Get grassroots right and Test cricket will prosper

I don’t think any team should be taking a break from test cricket. Especially this west Indies team which is the best performed Windies side in Australia since the 96/97 team. Also Ireland should be playing tests against Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe should be playing tests against Bangladesh as well. I pretty much agree with what Ben Stinga says in this article. http://www.cricketeurope4.net/DATABASE/ARTICLES2/articles/000071/007112.shtml "Australia supporting the emerging nations Ben Stinga 19 December 2009 There was a time not so long ago when Australia, like most full member countries, particularly England, scoffed at the prospect of cricket taking root in new territories but that is slowly changing. 12 Papua New Guineans, five Fijians, three Irishmen and one Japanese have been welcomed into the Australian club cricket scene in 2009/2010. Well known former players and media identities like Peter Roebuck, Ian Chappell, Geoff Lawson, Richie Benaud, Greg Matthews, Michael Kasprowicz, Andy Bichel, Damien Martyn, Andrew Symonds, Jimmy Maher, Greg Blewett, Adam Gilchrist and Trevor Chappell are supporting associate and affiliate cricket in various ways. Of course there are still those that are unwilling to accept that cricket is a game that can be enjoyed by anyone, anywhere and that those who do embrace the sport, have the right to test themselves against the best........"

youd be hard pressed to find any west indians who have played in the NBA. So I dont think that is true.

there was record crowd in Melbourne last year for the third day. http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/cricket/thirdday-crowd-gets-test-attendance-back-on-track/2008/12/28/1230399046692.html ".....After attracting only 63,263 on day one and 42,814 on day two, the drop-off was stemmed almost completely yesterday with a crowd of 42,079. That was the highest third-day attendance for a Boxing Day Test match at the MCG that did not involve England....."

Vinay, you've touched on Brett's point about handing over the TV rights to the ICC once again. I don't think Brett is suggesting the BCCI can't handle the TV rights, judging by the billions they bring in I'd say they know what they are doing. The problem is, by having the rights decentralised it's each to his own and it's the rich getting richer and the Windies falling in a hole. The ideal solution would be to have them central, for literally every aspect of cricket. Have the ICC negotiate everything from TV down to merchandising rights and split it up from there, that way they can develop larger scale packages in what is now a global market and while they might just "throw" the Windian rights into a package at least this way they are part of a greater worth and as such can attract more money. As much as FIFA are a bunch of corrupt suits, they - along with Horst Dassler of Adidas - did a brilliant job of consolodating these rights as the Federations (football's equivalent of cricket boards) previously held the rights for their countries meaning the USA for example could sign on Pepsi as an official sponsor and in Canada they could sell the same rights to Coca-Cola which meant there was no way of doing anything global even though the sport is/was global. By centralising it and offering large scale packages you attract even more money and the smaller nations which participate (in this case the Windies, Bangladesh etc.) receive a better share, even moreso in cricket as there are less nations to take a handout. Yes the TV rights to cricket in the caribbean aren't worth as much as the Ashes for example but if you can't get the Ashes rights without paying for the Caribbean ones, well we know someone will put up the cash for both just to ensure they get the more attractive Ashes. Then you also have the added advantage that rather than Australia having the CUB series which became the VB series which is now the Commonwealth bank series - all Australian companies with limited international appeal - you can have a worldwide sponsor come-in who will throw exponentially more money at the game if they know that every ODI series in the world, watched by millions (and when India's playing, possibly billions) will be called the "Toyota ODI series between..." and that there will be huge Toyota (replace Toyota with your favourite brand) logos on the ground, Toyota signs on the boundary etc etc etc which will offer them unprecedented coverage. This is a model to follow from football. I know that everytime I watch a Champions League game for example that on the far side of the pitch which is in shot for about 2/3rds of the game, there will be 2 huge signs from Sony and another 2 from Ford and of course their "official beer", Heineken. These brands are synymous with the clean image of the CL, that is worth a lot of money to them and that is why they pay a lot of money in return. Offering signs, broadcasting rights, merchandising, sponsorship, naming (of series, trophies perhaps) for ALL cricket games will attract much more revenue than the current "per country" method and it is via this method that the smaller nations will finally be able to compete.

