The Big 3 produce the best quality of cricket when they face each other

[Hasan123]

There is a lot of hate for the big 3, not just for cricketing reasons. But if we are honest , they are well clear of the rest of the other cricketing nations in terms of quality and consistency.

Whenever 2 of the 3 play each other in any format, I always find the cricket to be quality and extremely competitive. I enjoy watching them do battle as well. The players seem to want to go that extra mile when playing each other.

The honest truth is they produce the best games and quality of cricket when 2 of the 3 face each other.

 

[Rana]

Lol

New Zealand and South Africa could play each other and produce great cricket matches at high quality. How do you define a match between England and Australia is of a higher quality as in comparison to a nail biter between West Indies and Sri Lanka for instance?

Joke thread

 

[Hasan123]

Lol

New Zealand and South Africa could play each other and produce great cricket matches at high quality. How do you define a match between England and Australia is of a higher quality as in comparison to a nail biter between West Indies and Sri Lanka for instance?

Joke thread

New Zealand and South Africa don't play each other as often as the big 3. But I agree they do produce entertaining matches.

Look at the quality of players England and Australia have compared to Sri Lanka and West Indies. The gap is massive.

It's just my opinion no need to cry.

 

[Robert]

The first England-Pakistan match was brilliant.

 

[Mesozoic]

It's just due to the presence of a number of "x-factor" players in the big-3 teams. Players that can win the match on their own when on song.

Rest of the (non big-3) teams unfortunately are going through a shortage of such players. New Zealand are a very good team but still they lag in terms of that "big presence" that the likes of Kohli, Smith, Stokes, Warner etc bring.

 

[Rana]

New Zealand and South Africa don't play each other as often as the big 3. But I agree they do produce entertaining matches.

Look at the quality of players England and Australia have compared to Sri Lanka and West Indies. The gap is massive.

It's just my opinion no need to cry.

Sounds like a very stupid opinion. The match is defined by the intensity of the players participating and not the quality of the names. How Colin De Grandhome bowled that brilliant spell of 10 overs in the WC final was so good and high quality considering the magnitude of the match, opposition and occasion shows that it’s not about the quality of the players that the big 3 have.

 

[Hasan123]

The first England-Pakistan match was brilliant.

Never said it wasn't.

 

[Markhor]

I don't know why the OP apologises for the Big 3 so much - obviously the best cricket will be produced from the three teams with the biggest budgets and most resources having used their political influence to rig the rules in their favour.

While it's true the Bottom 7 boards (except NZ) have not administered the game well and to a large extent are responsible for their own shortcomings - they simply don't have the financial strength to pump as much money into their infrastructure, attract the best players and pay their players as much to avoid the lure of the freelance circuit.

They struggle to bear the costs of staging bilateral cricket like the big boys can with their massive TV deals, especially when there's no proper cost sharing system. They earn nothing when going overseas since there's no touring fees anymore.

Also they've suffered from toxic governments who constantly interfere in their affairs. Imagine if England or Australia had governments like Sri Lanka or South Africa. In Sri Lanka their Sports Minister has the final say on squad selection !

So with all those factors, why's there a surprise when there's such a gulf between them and the Big 3 on the field ?

 

[therealAB]

Lol

New Zealand and South Africa could play each other and produce great cricket matches at high quality. How do you define a match between England and Australia is of a higher quality as in comparison to a nail biter between West Indies and Sri Lanka for instance?

Joke thread

Well as a rule big three matches will be of a higher standard than WI vs SL, when there can be some pretty average cricket going on.

 

[Frontrunner]

Sounds like a very stupid opinion. The match is defined by the intensity of the players participating and not the quality of the names. How Colin De Grandhome bowled that brilliant spell of 10 overs in the WC final was so good and high quality considering the magnitude of the match, opposition and occasion shows that it’s not about the quality of the players that the big 3 have.

Laughable comment... Devoid of any logic...

Lol.. again resorting to talks of intensity, jazba, dilery, badmashi, etc... That's why pakistan fails on regular basis where jazba nd dilery trumps professionalism...

Ask any cricket fan or take any sports for that matter... It's the star players nd big names who pulls the crowd.. no way one will pay to watch some local level club Cricket full of intensity nd jazba... instead of two star studded teams competing...every sports today is commercialized.. so the talks of intensity nd jazba is just fallacy

 

[Hasan123]

I don't know why the OP apologises for the Big 3 so much - obviously the best cricket will be produced from the three teams with the biggest budgets and most resources having used their political influence to rig the rules in their favour.

While it's true the Bottom 7 boards (except NZ) have not administered the game well and to a large extent are responsible for their own shortcomings - they simply don't have the financial strength to pump as much money into their infrastructure, attract the best players and pay their players as much to avoid the lure of the freelance circuit.

They struggle to bear the costs of staging bilateral cricket like the big boys can with their massive TV deals, especially when there's no proper cost sharing system. They earn nothing when going overseas since there's no touring fees anymore.

Also they've suffered from toxic governments who constantly interfere in their affairs. Imagine if England or Australia had governments like Sri Lanka or South Africa. In Sri Lanka their Sports Minister has the final say on squad selection !

So with all those factors, why's there a surprise when there's such a gulf between them and the Big 3 on the field ?

Big 3 have put the finances into the correct places and have achieved consistency.

It's not the big 3s fault other boards can't look after themselves properly lol. Why is it the big 3s responsibility to help out the weaker nations?

Did the West Indies in the 70s and 80s spoon feed other nations?

 

[Hasan123]

Sounds like a very stupid opinion. The match is defined by the intensity of the players participating and not the quality of the names. How Colin De Grandhome bowled that brilliant spell of 10 overs in the WC final was so good and high quality considering the magnitude of the match, opposition and occasion shows that it’s not about the quality of the players that the big 3 have.

So you find CDG bowling 10 good overs quality over the whole of England vs Australia game on Friday? ) )

Big 3 games are played with intensity and quality btw.

Your on my ignore list for a reason. Not even gonna bother with you now.

