BCCI's central contracts for 2012-13 announced

[Crookbond]

Viewer fatigue is surely the main cause. An average dedicated stadium-goer goes to the stadium only few times a year, and if he going for IPL matches 3 times a year, he'll not watch more than one ODI or a Test from the stadium. But going to stadiums is not the only form of cricket consumption. As long as people are watching it on TV, debating it online, commenting on Facebook/Twitter, watching experts speaking on news channels and are generally interested in it, the commercial aspect of cricket is truly alive and kicking.

I thought TV viewership was down too during those ODIs. Do you think scheduling and context can keep all three formats healthy and kicking?

[Magneto]

I thought TV viewership was down too during those ODIs. Do you think scheduling and context can keep all three formats healthy and kicking?

I think audiences find a random ODI series between two teams pointless. A Test series before ODIs is necessary to give ODIs some meaning and context. That was the reason why people didn't care much about the India-Eng series. But having said so, I can guarantee that the Indo-Pak ODI series will see full houses all across the country for obvious reasons.

[Crookbond]

I think audiences find a random ODI series between two teams pointless. A Test series before ODIs is necessary to give ODIs some meaning and context. That was the reason why people didn't care much about the India-Eng series. But having said so, I can guarantee that the Indo-Pak ODI series will see full houses all across the country for obvious reasons.

Well, again it's the scheduling. Do you think teams should only play ODI's right throughout the four years to qualify for the ODI WC? 6 slots for the Top 6 while the bottom 4 play a qualification round with the top 4 from the ICC Associates. Max 3 ODI's per year with max. 2 rounds in 4 years?

[Sidhoni]

Well' date=' again it's the scheduling. Do you think teams should only play ODI's right throughout the four years to qualify for the ODI WC? 6 slots for the Top 6 while the bottom 4 play a qualification round with the top 4 from the ICC Associates. Max 3 ODI's per year with max. 2 rounds in 4 years?[/quote'] Cmon! This aint football. Even they play more for their country! And if this does happen, expect a one off Test match in a 5 match T20I bilateral series.

[Crookbond]

Cmon! This aint football. Even they play more for their country! And if this does happen, expect a one off Test match in a 5 match T20I bilateral series.

Well, Test matches will have their own World Cup qualifications too. The point I'm trying to make is that ICC will have to take complete control over the bilateral series than letting boards decide. There's just too much freedom and boards abuse it as can be seen in the BCCI-SLC case. Otherwise, you will have meaningless Test/ODI series being played. Btw, T20I's are already restricted so a 3 Test match, 3 ODI and 2 T20I series is not a bad idea.

[Sidhoni]

Well' date=' Test matches will have their own World Cup qualifications too. The point I'm trying to make is that ICC will have to take complete control over the bilateral series than letting boards decide. There's just too much freedom and boards abuse it as can be seen in the BCCI-SLC case. Otherwise, you will have meaningless Test/ODI series being played. Btw, [b']T20I's are already restricted so a 3 Test match, 3 ODI and 2 T20I series is not a bad idea.

So why did u suggest in your previous post that there should only be WC qualification ODIs that too just 3 in an year?

[Sachin=GOD]

Well' date=' Test matches will have their own World Cup qualifications too. [b']The point I'm trying to make is that ICC will have to take complete control over the bilateral series than letting boards decide. There's just too much freedom and boards abuse it as can be seen in the BCCI-SLC case. Otherwise, you will have meaningless Test/ODI series being played. Btw, T20I's are already restricted so a 3 Test match, 3 ODI and 2 T20I series is not a bad idea.

there I completely agree with you. Its mainly because of this unlimited freedom to fit in as many series' as possible with complete disregard for the FTP that has completely fu

[Crookbond]

So why did u suggest in your previous post that there should only be WC qualification ODIs that too just 3 in an year?

Dude, I think you misread me. I never meant there should be 3 ODIs in a year. Let us a take an example. Now, consider there's a 4-year period between two World Cups - WC1 and WC2. Here's what I want to happen in this period. [0] A home-away tour between two sides limited to 1 home and 1 away tour (this can be 2 home and 2 away tours but it should be equal for all teams) [1] One each of these tours play just 3 ODIs [2] Use these 3 ODIs for WC qualification I want to avoid overkill of two sides playing and at the same time maintain the importance of those games. So, IMO a 6-game duel home/away between two top quality sides over a period of 4 years with a context attached to it is decent isn't it? There can be more than 3 * x ODI's a year depending on the number of tours you are playing that year. Of course during those tours something similar could be followed for Test matches and T20Is as well.

