By Kersi Meher-Homji
October 6th 2009 @ 12:46am
Related coverage
Do we really need the Champions Trophy?
Whoever wins the Champions Trophy in Centurion today will become the first country to win it twice. New Zealand had won it in Kenya in 2000-01, and Australia in India in 2006-07.
Australia, the likely winners today, will become the first nation in the ten year history of Champions Trophy to win it twice in succession.
But why have the Champions Trophy in the first place? We have the World Cup for 50-overs cricket, which determines the strongest nation every four years.
The aim of the Champions Trophy (the inaugural one in Dhaka, Bangladesh in October 1998 was called Mini World Cup) was to spread cricket to emerging nations.
But have a look at the current Champions Trophy.
The eight countries who participated in it were established teams from England, Australia, South Africa, West Indies, New Zealand, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
Do you see any emerging nation? I can’t.
The surfeit of One-day Internationals (ODIs) in recent times is self-destructing. Since September, we had seven ODIs between Australia and England in England, then a triangular series between Sri Lanka, New Zealand and India, followed by 15 ODIs for the Champions Trophy.
Except for the Australia–Pakistan, match which the former won off the last ball, all other matches were one-sided and boring. The whole concept appears meaningless.
Ho – hum about sums it up.
So why organise such “global” events in the first place?
As we say farewell to the Champions Trophy, we are about to welcome the Airtel Champions League Twenty20 League (ACLT20) to be played in India.
The inaugural ACLT20 will be staged from 8 to 23 October.
It is a new concept, as different States from seven countries (three from India, two each from Australia, England and South Africa and one each from West Indies, New Zealand and Sri Lanka) will play each other.
Of the 234 players nominated by the 12 teams, 110 (47 percent) have already played international cricket.
Illustrating the quality of the world-class squads that have been named, New South Wales Blues, the Delhi Daredevils, Wayamba from Sri Lanka, Royal Challengers Bangalore and Victorian Bushrangers, have ten internationals each in their ranks.
Lalit Modi, Chairman, ACLT20 Governing Council said: “It will be a true contest between the best of the best.”
In other words, it is a slightly different and a better version of the IPL of 2008 and 2009. Better, because it has domestic champions from different countries rather than just auctioned cricketers.
Sure, it will fill up Stadia in Delhi, Bangalore and Hyderabad. But do we need such gimmicky form of cricket twice a year?
Yes, a World Cup of Twenty20 cricket every four years, like a World Cup of Fifty50 cricket every four years, is welcome. But certainly not a limited-overs “championships of champions” every year under different names, guises and sponsors.
Who needs them? Aren’t we killing the hen that lays the golden egg?
Get Australia's best Cricket opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(48)
Freud of Football said | October 6th 2009 @ 4:43am | Report comment
Very well put Kersi. Now we just need someone to forward this on to David Morgan and Haroon Lorgat and beat them with a stick until the dollar signs vacate their eyes.
The Champions trophy I already had a gripe about but packing yet another gimmicky tournament on top. Can anyone explain who this tournament is aimed at and the purpose of it? Is cricket just about Ca$h now? I thought it was probably the biggest honour an Australian could have, to represent the country playing cricket, not it seems its about as noteworthy as another series as big-brother.
It must be remembered that cricket is for fans and players – not for TV companies and Bollywood team owners.
The players have had enough, Australia just lost 3 players to injury and these injuries are occurring more-and-more frequently, directly proportional to the increased workload placed upon them so why do we continue to give them more?
The fans too have had enough. I am an avid cricket fan and have loved the game since childhood but at some point I will say, enough is enough, sport is seasonal and now we are playing cricket 12 months a year, while I love the game I loathe that it has become what it has, matches are too often meaningless, even entire series and tournaments are held in little regard and yet we just keep piling it on and every month there is more cricket on our screens.
Brett McKay said | October 6th 2009 @ 7:14am | Report comment
Australia by 6 wickets in the end, with 20-odd balls to spare. Shane Watson finished 105no, and brought up his hundred (and the winning runs) with two successive sixes.