 

[Hasan123]

I don't know why the OP apologises for the Big 3 so much - obviously the best cricket will be produced from the three teams with the biggest budgets and most resources having used their political influence to rig the rules in their favour.

While it's true the Bottom 7 boards (except NZ) have not administered the game well and to a large extent are responsible for their own shortcomings - they simply don't have the financial strength to pump as much money into their infrastructure, attract the best players and pay their players as much to avoid the lure of the freelance circuit.

They struggle to bear the costs of staging bilateral cricket like the big boys can with their massive TV deals, especially when there's no proper cost sharing system. They earn nothing when going overseas since there's no touring fees anymore.

Also they've suffered from toxic governments who constantly interfere in their affairs. Imagine if England or Australia had governments like Sri Lanka or South Africa. In Sri Lanka their Sports Minister has the final say on squad selection !

So with all those factors, why's there a surprise when there's such a gulf between them and the Big 3 on the field ?

Also I don't apologise for the big 3. I just give them credit for looking after themselves and achieving consistency which is the truth. I would rather do that than be one of those people who blame others for their failures like the other boards do. Sri Lanka, West Indies, and Pakistan are in the situation they are in because of themselves not because of the big 3.

 

[Frontrunner]

Big 3 have put the finances into the correct places and have achieved consistency.

It's not the big 3s fault other boards can't look after themselves properly lol. Why is it the big 3s responsibility to help out the weaker nations?

Did the West Indies in the 70s and 80s spoon feed other nations?

Exactly!!.. what peeps here fails to fathom is BIG-3 wasn't provided with this monopoly on the game on a silver platter... It's all because of years of hard work nd sound planning to achieve all these sugar cubes..

Some people here just love to curse nd crib about their part of inefficiencies nd issues to the BiG-3

 

[Bhaijaan]

It could be because Big 3 mostly play tull strength against each other while against the rest of the nations they are often experimenting with their line up hence a degraded quality of Cricket for the viewers.

 

[Hasan123]

Exactly!!.. what peeps here fails to fathom is BIG-3 wasn't provided with this monopoly on the game on a silver platter... It's all because of years of hard work nd sound planning to achieve all these sugar cubes..

Some people here just love to curse nd crib about their part of inefficiencies nd issues to the BiG-3

I don't understand these people. It's okay to hate o the big 3 but if you praise them for looking after themselves and achieving results , it's a crime against nature.

These weaker nations and pundits like Fazeer need to learn to take responsibility for their own failures rather than blaming everyone else.

 

[therealAB]

So you find CDG bowling 10 good overs quality over the whole of England vs Australia game on Friday? ) )

Big 3 games are played with intensity and quality btw.

Your on my ignore list for a reason. Not even gonna bother with you now.

How do you do an ignore list. That is going to come in handy for a few posters...

 

[Hasan123]

How do you do an ignore list. That is going to come in handy for a few posters...

Click on the users profile and you will see it on the left hand corner it says "add to ignore list".

 

[Hasan123]

Also to all those who play the victim card for the weaker nations , if you gave Sri Lanka, West Indies, and Pakistan the resources of the big 3 they would still be average. And the reason for that is most of these people in administrations positions in these countries don't understand modern day cricket especially in Pakistan. West Indies and Sri Lanka would improve slightly but I can say for certain that Pakistan would not improve even if they had the resources of the big 3.

 

[naseem]

Ridiculous post....
Big 3 hold lion share of cricket revenues and market......and hence they market their players well...... ENGLAND though is more of a test nation only recently for 4 5 years they have become a force.....SA NZ SL PAK WI even AFG can produce tense good matches.....it's just they don't play much......and we don't see much of Pollard Rashid Babar Saheen Nabi Russel Joseph Protean Malan Morris Rabada DeCock that much......I haven't said abt Nz Sl either....but they surely has that spark.......bro it's marketing world.....wahi bikta hai jo dikta hai.......eg Rizwan. And Labuschagne .....who is more marketed and more followers ........

England are blessed 2 have multiple talents across formats in Cricket now.....but the same can't be said about Aus...Ind......after 2 3 years ......big part of Rohit Kohli Ashwin Sami will be at the end of their career

 

[Frontrunner]

Ridiculous post....
Big 3 hold lion share of cricket revenues and market......and hence they market their players well...... ENGLAND though is more of a test nation only recently for 4 5 years they have become a force.....SA NZ SL PAK WI even AFG can produce tense good matches.....it's just they don't play much......and we don't see much of Pollard Rashid Babar Saheen Nabi Russel Joseph Protean Malan Morris Rabada DeCock that much......I haven't said abt Nz Sl either....but they surely has that spark.......bro it's marketing world.....wahi bikta hai jo dikta hai.......eg Rizwan. And Labuschagne .....who is more marketed and more followers ........

England are blessed 2 have multiple talents across formats in Cricket now.....but the same can't be said about Aus...Ind......after 2 3 years ......big part of Rohit Kohli Ashwin Sami will be at the end of their career

Even with Rohit, Kohli et al will be at near end of their career.. after few years.. india will again unearth bunch of stars ... It's a cycle nd with Strong domestic cricket, world best league, nd prudent cricket economics..to their support..
India will keep on unearthing new stars... Shubman gill, shaw, jaiswal, tyagi et al are the next future stars..

Same goes for Australia.. their strong domestic cricket will keep on churning new stars..

 

[Markhor]

Big 3 have put the finances into the correct places and have achieved consistency.

It's not the big 3s fault other boards can't look after themselves properly lol. Why is it the big 3s responsibility to help out the weaker nations?

Did the West Indies in the 70s and 80s spoon feed other nations?

The Big 3 can afford to pump money into the right places because of bumper television deals, on top of rigging the ICC distribution model in their favour. The worst part is these boards could still live comfortably with slightly more equitable distribution of ICC funds.

In comparison, how much do the Bottom 7 receive from their television deals ? The answer is it's not enough to cover their costs of hosting bilateral Test cricket, pay their players properly, invest in the best coaches and academies etc. Hence why they're dependent on ICC events. It's not a level playing field.

