The IPL is a rich league, but that it was THIS rich blew me away

[Various7]

CHART: NBA Tops All Sports Leagues With Highest Average Salary For Players | Business Insider India

In terms of average salary paid per player, the IPL is the second highest paying league in the world ! Its just mental.

The NBA tops the table with an average of 4.5 million USD per player paid in the league, but then follows the IPL which pays the players participating in it an average of 4.2 million USDs per year. Its just astonishing.

In terms of what every player on an average its clearly IPL has not only brought cricket salaries on par with the world sports, but has actually put it in a position of dominance !!

In this regard the IPL is well ahead of the premier league, and the IPL player on an average earns more than twice of what a player on an average earns in La Liga

 

[cricket_icon]

It's still neither as entertaining or as competitive as the PL, the NBA or La Liga and doesn't garner the same international interest outside of Indians and ex-pat Indians.

 

[Various7]

It's still neither as entertaining or as competitive as the PL, the NBA or La Liga and doesn't garner the same international interest outside of Indians and ex-pat Indians.

^^^^^^^^ How to respond to a post with a totally irrelevant observation - Exhibit 'A'

Cricketers in terms of salary have been bottom feeders for the most part, and finally they are not only getting their due, but dominating all other leagues. Yet you completely miss the point. Why post nothing about what is being discussed in this thread - IPL being the second highest paid league in the World?

So if you must respond, at least try posting something relevant to what is being discussed here. Having said that I guess I would be guilty of the same thing if I respond to your post and then don't address the two largely negative issues you have raised. - 1) International Popularity of IPL 2) Competitiveness of the IPL. How you can fit negativity into a thread about cricketers finally earning on par with the best of the best across all boards quite frankly amazes me. Anyway -

1) With regard to "International Popularity" of IPL, the IPL is handicapped by the fact that its a Cricket based league, and needless to say Cricket is not and has never been the most "Internationally Popular" of sports. Even with this handicap, that it can generate enough revenue to beat leagues in sports that are much more popular and thus have a much much wider consumer base to sell the league to, is very commendable of the IPL, and something most definitely in '+' category for IPL. Also NBA and PL and La Liga have been around for decades and have had a gigantic head start on the IPL, which is just 7 years old, with regard to spreading its market base and expanding out to new viewers. So that it in such a short period the IPL is competing with the NBA, beating the PL financially and blowing the La Liga out of the water in terms of finances is again something extremely commendable and most definitely a plus. More than anything else, that any Cricket league can financially blow the top football leagues out of the water, football leagues, the most global of all sports, is again something to be appreciated by cricket fans. Why you don't see the positives and choose to harp on irrelevant issues instead is something I don't understand.

2) a. Now the second issue you raised - Competitiveness. With regard to La Liga, the less said about competitiveness the better. There have been two sides who have traditionally won La Liga and that is how it will remain. There are a few 'jokers' thrown in from time to time in this mix, like Atl Madrid won it last year, and sometimes the likes of Deportivo and Valencia have won it from time to time. However for the most part, everyone knows before the season even starts where the title is going. So thats 2 teams and a third thrown into the mix every now and then. Thats 3 out of 20 sides ever going for the title in any given season. Thats 15% of the league. You really think that is competitive?

With regard to the PL, one could say the same thing. Since the start of the PL era in '92, only 5 teams have ever won the title, and every year no more than 3 to 4 sides realistically compete for the title. A few aim to be 4th and sneak into the CL, but never really going for the title. So thats 4 out of 20 sides going for the title and 5 at the most. Even with the higher number 5 out of 20, its just 25% of the league.

NBA is about the same story. Usually 3 sides on each conference compete, the rest aim to sneak into the playoffs, and even then the gulf between 1 and 8 is so huge, that its not even funny. 6 out of 30 sides, 20% of the league.

In the IPL which has featured 8 sides on an average, all 8 sides are evenly matched, with an equal number of International stars at their disposal, and all 8, or at the very least 7 very very evenly matched sides start the competition, and no one can tell which of them will finish at the top. 7/8 = 87%.

Additionally, In just 7 years IPL has had 5 different winners, the same as IPL in over the last 20 years, and La Liga in nearly the past 30 years nearly.

2) b. Despite whatever reservations I may have about T20 cricket in general, there is no denying that IPL has the biggest collection of global cricket stars, on display of any such league of its kind. Every truly global international cricket star around or recently retired has played in the IPL, or has tried to be associated with the IPL. Apart from the Indian players, Warne, Clarke, Ponting, Hayden, Gilchrist, Hussey, Kallis, Steyn, ABD, Sangakarra, Malinga, Boucher, Ryder, McCullum, Pietersen, and many many more have played in the IPL. Thus in terms of International superstars on display IPL far outshines any other league of its kind. So that alone makes it the most competitive cricket league of its kind.