Kersi, you mentioned the US$2M prizemoney for the winners – has it always been that high a sum?? I don’t recall such a purse been played for previously, and if it has always been the case, then it’s hard to see the national bodies agreeing to drop the tournament.
It does make you wonder though how much worse the international schedule has to get (highlighted no better than by another T20WC next year, the third in four years) before the penny eventually drops…
Brett McKay said | October 6th 2009 @ 7:17am | Report comment
Ha, just found the answer: (from the SMH today)
“Sources last night indicated that the improved prizemoney on offer in the Champions Trophy – the $US400,000 ($462,695) reward for making the semi-finals increased to $US1 million for the runner up and $US2 million for the winning team – acted as a deterrent to corruption.”
Um, OK….
Kersi Meher-Homji said | October 6th 2009 @ 7:53am | Report comment
The purpose of the Champions Trophy (earlier called Mini World Cup) was to spread cricket in emerging countries. But apart from the first two Trophies (in Dhaka, Bangladesh and in Nairobi, Kenya) the others were held in Sri Lanka, England and now in South Africa. In which way will the Champions Trophy promote cricket in emerging nations?
It is interesting to note that Dhaka was the third choice after Disneyworld, Florida and Sharjah for the inaugural Trophy in 1998-99.
Pity Vettori was unfit to play the Final. But congratulations to Ricky and his men. They really emerged as champions, spearheaded by a tornado named Watson. And Nathan Hauritz is slowly but surely coming good.
Dave said | October 6th 2009 @ 11:08am | Report comment
The purpose of the Champions Trophy was to raise money for associate cricket.
Brian said | October 6th 2009 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Surely the most irrelvant trophy around, worse it devalues the World Cup although I find the whole format of 50 overs now irrelevant
Redb said | October 6th 2009 @ 8:52am | Report comment
What’s happened to cricket in OZ is it just me or does anyone else not care these days?
50 Overs is dead, Twenty20 will watch the odd game, test matches against England of some interest – the rest I couldn’t care.
Is the retirement of so many stars but particularly Warne, McGrath and Gilchrist taken away the interest?
Redb
Dave said | October 6th 2009 @ 3:57pm | Report comment
I think its just you.
AndyRoo said | October 6th 2009 @ 10:39am | Report comment
I enjoy the test matches and probably always will
20/20 and One Day cricket (which I used to watch) don’t really do it for me, but admittedly there is now the A league for me to watch during the cricket season.
I bet the ratings will still be fine once their back in Australia.
Greg Russell said | October 6th 2009 @ 2:59pm | Report comment
Today is not necessarily the best day to ask Australians “Do we really need the Champions Trophy?”
Putting jingoistic feeling aside, I find it interesting that both Vettori and Ponting went public before the final saying that it had been an excellent tournament. Of course as the two captains to make the final, they would be predisposed to such feelings. But the interesting thing is the substance to what they were saying, which as I understand was as follows:
(1) The tournament involved only the major teams, without their being any hit-and-giggle against lower-tier teams. In other words, there were only “meaningful” matches.
(2) The tournament was over in 2 weeks, as opposed to dragging on and on, as the last World Cup did.
(3) The tournament was played in the one location, which meant no flights, no packing of bags, etc. – just cricket for the players.
The above are worthy pluses. What would be wrong with having a tournament like this every year, and reducing the quota of (meaningless) bilateral ODIs?
Maybe I’m old-fashioned, but it seems indisputable to me that 50-over cricket gives a bit of the best of both worlds. There is some hit-and-giggle as in T20 cricket, but at the same time there are also periods of application as in test cricket. For example, Australia won today because Watson and White were able to see off Mills and Bond in what was a test-style confrontation, and then after this there was some free hitting. I see the enjoyment in T20, but it does not allow for the varied hues of an innings like Watson played today, and for this reason there is too much chance in the results it delivers. I like to see my cricket won by the best teams, not by chance.
