Can World Cricket Survive without India?

[Braveheart]

With all the Bullying and Blackmail from the Indians, the hypothetical question I have is;
If every World team refused to play against India and condemned them to 'Pariah' Status. What affect would it have on World Cricket?
Can the World Cricket Structure survive without the Indians?

[Dhonifan]

Of course it can survive, but with less money.

ICC coffers will be near empty and officials will have to travel economy class instead of first, stay in 4 star hotels instead of 7 star resorts. Headq's will shift from Dubai to Birmingham. Bum deal.

[OZGOD]

Yes, but there would be heaps less money. India has so much financial power because a ) cricket is the only sport most people follow, and b ) there are so many people to follow cricket. In the other big population centres (Australia, England, SA) cricket would have to compete for broadcasting rights, licensing etc with other sports like football, rugby, AFL, etc.

Though I suppose Pakistan and Bangladesh are also big population centres, but they don't have the $$ that India can provide through sheer volume and obsession with the game.

[siddharth]

Originally Posted by Braveheart With all the Bullying and Blackmail from the Indians, the hypothetical question I have is; If every World team refused to play against India and condemned them to 'Pariah' Status. What affect would it have on World Cricket? Can the World Cricket Structure survive without the Indians?

Yes can survive .But pakistan can no more bully out man in ur avatar.

[W63L35]

Here is one point of view;

Cricket needs to recognise India as superpower By Michael Henderson Last Updated: 2:18am GMT 10/01/2008 In this grubby week for cricket it is worth reminding the Indian players that touring teams can win in Australia even when the world appears to be against them. England were denied a single lbw decision there in 1970-71 yet they still took the series 2-0, thanks largely to the superb fast bowling of John Snow, and the firm leadership of Raymond Illingworth. So it can be done, though it won't be done this time. Like others before them, a competitive Indian team have been broken by the Australians in word and deed. And what a sad sight this latest Australian victory makes, for the game lies bleeding, with cricket-lovers everywhere, quite rightly, fearing for its future. Anger, while appropriate as an initial response to the general nastiness in Sydney, is ultimately self-defeating because it is corrosive. Which is not to say that it will not persist, because there are too many vested interests at stake in the rapidly changing world of international cricket. What has happened on this tour is the convergence of the modern game's major fault lines: the arrogance that has accompanied Australia's evergreen dominance on the field of play, the commercial importance of India off it (which, in turn, brings an arrogance of its own), and the chronic inability of the International Cricket Council to serve the game's best interests. However diplomatically the ICC would like to pass off their decision to relieve Steve Bucknor of his umpiring duties in Perth, where the third Test begins next week, his demotion is another abdication of responsibility by a body that may well be the least competent in the whole of sport. To show how puddled they are, some members still think they ran a tight ship at the World Cup last year in the Caribbean. Bucknor should have been removed from the umpires' panel years ago, because he is no longer a good enough decision-maker. But to drop him as a sop to the Board of Control for Cricket in India smacks of poor management and is, therefore, all of a piece with the ICC's history of appeasement. advertisement Darrell Hair was taken off the panel two years ago for upholding the laws of the game 'without fear or favour', as umpires are supposed to do. But the Pakistanis complained about his handling of events at the Oval, and the ICC caved in. Nine years ago they caved in when Ross Emerson no-balled the Sri Lankan off-spinner, Muttiah Muralitharan, for throwing during a one-day international against England in Adelaide, and Arjuna Ranatunga led his players from the field. These incidents, and others, have been explored before and testify to the depth of feeling within the Indian sub-continent, which sees 'racism' in every nook and cranny, and often declines into a sort of communal madness: the burning of effigies, general denunciations, and wild talk of 'insults to the nation'. In our detached western way ('look at these hotheads!'), we laugh at such nonsense, but it isn't a laughing matter. The facts, in plain commercial terms, reveal that India is the economic powerhouse of modern cricket. The game means more, to more people, there than it does anywhere else and, in a fluctuating world, that is one thing that isn't going to change. Whether we like it or not, there has to be, if not a transfer of power, then an arrangement that takes cognisance of this new dispensation. For that to happen the Indians must produce some decision-makers of rather higher calibre than have emerged so far. People, that is, who put the game before the making of money. The way things are going they can print the dollar bills themselves, but what sort of game will be left when they are through? Yet it is not hard to sympathise with the Indians on this occasion, because what is said on the field should, by and large, remain there. Calling Andrew Symonds 'a monkey', as Harbhajan Singh is alleged to have done, is not pleasant but, goodness gracious, worse things have been said in the past, even by Australians. The man, above all others, who has lost his reputation is Ricky Ponting. Nobody likes a sneak, and here was the captain of the world's leading side, one of the finest cricketers to represent Australia, a player for whom the adjective 'great' is permissible, rushing to the umpires, saying: 'Sir! Sir!' For years the world took 'Punter' Ponting to be a teak-tough Aussie, moulded from the clay that has given his country so many of its most notable sportsmen. Now we can see that, all along, behind those flinty features, he was really a prissy aunt. Not so much Ian Chappell as Lady Bracknell. In the aftermath of an achievement he considered to be his most significant as captain, a victory that made it 16 wins on the trot, to equal the Test record established by Steve Waugh's players, Ponting lost his good name in the eyes of many of his countrymen. A grubby week all round.