 

[abhi_jacko]

^^ Great post this one

 

[Aalay]

It's still neither as entertaining or as competitive as the PL, the NBA or La Liga and doesn't garner the same international interest outside of Indians and ex-pat Indians.

This is like a typical IPL hater's post. I think it was about 2 years ago when Sachin and Ponting were batting against Murlitharan. Top 2 run scorers of test cricket batting against the highest wicket taker of test cricket. You have AB de Villiers and Virat Kohli, 2 of the best limited overs batsmen batting against world's best fast bowler Dale Steyn. I mean where else would you get this? If you think this is not entertainment, I really would like to know what you definition of entertainment is.

 

[PokerAce]

Not only that I remember Ponting taking a good catch diving low, off a Harbhajan delivery. Now those two guys hate each other, but it was great to see the two just spontaneously celebrate the wicket together excitedly. Only in IPL would this happen. I hate T20 cricket in general and I don't believe it should exist at the Int'l stage. Int'l T20 is just nonsense, but I am definitely not in the business of hating one league over other, as some ppl clearly are. Its all cricket.

Domestic T20 makes sense, as its gives the players a good living, even average ones and you want that for cricketers.

 

[cricket_icon]

This is like a typical IPL hater's post. I think it was about 2 years ago when Sachin and Ponting were batting against Murlitharan. Top 2 run scorers of test cricket batting against the highest wicket taker of test cricket. You have AB de Villiers and Virat Kohli, 2 of the best limited overs batsmen batting against world's best fast bowler Dale Steyn. I mean where else would you get this? If you think this is not entertainment, I really would like to know what you definition of entertainment is.

all of those players were/are past their best, in fact, half a decade past their best. and a league isn't just interesting or exciting because of he name present but the game on offer and there is nothing fun about watching flat track bullies punish mediocre bowlers on dead or dying pitches. Yes there are exceptions, Narine and Steyn but not much else.

And I compared the IPL to other sports league, who recognises the IPL beyond Indians or sports fans? Whereas the EPL is an international icon and The Supoerbowl is one of the biggest annual sporting events on the planet. Get over it.

 

[Aalay]

all of those players were/are past their best, in fact, half a decade past their best. and a league isn't just interesting or exciting because of he name present but the game on offer and there is nothing fun about watching flat track bullies punish mediocre bowlers on dead or dying pitches. Yes there are exceptions, Narine and Steyn but not much else.

And I compared the IPL to other sports league, who recognises the IPL beyond Indians or sports fans? Whereas the EPL is an international icon and The Supoerbowl is one of the biggest annual sporting events on the planet. Get over it.

Get over it? You are still not getting the point. Cricket in general is dying as a sport. No one in North America or major part of Europe know what cricket means, how the hell can you expect them to know anything about IPL? The part that I have bolded is a very common argument that every IPL hater comes up with. Every cricket nation know what IPL means and nobody can deny it. Currently IPL is the biggest cricket league and none of the other leagues (such as big bash, t20 blast) come anywhere close to it. Let me also tell you if you don't already know, IPL is INDIAN PREMIERE LEAGUE. It is a domestic competition of INDIA. It is there to help Indian players learn how to prepare themselves by playing against international stars and how to handle pressure in front of 50,000 people. so of course there will be more Indian players than overseas. Most of the players come from domestic cricket of India so they won't be absolutely brilliant when they come against International players and they are likely to get smashed.

The one thing I never understand about cricket fans outside subcontinent is their rant about dead or dry pitches in subcontinent. It is neither dead or dry. In Australia, England, NZ, South Africa pitches are more helpful for fast bowlers and provide minimum help for spinners. In India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh pitches are more helpful for spinners and provide minimum help for fast bowling. Pitches are not dead in subcontinent, they are just helpful for spin bowling and none of those countries have good spinners to exploit the conditions so they end up calling it a dead pitch. We don't call pitches in the non-subcontinent countries dead just because there is no help for spin bowlers. There has been many matches in IPL which has been low scoring because spinners have absolutely dominated the match.

Also I don't think you have read Various7's reply to your post. Read that post because it will definitely help you get over this rant.

 

[Epic]

all of those players were/are past their best, in fact, half a decade past their best. and a league isn't just interesting or exciting because of he name present but the game on offer and there is nothing fun about watching flat track bullies punish mediocre bowlers on dead or dying pitches. Yes there are exceptions, Narine and Steyn but not much else.

And I compared the IPL to other sports league, who recognises the IPL beyond Indians or sports fans? Whereas the EPL is an international icon and The Supoerbowl is one of the biggest annual sporting events on the planet. Get over it.

