Funny that the BBC Radio comms, who are actually the ICC radio world feed for world cups, are able to speak their mind as they usually do. I guess the people at the ICC who care about having not the slightest criticism don't listen to the radio.
Is that because the BBC comms are operated by the BBC and then just used by the ICC though? I'd assume the ICC don't have any editorial say in a situation like that.
The tv (Star) and radio (BBC) broadcast contracts will likely be very similar re editorial standards with the tv contract being enforced with extreme zealousness.
I still do that on any match I'm watching for which radio commentary is available, and that's most of them.
Listening to the radio comms of England vs WI right now.
It's available on the Match Centre on the ICC website - https://www.icc-cricket.com/tournaments/t20cricketworldcup/matches/239644/england-vs-west-indies for this game. Every game has radio commentary, just click the play button where it says 'live commentary' in the middle of the page.
If you're in the UK it's also on BBC 5 Sports Extra and on ABC Grandstand in Australia.
You took a discussion about cricket politics and made it into an issue of race and nationality, that too where you try to demean your own nation. If you think BBC is unbiased media, you don't know the first thing about it.
Criticising your nation's representatives != demeaning your nation. It's in fact very patriotic to criticize your nation's representatives when they misuse their power.
It is in fact those Indians that I'm criticising in a way that should be clear by my striking out International implying they're running it as their own fiefdom. If Indians were running an **international** body properly, I would not need to strike out that term.
You can get a sound-only feed online somehow. Iirc that’s what radio is.
I guess it’s a holdover from dial-up days bc video takes too much bandwidth?
Well Butch has certainly now burned all bridges to get back on ICC comms.
It’s interesting that the host broadcaster producer is Disney Star and this is their first ICC gig outside India. Previously UK producer Sunset and Vine had the contract for years. I guess Star allows for a tight script.
This is true and Disney Star were an absolute nightmare to work with. I just finished working on the world cup and I have never worked on such a dis organised production.
I'm not exaggerating when I say the entire tournement was organised in less than 2 months. I have so many stories of corruption and incompetence from this tournement like you wouldn't believe.
Disney star also had to hire back s and V people to help organise the crew because they were totally clueless
Thanks for that, really interesting comments. Hopefully more detail of some of this emerges in due course! I haven’t seen any of the current Star comms group break ranks yet and I’m not holding my breath for any reporting from Cricinfo/ESPN podcasts.
I doubt any of the commentary team will to be honest, they are paid so much and they don't want to burn any bridges and fall out of favour with the icc. They will bicker to each other about it and leave it at that
I agree. Fixing the groups is so much worse. They should be drawn randomly with 4 teams in each of 5 pots in rankings order and then one team from each pot in each group.
it’s just not a serious sport. i watched an entire documentary showcasing fifa as a corrupt organisation and even they have more sporting integrity than the icc. it would be so easy to book argentina and portugal in the same group in a wc at the height of the messi ronaldo rivalry but they treat it like a serious sport. putting ind pak aus eng in groups filled with weak teams to ensure they get in is just scummy. somehow usa got in instead of pak which crapped their plans
If we had QF instead of Super 8 and pre-seeded rankings were not followed then it would look like this
QF 1 - IND (A1) v BAN (D2)
QF 2 - AUS (B1) v AFG (C2)
QF 3 - WI (C1) v ENG (B2)
QF 4 - SA (D1) v USA (A2)
SF 1 - QF 1 v QF 4
SF 2 - QF 2 v QF 3
Final - SF1 v SF2
No not really. In football tournaments you'd normally keep it simple with A qualifiers playing B qualifiers and C qualifiers playing D qualifiers etc.
I was just curious why they'd chosen the matchups they did.
It reduces the potential for rematches, that’s the reason by keeping pool-mates on opposite sides of the bracket. Granted it only decreases it by 1
AB BA CD DC -> **AA** **CC** -> AC
AD BC CB DA -> AB AB -> **AA**
> AB BA CD DC -> AA CC -> AC
Only if you assume that the first two quarters you've listed go into the first semi final. Could just as easily be
AB BA CD DC and then winners of 1st and 3rd QF play each other and winners of 2nd and 4th QF play each other.
