Breaking/Brief news
October 12, 2009
BCCI demands that ICC stop multi-team events
In a dramatic development following India being knocked out from the
The BCCI has evidence that India's "performance" at such events (won 0 out of the 3 events that had 4 or more teams - 2006 ICCCT, 2007 WC and 2008 Asia Cup) was significantly correlated with the number of teams participating. Additional evidence, in the form of having won 14 out of 20 bilateral series India played in during the same period, provides the BCCI enough statistical data to back its argument.
After all, if the ICC really wants cricket's
Sources within the BCCI are extremely pissed off that this attitude hides India's actual on-field performances, including some bizarre captaincy against Pakistan where the skipper MS Dhoni hid himself at #5 during a chase of 300+. In Yuvraj's absence, Dhoni was clearly the side's best batsman. So why he sent Kohli ahead of himself and Raina was difficult to understand.
This wasn't the first time he showed a lack of leadership though. During the T20 World Cup, he batted at 4 against Bangladesh & Ireland, and went in at #6 against England.
The Champions Trophy showed us that this 2009 Australian side, which would have been thrashed by the 2007 version, was still so much better than the rest of the field? Surely it's not as though the Australians have improved. Far from it, the rest of the teams have regressed - mainly Sri Lanka, India & South Africa. That can't be good news.
As for the on-going Champions League T20, I'm finding it hard to cope with the multiple acronyms floating around (CC v RCB, SCCC v T&T, NSWB v SS, etc.). Also somehow, the quality of cricket seen at the IPL seems better. Perhaps some of the CL T20 teams are getting in on a country-based quota. For e.g., would the other losing semi-finalist (Chennai Super Kings) from the 2009 IPL or the domestic T20 tournaments in Pakistan / Australia or South Africa have been better than Wayamba or Otago?
In a move that wasn't too much of a surprise, Cricket Australia picked a rookie spinner for the 7-ODI series in India.
Australia have been quite clueless about their spin bowling options for nearly 2 years now. Now they've picked 22 year old Jon Holland, who has a total of 21 domestic wickets from 23 innings, at an average in excess of 45.
Of course, it is entirely likely that he will succeed in India, and justify the selectors' wisdom!
Labels: 2009 champions trophy, australia, bcci, captaincy, champions league, champions trophy, dhoni, icc, india, spin
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed -
|
This is another example of the BCCI claiming authority because of their status in the international game. The interntional game has to remian in control of the ICC for the best of ALL nations, the BCCI need to understand that. I would prefer an 12 team global event, without India, than a 4 team one anyday with India if the choice is to be made.
I was also surprised at the selection of Holland as Australia’s second spinner. However, there is little depth in Austrlian cricket in the spin department. Bryan McGrain has done suprisingly well in the domestic T20 competitions, so why is he not selected?
As for the CLT20, I agree that the quality on show has been quite poor, but I think that blame must also go to the pitches as well as the players on show. The pitches are slow paced, with little bounce, not inredients of a good T20 game.
http://www.englandcricket.wordpress.com
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