Whether by accident or design, it seems to me that with this tournament the ICC has found a formula that might come closest to satisfying the many different palates of cricket fans around the world …
… if they (the fans) would give it a chance. Australian cricket fans should try to see past their over-sated state – continuous cricket by the national team for the last 12 months, which I agree is ridiculous – and look at the potential of this tournament.
Why not put one of these on at Brisbane this time next year, using the Gabba and the Allan Border field as the venues?
Freud of Football said | October 6th 2009 @ 5:20pm | Report comment
Very well put Greg. I think the majority of people who actually enjoy cricket for what it is (an exicting sport – not a money-making machine) would agree with your assessment of the format. Further, that the tournament was staged inside 2 weeks and didn’t require massive amounts of travel is another excellent point and one the administrators should heed.
That being said, we can’t just exclude the Caribbean as a cricket destination because travel is difficult (or other places where infrastructure may be a hinderance), they most certainly needed the money (both the WICB and the islands) and have every right to be awarded the hosting rights but at the end of the day, the scheduling must be better.
I can see the temptation to only include the 8 “major” nations but that isn’t what cricket is all about, as soon as you start talking about who the best 8 nations are you begin to sound elitest and cricket is meant to be a leveler, not a device to encourage the gap between rich and poor.
I’d be more for a compromise, I’d still want to remove the Champions Trophy from the schedule as we can’t keep up the current amount of games but I’d like to see the 2 week tournament applied to the WC with a twist. The minnows “must” be included so let them play off before the WC proper begins, this should be an official part of the world cup of course but it will also limit the amount of pointless games and don’t use rankings to determine which minnows make it as they don’t take form into account, have a simple head-to-head knockout tournament between the associate nations and include the two winning teams.
So you have 10 teams playing in the WC proper, effectively five matchdays of two games each per group which, with a two day break in between would extend the tournament another 4 days (surey that’s bareable?), the top two teams from Groups A and B advance play knockout games.
Dave said | October 6th 2009 @ 5:50pm | Report comment
You criticize it for being a money-making machine but this money goes to fund cricket. this is not a bad thing.
http://www.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/358735.html
Associates set for big funding boost
Martin Williamson
June 30, 2008
A Much has been written about funds flooding into the game when the ICC’s new media deal begins in 2009, but what has been largely overlooked is that the Affiliates and Associates stand to make substantial gains.
Under the existing ICC constitution, the 33 Associates get 25% of the ICC distributions while the ten Full Members share 75%. On top of this, to further service the developing cricket world, US$13 million is assigned to the ICC Development Program from the ICC Champions Trophy every two years. Half of this goes to the Asia region and the remainder is assigned to central/staffing costs, the High Performance Program and the other four Regional Development Programs.
This will change from January 1 when the ICC Champions Trophy allocation is scrapped and instead 6% of the ICC’s media and sponsorship income is taken off the top and assigned to development purposes……….”
Greg Russell said | October 6th 2009 @ 3:10pm | Report comment
Further: here’s the positive comments from Vettori and Ponting to which I referred. I suggest people make an effort to see past their own lassitude (going by the comments above) and put themselves in the shoes of others, e.g. the players.
http://www.cricinfo.com/iccct2009/content/story/428320.html
ICC Champions Trophy 2009
Ponting and Vettori praise tournament format
Osman Samiuddin in Centurion
October 4, 2009
…
The approvals will be music to the ICC’s ears for they have struggled long and hard to find the right format and shape for a much-derided tournament that first surfaced in 1998. Over the years it changed formats and size, but the ICC decided to streamline the event this time, in a bid to increase its popularity in the new age of Twenty20. Only the world’s top eight teams played, only two venues in close proximity were used, the format was simplified making each game relevant, and the whole tournament lasted 15 days: short and sharp was the ICC’s medicine.
…
Freud of Football said | October 6th 2009 @ 5:25pm | Report comment
I think both Ponting’s and Vettori’s comments should be taken with a grain of salt. In today’s cricketing world players are trained to appear before the media, Ponting and Vettori are two old heads who know what to say and they were hardly going to come out and publicly lambast the Champions Trophy but just because they “praised” it (or were they told by their respective boards to lavish the praise?) doesn’t change the fact they think they are playing too much cricket.