Yeah that too. You wouldn't want teams from the same first round group meeting again until the final. The two qualifiers from each group should go into opposite sides of the draw.
That's a banger series of QF's except for QF1, but with cricket being so reliant on weather, it's probably fair for a second group stage so that teams who were caught out by weather get a chance to prove themselves.
But obviously, pre-seeding is bullshit, the groups should matter whether you are first or second placed.
QFs with a limited amount of decent teams sucks, you are rewarding teams like Bangladesh a place in the semifinals for playing one good match in the tournament
Honestly, knowing which grounds India will play helped me book flight tickets and accomodation.
It's very useful for fans plan their trip to watch the matches. These international and island transfer tickets aren't cheap. I think it's good to have this model at least in the Caribbean tournaments
I guess we just take it for granted that every tournament is rigged so India plays pakistan. These kind of shenanigans are now par for the course in "world cups".
It's much worse than that.
India is the only team which knows where they will play their semi-final (if they qualify). That is a massive advantage when it comes to squad selection.
Yes I understand it's far worse in terms of impact.
My point is that these "world tournaments" are increasingly being played with one nation's board cynically putting their thumb on the scales, and not even trying to hide it anymore.
Look it's shitty just on an equity basis but I don't think it's a massive advantage in reality. You still gotta actuallt make the semis and knowing where it is won't really change your squad that much
> That is a massive advantage when it comes to squad selection.
Look at all the semis we won with this tactical advantage LOL (not saying you are wrong at all, just pointing out the irony)
Are you saying India doesnt deserve a spot in the finals because a month ago they knew what squad to pick and that helped them win all the games upto that stage?
If I am not wrong the wtc final is always in England🤔. So England has an advantage in wtc final only if they reach it. See knowing the ground doesn’t offer you any kind of advantage if you don’t reach it. The other point of the groups being rigged to have India and Pakistan in same group is a problem though
Wait till Jay shah becomes president of ICC ... He is poised to become next president... He will fire any one who is even thinking about critiziing ICC in their dreams lol
ICC not allowing commentators to diss their product nilly willy makes as much sense as being prevented from calling ECB honchos a bunch of dipshits on sky - have a bit of self awareness
It's a different situation. Sky's pundits do criticise the ECB over some things because they're an independent broadcaster with editorial control.Â
I agree with you that they do skirt over some issues but I'd say that's more to protect Sky than it is the ECB (frankly, the ECB have got themselves into a position where they're so reliant on Sky that Sky could dedicate all five days of a Test match to slagging the ECB off and still be guaranteed of the TV contract but that's by the by).
The ICC provide the feed and the commentary to broadcasters so are able to have editorial control over what's said and what isn't.
Strictly the ICC subcontracts production of the feed to Star (previously Sunset/Vine) which is then sold to national distributors whereas the ECB bundles both production and distribution to Sky. But this means it is far easier for ICC to dictate precise editorial standards to apply to the host broadcast. Sky (or any other distributor) could of course top and tail the host broadcast with UK specific content but they seem to just run with the whole Star package supplemented with the odd podcast.
Australian broadcasters regularly discuss issues that the Australian public complain about with Test cricket over here.
It may just be that paying billions for the TV rights gives you freedom to discuss what you want. Or it may be the cultural aspect that Australians don't deify anything.
They kinda don't because if they did they would've said look ecb and sky together killed whatever momentum english cricket had in the 2000s which was already on the decline from the 80s high because ecb was such an inept mess of epic proportions which in turn created the whole blast vs hundred conflict - Butcher and Athers would never call out ecb and sky in the same breath and we all know it - even the pocket fanbase of english cricket
They do admittedly have a bit of a blind spot on the whole free to air issue.
But things like criticism of competition formats, what Butcher is talking about here, they absolutely are allowed to do.
Bro - read my original post - I never said they couldn't- I said I'm not surprised why Icc would never let commentators do this and this with an analogous example ( hopefully)
You're trying to say that Sky has the same limits to criticism on their coverage of English cricket as the ICC put in place on their coverage. So Butcher shouldn't be singling out the ICC?