Video:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/tt...tid=1364230509

Article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mai.../schend110.xml

[saffer]

You telling me people wouldnt still want to see the ashes/S.a versus australia etc etc etc ?

I would hardly notice is india were gone .

[jackal786]

I think the above article has touched all the deep-rooted issues that need to be fixed. But it all starts from the head. The ICC. Infact i would disband ICC and start a fresh one. For whatever the reason structure doesn't work. May be poor management style. These guys are killing cricket.

In a way i am happy the incidents happened in a match between India and Australia rather than Australia and Bangladesh. It is a huge wakeup call for cricket administrators in all parts of the world. An opportunity to take a step back and look at the possible improvements (which are plenty) that can be made to enhance the playing standard.

[The WagonWheel]

Originally Posted by Braveheart With all the Bullying and Blackmail from the Indians, the hypothetical question I have is; If every World team refused to play against India and condemned them to 'Pariah' Status. What affect would it have on World Cricket? Can the World Cricket Structure survive without the Indians?

The whole fiasco that has surrounded the game at Sydney is analogous to a gali(street) cricket game. India is playing the boy who owns the bat and who has threatened to pull out of the game Cartman-Style ' Screw you guys, I am going home.'

So the question that you are asking is , can we play without a Bat. No, until we arrange the funds to buy a new bat - which like in Gali Cricket is almost always unlikely. So, bear with Cartman as long as he has his bat and try to enjoy this great game.

[W63L35]

Originally Posted by The WagonWheel The whole fiasco that has surrounded the game at Sydney is analogous to a gali(street) cricket game. India is playing the boy who owns the bat and who has threatened to pull out of the game Cartman-Style ' Screw you guys, I am going home.' So the question that you are asking is , can we play without a Bat. No, until we arrange the funds to buy a new bat - which like in Gali Cricket is almost always unlikely. So, bear with Cartman as long as he has his bat and try to enjoy this great game.

Excellent analogy!

[Dhonifan]

Originally Posted by saffer You telling me people wouldnt still want to see the ashes/S.a versus australia etc etc etc ? I would hardly notice is india were gone .

Like it or not, the most watched teams are Australia, India, Pakistan and England, playing in any combination.

[jackal786]

To be honest.. all 3 subcontinent teams are a must for world cricket without which you will go back to Donald Bradman days.

[OZGOD]

Originally Posted by jackal786 To be honest.. all 3 subcontinent teams are a must for world cricket without which you will go back to Donald Bradman days.

There are 4 subcontinent teams. Or did you forget Bangladesh?

[W63L35]

Originally Posted by jackal786 To be honest.. all 3 subcontinent teams are a must for world cricket without which you will go back to Donald Bradman days.

......but without Bradman!

[UP]

It will be hard for cricket but with alot of less money.

India has a population of 1.3 billion and its the only sport they follow madly and obvioulsy they will bring in alot of money with that population.

