"Money talks, we all know that, and that's probably a big part of it" : Usman Khawaja

[MenInG]

Usman Khawaja has lamented the recent abandonment of cricket tours to Pakistan, arguing it reflects double standards and how "money talks".

New Zealand last week fled Rawalpindi on the day their men's ODI series was due to start, citing an escalated security threat.

England then pulled the pin on men's and women's tours in October, although British High Commissioner to Pakistan Christian Turner said concerns about player safety was not part of that decision.

The Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB), having worked tirelessly in recent years to convince players and national boards it is safe to return, is fearful its homeland will return to being a no-go zone.

Cricket Australia will soon have to reach its own decision, with Tim Paine's team slated to tour Pakistan after this summer's Ashes.

Khawaja, who was born in Pakistan then emigrated with his family to Sydney at age five, says the past week has been "extremely disappointing" in a cricketing sense.

"I feel it's very easy for players and organisations to say no to Pakistan, because it's Pakistan," Khawaja said in Brisbane.

"I think the same thing would apply too, if it were Bangladesh.

"But nobody would say no to India, if they're in the same situation.

"Money talks, we all know that, and that's probably a big part of it.

"They keep proving time and time again through their tournaments that they're a safe place to play cricket. I think there's no reason why we shouldn't go back."

Khawaja added staging games in Pakistan should be a "big objective" for the global cricket community.

The PCB has been forced to shift the vast majority of its home matches to the UAE since a 2009 armed attack on Sri Lanka's team bus in Lahore.

Test skipper Paine and national selector George Bailey played in Pakistan during a Twenty20 exhibition series in 2017.

Khawaja took part in this year's Pakistan Super League (PSL), although his section of the T20 tournament was held in the UAE because of a rise in Pakistan's COVID-19 cases.

Khawaja would have happily travelled to Pakistan, noting close friend Ben Cutting has felt "really safe" while playing in the country during recent years.

"There's a lot of security. Heavy, heavy security," he said.

"I've heard nothing but reports about people feeling safe.

"Even talking to the guys during the PSL about what it's like ... they would say the same thing to me 'like 10 years ago, maybe not, but now 100 per cent'."

Queensland skipper Khawaja will have a chance to build his case for a Test recall next week, when his side hosts Tasmania in Sheffield Shield and one-day matches.

https://7news.com.au/sport/cricket/dont-shun-pakistan-tours-usman-khawaja-c-4049203

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Khawaja has always been one to speak his mind but its inevitable we see a whole host of comments ridiculing his career and making fun of him.

 

[mastimasti]

Good stuff lad.

It is about money but if teams were penalised for cancelling international tours, docked point sin both the wtc and super league I bet you would see a quick turn around in decisions.

Cricket needs an authoritative body, not some event management scheme.

 

[Sherlock]

He's only saying what many feel.

Good on him.

 

[Smbhayi]

Khawaja looking for PCL contract

 

[Titan24]

Brutal truths by Khawaja. No many can debate or counter them with facts.

 

[MenInG]

Khawaja has always been one to speak his mind but its inevitable we see a whole host of comments ridiculing his career and making fun of him.

Do you think he cares?

 

[YousafTheBeast]

Here before he gets labelled as a cheerleader for Pakistan and milking it for a PSL contract…

 

[Itachi]

He is poking nose in things that doesn't concern him.

 

[YousafTheBeast]

He is poking nose in things that doesn't concern him.

He has a right to express his opinions, if I go into a thread that relates to Pakistan cricket and see your post in it does that mean you’re poking your nose in things that don’t concern you?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Do you think he cares?

Nope. He seems quite a headstrong kind of guy.

My point is that nowadays there is a tendency to shoot the messenger when it comes to Pakistan cricket. People will say he is washed up can't get an IPL contract etc etc just for speaking the truth.

 

[Mesozoic]

The biggest irony in all this is that Khawaja himself would have done the same thing and kept mum if he had an IPL contract and a stable place in the Australian playing XI in at least one format.

 

[YousafTheBeast]

The biggest irony in all this is that Khawaja himself would have done the same thing and kept mum if he had an IPL contract and a stable place in the Australian playing XI in at least one format.

Usman Khawaja couldn’t get an IPL contract but some pateechars from Australia who we’ve never heard of get picked*

 

[Mesozoic]

Usman Khawaja couldn’t get an IPL contract but some pateechars from Australia who we’ve never heard of get picked*

But the thing is Khawaja himself is a pateechar these days and was dropped from the national team. He averaged 21 @122 and pretty much the same in the last two BBLs, the competition where the likes of Philippe, Weatherald, Inglis etc were making hay. And he's also in his mid 30s now so the writing is pretty much on the wall for him.

Won't be surprised to see many such comments from him on his YouTube channel in the near future.

 

[YousafTheBeast]

But the thing is Khawaja himself is a pateechar these days and was dropped from the national team. He averaged 21 @122 and pretty much the same in the last two BBLs, the competition where the likes of Philippe, Weatherald, Inglis etc were making hay. And he's also in his mid 30s now so the writing is pretty much on the wall for him.

Won't be surprised to see many such comments from him on his YouTube channel in the near future.

When you’re an opener and have Warner and Finch to compete with then 99% of the times you’re not going to make the squad.

If having a low average and strike rate makes you a pateechar then I guess we can call Rohit Sharma a pateechar too, averaging 27 @ 127 in last years IPL. (Using your logic that I don’t agree with)

Also, you make it sound as if Khawaja is desperate for money, but I can assure you that most people with a pilots licence and who have worked with Qantas Airlines are pretty stable financially.

 

[Local.Dada]

Usman Khawaja couldn’t get an IPL contract but some pateechars from Australia who we’ve never heard of get picked*

Did Khwaja do anything of note in recent times on the cricket field?