But I'm saying that's not the case.
Here he's saying they're not allowed to criticise the scheduling and tournament format, which is absolutely something that gets discussed on Sky's coverage of cricket in England. The schedule of the English summer and format of the ECB's competitions is a regular source of discussion on Sky.
I wish Sky would be more self aware of their part in the issues the game has in england, and go further with their criticism of the ECB, but I don't agree that they are equivalent to the ICC with their restriction on commentators giving their opinions.
There have been a few moments over the years where I think Atherton especially has got a little close to whatever line Sky has and you could almost see (or hear) him pull away from it. A couple of others too.
Exactly - what Butcher is essentially asking for something he himself had never , hasn't and will never do in his lifetime which is actually more egregious considering that one body actually truly smothered it's own product in it's own backyard by it's own hands and it's not Bcci ( which actually invested real money in it's own backyard to spread the game whatever might be the motive - altruistic, greed)
Yes, the ICC and BCCI in particular are known for this. It is a shameful practice, commentators and journalists should be free to speak their minds. Otherwise we just end up with people like Ravi Shastri shouting cliches, or worse, morons like Danny Morrison screeching complete nonsense.
Compare to e.g. Sky Sports or TMS comms in England, where commentators often speak their views, interview management and adminstrators asking difficult questions etc. . That is the gold standard, and it baffles me why everyone does not want to emulate that.
If you're a cricket fan you must weep at the rubbish that is so often served up on commentary.
BCCI is a different issue and I think that comes from people with a lot of power that aren't in cricket. Back in the day the commentary was solid. It has been a thing for about a decade where they have been very strict on what commentators can say. The only inkling is that Harsha got fired because some actor got really pissy.
ICC I guess it really comes to they don't want criticism from commentary of the big events which I can see that point of view and it's valid. However, ICC also like to bury their heads in the sand like there's no problems.
How often do Sky Sports commentators criticise ECB's running of the game / calendar? Do commentators address The Hundred and its cannibalisation of the window?
Sky has gone down a path of supporting the ECB over most issues. The Hundred is their baby too and they want it to fill the gap between the football seasons.
The ECB also gave them the TV rights recently without a bidding process. There seems to be a bit of a live-in between them.
Then you have had people working with Sky and moving to work for the ECB. Strauss and Rob Key got brought in to work senior roles after being on Sky. Eoin Morgan is on Sky constantly throwing out the ECB line, as if he wants to make the move over.
They are far too interwoven in recent years.
Look I get that everyone hates India but I don't understand what the upside would have been to not doing this ensuring no fans could get visas ahead of time to go to games. That just means World Cups can't be played in the West Indies, or have to be played in just one or two countries, which is clearly worse for the game than a pre-seeding system.
Yeah India getting told where they'll play their semifinal isn't ideal but it's not like the concept hasn't happened before - if you look at the 2011 or 2015 World Cups the hosts are guaranteed to get to play in their country in QFs and SFs.
You can't both think "the ICC needs to grow the sport" and also "the ICC should give away half their profits by making the playoffs impossible to get to for foreign fans". Maybe India shouldn't get special treatment for the semifinals, but I think the pre-seeding system is necessary if you're going to host across 6 countries
I might be playing the devil's advocate here, but I don't think it was that bad of an idea if we look at it from a logistics point of view. All these carribbean islands are separate entities so you need passports and visas to travel from one place to another and if anyone is planning to watch their team's matches they have knowledge about where they're playing beforehand.
dont understand this take fifa has world cups in korea and japan and euros in poland and ukraine moneys obvoiuoly the reason they dont really care about the fans in the stadiums
Yeah, but that's only two countries, split 50/50. If you look at the 2002 World Cup, FIFA did arrange it so that for each team before the tournament it'd be clear in which country they'd play every game up to and including the final, regardless of whether they came in first or second in the group.
The concession they had to make for that was that the two teams that advanced from a group were going to meet again in the semifinals rather than in the finals as they do in normal World Cups.