Brian said | October 6th 2009 @ 3:36pm | Report comment
Greg if you play it every year or every second year than what is the point of the World Cup? I don’t think exlcuding Kenya or Bangladesh is a substantial point of difference. FIFA protect the World Cup by legislating that Olympics are for U23. The IRB splits its teams into 2 so they only truly come together every 4 years. Thats what makes their tournaments special when they arrive. If there is an insistence on playing ODI constantly then by all means scrap the WC and make a league like Baseball, F1, AFL or NRL. Otherwise its gotta be once every 4 years, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
No offence to the players but any business needs to respect its customers not its suppliers
Dave said | October 6th 2009 @ 3:43pm | Report comment
Fifa also has the confederations cup. Hockey has the Olympics, the world cup and the champions trophy. Rugby league has the world cup and the four nations
Brian said | October 6th 2009 @ 4:37pm | Report comment
The Confed Cup is not taken seriously cause of the world top teams only approx 3 are involved. The worldwide popularity of field hockey or RL speak for themselves. Hockey like many sports is not that popular so by natural selection the Olympic Gold Medal becomes the most important event.
Dave1 said | October 8th 2009 @ 11:50am | Report comment
It looks like hockey has a champions trophy every year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_Champions_Trophy
AndyRoo said | October 6th 2009 @ 4:40pm | Report comment
Greg’s points
No awful teams
No travel
All over in two weeks
Make me feel a little more favourable towards the competition. Not enough to watch it but there is a case to be made it’s a more pure comp than the endless farce that was the last actual cricket World Cup.
Dave said | October 6th 2009 @ 6:52pm | Report comment
these are the things the chmpions trophy helps pay for
http://sport.scotsman.com/cricket/Cricket-Scotland-plans-expanded-contract.5701847.jp
“Cricket Scotland plans expanded contract system
CRICKET Scotland is set to overhaul its system of player contracts from next season, focusing more of its resources on retaining a core group of full-time players during the summer. It currently has three players employed year-round, with the rest paid match-by-match.
The decision, which is understood to have received the backing of the International Cricket Council, is likely to provide more opportunities for the Saltires squad to train together between April and August when the schedule is most demanding…..”
Ian Whitchurch said | October 6th 2009 @ 7:02pm | Report comment
The flaw with Greg Russel’s point about there were only “meaningful” matches is that the reason only certain teams were invited is that in the last world cup, Bangladesh versus India and Ireland versus Pakistan turned out to be pretty damn meaningful indeed.
As far as them money goes, the problem wasnt that minnows got thumped ; it was that they had a tendency to win.
Greg Russell said | October 7th 2009 @ 7:54am | Report comment
Just because Bangladesh has beaten India, or Ireland has beaten Pakistan, or Zimbabwe has beaten Australia (in T20), that doesn’t mean all these lower-tier teams have to be included. Applying the same logic to football, the FIFA World Cup would have to include 200 teams!
The nature of any tournament is that it has limited entry. The entry may be determined either by qualification matches (as in the FIFA WC) or by rankings (as in the Champions Trophy). But the point is that the entry list should be such that all encounters at the tournament are near guaranteed to be “meaningful” contests. Ireland may have beaten Pakistan once in ODI cricket, but the majority of encounters between these two countries will be mismatches.
Dave said | October 7th 2009 @ 10:55am | Report comment
In the world cups, associates have won a few games against test team
Sril lanka beat India in 79
Zimbawe beat Australia in 83 and England in 92
Kenya beat West indies in 96
Canada beat Bangladesh in 2003
Kenya beat Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe in 2003
Ireland beat Pakistan and Bangladesh in 2007.
The cricket world cup entry is determined by qualification matches
Fred Magee said | October 6th 2009 @ 7:08pm | Report comment
I have always wondered the purpose of the Champions Trophy other than to earn more TV revenue from the 50 over game. Even with the Australian win this morning, I think that it is something that can be removed from the calendar; particularly as 20/20 starts to replace the 50 over game as cricket’s cash cow.