Again if you read my post properly I've acknowledged these boards (except NZ) haven't run their affairs well and deserve some blame.

But to ignore the other institutional disadvantages I've mentioned above is not presenting an accurate and full picture. It's like asking me to give credit to Manchester City because they were lucky enough to get taken over by a tycoon.

 

[naseem]

Even with Rohit, Kohli et al will be at near end of their career.. after few years.. india will again unearth bunch of stars ... It's a cycle nd with Strong domestic cricket, world best league, nd prudent cricket economics..to their support..
India will keep on unearthing new stars... Shubman gill, shaw, jaiswal, tyagi et al are the next future stars..

Same goes for Australia.. their strong domestic cricket will keep on churning new stars..

None of them are established. Yet.....yes they will have more guidance and infrastructure facility.....than WI SA NZ ....but each of these countries have similar star in making Searles of Wi.....Jamieson of Nz..... SA has Malan Goetzee too...

 

[naseem]

The Big 3 can afford to pump money into the right places because of bumper television deals, on top of rigging the ICC distribution model in their favour. The worst part is these boards could still live comfortably with slightly more equitable distribution of ICC funds.

In comparison, how much do the Bottom 7 receive from their television deals ? The answer is it's not enough to cover their costs of hosting bilateral Test cricket, pay their players properly, invest in the best coaches and academies etc. Hence why they're dependent on ICC events. It's not a level playing field.

Again if you read my post properly I've acknowledged these boards (except NZ) haven't run their affairs well and deserve some blame.

But to ignore the other institutional disadvantages I've mentioned above is not presenting an accurate and full picture. It's like asking me to give credit to Manchester City because they were lucky enough to get taken over by a tycoon.

Also arranging bilateral series against each other every one year....Ind Aus series.....Aus playing Ashes twice in a year.....etc etc...

 

[Markhor]

I don't understand these people. It's okay to hate o the big 3 but if you praise them for looking after themselves and achieving results , it's a crime against nature.

These weaker nations and pundits like Fazeer need to learn to take responsibility for their own failures rather than blaming everyone else.

Lol Fazeer Mohammad was kicked off West Indies television commentary for their home series because he is TOO critical of WICB. He's criticised WICB for over 20 years before the "Big 3" was even a thing.

Big 3 apologists characterise anyone speaking up against this funding model as whiners looking for a handout when most of these critics acknowledge the incompetence of their own boards. However the worst part is Big 3 boards won't collapse with a slightly fairer ICC distribution model. They rely far more on income from bilateral cricket. So you tell me who's greedy and looking for handouts.

Two wrongs don't make a right and without a fairer ICC distribution model then the Bottom 7 will fall further and further behind, while folks like yourself will praise the "quality" of the 500th edition of a 5 match England vs Australia ODI series.

People will get sick of it. International sport needs competitiveness to continue to engage viewers, not one sided contests or repeated contests between the same teams.

 

[Frontrunner]

The Big 3 can afford to pump money into the right places because of bumper television deals, on top of rigging the ICC distribution model in their favour. The worst part is these boards could still live comfortably with slightly more equitable distribution of ICC funds.

In comparison, how much do the Bottom 7 receive from their television deals ? The answer is it's not enough to cover their costs of hosting bilateral Test cricket, pay their players properly, invest in the best coaches and academies etc. Hence why they're dependent on ICC events. It's not a level playing field.

Again if you read my post properly I've acknowledged these boards (except NZ) haven't run their affairs well and deserve some blame.

But to ignore the other institutional disadvantages I've mentioned above is not presenting an accurate and full picture. It's like asking me to give credit to Manchester City because they were lucky enough to get taken over by a tycoon.

Nd why would BIG-3 do so?? Do u really expect BIG-3 to fold hands to their share of money nd give it to some other board??

Is this a socialist world? Or Cricket being played for the reason to generate charity?

It's not an ideal world.. every one here has to fight tooth nd nail for their success.. noone gonna provide their hard earned money for the cause of philanthropy...

It's human nature to blame on other rathwr then owning up to their inefficiencies nd flaws.. nd thus crib about level playing field...

Even india wasn't provided with all this power in cricketing world on a silver platter...
BCCI nd Indian cricket worked diligently for years nd decades to achieve what it has in it's hand...take inspiration from it rather than blaming everything bad under the sun to BCCI nd big-3

 

[Frontrunner]

None of them are established. Yet.....yes they will have more guidance and infrastructure facility.....than WI SA NZ ....but each of these countries have similar star in making Searles of Wi.....Jamieson of Nz..... SA has Malan Goetzee too...

Going by past parallel... India nd Australia will keep on churning star players.. because now they have all the ingredients at their hands..

A bright prospect is bound to have far much higher chances of becoming star in India, Australia nd England than rest of the nations...

 

[Hasan123]

The Big 3 can afford to pump money into the right places because of bumper television deals, on top of rigging the ICC distribution model in their favour. The worst part is these boards could still live comfortably with slightly more equitable distribution of ICC funds.

In comparison, how much do the Bottom 7 receive from their television deals ? The answer is it's not enough to cover their costs of hosting bilateral Test cricket, pay their players properly, invest in the best coaches and academies etc. Hence why they're dependent on ICC events. It's not a level playing field.

Again if you read my post properly I've acknowledged these boards (except NZ) haven't run their affairs well and deserve some blame.

But to ignore the other institutional disadvantages I've mentioned above is not presenting an accurate and full picture. It's like asking me to give credit to Manchester City because they were lucky enough to get taken over by a tycoon.

They have the resources and they are looking after themselves. What's the big issue? If they can have more finances for themselves why should they hand them over lol?

Even if you gave more finances to West Indies, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka they wouldn't do anything with it because they don't know how to succeed in modern day cricket and they aren't producing quality players.

 

[Hasan123]

Lol Fazeer Mohammad was kicked off West Indies television commentary for their home series because he is TOO critical of WICB. He's criticised WICB for over 20 years before the "Big 3" was even a thing.

