ICC

[gbatman]

Are the ICC doing their job? Do they know what their job is? ICC are the governing body of international cricket, it's their responsibility to look after the game and the countries participating in the game.

There has been a lot of talk for over 10 years now about how test cricket is dying. But for those countries who take it seriously and have good pathways and domestic competitions it refuses to die. For those that don't I can see how it has sharply diminished.

Australia has been the dominant test nation since the mid 90s. Australia, India and England have kept test cricket alive as have New Zealand. They do so by producing quality teams with entertaining players.

Watching the Pakistan/West Indies series one thing has become apparent. These teams have talent but not enough. Both teams have been powerhouses in the past but are shadows of their former selves. Add South Africa to that mix. South africa were a formidable side with loads of talent but loads of entertainment factor.

Test cricket is a great game. There is nothing wrong with the length of it or the rules of it, where it's lacking is the lack of entertainment factor from high quality players who come from a really good domestic comp and a well funded cricket program.

Is it time the ICC step in and fix what's broken?

The West Indies of the 80s and early 90s were one of the strongest and most entertaining sides of all time. Somewhere they badly dropped the ball. Funding is an issue. Surely the ICC have the money put away to get cricket pitches put in and cricket equipment spread out to all the schools and get kids playing and the game pumping? ICC scholarship programs etc. When the West Indies are firing, cricket is better off, it brings fans and players to the game. The other thing they need to do badly is fix their domestic wickets. For a team who has produced so many great fast bowlers, they have done their best at discouraging fast aggressive bowling, producing wickets that lack grass and bounce. If anything their ground staff need to be coming to Australia to study our wickets and preparation and replicating the best they can. Australia is the best in the world at producing fast bowlers, the main reason is our wickets encourage fast bowling so well. The same can be said for Pakistan. A country that has produced so many legendary quicks, why are they doing their best to replicate India so much with dry grassless wickets? Fans love fast bowling. Fast bowlers bring the fans through the gates.

Then there is South Africa. What on earth has gone wrong there? Through the 90s and early 2000s they were a powerhouse for cricket. Often in Australia's shadow but not by a great deal.

So isn't it time the ICC step in and help these countries mismanaging the game? Fix the domestic wickets. Help with funding. Help with junior programs and pathways.

The thing that will kill cricket in the longer format is nothing to do with the rules or length of the game but by producing contests that aren't close, are low quality played by players who have little entertainment factor or skill. Get enough good cricketers that entertain and perform well. Bowlers who bowl fast, spinners who take wickets, good fielders skillful batsmen. Bring that to the game and the game is good and wanted.

 

[frankrizzo]

Issue with trying to discuss this stuff is so many fundamentally misunderstand what ICC are how they are actually funded and who they really answer too, the only big money they really have comes from selling media rights to major international events a large chunk of that money then gets redistributed back to boards with india taking over 40 percent of the overall pot then aus/eng/pak/nz ect taking about 30 percent as a group then rest is divided up amongst others.

That is it thats icc money and the bulk of it is shared up and gone amongst already wealthy nations there is no separate fund to grow test cricket if the ICC told india hey you have enough already lets take your 40 percent and share that with others to fund test matches indias response would be well how about india just withdraw from ICC events leading to a collapse of media rights prices and collapse of ICC.

The ICC arent totally useless but they are essentially like UN just a safe space for the big boys to try and work their s**t out before they start going nuclear but reality is just like UN the ICC have no real standing no real muscle to keep bigger players in line so they really work for the BCCI and to a lesser extend aus/eng ect not other way round.

 

[frankrizzo]

What that means for future is pretty simple and depressing if india want tests to wrap up and be done they are done simple as that, at some point billionaires buying up these franchises will get enough sway inside BCCI that they will say hey why do we get 40 percent of the ICC revenue when figures show india create about 80 percent of the tv money that comes in when we can simply cut out international cricket as the main game we set and control the calendar for the entire year and we take home the full share of the tv money that comes from that.

yes ashes and few other big series will survive but starved of funds smaller boards will be unable to play home tests and knock on effect will be smaller contracts for their bigger stars those stars will be at some point offered year long exclusive contracts to play multiple 20/20 leagues owned by same people and they will take them.