He did get a contract few years back when he was performing.

While I do agree some of the Aussie talents are mediocre but some of them have been picked on their BbL performances.

To get picked as a batsman in an Indian league you have to be at top of your game in T20’s. Even Root didn’t get picked and is there even a contest who is a better batsman?

 

[Mesozoic]

When you’re an opener and have Warner and Finch to compete with then 99% of the times you’re not going to make the squad.

Warner and Finch have been opening for Australia since 2013 but still it didn't stop them from picking Khawaja for close to 100 international games and keeping him in the squad for much more than that. He has played numerous games at no.3 and even no. 4 but now has been replaced by the likes of McDermott, Philippe etc and doesn't even make the squads.

If having a low average and strike rate makes you a pateechar then I guess we can call Rohit Sharma a pateechar too, averaging 27 @ 127 in last years IPL. (Using your logic that I don’t agree with)

Ignoring the fact that those Rohit numbers are considerably better and also that these are in a league with much higher standards than the BBL, you can't seriously call a guy who's the best all-format batsman in his team a "pateechar" can you? If Manish Pandey, who's struggling to get into the national team like Khawaja had such stats, then I'd have definitely called him a pateechar too.

Also, you make it sound as if Khawaja is desperate for money, but I can assure you that most people with a pilots licence and who have worked with Qantas Airlines are pretty stable financially.

What part of my previous post sounded like he's desperate for money?

 

[Itachi]

He has a right to express his opinions, if I go into a thread that relates to Pakistan cricket and see your post in it does that mean you’re poking your nose in things that don’t concern you?

I am not from the same field nor I have any attachment employee wise nor I am bounded by any conduct rules (except PP guidelines) here being anonymous poster. But if I am posting from my real name with my position, there will be lots of restrictions.

If he is in contract with any board, and if something goes wrong, the board has to clarify that it was his own opinion only and not that of the board/organization. This will attract some kind disciplinary action later on as a repercussion.

 

[YousafTheBeast]

Did Khwaja do anything of note in recent times on the cricket field?

He did get a contract few years back when he was performing.

While I do agree some of the Aussie talents are mediocre but some of them have been picked on their BbL performances.

To get picked as a batsman in an Indian league you have to be at top of your game in T20’s. Even Root didn’t get picked and is there even a contest who is a better batsman?

Played decently for Islamabad United.

If players were being picked on BBL performances then Alex Hales wouldn’t have gone unsold in the IPL. Players are getting picked because of lack of availability.

That’s not true, Alex Hales is at the top of his game. Joe Root is a nobody in T20’s

Warner and Finch have been opening for Australia since 2013 but still it didn't stop them from picking Khawaja for close to 100 international games and keeping him in the squad for much more than that. He has played numerous games at no.3 and even no. 4 but now has been replaced by the likes of McDermott, Philippe etc and doesn't even make the squads.



Ignoring the fact that those Rohit numbers are considerably better and also that these are in a league with much higher standards than the BBL, you can't seriously call a guy who's the best all-format batsman in his team a "pateechar" can you? If Manish Pandey, who's struggling to get into the national team like Khawaja had such stats, then I'd have definitely called him a pateechar too.



What part of my previous post sounded like he's desperate for money?

Khawaja is an opener, he’s never been given a consistent run as an opener for Australia in T20i’s, he’s always been pushed around the order to accommodate others.

Khawaja averaged 24 Rohit averaged 27 big difference…both striking at a similar rate too.

I completely disagree, the standards of bowling in the BBL are FAR greater than the standards of bowling in the IPL, which would make it harder for a batsman to score runs in the BBL compared to IPL, and if you disagree to that then idk what to say…

I didn’t call Sharma a pateechar, I just used your logic against you in regards to a players average.

You said Khawaja would’ve done the same thing if he had an IPL contract and was a regular in Australian XI, the same player that stood his ground against JL whilst in the team.

 

[YousafTheBeast]

I am not from the same field nor I have any attachment employee wise nor I am bounded by any conduct rules (except PP guidelines) here being anonymous poster. But if I am posting from my real name with my position, there will be lots of restrictions.

If he is in contract with any board, and if something goes wrong, the board has to clarify that it was his own opinion only and not that of the board/organization. This will attract some kind disciplinary action later on as a repercussion.

He doesn’t have a contract with CA…he can say whatever he wants about any board…

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

The fact that overseas journalists and players like Khawaja and Buttler are coming out and saying stuff in support of Pakistan speaks greatly to the PCB's efforts to bring cricket back to Pakistan. In just the last few days people like the British High Commissioner to Pakistan and other ex-players, journalists and writers have ramped up the pressure on the ECB to not renege on their FTP commitment to Pakistan.

That for me, is a really positive sign. And it tells me that despite everything that has happened in the last week, international cricket is back in Pakistan. And it will be pretty hard for England to dodge coming to Pakistan in 2022

 

[Mesozoic]

I completely disagree, the standards of bowling in the BBL are FAR greater than the standards of bowling in the IPL, which would make it harder for a batsman to score runs in the BBL compared to IPL, and if you disagree to that then idk what to say…

Okay I think we should just agree to disagree here

 

[Local.Dada]

Played decently for Islamabad United.

If players were being picked on BBL performances then Alex Hales wouldnÂ’t have gone unsold in the IPL. Players are getting picked because of lack of availability.


.

I am not justifying anything here but performing “decently” for Islamabad United in PSL doesn’t exactly sound like a eyeball catching performance to me.

I am not demeaning PSL but the talent scouts who work with IPL franchises do keep an eye out on all leagues and pick the horses for courses.