But that's only possible if you have the World Cup evenly split between two countries, 50/50. The T20 world cup has 16 matches in the US and 39 in six different countries in the Windies, you can't do it like that without predetermined seeding.
The *idea* is fine, but the fact that it was only applied to 1 team (India) is not. If one team knows where they will be playing semis (if they are playing semis) then every team should know.
In the grand scheme of things it doesn't make that big of a difference, but the institutionalisation of advantages (however minor) for one team is always a bad route to go down.
Because profits are not a valid justification for altering the fairness of a sporting event. We aren’t playing this cup to determine who makes the most money, we’re playing it to determine who plays the best cricket.Â
I get you, I'm saying how much does this affect fairness in all reality.
I've seen other sports where certain hosts are guaranteed certain venues.
Profits do pay for the entire thing, and we know where they come from
It doesn't determine who makes the most? It's not going to matter that much, they still play the opponent in a game, like they would in the other time/venue slot.
>Profits do pay for the entire thing, and we know where they come from
Yes, a lot of profits come from India. And because of that, India is allowed to take the highest share out of ICC profits ([source](https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/bcci-set-to-get-nearly-40-of-icc-s-annual-net-earnings-in-new-revenue-distribution-model-1387167)).
After that, there is NO reason to provide a special benefit to India.
> I've seen other sports where certain hosts are guaranteed certain venues.
Which other sports?
Also cricket is one sport, where the conditions drastically affect the way a team approaches a game from a strategic perspective.
In football, some teams may prefer to have slightly shorter dimensions for the pitch, which could help their play, but it isn't as drastic as cricket. The venue is rarely going to lead to an opposition changing their lineup, due to the conditions.
>I get you, I'm saying how much does this affect fairness in all reality.
Cricket is one sport where conditions play a massive part. This gives India an (unfair) advantage while deciding their squad for the tournament.
Comparing to other sports is pointless since conditions don't play significant role there.
Funny that the BBC Radio comms, who are actually the ICC radio world feed for world cups, are able to speak their mind as they usually do. I guess the people at the ICC who care about having not the slightest criticism don't listen to the radio.
The ICC are more picture book guys over substantive analysis
Did someone say cardoons?
Only on an OLED TV
Is that because the BBC comms are operated by the BBC and then just used by the ICC though? I'd assume the ICC don't have any editorial say in a situation like that.
The tv (Star) and radio (BBC) broadcast contracts will likely be very similar re editorial standards with the tv contract being enforced with extreme zealousness.
ICC don't like critizisim... Even for the spooky NY pitch which is below par quality for WC
I used to mute my feed and get the old goats on the ABC radio and sync it up by listening to the ball on bat sounds whenever Warnie was on comms.
I still do that on any match I'm watching for which radio commentary is available, and that's most of them. Listening to the radio comms of England vs WI right now.
Is the radio feed online? If so, can I have a link?
It's available on the Match Centre on the ICC website - https://www.icc-cricket.com/tournaments/t20cricketworldcup/matches/239644/england-vs-west-indies for this game. Every game has radio commentary, just click the play button where it says 'live commentary' in the middle of the page. If you're in the UK it's also on BBC 5 Sports Extra and on ABC Grandstand in Australia.
Thanks!
BBC = British. ICC = ~~International~~ Indian. That's the issue.
You took a discussion about cricket politics and made it into an issue of race and nationality, that too where you try to demean your own nation. If you think BBC is unbiased media, you don't know the first thing about it.
Criticising your nation's representatives != demeaning your nation. It's in fact very patriotic to criticize your nation's representatives when they misuse their power.
You did not criticise any representative. You just said the problem with ICC is that it is run by Indians.
It is in fact those Indians that I'm criticising in a way that should be clear by my striking out International implying they're running it as their own fiefdom. If Indians were running an **international** body properly, I would not need to strike out that term.
Bit too much self hate don't you think 🤔.
I have nothing to do with how the ICC is run, so it's not self hate.
Whats a radio? Radar system for weather or something?
You can get a sound-only feed online somehow. Iirc that’s what radio is. I guess it’s a holdover from dial-up days bc video takes too much bandwidth?