Big 3 apologists characterise anyone speaking up against this funding model as whiners looking for a handout when most of these critics acknowledge the incompetence of their own boards. However the worst part is Big 3 boards won't collapse with a slightly fairer ICC distribution model. They rely far more on income from bilateral cricket. So you tell me who's greedy and looking for handouts.

Two wrongs don't make a right and without a fairer ICC distribution model then the Bottom 7 will fall further and further behind, while folks like yourself will praise the "quality" of the 500th edition of a 5 match England vs Australia ODI series.

People will get sick of it. International sport needs competitiveness to continue to engage viewers, not one sided contests or repeated contests between the same teams.

Fazeer is critical of the WICB but nearly every blog he is complaining about the big 3 as if they are devils and have ruined cricket lol.

West Indies are in the position they are in due to their own issues and the big 3 dominance shouldn't be joined with that.

What would you rather watch , England vs Australia or West Indies vs Sri Lanka?

 

[naseem]

Going by past parallel... India nd Australia will keep on churning star players.. because now they have all the ingredients at their hands..

A bright prospect is bound to have far much higher chances of becoming star in India, Australia nd England than rest of the nations...

Bcoz most of them play only against each other

 

[naseem]

Fazeer is critical of the WICB but nearly every blog he is complaining about the big 3 as if they are devils and have ruined cricket lol.

West Indies are in the position they are in due to their own issues and the big 3 dominance shouldn't be joined with that.

What would you rather watch , England vs Australia or West Indies vs Sri Lanka?

Who says WI V sl can be poor to watch both sides have good hitters.... And good talent too....... It's all about marketing...and marketing

 

[Frontrunner]

Bcoz most of them play only against each other

Nope. Not solely because of it.. it's one of the factor.. i would rather say.. a strong domestic cricket is what stems a star player.. u can't make bunch of mediocre players star owing to shabby domestic cricket...

Australia could achieve all this success in cricket owing to their strong domestic cricket.. now India has followed the suit after 2000 era.. both have a strong domestic cricket to keep up the supply chain of future star cricket for decades to come.

 

[naseem]

England is better of all 3 atleast they play against weaker and unknown teams.....like IRL Scot....and also many teams tour there.....unlike Aus and IND.....how many times Ind tour Bd or vice versa.....can anybody tell........even now they r pioneer at starting cricket in covid times....plus they don't mind allowing their players new and old in playing at diff leagues......yes at times they r at the wrong end of decision making of ICC.....BUt they r a lot better..... I m eager to see how a Dhoni less India plays.......very eager very eager indeed

 

[Frontrunner]

Who says WI V sl can be poor to watch both sides have good hitters.... And good talent too....... It's all about marketing...and marketing

WI vs SL series would be pale in comparison of Australia vs india series... Not going to argue about talent.. it's the Star players who pulls the crowd..

 

[Savak]

Isn't Cricket Australia in serious financial trouble? Didn't the ECB beg teams to tour England in the face of a 500 million pound loss from their broadcaster?

 

[Hasan123]

Who says WI V sl can be poor to watch both sides have good hitters.... And good talent too....... It's all about marketing...and marketing

It's not as entertaining as the big 3 clashes. In fact both teams are desperate to face the big 3 more than they are to face each other lol.

And what's stopping Sri Lanka and West Indies cricket board from marketing?

Let me guess that's the big 3a fault as well.

 

[Frontrunner]

Isn't Cricket Australia in serious financial trouble? Didn't the ECB beg teams to tour England in the face of a 500 million pound loss from their broadcaster?

Yes, due to covid19 entire cricketing economy has taken a huge hit... These are extra ordinary times.. if IPL wasn't going to take place then BCCI would have also taken a huge burn in their wallet..

 

[Titan24]

Not necessarily. When Ind and Eng tour Aus for tests its a pretty one sided affair more often then not. Same is the case with when Ind tour Eng or vice versa, same with Aus touring Ind. Last Ashes was memorable one because Aus was touring Eng (Competition is generally better) but mainly because of one man's heroics, quality of cricket was good but wasnt consistently good throughout. The way Aus lost the match in which Stokes took the game away was poor quality of bowling from them (Hazlewood kept on bowling length balls in his arc), same kind of poor quality sessions were also there in another test or two.

In the recently concluded T20 series between Aus and Eng, it was some poor quality cricket on display. The way Aus lost the first T20 was just poor and even in the 3rd T20 their middle order was again poor.

Yes generally in LOIs maybe you would expect so considering a lot of factors but its not always true. NZ have been a pretty decent teams, not to forget NZ has played two consecutive WC finals and have been a top class test team over the last 5 years or so.

Pakistan and now even SA are obviously arent as consistent in terms of quality that is why Pak remains in mid tier or so team and SA is kind of following in that grey. However Pak has also given some quality cricket in ICC tournaments (WC 19 - Matches vs Eng and NZ was top quality cricket), (CT17-Yes Pak won the trophy but oppositions quality of cricket was poor but you cant blame Pak here). Also most of the test series vs Eng in England have been pretty competitive with quality test sessions and cricket on display.

Some of the SA series vs Aus, Eng have been pretty competitive as well. So my point is big 3 dont exactly produce the best quality of cricket when the face each other, yes they are consistent more often than not but some other teams have produced some really good quality as well.

Again NZ vs Ind last test series, its not NZ fault that Ind couldnt produce quality. Other teams also have ability to produce top quality cricket, Big 3 generally plays much more cricket overall so they get more opportunities to play some quality matches in between poor ones while other teams showcase quality in whatever matches they get.

Considering the kind of money big 3 put into their cricket you would expect that to be the case generally but to be honest it hasnt exactly been especially when it comes to tests. One thing I can agree on is that in terms of quality they can be generally more consistent overall especially in LOIs but still there are huge fluctuations every now and then.

 

[Savak]

Yes, due to covid19 entire cricketing economy has taken a huge hit... These are extra ordinary times.. if IPL wasn't going to take place then BCCI would have also taken a huge burn in their wallet..

Yes but then you ask the question as to how can one conclude that these boards have managed their finances well if they can't stomach a big loss for just one season after earning gigantic revenues and profits for a good 10-20 years consecutively? If they have hedged everything on one broadcast deal, can you really conclude that they have managed their finances well?