 

[Kensy006]

Are the ICC doing their job? Do they know what their job is? ICC are the governing body of international cricket, it's their responsibility to look after the game and the countries participating in the game.

There has been a lot of talk for over 10 years now about how test cricket is dying. But for those countries who take it seriously and have good pathways and domestic competitions it refuses to die. For those that don't I can see how it has sharply diminished.

Australia has been the dominant test nation since the mid 90s. Australia, India and England have kept test cricket alive as have New Zealand. They do so by producing quality teams with entertaining players.

Watching the Pakistan/West Indies series one thing has become apparent. These teams have talent but not enough. Both teams have been powerhouses in the past but are shadows of their former selves. Add South Africa to that mix. South africa were a formidable side with loads of talent but loads of entertainment factor.

Test cricket is a great game. There is nothing wrong with the length of it or the rules of it, where it's lacking is the lack of entertainment factor from high quality players who come from a really good domestic comp and a well funded cricket program.

Is it time the ICC step in and fix what's broken?

The West Indies of the 80s and early 90s were one of the strongest and most entertaining sides of all time. Somewhere they badly dropped the ball. Funding is an issue. Surely the ICC have the money put away to get cricket pitches put in and cricket equipment spread out to all the schools and get kids playing and the game pumping? ICC scholarship programs etc. When the West Indies are firing, cricket is better off, it brings fans and players to the game. The other thing they need to do badly is fix their domestic wickets. For a team who has produced so many great fast bowlers, they have done their best at discouraging fast aggressive bowling, producing wickets that lack grass and bounce. If anything their ground staff need to be coming to Australia to study our wickets and preparation and replicating the best they can. Australia is the best in the world at producing fast bowlers, the main reason is our wickets encourage fast bowling so well. The same can be said for Pakistan. A country that has produced so many legendary quicks, why are they doing their best to replicate India so much with dry grassless wickets? Fans love fast bowling. Fast bowlers bring the fans through the gates.

Then there is South Africa. What on earth has gone wrong there? Through the 90s and early 2000s they were a powerhouse for cricket. Often in Australia's shadow but not by a great deal.

So isn't it time the ICC step in and help these countries mismanaging the game? Fix the domestic wickets. Help with funding. Help with junior programs and pathways.

The thing that will kill cricket in the longer format is nothing to do with the rules or length of the game but by producing contests that aren't close, are low quality played by players who have little entertainment factor or skill. Get enough good cricketers that entertain and perform well. Bowlers who bowl fast, spinners who take wickets, good fielders skillful batsmen. Bring that to the game and the game is good and wanted.

I think players need to be choosing between T20 and Tests. Clashes (test played at same time as T20 competitions) will continue and T20 will more and more win out for the players of countries outside of India England and Australia. When ‘first choice’ test players choose T20 and teams select second string test sides, it ruins test cricket. However, if players are either T20 or Test then there would be never any second string sides competing.

If players choosing test cricket training is structured towards test cricket they will become the best Test cricketers for their country - going past the players that may have showed more talent but chose T20.

This hence makes them two different sports. Sure the more talented may choose T20 but if they choose T20 from the start then it won’t effect test cricket. You might say that test cricket will miss out on the best crickets but as I said earlier if the players that do choose test cricket (because they weren’t talented enough for T20 cricket) train for test cricket specifically they will become the best Test cricketers because of better technique/temperament. And I don’t think there would be people trying to switch mid career because there won’t be anyway players could catch up with the training that the others have completed in the different sports.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Teen Wolf]

Afghanistan women banned from cricket. Pakistan's brightest young female talent retires at age 18 for "religious reasons". New Zealand women haven't played a Test for 20 years. None of it worth a mention.

But the West Indies men's Test team get to tour Australia twice in 12 months, while their national contracts start at only $150k per year... ICC please help these poor men!!!

 

[NYRB]

There seems to be an influx of West Indian crickets in the ILT20 and SA20. The ILT20 has a salary cap of around $2.5 million USD, where the top players (top 3 players) would be earning in excess of $220,000 USD+ a season for a brief 4 weeks of work in the UAE. And the SA20 for season 2 has a cap of around $2.65 million USD- being the 2nd richest league in the world now behind the IPL, also for a 4 week duration.