That said, I am looking forward to the Champions Trophy. As mentioned when commenting on Brett McKay’s article today, at the moment it is bringing together the franchise concept with the traditional representative teams so there is some emotional attachment for me to see how NSW will go. Fingers crossed that it will go well.
Gulu said | October 6th 2009 @ 8:51pm | Report comment
Kersi is right, the Champions Trophy has outlived its utility value. As for the so-called Champions League, it is a bogus tournament and just another excuse for a bunch of sponsors, owners and officials to line their pockets. Once the IPL is made a twice-a-year event, which is bound to happen sooner rather than later, you can kiss all international cricket goodbye.
Dave said | October 7th 2009 @ 10:47am | Report comment
as stated previously if you get rid of the champions trophy there will be less money for things like paying Sottish players contracts. What would you do about that?
Greg Russell said | October 7th 2009 @ 8:07am | Report comment
Reflecting a little more on T20 vs one-day cricket, I wonder if a lot of the excitement that people find in T20 cricket is due to the different teams rather than the different format of the contest. By “different teams” I mean two things:
1. The franchise nature. The IPL has international teams with combinations of cricketers playing together that we would not otherwise see. This is exciting. It is flowing on even into national competitions, for example most of the Australian states this year are bringing in international stars, e.g. it will be really interesting to see Murali (hopefully) play for Victoria. As I said, this is exciting.
But wouldn’t we feel the same way if this sort of thing happened with one-day cricket?
2. Different competitions. The T20 Champions League is about to start, and it is exciting that NSW, Otago, Cape Cobras, etc. will be playing each other – otherwise we never get to see domestic teams from different countries go head to head in “meaningful” tournaments.
Again, wouldn’t we feel the same way if this sort of thing were to happen with one-day cricket?
As I have already said above, maybe I’m old-fashioned, but generally I am more satisfied by the overall quality of the cricket in one-day matches than T20 matches. This is not to say that I don’t find quality and excitement in T20 matches – of course I do. But if I look at yesterday’s CT final, the quality of the bowling by Kyle Mills and the batting by Shane Watson almost by definition cannot be seen in T20 matches, simply because they are too brief. I really appreciate that quality.
So, how would we feel about having an IPL and a Champion’s League with one-day rather than T20 format? I think we’d still be excited.
Hammer said | October 7th 2009 @ 10:04am | Report comment
Careful there Greg – you’re getting dangerously close to saying that 20/20 is nothing but a slogfest that has little to no structure where players don’t have time to build an innings …
Greg Russell said | October 7th 2009 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
Touché!
I’ve left myself a bit of wriggle room, but my attitude may have changed in the last half year. I still think there is some structure to T20 and that it is more than just 100% slogfest, but …
Partly my comments here are just a reaction to the dismissive attitude of most people towards the Champions Trophy. I think the format was good, and that good cricket was played. People should not write off the tournament simply because the Australian team has been playing non-stop for 12 months. I can understand that people feel there has been way too much cricket, but that does not mean that the most recent cricket is the stuff that has been “meaningless”. Rather, that was probably a lot of the earlier stuff.
Dave said | October 7th 2009 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
I think your right. Just because Australia plays a lot of cricket doesn’t mean the rest of the world has . I don’t know how much attention the ICC and the rest of the world is going to listen to Australians whinging.
Brett McKay said | October 7th 2009 @ 8:21am | Report comment
Greg, I wrote as much in comments against my column yesterday that it is exactly this “newness” that has me interested in the CLT20. We’ve all wondered at some point how an IPL team full of “ring-ins” would go against a First Class side who all play together. Similarly, the Australian states have all created interest in this years Big Bash with the introduction of the likes of Murali (as you’ve said), Gayle, Bravo et al.