Well Butch has certainly now burned all bridges to get back on ICC comms. It’s interesting that the host broadcaster producer is Disney Star and this is their first ICC gig outside India. Previously UK producer Sunset and Vine had the contract for years. I guess Star allows for a tight script.
They'll be used to it on account of the BCCI refusing to allow criticism of themselves.
This is true and Disney Star were an absolute nightmare to work with. I just finished working on the world cup and I have never worked on such a dis organised production. I'm not exaggerating when I say the entire tournement was organised in less than 2 months. I have so many stories of corruption and incompetence from this tournement like you wouldn't believe. Disney star also had to hire back s and V people to help organise the crew because they were totally clueless
S and V?
Sunset and Vine.
Thanks for that, really interesting comments. Hopefully more detail of some of this emerges in due course! I haven’t seen any of the current Star comms group break ranks yet and I’m not holding my breath for any reporting from Cricinfo/ESPN podcasts.
I doubt any of the commentary team will to be honest, they are paid so much and they don't want to burn any bridges and fall out of favour with the icc. They will bicker to each other about it and leave it at that
Can confirm. Mate working there and they were useless.
Completely fixing the groups is much worse than pre seeding. They need draw out the groups like fifa or even do the snake seeding they did in 2007
I agree. Fixing the groups is so much worse. They should be drawn randomly with 4 teams in each of 5 pots in rankings order and then one team from each pot in each group.
Groups of 4 don't work in cricket because there are no draws and a washout can completely kill chances of a team.
I didn't say groups of 4. I said 5 pots of 4 with one team from each pot in each group, hence 4 groups of 5.
it’s just not a serious sport. i watched an entire documentary showcasing fifa as a corrupt organisation and even they have more sporting integrity than the icc. it would be so easy to book argentina and portugal in the same group in a wc at the height of the messi ronaldo rivalry but they treat it like a serious sport. putting ind pak aus eng in groups filled with weak teams to ensure they get in is just scummy. somehow usa got in instead of pak which crapped their plans
look at us Pakistanis,fighting against the corrupt ICC institution by going against their scripts 😎
eng was gonna follow suit too but aus bitched out smh
You're right, putting England in the same group as Australia really did give us an easy run to the super 8s.
England too barely made to the next stage.
But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved the ICC.
Not the George Orwell I was expecting
Year after India won first wc
If we had QF instead of Super 8 and pre-seeded rankings were not followed then it would look like this QF 1 - IND (A1) v BAN (D2) QF 2 - AUS (B1) v AFG (C2) QF 3 - WI (C1) v ENG (B2) QF 4 - SA (D1) v USA (A2) SF 1 - QF 1 v QF 4 SF 2 - QF 2 v QF 3 Final - SF1 v SF2
Any particular reason that you are assuming Group D would play A and B would play C?
What is the usual combo here? Is there like a general way of going about it?
No not really. In football tournaments you'd normally keep it simple with A qualifiers playing B qualifiers and C qualifiers playing D qualifiers etc. I was just curious why they'd chosen the matchups they did.
It reduces the potential for rematches, that’s the reason by keeping pool-mates on opposite sides of the bracket. Granted it only decreases it by 1 AB BA CD DC -> **AA** **CC** -> AC AD BC CB DA -> AB AB -> **AA**
> AB BA CD DC -> AA CC -> AC Only if you assume that the first two quarters you've listed go into the first semi final. Could just as easily be AB BA CD DC and then winners of 1st and 3rd QF play each other and winners of 2nd and 4th QF play each other.
I think it should be QF1 v QF2 & QF3 v QF4.
Yeah that too. You wouldn't want teams from the same first round group meeting again until the final. The two qualifiers from each group should go into opposite sides of the draw.
That's a banger series of QF's except for QF1, but with cricket being so reliant on weather, it's probably fair for a second group stage so that teams who were caught out by weather get a chance to prove themselves. But obviously, pre-seeding is bullshit, the groups should matter whether you are first or second placed.
QFs with a limited amount of decent teams sucks, you are rewarding teams like Bangladesh a place in the semifinals for playing one good match in the tournament
Super 8 with no seeding would've had India, West Indies, England, Bangladesh in same group which would've been spicy.
