The Woolf report

[The Speaker]

In full here: http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/DOWNLOAD/0000/0093/woolfe_report.pdf

The ICC's independent governance review, headed by Lord Woolf, has called for sweeping changes in the administration of cricket and the functioning of its governing body. It starts with a restructuring of the ICC's executive board to make it more independent and less dominated by the bigger countries and also recommends a re-examination of the rights and benefits of the Test-playing Full Member nations, calling for measures to increase transparency in dealings by the ICC and its members.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/551836.html

There should be a lot of encouragement for non-Test playing nations from this report - should the ICC actually implement its recommendations.

The most important thing, though, is the proposed reform of the executive board, which is currently very much a "boys club".

 

[The Passenger]

was just having a quick flick through it, but more going off the articles from the cricinfo site.

but the big IF is will the ICC implement any of it... why would they want to jeopordize their own gravy train??

weren't there are a few board recomendations in the argus review that have not been implemented despite practically every on field recomendation being implemented... i know they have the crawford report to come which is the main report regarding the governance of the game in australia.

 

[Ill Chicken]

Can't see any of them supporting such a move when it would mean they can't earn to the same capacity as they are currently. This is the sort of thing Howard probably would have voted for.

 

[King Elvis]

Probably right Ill.

Asking the w***ers who benefit from their dysfunctional organisation to restructure it so they don't?

Doubt enough of them have the integrity to do it.

 

[Belnakor]

Are you implying the BCCI lacks credibility?

 

[Cap]

it is really sad that most people can already see this not being implemented.

the ICC has been screaming out for restrucutre for years but as the report states their is too many self interest parties invoved so why would things change now.

 

[Starburns_]

Sadly it won't happen, which begs the question why the ICC commissioned it in the first place. I'd like to see the likes of Ireland playing more top teams, they're a better side than Bangladesh, and probably Zimbabwe too, instead England end up poaching some of their best players.

was just having a quick flick through it, but more going off the articles from the cricinfo site.

but the big IF is will the ICC implement any of it... why would they want to jeopordize their own gravy train??

weren't there are a few board recomendations in the argus review that have not been implemented despite practically every on field recomendation being implemented... i know they have the crawford report to come which is the main report regarding the governance of the game in australia.

I read yesterday that the state boards from both NSW and SA are reluctant to give up their positions at CA and that is what might stop the off-field restructure from happening.

 

[DrVanNostrand]

Are you implying the BCCI lacks credibility?

I laughed.

Like everyone else, I seriously doubt the key recommendations will be implemented. It's criminal how the top non-Test sides are treated by the ICC and how little funding they recieve. Ireland Cricket's CEO is probably the most switched-on guy in world cricket, they've even set out their master plan for gaining Test status by 2020, so hopefully he can get his foot in the door with the help of the report and get a much better deal for the official-ODI, non-Test sides.

 

[Cap]

what makes me laugh about the ICC is one of the main reasons for not allowing Ireland and a lesser degree Netherland is the lack of domesitic competition.

sighting the two new entrants under the ICC - Zimbabwe and Bangaldesh a domestic comp in no way improves your chances of starting or becoming successful.

I would argue in the above two cases giving the two countries test playing status and giveing them a minimum number of tests, whilst also demanding an improved domestic comp would improve the country and world cricket considerably.

on the dodgy side, players moving to England to play their wouldn't - they would go Netherlands and Ireland, meaning the domestic comp would improve, it would also mean more youngsters are retained instead of moving abroad and with an increase if competitveness you get increased support.

but I can't see them ever developing anything outside t20.

 

[The Passenger]

too right, it's ****ed. bangers got in given the asian bloc 40% of the voting power, and they've taken full advantage of the situation in zimbabwe because they just follow them, so basically in any issue whatever the asian bloc wants they have 50% of the votes without even discussing the implications of said issue.

 

[The Speaker]

but I can't see them ever developing anything outside t20.

I think the report may actually help renew ODIs, should it be implemented.

 

[Cap]

it should be, but i won't be

 

[Ill Chicken]

too right, it's ****ed. bangers got in given the asian bloc 40% of the voting power, and they've taken full advantage of the situation in zimbabwe because they just follow them, so basically in any issue whatever the asian bloc wants they have 50% of the votes without even discussing the implications of said issue.

I don't see anything wrong with Bangladesh being in the test rankings, NZ played test cricket for how long without a test victory?

 

[The Passenger]

bangers are 3-63 from 73 tests.

at the end of the 1950's, nz were 1-27 from 52 tests, but those tests were spread from 1930 to 1959 with only 3 played between 1933 and 1946. they went 6-18 from ~tests in the 60's which marked their arrival as a genuiunely competitive team.

i've got no problem spreading the test world because the game has to expand, but no one can rightly explain to me how bangladesh were graanted test status when kenya and ireland have been overlooked at various points despite achieving a hell of a lot more than bangladesh ever have. even netherlands have just as much right to test cricket as bangladesh.