And I don’t think this sort of “player market” happen for OD cricket, as the equivalent tournament would have to run for at least a month rather than 16 days, and no national board is going to release a star player for that amount of time in the middle of a summer. You’ll note that all the international players signed for the Big Bash are on T20 exclusive contracts, and that’s becuase it’s a compressed window in the middle of the Test series out here.
vinay verma said | October 7th 2009 @ 9:53am | Report comment
Kersi
Not only do we need a Champions Trophy but we need FOUR of them a year.Just like the Golf or Tennis Majors…Limited to the top 8 teams and like the Majors in Tennis running for two weeks. Scrap all other ODI’s except those involving Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. These two teams should play with the Associates till they improve.
With 4 CT’s all the top eight teams will have a minimum of 12 ODI’s a year and some(semifinalists and finalists) will play a couple more. This is as many ODI’s one needs. The ICC is committed to ODI’s till 2015 and the reaction of ECB and SA is premature.
As Greg would say “go figure”
Freud of Football said | October 7th 2009 @ 4:38pm | Report comment
Vinay, please tell me you are kidding? After everyone lambasting the cricket schedule and on the back of the first successful tournament in recent memory you’re calling for four of them a year?
I do hope that is just sarcasm that I didn’t pick up on.
Kersi Meher-Homji said | October 7th 2009 @ 5:43pm | Report comment
R U Serious, Vinay?
Surely, you jest about 4 Champions Trophies every year!!
vinay verma said | October 7th 2009 @ 9:32pm | Report comment
Kersi.Freud…There was no sarcasm,just anguish and foreboding. Broadcasters like ESPN bid for Cricket Tournaments in five and ten year cycles. IPL and IPL Champions League both billion dollars plus. Champions Trophy also locked in as is the World Cup. Its about TV ratings and for TV Channels it is about content. ICL was predominantly about content and so too IPL. Just look at the major sponsors at the CT..Reliance,Pepsi,Hero Honda..soft drink, two wheeler transport and mobile phones. Cricket drives the sponsorship dollars in India…no new tv shows are released during IPL…Bollywood cannot compete with cricket.
Now that Ponting and Vettori( McCullum) have endorsed the CT as well run why wouldn’t a broadcaster want four a year…talk of a death wish…Players too are willing participants…2 Mil for two weeks …Elementary says Watson.There is some sanity with Tendulkar wanting schoolkids let in for free and even Harbhajan extolling the virtues of Test Cricket…not enough Elite players are talking the talk..and if the players become willing accessories they are as guilty as the Broadcasters and franchise owners. So the remark was made in anger …give them 365 days of ODI’s and Twenty/20 and put Test Cricket in the Museum. They will not realise what they have lost till it is too late.
In almost 40 years of watching cricket I only remember the three runouts by Viv Richards in the World Cup of the Seventies and the Kapil Dev’s catch to get rid of Viv in 1983. When you talk Tests there have been many great battles and it would fill books.
We will have our chance this summer to show our displeasure….dont go to the Twenty/20 and the ODI’s ..turn up in droves to see Australia do battle with the mighty Windies at the Gabba….fans should take ownership of the game..players too..let Test Cricket rule once more..lets support this supposedly weak Windies Team and show them we care about Test Cricket.
Freud of Football said | October 7th 2009 @ 9:40pm | Report comment
“2 Mil for two weeks” – It’s not like each and every participant in the squad is just handed $2 Million for winning. This is divided up with the captain getting a larger share etc and while this sort of money isn’t going to be sneezed at, cricketers are earning enough now with the IPL and ever increasing private sponsorships that we shouldn’t be looking to prostitute the game further.
Put it like this, if you take the purse away from the Champions Trophy, do you think Ponting and Vettori would still be so keen on it? No – and as we don’t want to see cricket played for money, we shouldn’t make them do it either.
Just because a broadcaster wants something doesn’t mean they should get it. Yes they are the one’s funding the games but we can’t sell the game in the process of selling the rights to air it. Players don’t want so much cricket and it’s this group who should be listened to.
Cricket is essentially a sport from which people can turn a profit, not a business with the sport as a sideshow and so must it remain.
Dave said | October 8th 2009 @ 10:01am | Report comment
I’m a Cronulla fan I’m not going to remember one of this seasons NRL games. I’m also an AFL fan but I doubt ill remember any games other than the grand final. Remembering games is not the be all and end all.