In comparison the PCB which has had no international cricket in Pakistan for the last decade, which has been paying echorbitantly to play in the UAE for the last decade, which did not have a fraction of the broadcasting revenues enjoyed by the big 3 but they were not as badly affected by Covid 19 as the big 3 boards and they didn't go to anyone with a begging bowl to help them out

 

[BreadPakoda]

Depends. In tests, I like watching Pakistan and even Sri Lanka over India play in England. On the other hand, Pakistan in Australia and South Africa makes you want to cry.

 

[Rana]

So you find CDG bowling 10 good overs quality over the whole of England vs Australia game on Friday? ) )

Big 3 games are played with intensity and quality btw.

Your on my ignore list for a reason. Not even gonna bother with you now.

So are non big 3 games, so what exactly is your argument? And yes, I find those 10 overs by CDG as high quality as compared to a random bilateral game that is meaningless.

lol being on your ignore list should really hurt me considering the joke of an op you have produced

 

[naseem]

Depends. In tests, I like watching Pakistan and even Sri Lanka over India play in England. On the other hand, Pakistan in Australia and South Africa makes you want to cry.

Infact Pak is the more successful in Eng in tests than Ind

 

[Frontrunner]

Yes but then you ask the question as to how can one conclude that these boards have managed their finances well if they can't stomach a big loss for just one season after earning gigantic revenues and profits for a good 10-20 years consecutively? If they have hedged everything on one broadcast deal, can you really conclude that they have managed their finances well?

In comparison the PCB which has had no international cricket in Pakistan for the last decade, which has been paying echorbitantly to play in the UAE for the last decade, which did not have a fraction of the broadcasting revenues enjoyed by the big 3 but they were not as badly affected by Covid 19 as the big 3 boards and they didn't go to anyone with a begging bowl to help them out

Are you sure PCB is not badly affected?? Or is it due to less transparency owing to shabby practices where it is more than what meets the eyes.. can PCB disclose the amount of sponsorship deal which they recently concluded for their team kits... I hv read reports of them selling sponsorship rights at bargain price at discount of 40-50%... where pakistan team went without main sponsor of their logo nd situation was quite precarious as PCB was struggling to find new sponsor.. here's a report at woefull financial condition of PCB..

"According to sources, the new deal is valued around Rs.200 million, for one year, and the sponsor’s logo will be visible on the Pakistan team’s playing kits during the tour of England.

The PCB had set the reserve price for the new deal at Rs.1 billion but unable to generate much interest from the companies looking to sponsor the national side."

Now this is not even 50% discount..

Nd going by past examples PCB has quite a history of moaning about their appalling financial conditions nd blaming on it the head of BCCI.. so i guess it's not new to them...

For BIG- 3 yes, it's a mojor setback.. because years of planning are at work behind a series or a sponsorship deal, broadcasting rights...

So those who earn more has more the lose than who are less efficient at minting bucks

 

[Markhor]

They have the resources and they are looking after themselves. What's the big issue? If they can have more finances for themselves why should they hand them over lol?

Well unlike you, most fans prefer watching a competitive sport where multiple teams have a shot at succeeding, where the rules of the game aren't already rigged in one group's favour.

The Premier League distributes all international broadcast revenue equally between the clubs. American sports like the NFL not only has revenue sharing, but a draft and salary caps. Yet cricket continues with this warped colonial system where one group hoards all the ICC events, takes the biggest chunks of ICC revenue and dominates key ICC committees.

Can you explain why the Big 3 are hoarding ICC events ? I've loved England hosting ICC events because of our multicultural cricket fanbase but world events shouldn't be limited to three nations if the aim is to advertise the game to global audiences.

Even if you gave more finances to West Indies, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka they wouldn't do anything with it because they don't know how to succeed in modern day cricket and they aren't producing quality players.

West Indies have produced better fast bowlers than England and India have in their histories. Even the ATG Australia teams cannot match the number of Tests the great West Indies side went unbeaten.

Their fast bowling is second only to India's since Jan 2018 in Tests if you looked at the numbers, and that same Windies team smashed England to pieces in the Caribbean last year. If they had proper investment, there's no reason why they couldn't compete with the top teams again. I agree Pakistan and Sri Lanka have their own issues, but you cannot deny lack of funds hasn't impacted on their development.

 

[saeed5646]

[MENTION=26344]Markh[/MENTION]or [MENTION=130037]Titan[/MENTION] explains it perfectly .

If one look at record of big 3 (test) against each other it is pretty much one sided all of them are unbeatable at home while very poor at away .yes their is rare occasion when they beat other at their den but rarely happens....

 

[Markhor]

Also arranging bilateral series against each other every one year....Ind Aus series.....Aus playing Ashes twice in a year.....etc etc...

Well said. Look I've nothing against the Big 3 playing against each other, they have outstanding world class players who we all want to see compete against each other.

However not with such regularity. Take this example: England and Australia have played a bilateral ODI series in EVERY single year since 2009 except in the year 2016. Talk about killing the golden goose !

Also this idea the Big 3 is immune from mismanagement is false. The OP should know living in England that the ECB have wasted their entire reserves on this Hundred competition nobody wants. ECB cannot sustain 18 First Class counties, most of them are loss making and depend on ECB handouts. Yet I don't see him criticising ECB mismanagement ?

 

[Hasan123]

Well unlike you, most fans prefer watching a competitive sport where multiple teams have a shot at succeeding, where the rules of the game aren't already rigged in one group's favour.

The Premier League distributes all international broadcast revenue equally between the clubs. American sports like the NFL not only has revenue sharing, but a draft and salary caps. Yet cricket continues with this warped colonial system where one group hoards all the ICC events, takes the biggest chunks of ICC revenue and dominates key ICC committees.

Can you explain why the Big 3 are hoarding ICC events ? I've loved England hosting ICC events because of our multicultural cricket fanbase but world events shouldn't be limited to three nations if the aim is to advertise the game to global audiences.


