is why the two crucial issues - as big as a house - are actually:

1. Pooling of TV rights, and
2. Ending bilateral scheduling.

As soon as you introduce those changes, world cricket has an insurance policy against being held to ransom so that the BCCI can pay off state cricket associations for their votes.

 

[JibranAnsari]

Exciting idea.

Can anyone create a hypothetical draft of two years test cricket.?

 

[USofA]

This is why the two crucial issues - as big as a house - are actually:

1. Pooling of TV rights, and
2. Ending bilateral scheduling.

As soon as you introduce those changes, world cricket has an insurance policy against being held to ransom so that the BCCI can pay off state cricket associations for their votes.

Wouldn't the TV people want some form of minimum ratings, India matches guarantee so that they can make money? Which would mean some kind of manipulation of scheduling to keep them happy. We all know that no one is willing to take less money (ICC) or compromise on profits (TV Channels).

Also pooling rights would mean that CA and ECB lose the Ashes revenue stream. Would they want that? Where will pooling TV rights leave Sky et all, at the hands/mercy of Star?

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

So what u want to do with t 20 leagues? Scrap them and play meaningless onesided series like sa and sl, aus vs wi? Prevent the lively hood of players who r never gonna make it to the top? Series between sl pak, sl wi, sl sa will lose money to the board making them bankrupt.

What is the use of international cricket if u cannot pay u r players decent salaries and board loses money by staging thoses matches

If there is no use of international cricket then why play leagues like IPL where their main focus is to find new and exciting talents that can perform for them in the international matches? You see you can't have both sides of the coin.

Pyjama leagues won't survive 2 seasons if ICC decides to scrap Intl cricket just because burger fans think these intl. matches are meaningless.

 

[Junaids]

Wouldn't the TV people want some form of minimum ratings, India matches guarantee so that they can make money? Which would mean some kind of manipulation of scheduling to keep them happy. We all know that no one is willing to take less money (ICC) or compromise on profits (TV Channels).

Also pooling rights would mean that CA and ECB lose the Ashes revenue stream. Would they want that? Where will pooling TV rights leave Sky et all, at the hands/mercy of Star?

I would say you do it something like this.

Sell the following packages:

1. ICC tournaments - live TV coverage.
2. International Test and ODI rights for each market - carries an obligation to broadcast all Test cricket everywhere in the world.
3. International T20 rights

Obviously the biggest bids are going to come in from India and England.

You then take the pooled TV revenue, and distribute it as follows:

1. World Test Championship winner 5%
2. 50 Over World Cup winner 3%
3. T20 World Cup winners 1% each
4. BCCI 15%
5. ECB 10%
6. Cricket Australia, Cricket South Africa, PCB, Sri Lanka Cricket, New Zealand Cricket, BCB, Cricket West Indies 8% each.
7. Afghanistan, Ireland, Zimbabwe 2% each
8. Associates - the rest

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

So can someone help me understand this?

How will this ODI league and Test league work?

So will the number of test matches for all the series be the same?

 

[Gilly]

I would say you do it something like this.

Sell the following packages:

1. ICC tournaments - live TV coverage.
2. International Test and ODI rights for each market - carries an obligation to broadcast all Test cricket everywhere in the world.
3. International T20 rights

Obviously the biggest bids are going to come in from India and England.

You then take the pooled TV revenue, and distribute it as follows:

1. World Test Championship winner 5%
2. 50 Over World Cup winner 3%
3. T20 World Cup winners 1% each
4. BCCI 15%
5. ECB 10%
6. Cricket Australia, Cricket South Africa, PCB, Sri Lanka Cricket, New Zealand Cricket, BCB, Cricket West Indies 8% each.
7. Afghanistan, Ireland, Zimbabwe 2% each
8. Associates - the rest

Why does the ECB get more than CA?.

 

[cricket.mad]

I would say you do it something like this.

Sell the following packages:

1. ICC tournaments - live TV coverage.
2. International Test and ODI rights for each market - carries an obligation to broadcast all Test cricket everywhere in the world.
3. International T20 rights

Obviously the biggest bids are going to come in from India and England.

You then take the pooled TV revenue, and distribute it as follows:

1. World Test Championship winner 5%
2. 50 Over World Cup winner 3%
3. T20 World Cup winners 1% each
4. BCCI 15%
5. ECB 10%
6. Cricket Australia, Cricket South Africa, PCB, Sri Lanka Cricket, New Zealand Cricket, BCB, Cricket West Indies 8% each.
7. Afghanistan, Ireland, Zimbabwe 2% each
8. Associates - the rest

Why does ECB get 2/3 of bcci?

 

[Gilly]

Why does ECB get 2/3 of bcci?

I guess with Junaids being English he thinks ECB should get extra.

 

[cricketjoshila]

This will not go through even the GOI may intervene in this case as this league may force India to play Pakistan which the GOI wont allow.

 

[cricketjoshila]

They can't ruin it.