Most mediocre aussies who get picked are usually bowling allrounders who can either bowl 140+ and hit the ball long or are middle- lower middle order bats who can contribute some overs with their cutters/variations.

As far as Hales goes I personally am a fan but the again not sure if Hales can start bashing spin in Indian or UAE conditions. May be that is the reason. Also not sure how many overseas opener spots are available.

Khwaja needs to let his bat do the talking. Always thought he was a decent player but never looked like he had the next gear to become an ATG batsman.

 

[street cricketer]

While I agree with Khwaja that Pakistan got stitched up by the Kiwis by the last minute pull out, he makes a simplistic argument when he compares Pakistan, India and Bangladesh in his statement.

A lot of factors determine how comfortable a foreigner feels to visit one country and ultimately it boils down to things like threat perception, law and order, availability of basic aid, transport and medical infrastructure, etc. Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka all have differing threat perceptions internationally and you only have to look at the tourism statistics of these countries to gauge the threat perceptions of these individual countries.

 

[Saj]

He's hit the nail on the head.

Modern cricket is more about money than anything else.

The PCB cannot dangle any carrots to the ECB and that's why such Boards treat the PCB with distain.

 

[Zaz]

Its true Its all about the money these days Not long ago players put all the subcontinent in the same bracket and avoided touring because of the poverty

The love for india and disdain for pakistan is just because bcci is much richer now

Pakistan needs to monetise its cricket and these same people will come running to play cricket here

 

[bala977]

He's hit the nail on the head.

Modern cricket is more about money than anything else.

The PCB cannot dangle any carrots to the ECB and that's why such Boards treat the PCB with distain.

So it is ok if footballers or other sportspersons do it, but not cricketers? Also, would you have felt the same way if CSA were the richest board and not BCCI? I'd think not

 

[cricketjoshila]

Money would have been the best thing if PCB was the richest board.

 

[JaDed]

I wish Christiano Roanldo played for a Portuguese PL but he prefer to play in BiG 3.. oh I guess money is a big part?

 

[Local.Dada]

He's hit the nail on the head.

Modern cricket is more about money than anything else.

The PCB cannot dangle any carrots to the ECB and that's why such Boards treat the PCB with distain.

Curious on your views on this.Is there anything wrong with that?

Don’t you think the motivation for money and professionalism only makes the quality of cricket stronger?

All this talk of intangible things like purity of the game etc sound good when someone is on the outside but what matters at the end is the revenue and the satisfaction of the players themselves. How does one define what is the purest game played in the right circumstance any way.

 

[Zaz]

Curious on your views on this.Is there anything wrong with that?

Don’t you think the motivation for money and professionalism only makes the quality of cricket stronger?

All this talk of intangible things like purity of the game etc sound good when someone is on the outside but what matters at the end is the revenue and the satisfaction of the players themselves. How does one define what is the purest game played in the right circumstance any way.

Theres nothing wrong with boards making money as long as the game also is looked after and is in a healthy state

Is cricket being developed and supported outside of the big 3? How many associates teams are coming through?
Theres hundreds of countries where cricket is played at a low level but hardly any money spent there

Test cricket isnt given priority or safe guarded Players couldnt care less about the most respected format of the game anymore pulling out n not playing as they see fit We saw india pulling out of the england test due to t20 cricket This wasnt thinkable years back that players would up n leave like this

And fans in countries like WI Sri Lanka and Pakistan are turning away from the game due to hardly any teams touring

Zimbabwe is in a sorry state going backwards with hardly any competitive intnl teams playing them Ditto ireland etc

The game of cricket is in a sorry state Thanks to the greed and self serving interests of some

 

[Last Monetarist]

I keep harping on the concept over and over again that the financial structure of international cricket is broken (fortunately not irreparably) and that until bilateral cricket is restructured to allow away sides to a certain proportion of the income from tours, the managed decline of the sport will continue.

Fact is that there is no incentive apart from goodwill for teams to fulfil their touring commitments in the FTP.

Furthermore, in order for the structure to be sustainable, the away broadcasting rights of all international bilateral cricket matches need to be pooled together.

 

[Buffet]

Money is a huge factor in all sports, not just in cricket.

Even outside sports, that's the driving factor. Smith's are not migrating to Pakistani but Usman's are migrating to Aus. That trend is related to Money. Money is a huge factor and cricketers are no exception.

A few decades back, many big-name players played in the rebel league and that was due to money as well.

 

[Buffet]

I keep harping on the concept over and over again that the financial structure of international cricket is broken (fortunately not irreparably) and that until bilateral cricket is restructured to allow away sides to a certain proportion of the income from tours, the managed decline of the sport will continue.

Fact is that there is no incentive apart from goodwill for teams to fulfil their touring commitments in the FTP.

Furthermore, in order for the structure to be sustainable, the away broadcasting rights of all international bilateral cricket matches need to be pooled together.

This will solve the issue to some extent, but I don't think it will ever happen. Eng and Aus did not do this earlier. Indians won't do it now. I think that ship has sailed.

 

[Last Monetarist]

This will solve the issue to some extent, but I don't think it will ever happen. Eng and Aus did not do this earlier. Indians won't do it now. I think that ship has sailed.

Not really, pooling away (i.e. overseas) rights only will still allow the big boards to retain their share of the domestic tv rights (Foxtel, 7, Sky, BBC, Star) which make up the mammoth share of the broadcast revenue for those boards. In fact, the away rights for each of those boards are being undervalued as the negotiation power is heavily stacked in favour of the broadcasters. Pooling those rights will not detract value for the Big 3 but also significantly improve the bargaining positions of each of the other boards when selling overseas rights.