IPL, a 7 season old league that's played over 2 months is being compared to the historically superior 6-10 month long European football leagues, the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL, let's let that sink in for a second. Those leagues in their own sport above all don't face the sort of dumbass opposition the IPL faces regularly from "cricket purists" who don't believe T20 to be "real cricket" to begin with so forget them even using their little dweeb brains to come around to the idea of a T20 league, and then we have the aforementioned season issue, cricket is one of very few unique sports with a strong international calendar and so there's neither room to make the IPL season longer or actual fans of the league clamoring for it, because to them this is just a break from 10 months of international cricket. There are fans of the EPL who don't watch the other top European leagues (La Liga, BL, Serie A or Ligue 1) or international football except the WC and maybe the Euros, but are there really any fans of the IPL who don't watch international cricket? And to me this is what's going to prevent IPL from becoming a pop culture phenomenon even within the boundaries of India.

The EPL was built off 100 or so years of the English First Division and the Super Bowl has been played since 1967, how is this in any realm a fair comparison?

 

[_Sam_]

Get over it? You are still not getting the point. Cricket in general is dying as a sport. No one in North America or major part of Europe know what cricket means, how the hell can you expect them to know anything about IPL? The part that I have bolded is a very common argument that every IPL hater comes up with. Every cricket nation know what IPL means and nobody can deny it. Currently IPL is the biggest cricket league and none of the other leagues (such as big bash, t20 blast) come anywhere close to it. Let me also tell you if you don't already know, IPL is INDIAN PREMIERE LEAGUE. It is a domestic competition of INDIA. It is there to help Indian players learn how to prepare themselves by playing against international stars and how to handle pressure in front of 50,000 people. so of course there will be more Indian players than overseas. Most of the players come from domestic cricket of India so they won't be absolutely brilliant when they come against International players and they are likely to get smashed.

The one thing I never understand about cricket fans outside subcontinent is their rant about dead or dry pitches in subcontinent. It is neither dead or dry. In Australia, England, NZ, South Africa pitches are more helpful for fast bowlers and provide minimum help for spinners. In India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh pitches are more helpful for spinners and provide minimum help for fast bowling. Pitches are not dead in subcontinent, they are just helpful for spin bowling and none of those countries have good spinners to exploit the conditions so they end up calling it a dead pitch. We don't call pitches in the non-subcontinent countries dead just because there is no help for spin bowlers. There has been many matches in IPL which has been low scoring because spinners have absolutely dominated the match.

Also I don't think you have read Various7's reply to your post. Read that post because it will definitely help you get over this rant.

The pitches are called dead because they are lifeless, they don't offer much bounce, and the ball comes off it slower. Not because they don't suite us.

I personally prefer watching the big bash to the IPL/live t20 blast (this is probably just having more of a link with the players), that's just me though.

 

[grkrama]

ya basically what you are saying is if a pitch doesn't assist seamers it must be lifeless right?

 

[_Sam_]

ya basically what you are saying is if a pitch doesn't assist seamers it must be lifeless right?

I am. The pitches in the subcontinent tend to not bounce very much or show many signs of movement. That is the definition of lifeless in cricket.

I think the pitches in the IPL which practically give no assistance to anyone bar batsman show this even better. Admittedly that is becoming a trend in limited overs cricket nowadays anyway.

 

[Aalay]

I am. The pitches in the subcontinent tend to not bounce very much or show many signs of movement. That is the definition of lifeless in cricket.

I think the pitches in the IPL which practically give no assistance to anyone bar batsman show this even better. Admittedly that is becoming a trend in limited overs cricket nowadays anyway.

You need to clarify it by saying that is YOUR definition of lifeless in cricket not everyone else. As I said in my last post, if it is offering assistance to spinners, it does not mean lifeless wicket. Lifeless wickets are the ones where neither spinner nor fasters are getting any help. You will find those pitches in IPL because that is what the public wants to see these days. They don't want to see teams getting all out for 100 and other team chasing it easily. I don't mind that personally but it is definitely not everyone wants to see. People want to see high scoring matches here because that will involve some crazy batting.

 

[grkrama]

he pitches in the subcontinent tend to not bounce very much or show many signs of movement. That is the definition of lifeless in cricket.

like Aalay said if this was just about IPL pitches i may agree a bit, even there you get some good turners from time to time.

But if you are in general calling SC pitches as dead then you are being stubborn or ignorant, If AUS/ SA represent pace n Bounce, ENG swing,NZ/WI uneven bounce. IND/ SL/pak represent Spin.

So just because it doesn't assist seamers its not lifeless.the pitch can still bamboozle you with spin.

 

[PokerAce]

I am. The pitches in the subcontinent tend to not bounce very much or show many signs of movement. That is the definition of lifeless in cricket.

I think the pitches in the IPL which practically give no assistance to anyone bar batsman show this even better. Admittedly that is becoming a trend in limited overs cricket nowadays anyway.

Pitches in Sub-continent have improved a lot with regard to bounce. Holding was doing commentary this Ind-WI series and he said he had come to India after 10 years and the pitches were unrecognisable and had pace and carry. Sub-continent pitches can be bouncy when the curator wants them to be. And they were this series.