As a Cricket Australia centrally contracted player money isnt an issue. But with less work and more pay , even Australian cricketers not guaranteed of millions have to leave Australian shores for the bucks eg Chris Lynn, Daniel Sams players still pretty much in their prime. It isnt just a West Indian issue, its a global issue.

Old saying money talks in issues like this. There is a demand for the game (T20) . There are grave concerns for test cricket , given the 2 day test match between India and South Africa recently, and now this 2.5 day test match between West Indies and Australia. Im going to say it and may be controversial, players these days would rather make more money in less time. Isnt that how the world with employment as well? If you can make the same amount, but in a lesser time- you take the lesser? Basic Economics 101 - Supply and Demand.

 

[The 747]

Is it time the ICC step in and fix what's broken?

As Frank posted, the ICC have no real power, they just hold the tournaments and keep track of WL for tournament qualification.

Your post is missing the mark you talk about Australia and Test cricket and bemoan Pakistan, South Africa, WI etc.

Pakistan are Pakistan, they produce enough talent (more than enough) but are their own worst enemies.

The others, well Australia could play them more often, we could offer to revenue share with those boards, we could play Bangladesh more than once a decade, we could have played Boxing Day in SA to help them (before the inevitable happened), we could play NZ pretty much at the end of every summer if we felt like it to help them, we could tour SL and WI more than very infrequently.

But we don't and CA just blame the ICC and our cricket fans eat it up. Australia are a major part of the problem.

Also note that CA, running the most popular sport in rich sporting mad country, make a loss most years because they are run by morons.

 

[Black Diamond]

Pakistan is actually doing quite well when you consider their nation has been an international pariah for so long, and couldn’t host matches for 20 years.

Not to mention never playing India outside of world cups and having their players excluded from the IPL (yes, T20, but still has some promotional value for test cricket).

 

[PhatBoy]

Afghanistan women banned from cricket. Pakistan's brightest young female talent retires at age 18 for "religious reasons". New Zealand women haven't played a Test for 20 years. None of it worth a mention.

But the West Indies men's Test team get to tour Australia twice in 12 months, while their national contracts start at only $150k per year... ICC please help these poor men!!!

With respect, the topic and the thread isn’t about women’s rights in sport.

It’s not about women’s cricket. It’s about the failure of the ICC to properly administer one of its flagship products.

There’s no less merit in what you are talking about but it’s a separate issue

And ‘gets to’ means nothing. Their board doesn’t profit from COMING here, they profit when they HOST Australia. Which last happened 8 years ago.

 

[Teen Wolf]

With respect, the topic and the thread isn’t about women’s rights in sport.

The 12 national women's teams with Test status most certainly belong in a discussion about the health of Test cricket, and you have a poor understanding of the sport's history (and, frankly, present) if you don't know that.

Further, anybody proposing a more even distribution of ICC funding for the struggling nations (which is what the OP suggested) should be aware those same nations are the worst offenders when it comes to evenly distributing revenue among their men's and women's programs.

And ‘gets to’ means nothing. Their board doesn’t profit from COMING here, they profit when they HOST Australia. Which last happened 8 years ago.

Without tours of countries like Australia, their sponsorship value plummets, so actually yes their board and players do profit from the privilege.

 

[PhatBoy]

The 12 national women's teams with Test status most certainly belong in a discussion about the health of Test cricket, and you have a poor understanding of the sport's history (and, frankly, present) if you don't know that.

Further, anybody proposing a more even distribution of ICC funding for the struggling nations (which is what the OP suggested) should be aware those same nations are the worst offenders when it comes to evenly distributing revenue among their men's and women's programs.


Without tours of countries like Australia, their sponsorship value plummets, so actually yes their board and players do profit from the privilege.

I have a perfectly fine understanding of the history of the sport.

In a discussion about the health of test cricket, which for all intents and purposes is being held about men’s cricket whether specified or not, it’s a separate issue. A perfectly legitimate issue yes, but a separate one.

Again, their value is not relevant to yours of Australia.

Avail yourself of the article Firdose Moonda published on Cricinfo where she interviews the WI president Johnny Grave and see what the real impact is of a tour to Australia where they have to cover the cost of what actually happens, and compare it to the benefits of hosting Australia.