 

[Buffet]

Not really, pooling away (i.e. overseas) rights only will still allow the big boards to retain their share of the domestic tv rights (Foxtel, 7, Sky, BBC, Star) which make up the mammoth share of the broadcast revenue for those boards. In fact, the away rights for each of those boards are being undervalued as the negotiation power is heavily stacked in favour of the broadcasters. Pooling those rights will not detract value for the Big 3 but also significantly improve the bargaining positions of each of the other boards when selling overseas rights.

Someone can correct me but my understanding is that the home team makes money by selling all rights. For example, ECB can sell rights at home but also makes big money by selling it to Indian broadcasters if Indians are playing in Eng. That's the big incentive to invite teams like India.

I meant NZC may be making more money by selling away broadcasting rights to some Indian company when India tours NZ. Whatever rights NZC can sell at home is likely to be much smaller.

Am I missing something here?

 

[WengerOut]

Isnt money the same reason for Khawaja being in Aus and not in Pak?

 

[Last Monetarist]

Someone can correct me but my understanding is that the home team makes money by selling all rights. For example, ECB can sell rights at home but also makes big money by selling it to Indian broadcasters if Indians are playing in Eng. That's the big incentive to invite teams like India.

I meant NZC may be making more money by selling away broadcasting rights to some Indian company when India tours NZ. Whatever rights NZC can sell at home is likely to be much smaller.

Am I missing something here?

The bulk of the tv rights revenue is associated with domestic broadcasting rights, with the exception of a few boards such as CWI and the SLCB. The decline of international cricket is biting those boards significantly as international broadcasters are ignoring tours that don't involve the Big 3 nations.

New Zealand Cricket actually struggled to sell the away rights to an Indian broadcaster in the most recent cycle, and they had to sell it on at a discount in comparison to the previous contract. Similarly, CA and the ECB only make significant overseas broadcasting revenue from an Indian tour, the value of those rights are negligible for most other teams (apart from Ashes series).

If away rights are pooled for each of the boards, the collective rights value of bilateral cricket will be maximized as overseas broadcasters can't pick and choose from individual series, or ignore some countries totally as seen with Australia's tour to Bangladesh recently. If say an Australian broadcaster wants to show overseas bilateral cricket, they need to buy all the away rights collectively, that approach will extract more value for international cricket than the piecemeal structure in place currently.

The whole idea is to redress the damage done to international cricket by the inequitable distribution of funds. All competitive sporting leagues follow a similar template, ultimately to protect competition and ensure long-term survival of the sport (in this case bilateral cricket), certain broadcasting rights have to be pooled.

 

[Buffet]

The bulk of the tv rights revenue is associated with domestic broadcasting rights, with the exception of a few boards such as CWI and the SLCB. The decline of international cricket is biting those boards significantly as international broadcasters are ignoring tours that don't involve the Big 3 nations.

New Zealand Cricket actually struggled to sell the away rights to an Indian broadcaster in the most recent cycle, and they had to sell it on at a discount in comparison to the previous contract. Similarly, CA and the ECB only make significant overseas broadcasting revenue from an Indian tour, the value of those rights are negligible for most other teams (apart from Ashes series).

If away rights are pooled for each of the boards, the collective rights value of bilateral cricket will be maximized as overseas broadcasters can't pick and choose from individual series, or ignore some countries totally as seen with Australia's tour to Bangladesh recently. If say an Australian broadcaster wants to show overseas bilateral cricket, they need to buy all the away rights collectively, that approach will extract more value for international cricket than the piecemeal structure in place currently.

The whole idea is to redress the damage done to international cricket by the inequitable distribution of funds. All competitive sporting leagues follow a similar template, ultimately to protect competition and long-term survival, certain broadcasting rights have to be pooled.

OK, Get it now. Make the pizza size bigger. Then the same slice and even a slightly smaller slice will be bigger than the original slice. The problem could be bringing all parties together, but if an incentive is there then it can happen.

 

[Marathonrunner]

Isnt money the same reason for Khawaja being in Aus and not in Pak?

Spot on sour grapes .

 

[cricketjoshila]

I keep harping on the concept over and over again that the financial structure of international cricket is broken (fortunately not irreparably) and that until bilateral cricket is restructured to allow away sides to a certain proportion of the income from tours, the managed decline of the sport will continue.

Fact is that there is no incentive apart from goodwill for teams to fulfil their touring commitments in the FTP.

Furthermore, in order for the structure to be sustainable, the away broadcasting rights of all international bilateral cricket matches need to be pooled together.

Why should any board give part of their earnings from domestic rights to another country? To reciprocate the visit of a team the host returns the tour. Now each board has to monetize its cricket and leverage its market.

The rights of a board belong to that board and is not a charity.

Ofcourse you would want this kind of an arrangement because that helps a thoroughly corrupt and inept and inefficient board like PCB.

 

[cricketjoshila]

The bulk of the tv rights revenue is associated with domestic broadcasting rights, with the exception of a few boards such as CWI and the SLCB. The decline of international cricket is biting those boards significantly as international broadcasters are ignoring tours that don't involve the Big 3 nations.

New Zealand Cricket actually struggled to sell the away rights to an Indian broadcaster in the most recent cycle, and they had to sell it on at a discount in comparison to the previous contract. Similarly, CA and the ECB only make significant overseas broadcasting revenue from an Indian tour, the value of those rights are negligible for most other teams (apart from Ashes series).

If away rights are pooled for each of the boards, the collective rights value of bilateral cricket will be maximized as overseas broadcasters can't pick and choose from individual series, or ignore some countries totally as seen with Australia's tour to Bangladesh recently. If say an Australian broadcaster wants to show overseas bilateral cricket, they need to buy all the away rights collectively, that approach will extract more value for international cricket than the piecemeal structure in place currently.

