Breaking/Brief news
November 14, 2008
Why is the England v India series a 7 ODI 2 test series?
Rob Steen's comment piece on Cricinfo a couple of days ago titled "The battle of the boards" listed out multiple instances of the ECB and the BCCI being on opposite sides, determined to not concede an inch. He quoted the chief executive of the Professional Cricketers Association, Sean Morris, as claiming that the BCCI had devalued the forthcoming series by making it a two-test series.
Now, I haven't been able to find any reference online to such a quote by Sean Morris. So I'll take it with a pinch of salt. Yet, I do foresee the possibility that several writers, especially from the English media, will harp on about how the BCCI had got its way with playing only 2 tests since it didn't care for test cricket.
Let's just go through a sequence of events, beginning from the early part of this century. The 1990s don't really matter, because Indian cricket was in a totally different shape then.
2001/2: When the scheduling for England's tour to India in 2001/02 and India's tour of England in 2002 was being worked out, the ECB wanted the Indian team to play 4 tests (originally a 3 test series) and the NatWest Series. In return, the BCCI requested for an extra 7th ODI, which was agreed to.
2002: India play 4 tests & 7 ODIs in the NatWest Series in England.
2004: The Indian team went to England to play in the 2004 ICC Champions Trophy. Before that, the ECB got the BCCI to agree to playing a 3 ODI NatWest Challenge, with the obvious intention of capitalizing on the Indian diaspora turning up in droves to watch their favourite cricketers.
2006: The BCCI got the ECB to agree to a 3 test 7 ODI series obviously since the ECB had got its pound of flesh in 2004.
2007: BCCI returned the favour and India played 3 tests and 7 ODIs in England.
2008: The series would have been a 3 test 7 ODI series, since it appears to be the agreement that the BCCI and ECB have reached. But England's players wanted to be home for Christmas. So the series became 2 tests.
What Sean Morris, and indeed anyone else who blames the BCCI for making it a 2 test series, is implying that it is ok for the ECB to make money when India tours, but the BCCI stands guilty of devaluing test cricket, when the fact is that England's players didn't want to stay on!
Labels: bcci, ecb, eng v ind 2008, england, scheduling
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed -
| well, that's clearly not fair now is it? Indians always end-up playing during the Hindu festival of Diwali... So the English players could play during Christmas, fair enough?
Besides, think about say Owais Shah or Monty Panesar or Bopara. They wouldn't care too much about Christmas, would they?
By 
Jagadish (15 Nov 2008, 8:20:00 pm)
We'd prefer if you posted comments with your real name to add more credibility to your opinions. However, the moderators reserve the right to delete comments, especially those containing offensive or unsuitable language. The opinions in the comments are your own views. You are welcome to provide a URL to your own cricket blog, but the moderators reserve the right to delete comments which only reference sites for viewing live streams.
Links within entries open in a new window. Some of the links may now be broken/not take you to the expected report since the original content providers may have archived/removed the contents. Some of the sites linked may require registration/subscription.
All opinions expressed are those of the authors alone. The authors' respective employers (past, present or future) are in no way connected to the opinions expressed here.
All pictures, photographs used are copyrights of the original owners. We do not intend to infringe on any copyright. Pictures and photographs are used here to merely accentuate and enhance the content value to our readers.
|
|
|
|
Post a Comment