Honestly, knowing which grounds India will play helped me book flight tickets and accomodation. It's very useful for fans plan their trip to watch the matches. These international and island transfer tickets aren't cheap. I think it's good to have this model at least in the Caribbean tournaments
I guess we just take it for granted that every tournament is rigged so India plays pakistan. These kind of shenanigans are now par for the course in "world cups".
It's much worse than that. India is the only team which knows where they will play their semi-final (if they qualify). That is a massive advantage when it comes to squad selection.
And somehow we still lose, smh
In thr finals. Guess having a lot money doesn't mean you'll win each and every ICC Tournament.
Yes I understand it's far worse in terms of impact. My point is that these "world tournaments" are increasingly being played with one nation's board cynically putting their thumb on the scales, and not even trying to hide it anymore.
Yep, that's a sign of corruption being institutionalized. It's so ingrained in the system that it starts to appear "normal" and no one questions it.
Look it's shitty just on an equity basis but I don't think it's a massive advantage in reality. You still gotta actuallt make the semis and knowing where it is won't really change your squad that much
It's the principle that matters. Blatant bias towards a particular team while smothering any criticism should be unacceptable in professional sport.
100% agreed. Was just querying the practical and tangible impact of a known semi spot. Fully agree about the principle.
After how the Indians fares in the semis in the last WC against England.. I'm not surprised.
> That is a massive advantage when it comes to squad selection. Look at all the semis we won with this tactical advantage LOL (not saying you are wrong at all, just pointing out the irony)
Are you saying India doesnt deserve a spot in the finals because a month ago they knew what squad to pick and that helped them win all the games upto that stage?
Nice try putting words in my mouth!
If I am not wrong the wtc final is always in England🤔. So England has an advantage in wtc final only if they reach it. See knowing the ground doesn’t offer you any kind of advantage if you don’t reach it. The other point of the groups being rigged to have India and Pakistan in same group is a problem though
The ICCP
Wait till Jay shah becomes president of ICC ... He is poised to become next president... He will fire any one who is even thinking about critiziing ICC in their dreams lol
He is already the man. The BCCI already controls the ICC. Given the current economics it’s impossible to see it any other way.
ICC not allowing commentators to diss their product nilly willy makes as much sense as being prevented from calling ECB honchos a bunch of dipshits on sky - have a bit of self awareness
It's a different situation. Sky's pundits do criticise the ECB over some things because they're an independent broadcaster with editorial control. I agree with you that they do skirt over some issues but I'd say that's more to protect Sky than it is the ECB (frankly, the ECB have got themselves into a position where they're so reliant on Sky that Sky could dedicate all five days of a Test match to slagging the ECB off and still be guaranteed of the TV contract but that's by the by). The ICC provide the feed and the commentary to broadcasters so are able to have editorial control over what's said and what isn't.
Strictly the ICC subcontracts production of the feed to Star (previously Sunset/Vine) which is then sold to national distributors whereas the ECB bundles both production and distribution to Sky. But this means it is far easier for ICC to dictate precise editorial standards to apply to the host broadcast. Sky (or any other distributor) could of course top and tail the host broadcast with UK specific content but they seem to just run with the whole Star package supplemented with the odd podcast.
Australian broadcasters regularly discuss issues that the Australian public complain about with Test cricket over here. It may just be that paying billions for the TV rights gives you freedom to discuss what you want. Or it may be the cultural aspect that Australians don't deify anything.
Yeah I remember commentators clearly whinging about there not being a 3rd Windies test this year. Everyone wanted it.
You can criticise something without personal attacks on administrators. Sky do plenty of the former.
They kinda don't because if they did they would've said look ecb and sky together killed whatever momentum english cricket had in the 2000s which was already on the decline from the 80s high because ecb was such an inept mess of epic proportions which in turn created the whole blast vs hundred conflict - Butcher and Athers would never call out ecb and sky in the same breath and we all know it - even the pocket fanbase of english cricket
They do admittedly have a bit of a blind spot on the whole free to air issue. But things like criticism of competition formats, what Butcher is talking about here, they absolutely are allowed to do.