The whole idea is to redress the damage done to international cricket by the inequitable distribution of funds. All competitive sporting leagues follow a similar template, ultimately to protect competition and ensure long-term survival of the sport (in this case bilateral cricket), certain broadcasting rights have to be pooled.

https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/www....land-cricket-in-india/amp-11604985628893.html

NZC rights in India are owned by Amazon.

Why will Australia England NZ or SA give up the millions they make from one India tour when that amount alone is more than what many boards will make from their entire broadcast rights?

This is not a charity event. The basis of a tour is reciprocity.

 

[Saj]

Curious on your views on this.Is there anything wrong with that?

Don’t you think the motivation for money and professionalism only makes the quality of cricket stronger?

All this talk of intangible things like purity of the game etc sound good when someone is on the outside but what matters at the end is the revenue and the satisfaction of the players themselves. How does one define what is the purest game played in the right circumstance any way.

There will always be inequality in cricket when it comes to finances.

But the concerns that many have is about where cricket is heading. The way things are going is that the same nations will just keep on playing against each other and the rest will just have to live off scraps which isn't healthy for the future of cricket.

 

[Zaz]

Why should any board give part of their earnings from domestic rights to another country? To reciprocate the visit of a team the host returns the tour. Now each board has to monetize its cricket and leverage its market.

The rights of a board belong to that board and is not a charity.

Ofcourse you would want this kind of an arrangement because that helps a thoroughly corrupt and inept and inefficient board like PCB.

No ones asking for charity Just stop being selfish The problem is the monopoly of the game isnt healthy for the sport as a whole

Thet fat cats are getting fatter and the weak ones weaker

Greed and self interest is killing competitive intnl cricket Unfortunately too many people like you cant see it for the dollars

 

[ElRaja]

No ones asking for charity Just stop being selfish The problem is the monopoly of the game isnt healthy for the sport as a whole

this is the crux of the matter im afriad most indian supporters just dont appreciate. cricket is a means to an ends for india, and that is projecting india as a super power, and the more marginalised the smaller boards become the more influence india wields. the well being of the sport as a whole is immaterial because the ipl is self sustaining.

 

[hitthestump]

Isnt money the same reason for Khawaja being in Aus and not in Pak?

Given he's been in Australia since he was 5 and plays for Australia, i'd feel pretty confident Australia is his home. Care to explain why you think otherwise?

 

[Zaz]

this is the crux of the matter im afriad most indian supporters just dont appreciate. cricket is a means to an ends for india, and that is projecting india as a super power, and the more marginalised the smaller boards become the more influence india wields. the well being of the sport as a whole is immaterial because the ipl is self sustaining.

But it isnt self sustaining IPL foreign players get picked initially on the back of their exploits in intnl cricket

The more india is eating into intnl cricket by marginalising boards and tours the more harm its going to do to its IPL product

Agents smith line from the matrix about being a virus is apt in this context

Instead of maintaining a equal equilibrium to sustain intnl cricket, indias unhealthy quest for more n more reveune n power will end up killing cricket and its product Its a self defeating path its going down and it just cant see it

 

[ElRaja]

But it isnt self sustaining IPL foreign players get picked initially on the back of their exploits in intnl cricket

The more india is eating into intnl cricket by marginalising boards and tours the more harm its going to do to its IPL product

Agents smith line from the matrix about being a virus is apt in this context

Instead of maintaining a equal equilibrium to sustain intnl cricket, indias unhealthy quest for more n more reveune n power will end up killing cricket and its product Its a self defeating path its going down and it just cant see it

disagree, the big three are not going anywhere. the ipl is full of english and aussie players. if they can get even ten players from the non-big three teams thats enough.

the ipl may kill cricket as we know it, if it hasnt already, but it wont kill the ipl. t20 will become the main format of the game, and people will have it beamed directly into their eyeballs all year around, and the quality of cricket is immaterial.

you can train players to become bigger hitters, better fielders, faster bowlers far more easily than training someone to open the batting in tests, or bowl spin on a day 2 pitch.

 

[giri26]

I don't understand why India is brought into every conversation here. Teams have declined to travel to Pakistan and the conversation should be around that. The players or the boards wanting to tour India or not is not the concern for Pakistan or other nations. That line of conversation will be a good one to place blame and spew hate but isn't worth a penny as that will not help in getting cricket back to Pakistan. Yes BCCI is rich and all teams will tour India no matter what. Once we have got that out of the way what is the solution for getting cricket back to Pakistan? The Pakistan ministers and PCB are trying to deflect the topic and everyone is falling for the same. Everyone is after money, that is why we do most of the things.

Cricketers play cricket for money, we work for money. No one will do anything for free, so stop judging players. Even though cricket is a sport, it is business as well so pardon the cricket boards who are trying to make money. No sport is worth the lives of the players, if the Govt or the board feel their players will not be safe, they are more than welcome to leave a country. No one can question that. If New Zealand did not wish to play in Pakistan they would have never travelled as if anything had to happen it could have happened in those 5 days. They are not dumb.

 

[PakLFC]

It is not news that money talks. What has to be done is people with money can be challenged by various means. In Football look at what happened to moneybags Barcelona who are now in such debt. We need to upgrade our own system and change our approach to thee game. Khawaja being of Pak background will naturally have a soft spot for us.

India or any other board can not stop Pak from having a brilliant team. If or when that happens everyone will want to play Pak.

 

[Zaz]

disagree, the big three are not going anywhere. the ipl is full of english and aussie players. if they can get even ten players from the non-big three teams thats enough.

the ipl may kill cricket as we know it, if it hasnt already, but it wont kill the ipl. t20 will become the main format of the game, and people will have it beamed directly into their eyeballs all year around, and the quality of cricket is immaterial.

you can train players to become bigger hitters, better fielders, faster bowlers far more easily than training someone to open the batting in tests, or bowl spin on a day 2 pitch.