You might rethink your stance.

 

[gbatman]

I don't think it's all the ICC but I do think they need to help nations mismanaging the game.

I think for a start the game needs to be marketed better. Not just "this is test cricket, here you go". Start referring to it as the pinnacle form of the sport, they elite and most prestigious form of the game. Really market it to fans.

Secondly there needs to be the money. The cricket environment has changed. It's easy to be a good T20 player and make a lot of money and just forget about test matches. Test match cricket, a big international sport, the athletes in comparison to other big international sports are probably not offered overly exciting money.

Fix the wickets and encourage quicks. Fast, aggressive bowlers put bums on seats. If countries want to produce them their wickets need to encourage them like ours do. The only country which discourages fast bowling that is doing well is doing well because of shere weight of numbers and an enormous love of the game. I've been bemused for a long time how the West Indies can produce scare good quicks but go out of their way to discourage them.

Junior programs and pathways. You only have to look at how Australia do things. All schools have cricket gear. There are clinics to educate coaches. We have junior formats of the game that kids cut their teeth on. As opposed to doing nothing or very little. Yes money comes into it.

I think it's important to develop cricket in nations who aren't at the level the top few sides are at. Not sure who or how that is best approached if the ICC can't help.

 

[Teen Wolf]

In a discussion about the health of test cricket, which for all intents and purposes is being held about men’s cricket whether specified or not, it’s a separate issue. A perfectly legitimate issue yes, but a separate one.

It's not a separate issue, and you have no justification for that claim.

There are 24 teams with Test status. 21 of them are very much in the same boat with regards to the struggles of making Test cricket profitable.

And if only one of, say, the Pakistan men's and New Zealand women's teams are relevant to a "death of Test cricket" discussion, it would logically be the one that hasn't played a match in 20 years (which btw is also about the same length of time that NZ women's Test history predates that of the Pakistan men's).

Avail yourself of the article Firdose Moonda published on Cricinfo where she interviews the WI president Johnny Grave and see what the real impact is of a tour to Australia where they have to cover the cost of what actually happens, and compare it to the benefits of hosting Australia.

Yes they cover those costs with the money they earn from washing cars and selling Caramello Koalas, not money that ultimately traces back to Australia and India making them relevant.

 

[PhatBoy]

It's not a separate issue, and you have no justification for that claim.

There are 24 teams with Test status. 21 of them are very much in the same boat with regards to the struggles of making Test cricket profitable.

And if only one of, say, the Pakistan men's and New Zealand women's teams are relevant to a "death of Test cricket" discussion, it would logically be the one that hasn't played a match in 20 years (which btw is also about the same length of time that NZ women's Test history predates that of the Pakistan men's).


Yes they cover those costs with the money they earn from washing cars and selling Caramello Koalas, not money that ultimately traces back to Australia and India making them relevant.

Ok mate. I’m sure Australia and India’s full coffers will be of great comfort to all and sundry when no one from any other country gives a f**k because those two countries don’t give a f**k about any other country.

At least England actually tour the other nations.

They go to the West Indies regularly.

Along with the Aussies (to their credit) they were the first to return to Pakistan. They go to NZ. They host NZ. They go to SL. They have played Bangladesh at their own major venues. They have been there. They are fundamentally unlikable and absorbed in their own hubris but at least they are making overtures of TRYING to help the game.

The best Australia can trot out is ‘we don’t know what the answer is’ and ‘it is what it is.’

But yeah we are so awesome for allowing the peasantry to tour here at their own cost and promoting their brand.

How amazing.

God, they’re so lucky.

Maybe in 15 years they can host us for a one off test like Zimbabwe did in 1999 and the next generation like Jewel Andrew who smacked 130 off 100 in the under 19 World Cup last night having just turned 17 a month ago can tell his kids about how he was not able to play but he was at Providence when the mighty Australians came through on their way to their 7th series in 16 years with India as a warm up.

 

[Teen Wolf]

I’m sure Australia and India’s full coffers will be of great comfort to all and sundry when no one from any other country gives a f**k because those two countries don’t give a f**k about any other country.

So do you want Australia and India to fund all crap teams with Test status, or just the crap ones you care about? The answer is obvious, thanks to your baseless "Test cricket means men's cricket and nothing else" proclamation.

