Dropping the coin toss and over-reliance on India (with BCCI complaints) - ICC agenda 2018

[The Speaker]

There's already a thread about the upcoming Test championship, which could be genuinely game-changing for this sport, if implemented correctly. Unfortunately it has to work within the framework of bilateral series held between member boards, who still hold all the power in the ICC, but it's at least a start for creating world cricket with real context.

But there are other things on the ICC agenda at the moment, and I felt they were worth their own thread.

First up is a proposal that's been doing the rounds for a few years and has finally made its way to the ICC, which is to get rid of the coin toss at the start of the match.

Test cricket's fundamental starting point may be scrapped, as the ICC's cricket committee prepares to debate whether or not the coin toss should be removed as a way of reducing home ground advantage in the looming Test Championship.

Every single Test match since the very first, between Australia and England at the MCG in March 1877, has begun with a toss of the coin to decide who should bat or bowl first. The home captain flips the coin and the visiting captain calls heads or tails.

However, there has been a growing body of opinion that home boards have manipulated conditions to suit their team, in turn adding a disproportionate level of importance to the toss. The proposed remedy is to abandon the coin toss for matches played as part of the Test Championship, to commence with Australia's Ashes tour of England in 2019, leaving the visiting side to elect whether to bat or bowl first.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/23525914/to-toss-not-toss-icc-scrap-tradition

There are some stats at the end of the story about how results changed in the County Championship after they scrapped the coin toss, which point, in essence to flatter wickets. That is, it seem like counties are less prone to adopting juicy wickets if they're guaranteed to bat first on them.

The supposed intention of it is to make an 'even contest between bat and ball', which is now officially a cliché, by making the game last the full five days. But many boards already do this. In fact, many of them do it too much (such as Cricket Australia) and the result is flat pitches that are anything but an even contest. If anything, this will surely only punish the smaller nations who throw up either green or dusty pitches in the hope of nabbing a win.

Next, the BCCI is angry again.

The International Cricket Council (ICC) has started a drive to build its 'independent identity'. In its update on the global strategy for cricket, the council's Strategy Working Group (SWG) has cited over-reliance on India as its biggest weakness in its effort to make cricket a global game.

The SWG has also pointed out that ICC isn't exclusively responsible for regulation of world cricket as the game is governed via the laws formulated by the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC).

The SWOT analysis in the report, a copy of which is with TOI, says that cricket is not a truly global sport because of heavy dependence on revenues and fans from India. It also asserts that there is lack of aggressive expansion/growth strategy to counter over-reliance on India.

http://www.cricbuzz.com/cricket-new...g-growth-international-cricket-council-report

This all seems fairly cut and dry, doesn't it? Cricket isn't a global sport, and its governing body hasn't got a truly independent identity, because all the power in world cricket lies with the full members nations, especially the bigger ones. India is the most notable of these, and actually holds so much power through the money it brings that cricket has become over-reliant on it, which is dangerous in the long term.

Alas, the BCCI has taken this as an insult and an attempt to drag them down.

"Not a truly global sport - heavy dependence on revenues and fans from India "

One sentence, listed under "weaknesses" in a SWOT analysis that is part of a 25-page ICC document called "A Global Strategy For Cricket - Update", dominated the agenda of the meeting between the BCCI and the ICC working group to develop a global strategy for cricket. On the eve of the meeting, which was held in Delhi on Thursday, 18 full members of the BCCI joined a teleconference and took a "dim view" of the development. The BCCI threatened to call a general meeting to consider and deliberate on the Members' Participation Agreement with the ICC to "safeguard the BCCI's interest before the same is executed on behalf of the BCCI".

After the meeting, the ICC was in damage-control mode. "It's listed as potential weakness but I would actually focus on it as a strength," the ICC CEO David Richardson said. "We need Indian cricket as part of global strategy. It's certainly a strength that we have such a huge cricket economy behind us. It's not a big issue from weaknesses point of view; if anything it's a reminder for other countries that they cannot rely on India alone, they need to do something themselves."

The BCCI is certain that the sentence will be removed from any further discussions.

"If Sachin Tendulkar was the dominant batsman for India, you didn't try to find ways to cut down his scoring," a BCCI official said. "You asked other batsmen to start scoring more."

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/23530870/icc-defensive-listing-dependence-india-weaknesses

This is a nonsensical response, as the report says nothing about bringing India down. In fact, there is no criticism of India whatsoever in it. Yet the BCCI feels as through it has been threatened by the point being made that global cricket is disadvantaged by being too reliant on it. Is it a simple misunderstanding, or is it that they want to continue being the dominant power in world cricket?

Well, this story gives us some hints.

According to a BCCI representative present at the meeting, the ICC feels that cricket’s entry to the Olympics would open up a relatively closed economy, as it creates the possibility of wooing countries like China. The Chinese getting into cricket would give the game a serious boost, money and market wise. Also, government funding for an Olympic sport would help a lot of cricket boards gasping for survival.