West Indies have produced better fast bowlers than England and India have in their histories. Even the ATG Australia teams cannot match the number of Tests the great West Indies side went unbeaten.

Their fast bowling is second only to India's since Jan 2018 in Tests if you looked at the numbers, and that same Windies team smashed England to pieces in the Caribbean last year. If they had proper investment, there's no reason why they couldn't compete with the top teams again. I agree Pakistan and Sri Lanka have their own issues, but you cannot deny lack of funds hasn't impacted on their development.

Why are you bringing the hosting of tournaments into this lol? This is about quality of cricket not about hosting tournaments. I don't agree with the big 3 hosting all the tournaments in any case.

But even if West Indies produce quality players , the board and players can't even get along with each other. They will also be lured by the IPL and probably ditch test cricket. Look an Andre Russell. Would have been a devastating test player in another system. But he has turned himself into a T20 specialist.

 

[naseem]

Well said. Look I've nothing against the Big 3 playing against each other, they have outstanding world class players who we all want to see compete against each other.

However not with such regularity. Take this example: England and Australia have played a bilateral ODI series in EVERY single year since 2009 except in the year 2016. Talk about killing the golden goose !

Also this idea the Big 3 is immune from mismanagement is false. The OP should know living in England that the ECB have wasted their entire reserves on this Hundred competition nobody wants. ECB cannot sustain 18 First Class counties, most of them are loss making and depend on ECB handouts. Yet I don't see him criticising ECB mismanagement ?

Thnks and well put brother

 

[Rana]

Well unlike you, most fans prefer watching a competitive sport where multiple teams have a shot at succeeding, where the rules of the game aren't already rigged in one group's favour.

The Premier League distributes all international broadcast revenue equally between the clubs. American sports like the NFL not only has revenue sharing, but a draft and salary caps. Yet cricket continues with this warped colonial system where one group hoards all the ICC events, takes the biggest chunks of ICC revenue and dominates key ICC committees.

Can you explain why the Big 3 are hoarding ICC events ? I've loved England hosting ICC events because of our multicultural cricket fanbase but world events shouldn't be limited to three nations if the aim is to advertise the game to global audiences.


West Indies have produced better fast bowlers than England and India have in their histories. Even the ATG Australia teams cannot match the number of Tests the great West Indies side went unbeaten.

Their fast bowling is second only to India's since Jan 2018 in Tests if you looked at the numbers, and that same Windies team smashed England to pieces in the Caribbean last year. If they had proper investment, there's no reason why they couldn't compete with the top teams again. I agree Pakistan and Sri Lanka have their own issues, but you cannot deny lack of funds hasn't impacted on their development.

Perfect response. Unfortunately your arguing with someone who seems to have started watching cricket since IPL was introduced

 

[Markhor]

Why are you bringing the hosting of tournaments into this lol? This is about quality of cricket not about hosting tournaments. I don't agree with the big 3 hosting all the tournaments in any case.

But even if West Indies produce quality players , the board and players can't even get along with each other. They will also be lured by the IPL and probably ditch test cricket. Look an Andre Russell. Would have been a devastating test player in another system. But he has turned himself into a T20 specialist.

As I've repeatedly explained - one group of teams makes huge sums from bilateral cricket (which I've no issues with) yet still hoards the lionshare of ICC funds, keep all the hosting profits from staging ICC tournaments they award themselves having dominated the key ICC decision making committees.

They then pump that money into producing this quality of cricket you're asking us to do bhangra over.

If you can't see that connection then we must agree to disagree.

 

[Markhor]

Perfect response. Unfortunately your arguing with someone who seems to have started watching cricket since IPL was introduced

The OP's a smart guy who means well.

 

[Rana]

The OP's a smart guy who means well.

No I don’t think he is. But I respect your views. As for my reasoning to believe he isn’t, well there is no other international cricket going on at the moment besides Australia v England. So there are two competitive teams fighting hence it’s good cricket, but how does the current match suggest the Big 3 are the only ones producing quality against each other? That’s if there are 2 non big 3 teams playing at the same time and produce complete garbage hence to make a fair comparison. Some very reasonable posters have already mentioned the fact that these teams are marketed far better than the other nations hence maybe the OP got so gassed up that he decided to make this shambolic thread.

Then he produces some joke arguments about investing equally in the non big 3 teams would still not produce big 3 quality. This is basically after England have been a competitive ODI team for 5 years, overlooking the decades of great performances by other cricketing nations besides the big 3.

 

[Mamoon]

They are the three best teams in the world so it is not a surprise.

Among the 33 first-choice England, India and Australia players, you will find more world class players than all the other teams combined.

Moreover, there is a difference between competitive cricket and quality cricket.

A series between two small teams like Pakistan and Sri Lanka could also be very competitive, but the quality of cricket won’t necessary be high.

 

[Ab Fan]

It's not about Big 3 producing best cricket, it's about the three best teams that will always produce best cricket whenever they play each other.

This is also the reason why those 9 tests that India will be playing against Australia and England has so much hype. They will be deciders for test championship in a way.

When SA were a top 3 team, they were known for producing top quality cricket but over the past couple of years, they have regressed and hence the India series was such a one sided contest.

If NZ regress in coming years, their quality will go down as well.

 

[Hasan123]

As I've repeatedly explained - one group of teams makes huge sums from bilateral cricket (which I've no issues with) yet still hoards the lionshare of ICC funds, keep all the hosting profits from staging ICC tournaments they award themselves having dominated the key ICC decision making committees.

They then pump that money into producing this quality of cricket you're asking us to do bhangra over.

If you can't see that connection then we must agree to disagree.

Okay I get what your saying. They maybe taking advantage of the power they have.

But they are still making a lot of money even without those ICC events. It's how you invest those funds that counts. Really wouldn't trust some of the weaker teams with large funds.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

So the best teams produce the best quality of cricket. In other news the sky is blue.

 

[naseem]

If it all goes this way then cricket is destined 4 doom....and the little bit revenues it was generating 4 top 3 will be gone..

 

[U$ofA]

Okay I get what your saying. They maybe taking advantage of the power they have.