Gentlemen,a few points to consider: 1. For a long time the Imperial (I use this word deliberately) Cricket Conference ignored the "grassroots" in countries other than Austalia,England and South Africa. 2. Countries like the West Indies,India,Pakistan,Sri lanka and bangladesh were left to sink or swim.That they prospered was due to the talent inherent in these countries. 3. As the power shifted in the mid nineties to where it stands now with India underwriting over 70% of Cickets revenue it is reasonable for India and Indians to expect that they will have a greater say in the running of the game. What one has to guard against is that the big 3 or 4(if you include England) do not once again become "imperial". There is a lot of "back scratching" in the Champion's League partnership of BCCI,CA and SAF. 4. The BCCI has recently "loaned" Sri lanka Cricket a large sum of money to help them. There will be those that say that this was done to buy their vote. It is better to have a benovolent benefacor than no money in the bank. There is also nothing to suggest that the BCCI cannot handle TV Broadcast negotiations. In fact the opposite is true. The BCCI knows the worth of TV revenue better than the ICC. I am not always complimentary of the BCCI but as far as TV Revenue is concerned they know how to maximise it. How they deploy the riches is the contentious bit for me. I do feel we need more "eminent" cricketers like Kumble and in time ,Dravid making Cricket centric decisions in the BCCI. Something similar to the structure in Australia where the CEO of CA has been a First Class Cricketer and many of the State associations are run by Test or First Class Cricketers. I am advocating fewer politicians and more cricketers of integrity in key administrative positions. Homer and Brett make interesting comments but there is a divide that is more based on perception than reality. I am sure both are passionate about the need to get it right and this debate while highlighting differences also pinpoints the desire to get it right.

I think Homer's suggestion that the Windies take a break from test cricket shows his lack of understanding of the problem. Windian cricket would not survive any hiatus, it's already struggling finding players who are good enough as well as getting the finances in, by taking away that top level you'll turn a generation even further off the sport (what point would there be for a talented 14 year to chase a cricket dream if his country don't even play?) and remove all money from the WICB - both would cause huge problems to the future of the game. Brett, I'm worried that if the ICC take control of all broadcasting rights we'll have another FIFA on our hands, the ICC doesn't work in its current form and such a suggestion is only thinkable if they receive a big clearout first but then they would have far better bargaining power with the rights being centralised. Seeing as cricket is worth billions, I see no problem with the game investing in regions that need it. Give West Indian cricket an amount of money, $50 Million for the next 5 years, a strategy and some coaches and allow them to rebuild the game, to pay their players and to regrow the game. Right now India, Eng, Aus and SAF are motoring along just fine on the field and off of it they are making the most money as well, they don't "need" the money the way the Windies do and this imbalance needs to be redressed. You've got to spend money to make money. Without a decent investment the Windies won't improve and will eventually succumb to the financial burdens of the game. The money is in the game now so invest now, the sport won't survive with 4 nations, cricket needs the Windies.

Several people have told me that a big problem in the West Indies is the attraction of American basketball. WI kids with talent see the kind of money on offer in the NBA and it becomes an easy choice compared to the slim pickings of cricket. I'm sure the issue about football noted above - especially a potential career in Europe - is similar. Money talks, and talent walks.