While the BCCI officials agreed to the extent that alternative revenue sources would help cricket prosper, they stressed the fact that the Indian money can’t be seen as a weakness. The Indian board so far has objected to cricket’s participation in the Olympics and it still remains non-committal on the subject. “All these need to come to the general body. The members will decide,” a BCCI official said.

...

Issues like the Olympics participation, the proposed conversion of the 2021 Champions Trophy to a World T20, the BCCI’s reduced revenue share have irked a vast section of the Indian board. In fact, the BCCI members haven’t taken kindly to the ICC’s expansion policy. Eighteen member units had a teleconference yesterday and took a “dim view” of some recent developments in the world body. There’s a feeling within the BCCI that the ICC’s ‘greater good’ of the game theory is basically aimed at weakening India’s global position as the game’s only superpower.

http://indianexpress.com/article/sp...s-will-mean-more-revenue-for-the-icc-5180902/

I think it would be unfair to characterise this as purely a power-grab, as I think it's more reflective of a typical Indian worldview than anything. In essence, it's about karma - you will get what you deserve. As far as these elements in the BCCI and their supporters are concerned, their wealth and power is what they deserve, so any attempt to limit their power or take away their wealth is morally reprehensible.

How does a global body overcome this? I don't think the ICC has knows the answer, or is even aware of the question.

 

[frankrizzo]

Yeah i can see them just going with flat pitches in most places, only pitches that might not be be flat will be rank turners in asia that spin from ball one and even then in a tight series they likely won't make a crumbling deck they know they will be batting last on.

What is needed for more competitive away series is longer and higher quality warm up games.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

If the toss was to be abandoned, just let the visiting team decide. It may or may not produce flat decks, but it may also reduce pitches being over-favoured to the home side. No guarantees either way, I'd like to see how that played out at lower levels, and non-competition games ("A" tours, etc) first.
How that would work for neutral games (not applicable to Tests really, except the championship final) is an open question.

Unfortunately, money talks. India will be the dominant force for some time yet, the volumes are simply way beyond what the rest of the cricket world can put together.

 

[The Speaker]

If the toss was to be abandoned, just let the visiting team decide. It may or may not produce flat decks, but it may also reduce pitches being over-favoured to the home side. No guarantees either way, I'd like to see how that played out at lower levels, and non-competition games ("A" tours, etc) first.

That's what they did at county level.

 

[JG22]

Fascinating stuff.

The idea was always pretty obvious, but know you come to think of it I feel hesitant.

The state of the game really is what it is, which makes winning away something very special for true cricket people.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

That's what they did at county level.

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. I used to think they did it that way, but for some reason more recently had it n my head they chose some other way (probably misread a few items here and there).
If it results in flatter pitches, then scrap it. That's even worse than the overly home-friendly mess we have now. I would have hoped it would result in pitches where it was actually tough to make a call on day one. Clearly not the case.

edit: Apparently the visiting captain can choose to bowl, but it goes to a toss otherwise, in the County games. No surprise that would lead to flat pitches.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

What is needed for more competitive away series is longer and higher quality warm up games.

That's not going to happen.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

That's not going to happen.

Sadly not, but it is needed.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Sadly not, but it is needed.

The calendar is too full.

 

[2notepockets]

The BCCI are truly a laughable organisation in some respects, at times it seems like they are run by the same people who turn the comments section of every cricinfo article into a Sachin/Kholi/pakistan hate-fest...

Taking exception to the ICC stating the fact that over reliance on India is a weakness for them, which is 100% true, and not in anyway disparaging or derogatory towards India or the BCCI is just another example of how insular, insecure and unreasonable they are.

 

[The Speaker]

Next on the agenda: trying to restrict the activities of Associate members because they 'don't have the best interests of the game at heart'.

The other key decision which will also come up for approval in October is on the future of T20 Leagues hosted by Associate nations. Currently, Full Members do not require any kind of ICC approval should they want to start a T20 league in their country, whereas Associate Members do. Usually, ICC approval for an Associate league has been all but a rubber stamp but that may soon change. If the ICC eventually refuses to sanction such leagues, it could prevent them from attracting top Full Member stars, on whose participation the success of a tournament often hinges.

The driving concern among Full Members is that most leagues in Associate countries are operated by a third party with little interest in the development of the game. And some board members and chief executives feel that a few Associate boards themselves did not have real stakes in the game.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/23968379/icc-limit-players-three-t20-leagues-year

How ironic.

 

[Belnakor]

At least India occassionally play the tier 2 test teams. I'm not sure Australia have a leg to stand on after we cancelled the Bangas series for no real reason.

The biggest danger for test cricket is the way they are creating this tier system where the top dogs basically only ever play each other.