But they are still making a lot of money even without those ICC events. It's how you invest those funds that counts. Really wouldn't trust some of the weaker teams with large funds.

Right on. I would not give a dime to WI, CSA or SL. It will be a complete waste. I am completely against giving free money. Especially without any checks/monitoring.

For years WI players, officials and others have been moaning about $$. They seem to believe that they should be given money just because. Completely ignoring the corruption and mismanagement of their own board. I mean there have statements even from current players which is something along the lines of - the big3 make so much money, therefore they should give us some of it. Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Mesozoic]

Some of the bickering on this thread is laughworthy really.

So the non big-3 boards are not competent and efficient enough to look after their own, so Big 3 should donate funds to them out of their share. Is this some kind of charity ? Lol.

The mid low tier boards themselves are responsible for the state they're in today. Nothing to do with the Big 3. Anything else is just victim complex at play.

 

[Savak]

Are you sure PCB is not badly affected?? Or is it due to less transparency owing to shabby practices where it is more than what meets the eyes.. can PCB disclose the amount of sponsorship deal which they recently concluded for their team kits... I hv read reports of them selling sponsorship rights at bargain price at discount of 40-50%... where pakistan team went without main sponsor of their logo nd situation was quite precarious as PCB was struggling to find new sponsor.. here's a report at woefull financial condition of PCB..

"According to sources, the new deal is valued around Rs.200 million, for one year, and the sponsor’s logo will be visible on the Pakistan team’s playing kits during the tour of England.

The PCB had set the reserve price for the new deal at Rs.1 billion but unable to generate much interest from the companies looking to sponsor the national side."

Now this is not even 50% discount..

Nd going by past examples PCB has quite a history of moaning about their appalling financial conditions nd blaming on it the head of BCCI.. so i guess it's not new to them...

For BIG- 3 yes, it's a mojor setback.. because years of planning are at work behind a series or a sponsorship deal, broadcasting rights...

So those who earn more has more the lose than who are less efficient at minting bucks

Lol so your argument is that the big 3 have the right to moan given their losses because they are used to making big bucks whereas the PCB in comparison is used to being hand to mouth.

I guess there is some merit, the PCB has been forced to live within their means in the last ten years and therefore it was easier for them to manage the crisis better than the other boards who were screaming for help at this unprecedented time

 

[Usman Chadda]

Disagree. This thread does great disrespect to the WC finalists. NZ is as good as all the big three sides.

Also, South Africa have produced some really good cricket, specially at home.

The recent T20 series between England and Australia was also a one-sided affair, with some terrible cricket from Australia.

 

[Savak]

Some of the bickering on this thread is laughworthy really.

So the non big-3 boards are not competent and efficient enough to look after their own, so Big 3 should donate funds to them out of their share. Is this some kind of charity ? Lol.

The mid low tier boards themselves are responsible for the state they're in today. Nothing to do with the Big 3. Anything else is just victim complex at play.

What an arrogant post. Most of the lower non big 3 teams don't have a large enough economy or market to match the big 3.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

There is a lot of hate for the big 3, not just for cricketing reasons. But if we are honest , they are well clear of the rest of the other cricketing nations in terms of quality and consistency.

Whenever 2 of the 3 play each other in any format, I always find the cricket to be quality and extremely competitive. I enjoy watching them do battle as well. The players seem to want to go that extra mile when playing each other.

The honest truth is they produce the best games and quality of cricket when 2 of the 3 face each other.

Definitely yes.
This "Quality" which perhaps cannot be captured in statistics and numbers, but is evident to mostly veteran fans.
The tape ball generation who mostly believes that the only stroke in cricket is a 6, may not have much of an idea of what we are talking about here.

The class of batting is specially different in big 3.
The way they play proper cricket strokes in the cover area, inside out strokes, drives, and running between the wickets, is different.
Albeit, the recent introduction of Babar Azam, there is hardly anyone outside big three who displays much of that high class. Cow corner slog is the trade mark shot of many non-big 3 batters.

Also,
many big 3 specialist bowlers (specially England and Australia) have proved it at various times that they can step up and play vital BATTING innings when the top order fails or needs help; however, in rest of the teams, the pace bowlers bat down the order as if they are playing cricket reserved for mentally challenged. Many don't even seem to know how to hold the bat.?

The big 3 has two other edges over the rest.
First, the fielding standard. It's definitely at a different level. The clean pick and throw inside the circle, and diving/catching on the boundary (NZ makes it here as well), is at a different level.

Second, the professionalism. Specially in England and Australia. When a batsman gets run out, he gracefully walks away.
In other teams, at times there is a little animated verbal scuffle where one tries to blame other before walking away. It looks ******** but that's how run out are usually dealt with. Their professionalism throws in the white towel when the sentimentalism steps in.

 

[U$ofA]

What an arrogant post. Most of the lower non big 3 teams don't have a large enough economy or market to match the big 3.

I agree. But that does not mean that they are owed anything. The Big3 are not obligated in any way, shape or form to just give money.

Also, the whole corruption and mismanagement is completely ignored. And that is exactly where the change has to start. Not by giving free money. The incompetency of boards like WI, SLC, CSA should addressed and set right first before any talk of free money begins.

Giving money in the current setup will change nothing. Will be a total waste.

 

[Mesozoic]

What an arrogant post. Most of the lower non big 3 teams don't have a large enough economy or market to match the big 3.

So whose fault is it ?

 

[Savak]

I agree. But that does not mean that they are owed anything. The Big3 are not obligated in any way, shape or form to just give money.

Also, the whole corruption and mismanagement is completely ignored. And that is exactly where the change has to start. Not by giving free money. The incompetency of boards like WI, SLC, CSA should addressed and set right first before any talk of free money begins.

Giving money in the current setup will change nothing. Will be a total waste.

Pakistan had some cause to be aggrieved in the last ten years due to no international cricket in the country whereas India has willingly helped out all the other ICC nations but deliberately isolated Pakistan but all other countries have enjoyed the privilege of hosting India many times hence they should have no complaints

 

[Hasan123]

Right on. I would not give a dime to WI, CSA or SL. It will be a complete waste. I am completely against giving free money. Especially without any checks/monitoring.