I certainly don't structure any argument around power shifting from Eng/Aus to India. I think power needs to shift from Ind, Eng & Aus to Pak, WI, NZ. If you agree the ICC is ineffective than don't you agree it needs reform. I don't see what imperialism has to do with it? The very idea you oppose is the one that would force England & Australia to play away during their summers. Man U can flog merchandise in India all they like but they cannot create a separate league that does not give profits to FIFA. There was a G14 in Europe who wanted to but the backlash from supporters would be too great this is the attitude cricket supporters need to develop

Brett, I dont dispute your argument or its premise. I have a more cynical view of the working and the effectiveness of the ICC as an organization. And since the devil is in the details, I am convinced that the ICC will find someway of messing up the issue of broadcasting rights, if ever they were in a position to negotiate that! Cheers,

Winners are grinners. If the WI keep losing then interest in the Wndies will keep plummeting. In India, before their World Cup win and subsequent success Cricket was second to hockey. The decline in the WI has occurred because the RULES have been changed. Bouncers, wides and especially no-balls have all been increasingly targeted over the last 20 years. These are all the unintended consequences of trying to bowl fast. Add in the incredible prospect of SUSPENDING the bowling captain for slow over rates and we are not far from either the death of fast bowling or that of test cricket. Bring back rules more favourable to fast bowling. Test cricket will be even more interesting and guess what, the windies will come back with a vengeance.

Brian, I was actually suggesting the ICC handle all international broadcast rights, but not run "all cricket" per se. IPL, and the various domestic comps would still remain local, but that the international game be handled at the top level. Anyway, I fell like I'm getting nowhere in this discussion, so I'll leave it at that. Mathew, apologies if we've diverted from the main topic in what was a good article...

Brian, But the ICC is like the UN - a big pissing contest.. That is why you have the Asian and Project Snow blocs. That is why you will never get Australia and England to play "away" during thier "home seasons" and the IPL a "window". And for what its worth, Man U and a few other Premier League clubs have gotten into merchandising and propogating football in a big way in India. Just like the MLB and Rugby leagues. Is it within the established boundaries of thier sport - I dont think so. If it were, the Premier League would be a more equitable place. "Cricket established its own model about 100 years ago based on States, Provinces, Counties etc." - true. And its global governing body was called the Imperial Cricket Conference. I am not sure we have lost the Imperial bit yet. Else why would the argument be structured around "power shifting from Eng/Aus to the sub continent".. Shouldnt be the case if we were one big happy family, no? I would have thought it would be a cause for celebration that once teams that were considered second tier have done enough and more to monetize all of cricket and are powering the game today. But that is not the case, is it? Cheers,

Homer I dont think Brett was suggesting the ICC negotiate all rights. The BCCI will still negotiate the IPL and whatever constraints the Indian or English govt put on rights will be adhered to by the ICC. Just like FIFA have to sell the World Cup Final to a FTA broadcaster in Australia - and many other countries. What the ICC needs is not to administer all cricket, what it needs is an 8-9 month window to organise Test, ODI & T20 into meaningful competitions, say a season that starts in England in July, goes round the world and ends in March. In return the BCCI gets April-June to host a full strengh IPL. Obviously the negotiations will have hurdles but in the meantime cricket is suffering, especially in places like the Carribean. Supporters need to be less parochial and more interested in the welfare of the game. Man U, Tiger Woods, Federer & Collingwood could all get more selling their TV rights themselves but they are constrained by established boundaries that govern their sports. Cricket establshed its own model about 100 years ago based on States, Provinces, Counties etc. The model needs to globalise and establish new boundaries. However the main boards continue the head in the sand approach.

Brett, India's schedule was laid out well in advance and since India has not scheduled any bilateral ODI/T20 tourneys in the time frame under consideration, the criticism was harsh and unwanted. And I am not suggesting that the Caribbean be left to fight for itself, I am questioning the need to support associate nations at the expense of established test playing nations. ( And even there, looking at the examples of Kenya and Ireland, the ICC knows how to make a right mess every time, everywhere). Will the ICC bail out West Indies cricket? Given that the ICC has turned a blind eye to the ineptness of the WICB and its hands off policy post the 2007 WC, is the ICC even the right body to make corrective changes to West Indies cricket? I would much rather they, like Zimbabwe, take a hiatus from Test cricket and play under the flags of the different countries that make up the West Indies. If regional pride is satisfied playing ODIs and T20, so be it. If individual islands can find the talent pool to put together a Test team, even better. And if there is consensus that the different islands need to play under one flag, that will be the best case scenario. But given the different forces at play within the Caribbean itself, it is folly to artificially prop up the different islands under the banner of the West Indies. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh played as one country in the lead up to Partition. Then as two between Partition and the 1971 war. And now they exist as three different entities.It worked for them, it may work for the West Indies. Cheers,