[12thMan]

sure it can survive but it will get a little boring. Ofcourse neither side will want it to happen as both lose money. There are 3 parties - BCCI, other boards and ICC. The ones to lose the most will be BCCI and ICC (because of the WC and Champions trophy) but ICC doesn't fund most of the boards. The boards can charge extra when they play home series against India, some Indian fans not coming to stadiums and that is where they lose but won't go bankrupt. Might mean a little less pay but that is nothing fans should care about and players have nothing else to do to make good money

[Indiafan]

India controls about 70% of ICC revenue. Without that kind of money and viewership, where will cricket be?

[Bongo]

Maybe the Aussies should do what Pakistan have started doing recently & let the Indians win each time we play them to keep them & their supporters happy.
Its not worth the hassle beating them these days.

[david_becks]

Originally Posted by saffer You telling me people wouldnt still want to see the ashes/S.a versus australia etc etc etc ? I would hardly notice is india were gone .

Some people really have a short memory.Do u know when no country was ready to play against your South Africa for various reasons.Which team made the first step in 1992?It was IndiaThen other teams followed.
When no country was touring Pakistan in 2003/2004 which team toured without any hesitation?India.
And i am sure india will tour Pakistan this december.And wont act like other sissy countries.

[david_becks]

Originally Posted by Indiafan India controls about 70% of ICC revenue. Without that kind of money and viewership, where will cricket be?

Its b/w 80 to 90%.

[W63L35]

Originally Posted by david_becks Some people really have a short memory.Do u know when no country was ready to play against your South Africa for various reasons.Which team made the first step in 1992?It was IndiaThen other teams followed. When no country was touring Pakistan in 2003/2004 which team toured without any hesitation?India..

I don't think....this is how it happened!
In 1992, ICC first "readmitted" South Africa....and at that time ANY team could play SAF.......and India HAPPENED to arrange the 1st series with them becuase India was only team not busy at that time! I wasn't that no team "wanted" to play them. India could not have done without ICC's approval for SAFer to play test cricket......and when ICC gave approval, it was given to SAF to play test with anybody - not just India.

Just like Bangladesh, when they got status, India "HAPPENED" to be the 1st team to tour them.......

Just Sri Lanka, when they got test status, England happened to be to the 1st team to tour SL.......

Just like Pakistan, when they got test status, the 1st series happened to be vs India in India!

I think, you get the picture!

So.....nothing "special" if Safers played India 1st when they were re-admitted to ICC!

[shahzad_1]

Originally Posted by Bongo Maybe the Aussies should do what Pakistan have started doing recently & let the Indians win each time we play them to keep them & their supporters happy. Its not worth the hassle beating them these days.

I ben thinking that for while too.

Maybe, thats why India don't play against Pakistan in Sharja, cause they hardly win there.

Maybe, you have to let them win for while to keep them happy.

[david_becks]

@w65l But why did they invite India first for home series?It was a decision taken by UCB.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by david_becks @w65l But why did they invite India first for home series?It was a decision taken by UCB.

It was planned to move to stiffer competition gradually

[W63L35]

Originally Posted by david_becks @w65l But why did they invite India first for home series?It was a decision taken by UCB.

Lets get some history straight 1st. South Africa was admitted back to ICC on July 10, 1991.

Since the tours are decided well in advance, there was NO tour planned for South Africa until the World Cup in March 1992. India were "free" in October 1991, therefore they invited SAF for 3 ODIs. No other country was free or could not put a tour together in hurry to accomdate SAF.
Next assignment for SAF was WC in March 1992.

Then they played their FIRST TEST match (and 3 ODIs) in West Indies April 1992, right after the World Cup. Then later in Nov-Jan 1992 India went to SAF to play 4 tests and 7 ODIs. Yes, India was the 1st team to visit SAF after their re-addmitance to ICC.

Now, I was responsding to you comment;

Do u know when no country was ready to play against your South Africa for various reasons.

...........than India happened to be free to host SAF and to visit SAF at those times.....nothing special.

If India is such a "wonderful" visitor or host, then how come India has not hosted a series vs Bangladesh ever while having visited Bangladesh twice?