There’s plenty of football games played that ill never remember like I did when I was 8 years old. As I get older you’ve seen it all before so my memories aren’t like it was all new. But that says more about me than it does the sports.
I read this on Friday
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/a-grand-old-flag-the-emblem-of-the-teams-we-love/
“Rick Davies was number 24 and Paul Bagshaw number 8 and Jim Derrington number 17”
and it brought back memories of when I was 8 years old, when I knew those players numbers even though I didn’t barrack for Sturt.
I grew up in world series cricket so I’ve got plenty of memories of one day cricket.
I can remember a lot of the one dayers played in Australia till I was a teenager.
Also memorises from when I was older…. Australia playing south Africa in 99 at the world cup and Steve Waugh making a century. Then the semi final when it was a tie. Then the final when they beat Pakistan.
Kersi Meher-Homji said | October 7th 2009 @ 10:12pm | Report comment
The article below from Cricinfo is worth reading and pertinent to this discussion. Here it is:
http://www.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/428673.html
Freud of Football said | October 7th 2009 @ 10:34pm | Report comment
Som pretty damning statements in there. I got the impression that May doesn’t hold a great deal of hope of having FICA’s proposals even looked at let alone implemented.
“it is not bound by law to accept any of its proposals. In fact, May admits that he would not be surprised if the ICC board rejects these proposals, but he also warns that in such a scenario “the natural forces will take effect.” – May was referring to Flintoff retiring from international cricket but another “natural force” could be boycotts.
Look at the Windies, it seems that half the time they have a 3rd string lineup as the players refuse to play under the current conditions so it might not be a case of a couple retiring and playing the lucrative T20 formats but of teams actually boycotting international cricket entirely.
I hope they do listen to FICA, without the players cricket is nothing and if anyone over at the ICC has half a brain they’ll treat their most valuable commodity with care.
Greg Russell said | October 8th 2009 @ 11:36am | Report comment
Kersi, I agree this is pertinent.
One thing I have tried to get across in my comments above – perhaps not clearly – is that people (fans, administrators) need to be prepared to forsake bilateral series in order to accommodate more tournaments. Australians had no appetite for this Champions Trophy. However that is not because the cricket or the concept was poor; rather, it’s just because they have had to go through so many “meaningless” bilateral series over the last 12 months.
It seems Tim May and FICA are of the same view: “The ICC’s draft is just a continuation of the ad-hoc bilateral series that we have seen going on for 100 years,” May told Cricinfo. “The ICC draft does not address an increasingly changing cricket landscape, which demands considerations of changing priorities of players and broadcasters and the increasing need for context, not volume.”
I know Vinay was being ironic with his (for him dystopian) vision of 4 CT tournaments per year, but how about it? Imagine if there were no bilateral ODI series at all, just 4 ODI tournaments (much like the one we’ve just had in South Africa), and an overall champion for the year based on points accumulated at these tournaments. Would that be so bad?
There is the problem that Indian officials wouldn’t agree to this. As is written in the article: “Indian officials, for instance, say that they hope to earn more (around US$14-15 million) from each ODI against Australia in the seven-match series starting later this month than what they would get from the ICC pool for the entire 2011 World Cup.”
A solution here is just that every year there would be one ODI tournament held in India. It could become, for example, cricket’s equivalent of Wimbledon. Let the Indians fill their coffers from this, and spread the other tournaments around the other cricket-playing nations. For example, every second year there is an ODI tournament in Australia in Jan/Feb, and similarly for England in Aug/Sept.
These ideas of mine should not be taken literally (I’m just tossing spontaneous thoughts around), however the general thrust of my argument should be clear.
Note that 4 ODI tournaments per year, lasting 2-3 months in toto, would leave plenty of time for an IPL window and lots of test cricket, not to mention an “off-season” of, say, 3 months for each country (not all at the same time!). I very much want to leave some test cricket for Vinay to watch!