 

[The Passenger]

kenya and bangladesh should have both been given test status back 10 or so years ago. as it has happened kenya probably would have had their test status stripped due to the regression of their national team, but it's also possible they wouldn't have regressed the way they have. what's happened to cricket in that country is as big as shame as what's happened in zimbabwe but doesn't get near as much air time because they never got into the test arena.

ireland should be looking at playing their first test within the next couple of years and the dutch shouldn't be too far behind....

 

[Cap]

I agree with you in relation to Kenya - however I believe that there is a fair bit of alleged corruption which has cost the team.

the Netherlands is an interesting one, Give it test status and yo uwill probably see half the South Africans playing in England go to the Netherlands and they will have a competitive team? would be interesting.

Ireland I agree, give them Test Status and allow and Irishman who has gone to England immediate return (for a period) we would then have 2 teams which would be as if not more comeptitive than Bangladesh and Zimbabwe

then you have to focus on the domestic comps....

 

[Belnakor]

the reason Kenya didn't get test status is they were rightly assessed as being unlikely to have a competitve test team over a longer period. i think its been pretty well born out in evidence. i mean christ Canada consistantly beat them now.

Bangas at least have a reasonable domestic comp, they'll start winning a few tests soon enough, they remind me of Sri Lanka before they got decent.

they do need to start thinking about records though when guys like SRT have consistantly "filled their boots" against the minnows.

 

[The Passenger]

the reason Kenya didn't get test status is they were rightly assessed as being unlikely to have a competitve test team over a longer period. i think its been pretty well born out in evidence. i mean christ Canada consistantly beat them now.

we're not privvy to the inner workings of how they make these decisions, but things could have been very different had they been given the status alongside bangladesh.

african countries are notoriously hard to judge what's going to happen, not just in relation to sport either, and as it's turned out yeah they're team has gone a long way backwards... but they should've been given a five year period of assessment or something like that.

Bangas at least have a reasonable domestic comp, they'll start winning a few tests soon enough, they remind me of Sri Lanka before they got decent.

hopefully. cricket needs more teams stronger. they've had a tough couple of years not winning a test since 2011 and losing 11 of 12.

this bangladesh premier league will hopefully inject some money into their cricketing economy.

they do need to start thinking about records though when guys like SRT have consistantly "filled their boots" against the minnows.

just need a more eevn spread of matches. we've played zimbabwe and bangladesh a combined 7 times in test cricket. the next lowest is england and new zealand with 14 times, while sri lanka leads the way with 27 tests (murali is loving that).... even bangaldesh and zimbabwe have played each other more times than we've played the two fo them (9)...

i know they don't bring money in, but it's good for the development of those countries to play against as many countries as possible.

tests v zimbabwe and bangladesh - http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...=9;orderby=matches;template=results;type=team

 

[Cap]

the development of the minnows is another weak point of the ICC.

really, the most tey have done in cricket is take power from Australia and England and hand it over to India.

 

[Ill Chicken]

So? Why wouldn't you do that? No one listens to them, Australia don't care about, England doesn't care about them. Just look at NZ when the ICL stuff happened, look at Australia when WI were going to tour with the worst XI of all time after losing to Bangladesh. Australia was going to let that tour happen. Australia, India, England and South Africa don't care about the game, they only care about their big tours, they don't want to see other nations succeed. They don't want to be in a situation like the Soccer WC where there is a chance they don't qualify.

 

[Cap]

so Australias support of PNG, South Africas of Zimbabwe and Englands of Ireland, Scotland and the Netherlands shows how much they don't want to develop cricket?

 

[Cynic]

Sambit Bal wrote a very good piece regarding this matter

 

[The Prosecutor]

Surprise, surprise, the BCCI reject the Woolf report...

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/current/story/553124.html

The BCCI's working committee has rejected the key recommendations of the Woolf report concerning the restructuring of the ICC, the Indian board president N Srinivasan has said. This is the first formal response from any national board to the recommendations - made public ten days ago - and, given the BCCI's dominant position in world cricket, could render the report a non-starter for all practical purposes.

"The working committee discussed all the main recommendations of the report submitted to the ICC by a committee headed by Lord Woolf. The working committee was of the opinion that these recommendations were not acceptable and rejected it," Srinivasan said after the meeting in Chennai. "The working committee was in particular not agreeable to the changes in the structure of the management of ICC that had been proposed."

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/current/story/553124.html

 

[Ill Chicken]

so Australias support of PNG, South Africas of Zimbabwe and Englands of Ireland, Scotland and the Netherlands shows how much they don't want to develop cricket?

When you have top Aussie players saying that ODI's should be scrapped (critical to the development of world cricket), that playing tests against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe is meaningless, yes, it shows that they don't want cricket to develop.

CA threatened to move Imparja Cup from Alice Springs and NT, even though it was started in the Northern Territory and run by the NT. They say they want to develop regional cricket but it has to be on their terms, supporting PNG is no different.

You think that Australia, India, SA or England ever want to see the day when there are 15 or 20 test nations?

 

[Cap]

At the moment, their hands are tied, like the rest of the world they are are slave to BCCI.

BUT I do takeyour point the ACB, ECB and BCCI haven't done enough.

as posted above, with BCCI rejection of the woolf reports, traditional crickets decline outside the 10 test playing nations will continue.