Manohar is in charge of the ICC and is leading the reforms. And the BCCI reps have been appointed by the Supreme Court and are not people who need money to buy the votes of the cricket associations.

That's why this is going through now!

The SC appointed COA has a fiduciary responsibility for which they are answerable.LoL at thinking they will sit and watch BCCI's revenue stream being destroyed.They can be held responsible for such losses and even be prosecuted.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I would say you do it something like this.

Sell the following packages:

1. ICC tournaments - live TV coverage.
2. International Test and ODI rights for each market - carries an obligation to broadcast all Test cricket everywhere in the world.
3. International T20 rights

Obviously the biggest bids are going to come in from India and England.

You then take the pooled TV revenue, and distribute it as follows:

1. World Test Championship winner 5%
2. 50 Over World Cup winner 3%
3. T20 World Cup winners 1% each
4. BCCI 15%
5. ECB 10%
6. Cricket Australia, Cricket South Africa, PCB, Sri Lanka Cricket, New Zealand Cricket, BCB, Cricket West Indies 8% each.
7. Afghanistan, Ireland, Zimbabwe 2% each
8. Associates - the rest

Lol.BCCI outstrips ECB by a long long way in terms of valuation of the market.lol at equating CA with other boards.

 

[jagatk]

Am i the only one confused about how they will have 4 test series, nearly similar number of odi series add to that ipl, bbl, psl and other t20 leagues all in one year.

 

[Junaids]

I guess with Junaids being English he thinks ECB should get extra.

It is just recognition of the economics.

The Big Three, you will recall, was the economic Big Two (from TV rights, nothing to do with the Boards really) plus Australia as a sporting figleaf.

But the economics of Cricket Australia actually aren't great - it would only take one Pakistan v India series every four years and Pakistan would probably leapfrog Australia economically.

Personally I'd like to just say 9% each for the top ten Test countries, but I recognise that the BCCI and ECB won't agree unless they get more.

Of course the best way is probably to do it by population, but then India, Pakistan and Bangladesh would share 90% of the revenue!

 

[MenInG]

and they are off!

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">ICC Board meeting starts in Dubai <a href="https://t.co/SrBK2F6Jjf">pic.twitter.com/SrBK2F6Jjf</a></p>— ICC Media (@ICCMediaComms) <a href="https://twitter.com/ICCMediaComms/status/827758401321066498">February 4, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[cricketjoshila]

It is just recognition of the economics.

The Big Three, you will recall, was the economic Big Two (from TV rights, nothing to do with the Boards really) plus Australia as a sporting figleaf.

But the economics of Cricket Australia actually aren't great - it would only take one Pakistan v India series every four years and Pakistan would probably leapfrog Australia economically.

Personally I'd like to just say 9% each for the top ten Test countries, but I recognise that the BCCI and ECB won't agree unless they get more.

Of course the best way is probably to do it by population, but then India, Pakistan and Bangladesh would share 90% of the revenue!

So how is ECB's revenue 2/3rd of BCCI?

COnsidering right now BCCI's share is 21% and ECBs 7%.ECB's value is 1/3rd of BCCI.

 

[Junaids]

So how is ECB's revenue 2/3rd of BCCI?

COnsidering right now BCCI's share is 21% and ECBs 7%.ECB's value is 1/3rd of BCCI.

In my opinion the value of both the ECB and BCCI is zero.

The money comes from TV. The boards are just leeches.

I'm not anti-India - I think Manohar is immensely admirable. But I view pretty much every cricket board with utter contempt.

 

[Gilly]

It is just recognition of the economics.

The Big Three, you will recall, was the economic Big Two (from TV rights, nothing to do with the Boards really) plus Australia as a sporting figleaf.

But the economics of Cricket Australia actually aren't great - it would only take one Pakistan v India series every four years and Pakistan would probably leapfrog Australia economically.

Personally I'd like to just say 9% each for the top ten Test countries, but I recognise that the BCCI and ECB won't agree unless they get more.

Of course the best way is probably to do it by population, but then India, Pakistan and Bangladesh would share 90% of the revenue!

OK then you tell me what the difference in TV rights between Aus and Eng.

 

[cricketjoshila]

In my opinion the value of both the ECB and BCCI is zero.

The money comes from TV. The boards are just leeches.

I'm not anti-India - I think Manohar is immensely admirable. But I view pretty much every cricket board with utter contempt.

Manohar's time will be up soon.He has bitten more than he can chew.His attempt to stay on in the ICC by garnering votes by dole outs will not last

 

[Junaids]

OK then you tell me what the difference in TV rights between Aus and Eng.

I seem to recall that Sky paid A$600 million for 5 years of ECB cricket rights last time around, although I could be wrong.

Channel Nine paid A$450 million for five years in 2013. (Source http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket...rnational-cricket-rights-20161119-gst0s6.html )

The PCB sold its rights for US$150 million in 2015 - that's A$195 million - but won't get it due to the India situation (source http://zeenews.india.com/sports/cri...sting-rights-for-usd-150-million_1571577.html )

 

[Gilly]

I seem to recall that Sky paid A$600 million for 5 years of ECB cricket rights last time around, although I could be wrong.