well Homer, you don't seem to think so, so I guess there's no point me suggesting that maybe they are. Obviously, all the current details would have to be passed over the ICC. Of course they couldn't just take over the sale of broadcast right without that sort of knowledge. Further more, of course there would have to be some level of dialog with the host and opposition in a series. Of course England would need some kind of income to host the upcoming series for Pakistan (which btw, its Governments rather than the ICC preventing teams travelling to, but yes, the ICC and Pakistan need to quickly re-establish that Pakistan is safe to tour again). I assumed, foolishly it seems, that in making the very high-level statements I did about the ICC taking over the sale of broadcast rights, that the reader would realise that of course it isn't as simple as I made it sound..

Well Homer, for one, China *may* play Test cricket one day, but the West Indies DO play Test cricket now. Sometimes you need to solidify and consolidate before you can expand. Are you suggesting cricket in the Caribbean just be left to fight for itself, with no help at all?? And my point about the bigger issue was that a bit of an oversight by the author (and I thought that was the case too, that India weren't scheduled to play Tests next year), which you've focussed on, is minor - trivial even - when compared to the main points of Mathew's article here.

Brett, For an organization that was unable to handle the issue of ambush marketing with any degree of grace, it is a tall order for the ICC to negotiate rights for the entire FTP. Heck, for all the money the ICC has, it cannot even bankroll the UDRS! And for the record, the ICC is unable to get teams to visit Pakistan even before Lahore happened. How exactly will they justify loss of revenues for cancelled/postponed series? And in the case of Pakistan, playing homer series in England, how will the pie get cut? And who gets how much? And if we are working on the premise that the ICC will be negotiating for TV rights in individual countries instead of a global TV rights tender, does the ICC have a handle on the market cap per country? What about feed quality? What about who carries the feed? And what about internet rights? In India, the BCCI was forced by the Govt to share its feed with the government owned TV station. How will the ICC handle this? Will it make up rules as it goes ( and ass it has always been)? Is it even competent enough to do that? Cheers,

Brett, The ICC now supports 97 associate nations, including China. Can anyone justify why it is more important to support cricket in China than it is in the West Indies? And since the bigger issue is developing cricket at the grass roots, what merit the statement “India has no Test cricket on their calendar for 2010, preferring to focus on the shorter forms of the game. ” ? Cheers,

Homer, the ICC seems competent enough to be able to negotiate multi-million dollar broadcast deals to many counties for its own tournaments (WC, Champs Trophy, T20WC, etc), so I'd reckon it could handle all other international cricket, yeah. If they did take it over, the only difference to the broadcasters would be that they deal with the ICC directly, instead of the ECB, CA, BCCI, CNZ, or whoever the host is now. It's just a matter of who handles the sale of broadcast rights. All other local broadcast restrictions or guidleines can remain as is, it's just a different letterhead for the contract. Revenue sharing for the Test and ODI Championships would be different, but for a standard Test series, the host gets a cut, the opposition gets a cut, and the ICC retains a share for development of the game. India wouldn't be making up any differences for any other shortfalls (perceived or otherwsie) as they would only be splitting revenue from series they're involved in. India get nothing from Ashes series revenue now, and nor would they if the ICC sold the rights, except perhaps if the ICC spent some its new development fund in India. It's actually not that big a change when you think about it. It could even streamline the general broadcast sale process, with a single body controlling negotiations, rather than multiple countries handling their own negotiations with several broadcasters. Cheers...

so Homer, what's the bigger issue here - that India are in fact playing some Test cricket next year, or that the lesser Test nations require assistance to build the grassroots??