[Romali_rotti]

Originally Posted by saffer You telling me people wouldnt still want to see the ashes/S.a versus australia etc etc etc ? I would hardly notice is india were gone .

Its not whether you notice or not that is the issue, it is the 100s of millions which ICC will miss out WHICH THEY SURE AS HELL WILL NOTICE, ponder that

[Genghis]

Wouldn't the BCCI suffer majorly if such was to happen as well??? They cannot expect to get all their money from silly IPL competitions.

[jackal786]

Don't worry guys.. Indians won't live without cricket whether Cricket will live without India or not . Those are all extremely imaginative, unlikely scenarios.

[saffer]

Like it or not, the most watched teams are Australia, India, Pakistan and England, playing in any combination.

I don't like it or dislike it . But the question is would cricket survive without india...of course it would !

[david_becks]

Originally Posted by W63L35 Lets get some history straight 1st. South Africa was admitted back to ICC on July 10, 1991. Since the tours are decided well in advance, there was NO tour planned for South Africa until the World Cup in March 1992. India were "free" in October 1991, therefore they invited SAF for 3 ODIs. No other country was free or could not put a tour together in hurry to accomdate SAF. Next assignment for SAF was WC in March 1992. Then they played their FIRST TEST match (and 3 ODIs) in West Indies April 1992, right after the World Cup. Then later in Nov-Jan 1992 India went to SAF to play 4 tests and 7 ODIs. Yes, India was the 1st team to visit SAF after their re-addmitance to ICC. Now, I was responsding to you comment; ...........than India happened to be free to host SAF and to visit SAF at those times.....nothing special. If India is such a "wonderful" visitor or host, then how come India has not hosted a series vs Bangladesh ever while having visited Bangladesh twice?

Ok no problem.But what about india touring Pakistan in 2004?And i hope they will tour again this year.

[flawed_genius]

It would be boring without India.

[OZGOD]

Originally Posted by jackal786 Don't worry guys.. Indians won't live without cricket whether Cricket will live without India or not . Those are all extremely imaginative, unlikely scenarios.

Well, Indians will still have cricket though - but it would be domestic. Do you think that something like the IPL/ICL would thrive and become something like the NBA/NFL/MLB if India decided to leave the ICC and go on its own?

[jackal786]

Originally Posted by OZGOD Well, Indians will still have cricket though - but it would be domestic. Do you think that something like the IPL/ICL would thrive and become something like the NBA/NFL/MLB if India decided to leave the ICC and go on its own?

It might.. but coverage should be highly professional. The way the Americans sell their sports is something beyond imagination for India infact any cricket playing nation.

[Dhonifan]

Originally Posted by OZGOD Well, Indians will still have cricket though - but it would be domestic. Do you think that something like the IPL/ICL would thrive and become something like the NBA/NFL/MLB if India decided to leave the ICC and go on its own?

Nope. Maybe after 5 yrs of heavy promotion. The IPL had a good response but hardly nothing compared to international series.

India will never leave ICC and vice versa. I feel cricket fraternity is like one big family unlike other sports. Sometimes one member of family kicks up a fuss and others try to scold or pacify it, then life goes on normally.

[W63L35]

Originally Posted by david_becks Ok no problem.But what about india touring Pakistan in 2004?And i hope they will tour again this year.

I am not sure, if I understand you question reg 2004?

[Super Misbah]

with the rivalry of Pakistan and india , the loss of india will be big , specifically only for this series tho lolz this is the reason cricket in pakistan and india was promoted to such high levels, this series brings in the glory inside us , Pakistan Zindabaad

[from_da_lost_dim3nsion]

Originally Posted by The WagonWheel The whole fiasco that has surrounded the game at Sydney is analogous to a gali(street) cricket game. India is playing the boy who owns the bat and who has threatened to pull out of the game Cartman-Style ' Screw you guys, I am going home.' So the question that you are asking is , can we play without a Bat. No, until we arrange the funds to buy a new bat - which like in Gali Cricket is almost always unlikely. So, bear with Cartman as long as he has his bat and try to enjoy this great game.

genius analogy !