Channel Nine paid A$450 million for five years in 2013. (Source http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket...rnational-cricket-rights-20161119-gst0s6.html )

The PCB sold its rights for US$150 million in 2015 - that's A$195 million - but won't get it due to the India situation (source http://zeenews.india.com/sports/cri...sting-rights-for-usd-150-million_1571577.html )

What about NZ and Sri Lanka, I would like to know why you think they should get the same as Aus.

 

[Junaids]

What about NZ and Sri Lanka, I would like to know why you think they should get the same as Aus.

We are talking about revenue for away Test series. Not home series. Fox Sports pays an absolute pittance for the rights because they have a monopoly on Pay-TV cricket broadcasting. I'd be very surprised if they paid more than SuperSport to cover a series in Sri Lanka.

 

[Gilly]

We are talking about revenue for away Test series. Not home series. Fox Sports pays an absolute pittance for the rights because they have a monopoly on Pay-TV cricket broadcasting. I'd be very surprised if they paid more than SuperSport to cover a series in Sri Lanka.

So did you guess what teams earned for away tours or do you know?.

 

[Junaids]

So did you guess what teams earned for away tours or do you know?.

If you recall, we nearly didn't get the World T20 last year on Aussie TV because Fox Sports managed to bid less than Sky New Zealand because they knew there was no competition.

So away TV sales aren't very lucrative in Australia.

 

[Gilly]

I seem to recall that Sky paid A$600 million for 5 years of ECB cricket rights last time around, although I could be wrong.

Channel Nine paid A$450 million for five years in 2013. (Source http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket...rnational-cricket-rights-20161119-gst0s6.html )

The PCB sold its rights for US$150 million in 2015 - that's A$195 million - but won't get it due to the India situation (source http://zeenews.india.com/sports/cri...sting-rights-for-usd-150-million_1571577.html )

Yes you did get it wrong with the ECB, they sold their rights for A$455mil.

Now can you explain why Eng get nearly double Aus and NZ get the same as Aus. If you dont know why just say so.

 

[Gilly]

If you recall, we nearly didn't get the World T20 last year on Aussie TV because Fox Sports managed to bid less than Sky New Zealand because they knew there was no competition.

So away TV sales aren't very lucrative in Australia.

Well then tell us who paid what, I dont think you know.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

What is missing here is how teams like Eng,Aus,Ind, Pak and SA became strong teams was decades of establishing domestic systems that could support test teams. Ire and Afg are not going to become strong teams by playing the bigger nations, it just doesent happen like that. Smaller nations have to develop a sound domestic competition that is robust and producing quality players. A good example in Zim, they had some good players but could not maintain the high quality needed to provide replacements for these players. Ire might play a few good test matches but most of the time will be thrashed by the bigger nations which will diminish the quality overall. People want quality cricket not quantity.

Fair points Gilly, its worth noting both teams are improving their domestic system, but in the case of Ireland particularly extra funds are needed to afford the extra step, else cricket won't improve

 

[Junaids]

Yes you did get it wrong with the ECB, they sold their rights for A$455mil.

Now can you explain why Eng get nearly double Aus and NZ get the same as Aus. If you dont know why just say so.

But nobody is suggesting HOME rights. The issue is pooling AWAY rights.

BT Sport paid Cricket Australia 80 million pounds to for 5 years of rights from Australia.

How much does Fox Sports pay the ECB? Mind you, I'm probably undermining my own argument there, so perhaps I should shut up!

 

[Donal Cozzie]

So can someone help me understand this?

How will this ODI league and Test league work?

So will the number of test matches for all the series be the same?

No, they haven't clarified how the points system will work exactly but teams can have a 1 or 5 test series and they'll be worth equal. For the bottom 3 teams of the 12 they won't be part of the league table, they'll just play each other and occasional once off tests I imagine to gain experience

ODI will have 13 teams, every team has to play home and away over 3 years with a minimum of 12 ODI's a year, top 8 qualify for WC, rest go into a qualifier

This will not go through even the GOI may intervene in this case as this league may force India to play Pakistan which the GOI wont allow.

Nope, India can still refuse to play, but by doing so they'll forfeit points, seems fair to me.

 

[Gilly]

Fair points Gilly, its worth noting both teams are improving their domestic system, but in the case of Ireland particularly extra funds are needed to afford the extra step, else cricket won't improve

Cricket in Ireland will only improve with people in Ireland taking an interest in the sport, you cant buy that and if you do then the interest will fade when the money runs out. If the cricket is going to thrive then it will because people in Ireland want the sport to grow. The reason cricket is big in Eng, Aus and Ind is because every weekend there are thousands of volunteers in domestic cricket giving their time to coach, umpire, fund raise and manage the sport, not because they get big bucks from the ICC.