Skip to main content

Taking the good with the bad

The announcement (finally) of the Test Championship gladdened my heart as I'm sure it did for all other cricket lovers who still favour the format over the limited overs ones. And while the minimum requirement of 16 Tests in each four year cycle feels really low, at least its good news for the likes of Sri Lanka, West Indies, Bangladesh, and Zimbabwe who struggle to get enough Tests scheduled otherwise. The increased gap between world T20 tournaments will also ensure the right level of desire in the teams for that title.

What is not so good news is the selection of the venues for the different world tourneys. The list puts down on paper for the first time a fact that cricket fans world over have known for some time, which is that all the power and control at the ICC sits in the hands of the Indian, English, and Australian cricket boards. Bangladesh are the hosts of the next World T20, and New Zealand get a share of the next ODI World Cup in 2015 but after that the hegemony sets in. Total representation (as hosts) for South Africa, Pakistan, New Zealand, West Indies, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Zimbabwe till 2023? Zero. Zilch. Is this the first sign of an eventual two-tier system between the major cricket playing countries?
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Et tu?

As a single sport website, I think Cricinfo has brought about a revolution and the fact that they were bought by ESPN is testament to how highly valued they've become. Their editing and approach to articles/opinion has been refreshing to say the least and even though they seem to have had a lot of editorial staff movement they've usually maintained very high standards. Off late though, both in their headline styles as well as in actual content, there seems to be an occasional slippage of standards and an inching towards the modern media sensationalism which is a bit of a pity. This piece  by Siddharth Monga is a classic example. Granted that the last two press conferences by Dhoni and Sehwag  indicated clearly that the captain and his deputy did not agree on this aspect of selection but "discord", "dissent", "public sniping" feels rather presumptuous and heavy handed. Yes, it is a team sport but there is no reason why everyone on the team needs ...
1 comment
Read more

A kick up the backside

Its very interesting (and revealing) that so many Indian cricketers pull up their socks and become better players once they've been dropped from the side and left out in the cold for a while. The trend is even more prevalent currently when the selectors have a larger pool of good players to choose from. Dravid (from the one-day team), Kumble, Ganguly, Sehwag, Yuvraj, Zaheer, Harbhajan, the list goes on. In fact, the only people I can think of who haven't been dropped at any point in recent years are Tendulkar (in any form of the game), and Dravid (from the Test team). This article in the TOI attributes their post-drop performance improvements (at least in Yuvraj's case and a few more as well) to anger. I'm not too sure I agree. I think its more a generic Indian mentality of taking things easy and getting soft and comfortable too easily. Its a national trait and one that needs great guarding against. I've discovered the hard way how getting physically unfit or slack...
Post a Comment
Read more

Quick singles: Why the double standards?

I'm no fan of David Warner's but for once, I'm firmly and squarely on his side . Sportspersons are probably treated the most unfairly by public opinion (and often the media) whenever they are involved in pay disputes. "Oh, look these millionaires are complaining about not getting paid enough" seems to be the gist of the general reactions. I find this attitude inexplicable at best and grossly hypocritical if I'm feeling less charitable. Like the rest of us, all athletes have the right to fight for what they think they should be paid. That is the fundamental part. In addition (and unlike many of the rest of us), most sportspersons operate in the knowledge that they only have a short period available as a performer, and therefore only a short period to maximise earnings. Most people that I know would behave exactly the same as Warner and his colleagues are doing. So why all the hue and cry?
Post a Comment
Read more