With no relevant intl cricket n t20 leagues all over the place how long before people get bored of it all?

Quality of the cricket isnt immaterial Quality is everything no matter how much you brand it or package it just isnt cricket

 

[moghul]

After this , Khawaja is officially banned from IPL. Other Aussies have to be extra careful in speaking the truth.

 

[Nasty Naz]

Ramiz said the same thing. If the economy was better and there was more money involved, there is no chance this would be happening.

Maybe backing Pakistan into a corner to be more self sufficient wouldn't be a bad thing in the long-term.

 

[cricketjoshila]

No ones asking for charity Just stop being selfish The problem is the monopoly of the game isnt healthy for the sport as a whole

Thet fat cats are getting fatter and the weak ones weaker

Greed and self interest is killing competitive intnl cricket Unfortunately too many people like you cant see it for the dollars

If a board is corrupt inept inefficient and cannot monetize its assets why should efficient ones get the blame?

You are complaining because PCB cant earn enough money because they are simply not good enough. Hence you want other boards to chip in with money.

Thats not how it works. Boards wont give their hard earned money to inept boards.

There is no bailout package in cricket.

 

[cricketjoshila]

this is the crux of the matter im afriad most indian supporters just dont appreciate. cricket is a means to an ends for india, and that is projecting india as a super power, and the more marginalised the smaller boards become the more influence india wields. the well being of the sport as a whole is immaterial because the ipl is self sustaining.

If pakistan was the richest board you won't be saying all this.

 

[Cric_lover4487]

disagree, the big three are not going anywhere. the ipl is full of english and aussie players. if they can get even ten players from the non-big three teams thats enough.

the ipl may kill cricket as we know it, if it hasnt already, but it wont kill the ipl. t20 will become the main format of the game, and people will have it beamed directly into their eyeballs all year around, and the quality of cricket is immaterial.

you can train players to become bigger hitters, better fielders, faster bowlers far more easily than training someone to open the batting in tests, or bowl spin on a day 2 pitch.

It might sound strange to you but BCCI was the only board who was reluctant for T20 format to become mainstream. BCCI was outvoted 9-1 in ICC meeting in Capetown for T20 WC. BCCI had no choice but to embrace the format. I can understand Pak fans are just bitter to see India succeeding in anything. IPL is a frankstein monster who is here to stay. All boards including PCB are desperate to build a brand which can compete with IPL. Then why hate it?

 

[street cricketer]

I have a genuine question, sorry if it sounds stupid or silly because I'm not an expert in economics.

I was reading about the current ICC financial model yesterday and found that the big 3 plan was rolled back in 2017 when the current financial model was agreed upon by the ICC where the BCCI would receive $293m across an eight year cycle (it received close to 500m in the big 3 model I think), ECB $143m, Zimbabwe Cricket $94m and the remaining seven Full Members $132m each. Associate Members would receive a funding of $280m during the same period.

https://www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/378363

Is this still the current ICC financial model or has this been changed again. If this is the current financial model, why doesn't say a team like NZ (or for that matter Pak, SA, etc.) play more tests or at least similar number of tests to Australia given they all receive the same funding of 132m USD.

Why is playing test cricket not profitable for these sides and what factors stop test cricket being profitable in these countries? And what are the solutions for it?

Would be great if anyone who's well versed with the nuances of the ICC financial model and the economics of it can explain it.

[MENTION=140824]Last Monetarist[/MENTION] [MENTION=147292]RedwoodOriginal[/MENTION] Tagging you two because you both are well versed in this topic.

 

[mastimasti]

I have a genuine question, sorry if it sounds stupid or silly because I'm not an expert in economics.

I was reading about the current ICC financial model yesterday and found that the big 3 plan was rolled back in 2017 when the current financial model was agreed upon by the ICC where the BCCI would receive $293m across an eight year cycle (it received close to 500m in the big 3 model I think), ECB $143m, Zimbabwe Cricket $94m and the remaining seven Full Members $132m each. Associate Members would receive a funding of $280m during the same period.

https://www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/378363

Is this still the current ICC financial model or has this been changed again. If this is the current financial model, why doesn't say a team like NZ (or for that matter Pak, SA, etc.) play more tests or at least similar number of tests to Australia given they all receive the same funding of 132m USD.

Why is playing test cricket not profitable for these sides and what factors stop test cricket being profitable in these countries? And what are the solutions for it?

Would be great if anyone who's well versed with the nuances of the ICC financial model and the economics of it can explain it.

[MENTION=140824]Last Monetarist[/MENTION] [MENTION=147292]RedwoodOriginal[/MENTION] Tagging you two because you both are well versed in this topic.

I have mentioned this on here several times...the Big 3 technically no longer exists and you are correct, it was rolled back in 2017. The problem is that apart from dishing out money, the ICC does very little organisational or administrative work, they are a neutered organisation...if one can even label the man organisation.

They have no power to stop Eng, Aus and Ind repeatedly playing each other and if you see the number of games that these three teams have played against each other since 2017, it easily makes up the bulk of their itinerary (more so for Aus). India have actually been the "best" in terms of playing at least crickete against SL and SA, and to a lesser extent the Windies and NZ.

So as money is dished out from cycles of ICC events, the Big 3 is non-existent, however in terms of playing bilateral tours, it is still very much in vogue and it's influence of the game supersedes whatever the ICC has become.

 

[street cricketer]

I have mentioned this on here several times...the Big 3 technically no longer exists and you are correct, it was rolled back in 2017. The problem is that apart from dishing out money, the ICC does very little organisational or administrative work, they are a neutered organisation...if one can even label the man organisation.