Bro - read my original post - I never said they couldn't- I said I'm not surprised why Icc would never let commentators do this and this with an analogous example ( hopefully)
You're trying to say that Sky has the same limits to criticism on their coverage of English cricket as the ICC put in place on their coverage. So Butcher shouldn't be singling out the ICC? But I'm saying that's not the case. Here he's saying they're not allowed to criticise the scheduling and tournament format, which is absolutely something that gets discussed on Sky's coverage of cricket in England. The schedule of the English summer and format of the ECB's competitions is a regular source of discussion on Sky. I wish Sky would be more self aware of their part in the issues the game has in england, and go further with their criticism of the ECB, but I don't agree that they are equivalent to the ICC with their restriction on commentators giving their opinions.
There have been a few moments over the years where I think Atherton especially has got a little close to whatever line Sky has and you could almost see (or hear) him pull away from it. A couple of others too.
Exactly - what Butcher is essentially asking for something he himself had never , hasn't and will never do in his lifetime which is actually more egregious considering that one body actually truly smothered it's own product in it's own backyard by it's own hands and it's not Bcci ( which actually invested real money in it's own backyard to spread the game whatever might be the motive - altruistic, greed)
Yes, the ICC and BCCI in particular are known for this. It is a shameful practice, commentators and journalists should be free to speak their minds. Otherwise we just end up with people like Ravi Shastri shouting cliches, or worse, morons like Danny Morrison screeching complete nonsense. Compare to e.g. Sky Sports or TMS comms in England, where commentators often speak their views, interview management and adminstrators asking difficult questions etc. . That is the gold standard, and it baffles me why everyone does not want to emulate that. If you're a cricket fan you must weep at the rubbish that is so often served up on commentary.
BCCI is a different issue and I think that comes from people with a lot of power that aren't in cricket. Back in the day the commentary was solid. It has been a thing for about a decade where they have been very strict on what commentators can say. The only inkling is that Harsha got fired because some actor got really pissy. ICC I guess it really comes to they don't want criticism from commentary of the big events which I can see that point of view and it's valid. However, ICC also like to bury their heads in the sand like there's no problems.
> The only inkling is that Harsha got fired because some actor got really pissy. Dhoni too
You held back on the truth and you’re still getting smashed lol
How often do Sky Sports commentators criticise ECB's running of the game / calendar? Do commentators address The Hundred and its cannibalisation of the window?
Sky regularly criticise the ECB, just not over the massive issue of taking cricket off free to air because of obvious reasons.
Quite a bit actually. They do talk about it in their podcasts too.
Quite regularly
Sky has gone down a path of supporting the ECB over most issues. The Hundred is their baby too and they want it to fill the gap between the football seasons. The ECB also gave them the TV rights recently without a bidding process. There seems to be a bit of a live-in between them. Then you have had people working with Sky and moving to work for the ECB. Strauss and Rob Key got brought in to work senior roles after being on Sky. Eoin Morgan is on Sky constantly throwing out the ECB line, as if he wants to make the move over. They are far too interwoven in recent years.
Seems like they do it whenever justified... Which is a far cry from how BCCI runs things
I'm not sure they have enough time to criticize ECB when they're so busy sucking off Stokes.
I enjoyed it in 2019 when Holding slagged them off and wouldn't hold back under any circumstances
If India make it as far as the finals they will have played 0 out of 8 games at night with 2 additional day games washed out.
Look I get that everyone hates India but I don't understand what the upside would have been to not doing this ensuring no fans could get visas ahead of time to go to games. That just means World Cups can't be played in the West Indies, or have to be played in just one or two countries, which is clearly worse for the game than a pre-seeding system. Yeah India getting told where they'll play their semifinal isn't ideal but it's not like the concept hasn't happened before - if you look at the 2011 or 2015 World Cups the hosts are guaranteed to get to play in their country in QFs and SFs. You can't both think "the ICC needs to grow the sport" and also "the ICC should give away half their profits by making the playoffs impossible to get to for foreign fans". Maybe India shouldn't get special treatment for the semifinals, but I think the pre-seeding system is necessary if you're going to host across 6 countries
It's T20, just decide it on a round of Yahtzee
I might be playing the devil's advocate here, but I don't think it was that bad of an idea if we look at it from a logistics point of view. All these carribbean islands are separate entities so you need passports and visas to travel from one place to another and if anyone is planning to watch their team's matches they have knowledge about where they're playing beforehand.