For years WI players, officials and others have been moaning about $$. They seem to believe that they should be given money just because. Completely ignoring the corruption and mismanagement of their own board. I mean there have statements even from current players which is something along the lines of - the big3 make so much money, therefore they should give us some of it. Absolutely ridiculous.

West Indies and South African boards have issues with getting on with their own players . What will more funds achieve if you can't even manage your players ?

 

[Rana]

I vow to bump this jack@ss thread every time we will see a proper cricket match with good quality cricket played between non big 3 nations

 

[U$ofA]

West Indies and South African boards have issues with getting on with their own players . What will more funds achieve if you can't even manage your players ?

I thought that WI was the most corrupted board. But CSA has sprinted past them to that spot, with SLC bringing up third spot.

 

[naseem]

So Aus choking and midfield 4rm both teams say a lot about high class cricket ha ha....

 

[Shazzam]

I vow to bump this jack@ss thread every time we will see a proper cricket match with good quality cricket played between non big 3 nations

With Misbah at helm expect us to play minnow cricket.

 

[PakPremi]

Where is the high quality cricket when England thrash India at home, and India does the same to India at home.?
As pointed out by other posters recent England vs Australia series was a bore too. Its like saying only Liverpool playing Man City will produce quality football, just because they have more stars.

 

[Rana]

So Aus choking and midfield 4rm both teams say a lot about high class cricket ha ha....

That little cameo by Carey was so high quality.

And Zampas little innings was sublime.

 

[the Great Khan]

Where is the high quality cricket when England thrash India at home, and India does the same to India at home.?
As pointed out by other posters recent England vs Australia series was a bore too. Its like saying only Liverpool playing Man City will produce quality football, just because they have more stars.

and who defines a star these days? the indian bias racist media..so no thanks..lol so much for the high quality..some of the most boring matches have been between the so called big three..Just trudge fests..

 

[Frontrunner]

and who defines a star these days? the indian bias racist media..so no thanks..lol so much for the high quality..some of the most boring matches have been between the so called big three..Just trudge fests..

Ur comments reeks of jealousy and inferiority complex...
Whatever mayb the so called " BIAS RACIST" indian media... Nd ur loathe for it...
However there is a reason why BIG-3 rules the rooster nd runs the show.. nd no cribbing nd squealing gonna change this truth...

Today's sport is commercialized.. nd BIG-3 with their lineups filled with crowd pulling stars players are the one who stand cynosure of cricketing world.

 

[Rana]

Ur comments reeks of jealousy and inferiority complex...
Whatever mayb the so called " BIAS RACIST" indian media... Nd ur loathe for it...
However there is a reason why BIG-3 rules the rooster nd runs the show.. nd no cribbing nd squealing gonna change this truth...

Today's sport is commercialized.. nd BIG-3 with their lineups filled with crowd pulling stars players are the one who stand cynosure of cricketing world.

Crowd pulling stars? England cricket stadiums will still be filled even if they have 11 Moeen Ali’s playing.

Their fans are cricket purists who want to see the performance on the day, not reputation. The other group are the younger lot who will enjoy pint after pint and singing anthems throughout the game. They don’t necessarily get excited to go to a game to watch Ben Stokes bring raising h*ll or Jos Butler smashing the ball out of the park

Indians love their stars

Aussies love to abuse the opposition players and have a good laugh at their own. Not sure if they are in it to watch their stars

 

[Frontrunner]

Crowd pulling stars? England cricket stadiums will still be filled even if they have 11 Moeen Ali’s playing.

Their fans are cricket purists who want to see the performance on the day, not reputation. The other group are the younger lot who will enjoy pint after pint and singing anthems throughout the game. They don't necessarily get excited to go to a game to watch Ben Stokes bring raising h*ll or Jos Butler smashing the ball out of the park

Indians love their stars

Aussies love to abuse the opposition players and have a good laugh at their own. Not sure if they are in it to watch their stars

Not really!! It's the anticipation of watching two strong teams filled with star players fighting it out in a cricket field.. which pulls the crowd..

A two lineup studed with star players competing a la clash of titans will pull more crowd than contest between teams with no star players...

Thus there used to be much anticipation before a india-pak fixtures during 90s-2000s era.. where Pakistani team used to be filled with star players nd crowd pullers.. their used to be a mini battle like sachin vs wasim, sehwag vs akhtar, Ganguly vs waqar.. etc... Thus people across the world used to be much enthusiastic before the match... where all the talks would be about India's batting vs pakistan's bowling

Now with pakistan losing all their star players.. nd not able to produce new star players.. the prospect of a indo-pak clash now don't sound much enticing of late.. ofcourse their was shade of brilliance for pakistan in terms of mohd Amir.. however he too hv regressed.. babar in all his matches against India failed to leave his impact to raise his star stature..

So it's the star players which is in abundance in BIG-3 which will always pull the crowd.. what happens at ground will always be secondary... However people will always choose to watch a clash of titans instead of a match between two less known team....

Rafael nadal vs Federer would pull more crowd than Rohan bopanna vs Aisam ul haq qureshi

 

[Rana]

2019 World Cup

Pakistan v West Indies (sold out) 90% Pakistan crowd

Pakistan v England (sold out) 35% Pakistan crowd against the hosts

Pakistan v Sri Lanka, 80% Pakistan crowd

Pakistan v Australia (sold out) 95% Pakistan crowd

Pakistan v India (sold out a few hours) 70% Indian crowd

Pakistan v Afghanistan (sold out) 70% Pakistan crowd

Pakistan v South Africa, 90% Pakistan crowd

Pakistan v New Zealand (sold out) 95% Pakistan crowd

Pakistan v Bangladesh (sold out) 75% Pakistan crowd

 

[PakPremi]

England stadiums are filled or almost filled no matter who they playing.

 

[Rana]

England stadiums are filled or almost filled no matter who they playing.

Exactly. They would be sold out for Tests v Bangladesh also.