Along with the Aussies, England were the first to return to Pakistan.

Wow these English sycophants really do struggle with the concept of being first. I guess that "along with the Aussies," England also retained the Ashes last year and won three world championships.

I don't remember England being involved in Australia's tour of Pakistan. But I do remember the English cowards (and poor woe-is-us New Zealand) cancelling their 2021 tour of Pakistan for "mental wellbeing", and only going over there after Australia.

They go to NZ. They host NZ. They go to SL. They have played Bangladesh at their own major venues. They have been there. They are fundamentally unlikable and absorbed in their own hubris but at least they are making overtures of TRYING to help the game.

Yep, double-booking their schedule to make all these fantastic tours fit. Because prioritising quantity over quality, and playing more fixtures that nobody cares about, doesn't cheapen international cricket at all...

 

[PhatBoy]

So do you want Australia and India to fund all crap teams with Test status, or just the crap ones you care about? The answer is obvious, thanks to your baseless "Test cricket means men's cricket and nothing else" proclamation.


Wow these English sycophants really do struggle with the concept of being first. I guess that "along with the Aussies," England also retained the Ashes last year and won three world championships.

I don't remember England being involved in Australia's tour of Pakistan. But I do remember the English cowards (and poor woe-is-us New Zealand) cancelling their 2021 tour of Pakistan for "mental wellbeing", and only going over there after Australia.


Yep, double-booking their schedule to make all these fantastic tours fit. Because prioritising quantity over quality, and playing more fixtures that nobody cares about, doesn't cheapen international cricket at all...

I want than to fund all of them.

I just don’t want to discuss it with you in case you hadn’t worked that out: once more, that’s not what the topic was that was being addressed.

That cricket that nobody cares about has provided by some distance the best test cricket of the last 24 months if you actually have bothered watching it. Not sure how it has cheapened it.

‘Oh those really close series with New Zealand have been shithouse because there was two of them sandwiched with some other cricket matches.’

 

[Teen Wolf]

I just don’t want to discuss it with you

Whenever the health of Test cricket is brought up on here, I will always point out that it should be considered in the context of all 24 teams with Test status. If you don't want to discuss that with me, then don't respond to my posts!

That cricket that nobody cares about has provided by some distance the best test cricket of the last 24 months if you actually have bothered watching it.

I obviously watch more Test cricket than you do, seeing as you think it's only played by men.

The best Test cricket played in the last 24 months was between Australia and England at Manuka Oval. Much better than all the series marred by Ben Stokes' stupid declarations and a lack of quality spin bowling.

‘Oh those really close series with New Zealand have been shithouse because there was two of them sandwiched with some other cricket matches.’

Jampacked schedules mean the general public lose interest, which devalues the product in very real ways.

 

[PhatBoy]

Whenever the health of Test cricket is brought up on here, I will always point out that it should be considered in the context of all 24 teams with Test status. If you don't want to discuss that with me, then don't respond to my posts!


I obviously watch more Test cricket than you do, seeing as you think it's only played by men.

The best Test cricket played in the last 24 months was between Australia and England at Manuka Oval. Much better than all the series marred by Ben Stokes' stupid declarations and a lack of quality spin bowling.


Jampacked schedules mean the general public lose interest, which devalues the product in very real ways.

No, the general public doesn’t lose interest.

Australia isn’t interested because it doesn’t involve them.

That’s the essence of what you’re saying.

If you watch and enjoy women’s test cricket that’s fine and good luck to you. I don’t follow it closely and am happy to admit it. I don’t ‘not care’ about its health and am more than happy for it to be considered when the health of the game is concerned but when someone is bringing up what is obviously a discussion aimed at a specific subsection of the game, don’t be surprised when that particular subsection is what people focus on

 

[Teen Wolf]

No, the general public doesn’t lose interest.

Australia isn’t interested because it doesn’t involve them.

The Australian public doesn't have to be interested in NZ Test cricket. New Zealanders have to be interested, and they're not.