[Sidhoni]

Dude, I think you misread me. I never meant there should be 3 ODIs in a year. Let us a take an example. Now, consider there's a 4-year period between two World Cups - WC1 and WC2. Here's what I want to happen in this period. [0] A home-away tour between two sides limited to 1 home and 1 away tour (this can be 2 home and 2 away tours but it should be equal for all teams) [1] One each of these tours play just 3 ODIs [2] Use these 3 ODIs for WC qualification I want to avoid overkill of two sides playing and at the same time maintain the importance of those games. So, IMO a 6-game duel home/away between two top quality sides over a period of 4 years with a context attached to it is decent isn't it? There can be more than 3 * x ODI's a year depending on the number of tours you are playing that year. Of course during those tours something similar could be followed for Test matches and T20Is as well.

Interesting. But cricket doesn't really need qualification. We haven't got many nations playing cricket. Its a different story in soccer where nearly every nation plays the sport and hence having qualification matches is necessary.

[Sachin=GOD]

Dude, I think you misread me. I never meant there should be 3 ODIs in a year. Let us a take an example. Now, consider there's a 4-year period between two World Cups - WC1 and WC2. Here's what I want to happen in this period. [0] A home-away tour between two sides limited to 1 home and 1 away tour (this can be 2 home and 2 away tours but it should be equal for all teams) [1] One each of these tours play just 3 ODIs [2] Use these 3 ODIs for WC qualification I want to avoid overkill of two sides playing and at the same time maintain the importance of those games. So, IMO a 6-game duel home/away between two top quality sides over a period of 4 years with a context attached to it is decent isn't it? There can be more than 3 * x ODI's a year depending on the number of tours you are playing that year. Of course during those tours something similar could be followed for Test matches and T20Is as well.

qualification may not work that well in cricket because in the end everyone knows that the two teams out of India, Pak, Lanka, Aus, Eng, SA, Windies, NZ who are not in the top 6 will in all probability qualify.

[Crookbond]

Interesting. But cricket doesn't really need qualification. We haven't got many nations playing cricket. Its a different story in soccer where nearly every nation plays the sport and hence having qualification matches is necessary.

qualification may not work that well in cricket because in the end everyone knows that the two teams out of India' date=' Pak, Lanka, Aus, Eng, SA, Windies, NZ who are not in the top 6 will in all probability qualify.[/quote'] Hang on - let us first stop comparing to soccer. Next, my main idea of having a WC is the 1992 WC format - 10 teams, play against each other Top 4 go into the final. Many believe that it was one of the best WC formats ever. Lets for now take this as an assumption - now we want the ACTUAL top 10 teams in the tournament. At the same time, we can not totally ignore the associates. So, I am suggesting that the Top 6 from the qualification procedure over four years (which reduces chances of bias) qualify directly for the WC while the bottom 4 slug it out over a 15-day tournament before the WC (in the same country where the WC is held) with the Top 4 of the ICC Associates. This gives everyone an equal opportunity and in some cases you never know Bangladesh or England may not even qualify. :--D

[Swing_n_Speed]

Nothing wrong with rewarding players' date=' politicians in Cricket administration gulping a fat lot of money should be cut to less.[/quote'] Wow I'd love to know how much the politician administrators of the board take home.

[Sachin=GOD]

Hang on - let us first stop comparing to soccer. Next' date=' my main idea of having a WC is the 1992 WC format - 10 teams, play against each other Top 4 go into the final. Many believe that it was one of the best WC formats ever. Lets for now take this as an assumption - now we want the ACTUAL top 10 teams in the tournament. At the same time, we can not totally ignore the associates. So, I am suggesting that the Top 6 from the qualification procedure over four years (which reduces chances of bias) qualify directly for the WC while the bottom 4 slug it out over a 15-day tournament before the WC (in the same country where the WC is held) with the Top 4 of the ICC Associates. This gives everyone an equal opportunity and in some cases you never know Bangladesh or England may not even qualify. :--D[/quote'] Again, the thing is that with so few countries playing, people know which country has a good team and which doesn't. So suppose if Eng and NZ fail to make it to the top 6 and have to play a qualifying tournament against the associates then everyone knows that there's very little chance of them not getting past the associates. Obviously, if such a system is adopted then there may very well be upsets but they will be rare.