They have no power to stop Eng, Aus and Ind repeatedly playing each other and if you see the number of games that these three teams have played against each other since 2017, it easily makes up the bulk of their itinerary (more so for Aus). India have actually been the "best" in terms of playing at least crickete against SL and SA, and to a lesser extent the Windies and NZ.

So as money is dished out from cycles of ICC events, the Big 3 is non-existent, however in terms of playing bilateral tours, it is still very much in vogue and it's influence of the game supersedes whatever the ICC has become.

Yes, but hasn't this been corrected now with the introduction of the WTC and ODI super league which provides a set schedule for teams against each other?

 

[Sir Alex]

Instead of maintaining a equal equilibrium to sustain intnl cricket, indias unhealthy quest for more n more reveune n power will end up killing cricket and its product Its a self defeating path its going down and it just cant see it

Nah, that's just capitalism on view.

 

[Sir Alex]

"I feel it's very easy for players and organisations to say no to Pakistan, because it's Pakistan," Khawaja said in Brisbane.

"I think the same thing would apply too, if it were Bangladesh.

"But nobody would say no to India, if they're in the same situation.

"Money talks, we all know that, and that's probably a big part of it.

Well said Usman. Talking from his own experience queuing up for IPL auctions, sadly went unsold all the time.

 

[AMSS]

Economic migration is all about money talking. Makes you turn your back on the country you were raised in, where you received your education etc etc.

Isn't Usman an economic migrant himself?

 

[BaankeJi]

Khawaza is making it sound like money is the reason. Threat on life is not significant for him. How adroitly he has circumvented it. Predictably Pakistanis are lapping it up.

 

[Mesozoic]

Well said Usman. Talking from his own experience queuing up for IPL auctions, sadly went unsold all the time.

He did get picked for the Pune Supergiants some time back and played half a dozen games after having a very good BBL season. But inevitably got exposed as the mediocre T20 batter that he is and never got picked again.

 

[mastimasti]

Yes, but hasn't this been corrected now with the introduction of the WTC and ODI super league which provides a set schedule for teams against each other?

Simple answer: no.

You must be aware by now that India simply refuses to play Pakistan. There is also nothing in the WTC that states all team must play each other in a cycle or if a team is missed in one particular cycle, they must play in the next. Like I said, the ICC are event organisers and nothing else.

The same with this super league nonsense, even before the NZ series, the NZC asked it to be downgraded from a super league match to just a normal bilateral.

Even more simple answer: the ICC are useless.

 

[mastimasti]

Khawaza is making it sound like money is the reason. Threat on life is not significant for him. How adroitly he has circumvented it. Predictably Pakistanis are lapping it up.

If one pushes the security agenda for NZ, fair enough but the ECB did not use that as their reason for not travelling to Pak. They simply stated the players were too tired. Their own government has stated that the security advice did not change. So money is a viable issue here, don't be offended.

 

[street cricketer]

Simple answer: no.

You must be aware by now that India simply refuses to play Pakistan. There is also nothing in the WTC that states all team must play each other in a cycle or if a team is missed in one particular cycle, they must play in the next. Like I said, the ICC are event organisers and nothing else.

The same with this super league nonsense, even before the NZ series, the NZC asked it to be downgraded from a super league match to just a normal bilateral.

Even more simple answer: the ICC are useless.

Okay. Why can't the non big 3 sides schedule more tests with each other? They often play only two test series no. Surely it can be increased to 3, if not 4 for sides like Pakistan.

 

[Mesozoic]

Khawaza is making it sound like money is the reason. Threat on life is not significant for him. How adroitly he has circumvented it. Predictably Pakistanis are lapping it up.

Also I really don't get the whole obsession with "India has money so they won't do this to them" argument when it's clearly an apples to oranges comparison. I mean why would anyone even think of giving the same treatment to India when -

India doesn't have a history of foreign teams getting attacked by rocket launchers in broad daylight.

India doesn't have UN designated terrorists roaming freely on it's streets.

And most importantly, India doesn't have a Taliban infested nation by it's borders which they openly support...

Makes absolutely zero sense. Of course unless Uzzie is trying to get clicks on his YT channel and dragging India into anything and everything sells well in that regards so makes perfect sense.

 

[Sir Alex]

He did get picked for the Pune Supergiants some time back and played half a dozen games after having a very good BBL season. But inevitably got exposed as the mediocre T20 batter that he is and never got picked again.

/Oh did he? And was discarded as well... no surprises

 

[Sir Alex]

Simple answer: no.

You must be aware by now that India simply refuses to play Pakistan. There is also nothing in the WTC that states all team must play each other in a cycle or if a team is missed in one particular cycle, they must play in the next. Like I said, the ICC are event organisers and nothing else.

The same with this super league nonsense, even before the NZ series, the NZC asked it to be downgraded from a super league match to just a normal bilateral.

Even more simple answer: the ICC are useless.

ICC is a federation and not a union. Its power is derived from the members and not vice versa.

 

[mastimasti]

Okay. Why can't the non big 3 sides schedule more tests with each other? They often play only two test series no. Surely it can be increased to 3, if not 4 for sides like Pakistan.

The other sides are organising tours...I'm not sure what the question is?

The point is that money talks, the Big Three want teams touring them but they rarely reciprocate and all their players, having been brought up in an environment where all their whims are met, ave also fallen into this mentality. Oh, they'll miss they IPL for a bilateral tour? Well, let's call off the tour because the IPL makes them more money.

Going back to what you asked, the ICC has no power to stop the behaviour mentioned above.

 

[Sir Alex]

Okay. Why can't the non big 3 sides schedule more tests with each other? They often play only two test series no. Surely it can be increased to 3, if not 4 for sides like Pakistan.