Dave said | October 8th 2009 @ 10:05am | Report comment
this is also interesting
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/6270371/ICC-learn-from-mistakes-as-they-unveil-shorter-2011-World-Cup.html#
“ICC ‘learn from mistakes’ as they unveil shorter 2011 World Cup”
Kersi Meher-Homji said | October 8th 2009 @ 10:26am | Report comment
I agree with you, Dave. Our long-term memories are sharper. I remember every ball of the 1951 Bombay Test between England and India. And all matches before 1977. Afterwards, it’s bit of a blur as matches come in succession and our memories dim for recent events.
But I’ll never forget the cliff-hangers between Australia and South Africa in the 1999 World Cup in England.
Vinay, I agree with you on many points but will not miss T20 matches in Sydney this season or any season. I prefer Test matches but enjoy Fifty50 and T20s too. But the shorter versions should be in moderation.
Kersi Meher-Homji said | October 8th 2009 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
Greg,
The idea is too new-fangled for my old brain. What you (and Vinay) are suggesting is to do away all bilateral ODIs and concentrate on four mini World Cups. That means doing away with THE WORLD CUP every four years.
In tennis terminology there will be an ANZ Open, Lord’s, Subcontinent Open and Africa Open. And Test cricket on Davis Cup lines?
Too gimmicky, I think. And unworkable. Besides, venue-wise, won’t WI feel left out?
I can foresee controversies by the dozen and trouble by the billion.
Who knows, I may change my mind but at the moment it is a no-no from me.
vinay verma said | October 8th 2009 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
Greg,Kersi…far from being dystopian my “ironic” vision of only 4 CT’s may actually be utopian and a panacea for the ills surrounding the one day game.
Looking at it from a logistics viewpoint the four venues would be:
1. London with Lords and the Oval
2. Centurion and the Wanderers
3. Mumbai..Brabourne and Wankhede Stadiums
4. Sydney with the SCG and ANZ or Melbourne with MCG and the Indoor one( Etihad?)
No bilateral oDI’s and No world Cups and we have an undisputed Champion every three months. Thats enough attention span.
The Windies and others wont feel left out when they share the TV Revenue. ..maybe 15 mil for each country.
Dave1 said | October 8th 2009 @ 1:59pm | Report comment
they would make millions and millions out of that
Kersi Meher-Homji said | October 8th 2009 @ 2:29pm | Report comment
Vinay,
On thinking deeply, I am against this idea of having four Champions Trophy every year.
Leave it as it is. I look forward to a World Cup every 4 years as I do Olympics every 4 years. Can you imagine 4 Olympics every year?
And what’s wrong with bilateral ODIs?
No Champions Trophy, please. Full stop.
We should have more Tests and fewer ODIs and T20s. Rather than 7 ODIs between England and Australia, have 3. Instead of 7 ODIs between Oz and Ind, have 3. IPL should be replaced by CLT20 and held once every 2 years. Also, T20 World Cup every 4 years.
Greg Russell said | October 9th 2009 @ 11:04am | Report comment
Kersi, Vinay,
I said that I was just tossing out ideas, and not to take me too literally. (Although interestingly, I had in mind something similar to Vinay, e.g. a London (Lord’s/The Oval) tournament. However I said to make this every second year, so that places like the WI could also host one, as Kersi has asked for. Ironically, to optimize earnings the WI might actually as for “their” tournament to be held in London!)
It seems ominous to me that FICA wants to decrease the number of bilateral contests and increase the amount of “context” (which I take to mean “tournaments”). Here again is the quote from Tim May: “The ICC’s draft is just a continuation of the ad-hoc bilateral series that we have seen going on for 100 years,” May told Cricinfo. “The ICC draft does not address an increasingly changing cricket landscape, which demands considerations of changing priorities of players and broadcasters and the increasing need for context, not volume.”
Regardless of what we all individually prefer, I’d say Tim May (presumably acting for the players) is the one with the voice that actually has some chance of counting.
Dave1 said | October 20th 2009 @ 6:50pm | Report comment
I don’t know if the BCCI is big into listening to players Unions