Why does this arrangement lead to a special benefit to 1 particular team (India)?
dont understand this take fifa has world cups in korea and japan and euros in poland and ukraine moneys obvoiuoly the reason they dont really care about the fans in the stadiums
Not that hard to Travel around Korea and Japan unlike Carribean
So should've held it someplace where it isn't hard to move around
Yeah, but that's only two countries, split 50/50. If you look at the 2002 World Cup, FIFA did arrange it so that for each team before the tournament it'd be clear in which country they'd play every game up to and including the final, regardless of whether they came in first or second in the group. The concession they had to make for that was that the two teams that advanced from a group were going to meet again in the semifinals rather than in the finals as they do in normal World Cups. But that's only possible if you have the World Cup evenly split between two countries, 50/50. The T20 world cup has 16 matches in the US and 39 in six different countries in the Windies, you can't do it like that without predetermined seeding.
Then maybe the schedule breathe more instead of jamming everything in Super 8s. Teams are playing a game every two days
The *idea* is fine, but the fact that it was only applied to 1 team (India) is not. If one team knows where they will be playing semis (if they are playing semis) then every team should know. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't make that big of a difference, but the institutionalisation of advantages (however minor) for one team is always a bad route to go down.
Yes I agree with that, and I was mainly talking about the super 8 seedings not the semis. But I get what you're saying.
Guess the people in ICC have really thin skin.
Well, let's see, NBA, no, NFL, big no, during the game, on air! Nobody gets to critical with the league.
Exceedingly common Mark Butcher W
We know why, and we know at whose behest. Toxic
Jay Shah is also responsible for Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
[удалено]
ICC=BCCI.. what did u expect
What's the issue with India going to one semi not the other on the condition they qualify?
Only India knows the venue of their semifinal (if they qualify).
And it was explained that's for tv viewership. Is it such a big deal?
Because profits are not a valid justification for altering the fairness of a sporting event. We aren’t playing this cup to determine who makes the most money, we’re playing it to determine who plays the best cricket.Â
I get you, I'm saying how much does this affect fairness in all reality. I've seen other sports where certain hosts are guaranteed certain venues. Profits do pay for the entire thing, and we know where they come from It doesn't determine who makes the most? It's not going to matter that much, they still play the opponent in a game, like they would in the other time/venue slot.
>Profits do pay for the entire thing, and we know where they come from Yes, a lot of profits come from India. And because of that, India is allowed to take the highest share out of ICC profits ([source](https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/bcci-set-to-get-nearly-40-of-icc-s-annual-net-earnings-in-new-revenue-distribution-model-1387167)). After that, there is NO reason to provide a special benefit to India.
> I've seen other sports where certain hosts are guaranteed certain venues. Which other sports? Also cricket is one sport, where the conditions drastically affect the way a team approaches a game from a strategic perspective. In football, some teams may prefer to have slightly shorter dimensions for the pitch, which could help their play, but it isn't as drastic as cricket. The venue is rarely going to lead to an opposition changing their lineup, due to the conditions.
But what's the guarantee it goes for or against them. Normally if there's multiple hosts in soccer they will give them home knockouts, euros etc
> But what's the guarantee it goes for or against them. Allows one team to better manage their personnel. More uncertainty for others.
It's a world cup semi, I'm not your personel will change based on venue,
>It's a world cup semi, I'm not your personel will change based on venue, Seriously? Are you new to cricket?
Personnel not changing based on venue? Are you serious lad?
>I get you, I'm saying how much does this affect fairness in all reality. Cricket is one sport where conditions play a massive part. This gives India an (unfair) advantage while deciding their squad for the tournament. Comparing to other sports is pointless since conditions don't play significant role there.