Its the classic hypocrisy. Allege that Big 3 are killing tests and yet try and play T20s at the drop of a hat with anyone who's willing.

In the last 10 years,
Tests - Eng 125, Aus 101, Ind 100....... Pak 80
ODIs : Ind 213, Eng 194, Aus - 186, Pak 185
T20Is : Pak 129, Ind 115, .... Aus 103, Eng 98

So much for the Big 3 killing world cricket by concentrating more on money making T20s and not tests.

 

[IMMY69]

Its the classic hypocrisy. Allege that Big 3 are killing tests and yet try and play T20s at the drop of a hat with anyone who's willing.

In the last 10 years,
Tests - Eng 125, Aus 101, Ind 100....... Pak 80
ODIs : Ind 213, Eng 194, Aus - 186, Pak 185
T20Is : Pak 129, Ind 115, .... Aus 103, Eng 98

So much for the Big 3 killing world cricket by concentrating more on money making T20s and not tests.

There is a mitigating factor.
I'll let you work that out

 

[street cricketer]

The other sides are organising tours...I'm not sure what the question is?

Yes, but they play very few tests.

Pakistan for example, agreed to drop a test to include more T20s in their recent test series against the Windies. They ended up playing a two match test series when they could've played at least a 3 test series.

 

[cricketjoshila]

The other sides are organising tours...I'm not sure what the question is?

The point is that money talks, the Big Three want teams touring them but they rarely reciprocate and all their players, having been brought up in an environment where all their whims are met, ave also fallen into this mentality. Oh, they'll miss they IPL for a bilateral tour? Well, let's call off the tour because the IPL makes them more money.

Going back to what you asked, the ICC has no power to stop the behaviour mentioned above.

You are wrong here. Bcci reciprocates all its tours. England too has reciprocated tours except the present pakistan one and the SA one. Australia used to do so too, but under covid they have pulled out of quiet a few tours.

All tours are based on reciprocity else why will anyone tour the big 3 if they dont tour them in return?

Also the big 3 have an arrangement to tour each other every 4 years, for tests. Thats a very fair distribution. They also tour each other for LOIs every 4 years. Its a very fair arrangement to tour a country every 4 to 5 years.

 

[Rajdeep]

Dont understand why Usman Khwaja is dragging India into this. All those Kiwi players who pulled out of Pak tour dont have IPL contracts. So they are not earning any money from India. They pulled out bcoz their govt asked them to due to security threat. What has India or its money got to do with it?

Khwaja would do better if he actually address the main issue. But he is somehow trying hard to link India or its IPL money in it.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Yes, but they play very few tests.

Pakistan for example, agreed to drop a test to include more T20s in their recent test series against the Windies. They ended up playing a two match test series when they could've played at least a 3 test series.

Because they want to make more money.

See problem here is that PCB doesn't make money like BCCI.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Dont understand why Usman Khwaja is dragging India into this. All those Kiwi players who pulled out of Pak tour dont have IPL contracts. So they are not earning any money from India. They pulled out bcoz their govt asked them to due to security threat. What has India or its money got to do with it?

Khwaja would do better if he actually address the main issue. But he is somehow trying hard to link India or its IPL money in it.

He says that teams treat India differently than pakistan abd India is seen more favourably due to money.

 

[ElRaja]

If pakistan was the richest board you won't be saying all this.

i would be. i have no interest in the pcb being the richest board in the world. a world where only three boards have the resources to control the calendar to their whims (and one has the ability to outright refuse to play any other) is unappealing to me, even if one of those teams were Pakistan. but as i said indians fans like you wouldn't understand so its pointless to even try to articulate that.

It might sound strange to you but BCCI was the only board who was reluctant for T20 format to become mainstream. BCCI was outvoted 9-1 in ICC meeting in Capetown for T20 WC. BCCI had no choice but to embrace the format.

only because the bcci didnt understand the potential of a domestic league at the time. icc tournaments you have to share revenue and win for fans to keep fan interest, domestic tournaments doesnt matter who wins, bcci gets paid. do u honestly think if bcci had a crystal ball to see what effect the ipl has had on their influence in the game they would have chosen to vote against it.

I can understand Pak fans are just bitter to see India succeeding in anything. IPL is a frankstein monster who is here to stay. All boards including PCB are desperate to build a brand which can compete with IPL. Then why hate it?

no pak fans arent bitter, its indian fans like u who cant seem to understand that there can be fans who see the sport as being more than just a cash cow.

 

[street cricketer]

Because they want to make more money.

See problem here is that PCB doesn't make money like BCCI.

I might be wrong here but this is my interpretation of the issue.

Except the BCCI and the ECB to an extent, all other boards receive the exact same funding. But the non big 3 sides don't play more test cricket because test cricket is not that profitable for them as much as T20 cricket is, unlike the big 3 who I think make even test cricket profitable. They don't play more test matches because cricket is not very popular in the country for test cricket to be profitable enough to schedule 4 and 5 test series like in the case of NZ or their economy isn't strong enough for their boards to get huge media broadcast and sponsorship deals like in the case of Pak, SL and WI.

Otherwise it seems to me that there's no reason why the non big 3 sides can't play more test matches, at least with themselves if not with the big 3 sides, given all of them receive the exact same funding. If the ICC financial model was based around the big 3 model that was implemented in 2014, I can understand the criticisms of financial monopoly but that plan has been rolled back and the current financial plan sees the non big 3 sides receive the same funding as Australia and only slightly lesser than England. In any case, the solution seem to be that either the boards should promote the game in the country so that it becomes very popular in countries where cricket's popularity is falling, or that the economy of the country improves so that you have a bigger consumer base with a disposable income and therefore bigger sponsorship and broadcast deals. I might be wrong I admit, but this is my interpretation of the issue.