If you watch and enjoy women’s test cricket that’s fine and good luck to you. I don’t follow it closely and am happy to admit it. I don’t ‘not care’ about its health and am more than happy for it to be considered when the health of the game is concerned but when someone is bringing up what is obviously a discussion aimed at a specific subsection of the game, don’t be surprised when that particular subsection is what people focus on

I'm not surprised. Furthermore I fully anticipated dipshits replying with "Test cricket means men's cricket etc". So far there's only been one.

 

[Cleavy]

Whenever the health of Test cricket is brought up on here, I will always point out that it should be considered in the context of all 24 teams with Test status.

24 teams??

 

[PhatBoy]

The Australian public doesn't have to be interested in NZ Test cricket. New Zealanders have to be interested, and they're not.


I'm not surprised. Furthermore I fully anticipated dipshits replying with "Test cricket means men's cricket etc". So far there's only been one.

Who’s said test cricket means men’s cricket?

I haven’t.

I’ve said that the point that was obviously being focused on in the OP was being pointed towards men’s cricket. That’s what they wanted to discuss, pretty clearly.

 

[Teen Wolf]

24 teams??

Yep there are 24 teams with Test status.

Three turn a profit for their cricket boards: Australia men, England men, India men

The other 21 don't: Afghanistan men, Afghanistan women, Australia women, Bangladesh men, Bangladesh women, England women, India women, Ireland men, Ireland women, New Zealand men, New Zealand women, Pakistan men, Pakistan women, South Africa men, South Africa women, Sri Lanka men, Sri Lanka women, West Indies men, West Indies women, Zimbabwe men, Zimbabwe women

Any ICC solution to improve the viability of Test cricket must be applicable to all those teams, otherwise it's not a real solution.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Yep there are 24 teams with Test status.

Three turn a profit for their cricket boards: Australia men, England men, India men

The other 21 don't: Afghanistan men, Afghanistan women, Australia women, Bangladesh men, Bangladesh women, England women, India women, Ireland men, Ireland women, New Zealand men, New Zealand women, Pakistan men, Pakistan women, South Africa men, South Africa women, Sri Lanka men, Sri Lanka women, West Indies men, West Indies women, Zimbabwe men, Zimbabwe women

Any ICC solution to improve the viability of Test cricket must be applicable to all those teams, otherwise it's not a real solution.

I'm not entirely sure this is true. Mens Test status is tied up with being a full member of the ICC. Womens clearly is not, given Ireland and the Netrherlands both played their only Tests before full membership - something the Dutch still do not have.

I'm not even sure that "Test status" applies in the womens game, as such. That said, it would be welcome to see the nations playing womens Tests expand again. West Indies, Sri Lanka, New Zealand at a minimum should be encouraged to start playing regular Tests again. Ideally, a womens WTC would follow. However, the boards and the ICC seem dead-set against it.

And its clear the OP was talking about the mens game.
The reality is many of the boards are struggling for survival, a few because of poor governance and even corruption in one or two cases. They have to put their few assets towards the larger financial return just to stay afloat - which may well be why WI women aren't playing any Tests. (Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh have other issues again of varying degree.)

And it really doesn't matter what any board except India wants. India provides all the revenue, India takes all the revenue. Even England and Australia are basically irrelevant. Its a bit like those of us who want "Australian Football" to be looked after and not just the AFL. Chances : 0%

 

[Cleavy]

Are you for real? Pakistan and Windies have been found out for skimping in Aussie conditions

As heard on SENQ on Monday morning, Australian wicketkeeping great Ian Healy gives his thoughts on the summer of cricket.

www.sen.com.au

Healy having a whinge about touring sides preparation.

 

[Teen Wolf]

I'm not entirely sure this is true. Mens Test status is tied up with being a full member of the ICC. Womens clearly is not, given Ireland and the Netrherlands both played their only Tests before full membership - something the Dutch still do not have.

I'm not even sure that "Test status" applies in the womens game, as such.

Ok so let me assure you:

The International Cricket Council (ICC) Board and Committee meetings have concluded following a series of virtual conference calls

www.icc-cricket.com

Decisions taken by the ICC Board include:
...
It was decided that Test and ODI status shall be permanently awarded to all Full Member women’s teams.

And its clear the OP was talking about the mens game.

Focussing just on the men is no different to just focussing on Aus/Eng/Ind. Either it's ok to neglect a bunch of teams with Test status, or it isn't.