John Howard - future ICC president?

[drainpipe32]

I'm almost certain Australia and England and also Australia and NZ will stick together, and most likely SA will stick with Australia. Zimbabwe and Kenya will stick with CSA and Ireland will stick with the Poms.

But WTF is with this split talk anyway?

 

[rahuldravidfan]

Besides, I really hope that we don't get to the situation where we are talking about a split in international cricket. It would be quite a silly decision at a time when cricket is reaching its peak both from a financial and competitive perspective.

Actually. Then we would have one richie rich ICC and its poor distant cousin.

 

[sohum]

I'm almost certain Australia and England and also Australia and NZ will stick together, and most likely SA will stick with Australia. Zimbabwe and Kenya will stick with CSA and Ireland will stick with the Poms.

But WTF is with this split talk anyway?

Do Kenya and Ireland have full votes as associate nations? I'm not sure they do...

A split is something that may occur if someone as outwardly vocal as Howard takes over, especially given his nature in reacting to controversial situations (like Murali). It's also something aus5892 said he would support, and hence the discussion evolved to whether a split would actually be a good idea.

 

[smssia0112]

I think a split would be an extremely poor result for international cricket, especially since we are at at time where Test cricket is most wide open. By forcing a split, you are asking the ICC to do exactly what you have presumably accused the BCCI of doing--killing Test cricket. Test cricket is only going to thrive if there is competition and right now the top 4 in the world could make a strong claim for #1.

And as for your query, India would be backed by the BCB and SLC at the very least. The BCCI helps out a lot of boards financially, both directly and indirectly. I think the PCB would be turned as well, given the money to be made from potential India-Pakistan encounters. In fact, I think you'd only be looking at Australia, South Africa, England and New Zealand sticking together, and even then I'm not sure those nations would back a split. Cricket Australia, in particular, has pushed for the 7-match ODI series agreement with India, which shows how much they value the match-up, financially.

As the trend goes currently, test cricket is in trouble. ODI cricket is all but dead, and tests are on the decline. Something needs to change, that's for sure, but my qualms with the BCCI are not for killing test cricket, it's the unbalanced power they have over the ICC - they are essentially the most powerful body in world cricket, and their interests do not lie in protecting cricket - they lie in making money. If that means killing test cricket, they will not necessarily have any troubles doing so.

It is also the way they conduct themselves. Twice we have seen their power exerted to remove umpires from international duty or mid-tour because they were not happy with their results. They have conducted themselves poorly, but they are allowed to do so because of the money they bring to cricket. Backing Zimbabwe is just another example.

Do I think a split is a good thing for cricket? I don't know, and I don't really see it happening regardless of what happens. If Howard is appointed, I don't think it will lead to a split, but I do think it will lead to the ICC actually standing up for itself rather than sitting idly by whenever the BCCI waves its big cheque book around. And that's not a bad thing. Don't forget that Howard is a politician, one of Australia's longest-serving PMs of all time. You don't get that much power for so long without knowing how to pick your battles.

 

[sohum]

As the trend goes currently, test cricket is in trouble. ODI cricket is all but dead, and tests are on the decline. Something needs to change, that's for sure, but my qualms with the BCCI are not for killing test cricket, it's the unbalanced power they have over the ICC - they are essentially the most powerful body in world cricket, and their interests do not lie in protecting cricket - they lie in making money. If that means killing test cricket, they will not necessarily have any troubles doing so.

I think your analysis of the state of cricket is a little misplaced. Test cricket is more alive today than it was a decade back (just prior to the India-Australia marquee series). ODI cricket is dead not because of circumstances but because of evolution. You will have no doubt noticed that Test cricket itself has evolved over the last 10 years. Runscoring has improved from 3 being a good run rate to 3-4 being a norm for the top sides. Twenty20 has certainly exposed in a grand scale a form of the game that is both exciting and easily packaged for viewership (both from a financial and time perspective). The general trend is that people's attention spans are getting smaller--hence T20 is eating into the ODI market. But I think the same people who were watching Test cricket in 2000 are watching it today and there are actually more people apart from them because of the transforming effect T20/OD's have had on players. I think you would be correct in saying Test cricket isn't growing, but I think the statement Test cricket is dying is false in the current state.

Also, the idea that BCCI will kill Test cricket is a little farfetched and a good example of paranoia. No Test cricket would mean no FC cricket. No FC cricket would mean no club cricket. No club cricket would essentially mean the end of domestic cricket. The Ranji has been around for decades. The IPL for 2 years. The BCCI are not fools. A tournament such as the IPL is not enough to accommodate the number of professional cricketers that exist in India. Hence, FC cricket will never die. And with FC cricket around, Tests will continue to live.

Furthermore, Indian cricketers still regard the Test cap as the biggest thing they can achieve in international cricket. You don't see the Indian team just handing out Test caps to anyone and everyone they please based on IPL/T20 performances. This shows that they are indeed serious about Test cricket.

It is also the way they conduct themselves. Twice we have seen their power exerted to remove umpires from international duty or mid-tour because they were not happy with their results. They have conducted themselves poorly, but they are allowed to do so because of the money they bring to cricket. Backing Zimbabwe is just another example.

The BCCI certainly behaves like a spoiled child once in a while. However, the money they are bringing is no laughing matter. The ICC will have to choose its battles thoughtfully.

Do I think a split is a good thing for cricket? I don't know, and I don't really see it happening regardless of what happens. If Howard is appointed, I don't think it will lead to a split, but I do think it will lead to the ICC actually standing up for itself rather than sitting idly by whenever the BCCI waves its big cheque book around. And that's not a bad thing. Don't forget that Howard is a politician, one of Australia's longest-serving PMs of all time. You don't get that much power for so long without knowing how to pick your battles.

That's not necessarily what will cure the BCCI's behavior, though. As an organization, they have become accustomed to power and muscling others to agree to their decision. This is obviously not a good thing. But trying to fight that by being completely upfront will lead to nothing but a meltdown. What the ICC really needs is someone who can harness the power of the BCCI. This means, like I said earlier, that they will have to choose their battles thoughtfully. They have to figure out a way to use the money that the BCCI without compromising the balance of cricket.

 

[Howsie]

So, is this going to get sorted any time soon? If Australia can't put up a decent candidate allow New Zealand's to get through.

Ridiculous really.

 

[smssia0112]

Well the only news I've heard recently is that Malcolm Speed approves of both candidates: Speed backs Howard for ICC presidency