[Crookbond]

Again' date=' the thing is that with so few countries playing, people know which country has a good team and which doesn't. So suppose if Eng and NZ fail to make it to the top 6 and have to play a qualifying tournament against the associates then everyone knows that there's very little chance of them not getting past the associates. Obviously, if such a system is adopted then there may very well be upsets but they will be rare.[/quote'] The goal is not to go about creating upsets but to add meaning to matches played. We get the rare upsets fine but the contests still have meaning.

[Sachin=GOD]

The goal is not to go about creating upsets but to add meaning to matches played. We get the rare upsets fine but the contests still have meaning.

yeah, but I think people may be more inclined to watch a meaningless India-Aus match as compared to a meaningful Eng-Holland match :hmmm:

[BeautifulGame]

The goal is not to go about creating upsets but to add meaning to matches played. We get the rare upsets fine but the contests still have meaning.

That means associates will get just 2 matches against test opposition(that 2 the 2 weakest) every four years in international cricket.How will that help improve cricket in associate countries then?

[Crookbond]

yeah' date=' but I think people may be more inclined to watch a meaningless India-Aus match as compared to a meaningful Eng-Holland match :hmmm:[/quote'] Not necessarily - if the England Holland match is like what we had in the opening game of the T20 WC 2009 or even the ODI WC 2011 trust me it will get interesting. You are using extreme scenarios and the one you mention would not happen a lot. What where did I say that? :dontknow: The top 4 associate teams would play a mini WC with the bottom 4 Test playing teams. Also, how many games do Associates play with the top teams between the WC's currently ? It's the same number of games they would have otherwise played in a World Cup. Just that this time they are playing against teams whom they have a chance to beat. Mind you - the associates can still schedule games with Test playing nations but they would not be counted towards ODI WC qualification. Next, T20 is the way to spread the game and you can have 14-16 teams for W T20 rather than ODI WC's. Finally, if I would have it - I would rather make the associates play against the 'A' teams from countries than the full fledged teams. That counts towards developing games - not some 5 ODI WC games once in every 4 years.

[Sidhoni]

yeah' date=' but I think people may be more inclined to watch a meaningless India-Aus match as compared to a meaningful Eng-Holland match :hmmm:[/quote'] Very true. The matches in WC which include minnows are very boring and have very less viewership. On the other hand, a meaningless ODI in a bilateral series between India and Aus will get much more viewership and interest.

[Crookbond]

Very true. The matches in WC which include minnows are very boring and have very less viewership. On the other hand, a meaningless ODI in a bilateral series between India and Aus will get much more viewership and interest.

You can't get 100% fail safe solutions. You are committing a common fallacy - Proof by Example [0]. To counter your point, I will point you out to the meaningless India-England ODI series where the viewership and interest was less in 2011. We can keep on giving examples back and forth with this discussion heading nowhere. You have to understand the larger point - a set of meaningful ODI matches are the best way forward, not 100% fail safe but would reduce viewer fatigue while the "show goes on". Oh and btw, if Ireland-England and Bangladesh-England were boring for you in the ODI WC - I have nothing much to say! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example

[Rohit S. Ambani]

Player demoted to Grade B get selected = Harbhajan Singh :hysterical: Grade A Player for last 3 years (2010-2013) = Suresh Raina has failed to establish in Test format and dropped ! :cantstop: Rupee's 3 Crore ($600,000) + Match Fee from BCCI to a player who at best is decent in LOI cricket. and Posters on this forum saying earning from BCCI hardly matters to players! Player like Raina earning 5 crore+ all inclusive just from BCCI in 3 years is HUGE MONEY. How much he earns in IPL? Is it double/triple of what BCCI pays him? Well Ad's will be there irrespective of IPL.