The cricket community seems so concerned about the teams outside the Test playing world, that the members of the elite club are forgotten conveniently.
In all the campaign to get more associates to play the 2019 World Cup, everyone has forgotten the existing Full Members. Some of the Full Members are in a very bad shape and may well not be around in ten years’ time if not much attention is paid now.
The sudden retirement of Brendan Taylor from Zimbabwe cricket is a case in point to where one weak Full Member is headed. Since 2004-05 when an entire generation of players exited the scene, Zimbabwe has been in the doldrums. They barely compete when up against the bigger sides and even struggle at times against the Associate nations.
With Taylor pulling out, the fight in the Zimbabwe camp will go down again. The side seemed to have settled with Taylor as captain in all formats, before he was ‘demoted’ to Test captain. Taylor’s decision to become a Kolpak Player, much like former teammate Kyle Jarvis, is a pointer towards where Zimbabwe cricket is headed. Players are not being paid on time, the domestic cricket is non-existent and an even smaller pool of players exists than before.
While the rest of the world battles for the Associates, what about some outrage for Zimbabwe? A Test playing nation since 1992, Zimbabwe enjoyed some of the best moments in their cricket in the 1990s, including beating India in an one-off Test in 1998. But sadly, collectively the world has looked away while Zimbabwe slipped towards disaster.
Taylor is the newest in the list of Zimbabwe players who are being forced to look elsewhere for greener pastures. Jarvis, a seam bowler, would have made a big impact in the Zimbabwe attack, but he too had to pull out. Another former captain Tatenda Taibu had quit the game, albeit for personal reasons.
So Zimbabwe’s attempts to build a decent side has gone to bits, yet again.
Zimbabwe’s problems started with the 2003 World Cup when their best-ever batsman Andy Flower and fast bowler Henry Olonga staged a very public protest against the political situation of the country. Then willingly an entire generation of cricketers were allowed to leave, as the cricketing world so concerned about Associates looked the other way.
While Associates like Ireland and Afghanistan showed some spark, the international cricketing community must look to put the Full Member world in order, before trying to bat for the minnows. What is the point of having 14 sides at a World Cup when the Full Members themselves are in shambles?
You also have the situation in West Indies, where the very identity of the Island grouping will surely come into question shortly. West Indies players have rebelled time and again, as they battled the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) over payment issues. Senior players Dwayne Bravo and Kieron Pollard are not there Down Under with the squad as a punishment for rebelling. Similarly with Pakistan the fact that the side does not get to play at home and also has limited opportunities in lucrative leagues, has meant that the development of the sport there is slowing down.
Can cricket still afford to be concerned about the associates, when their actual strength the Test playing world is struggling? It is all very well to battle for the rights of an Ireland and Afghanistan, but what about Pakistan, West Indies and Zimbabwe? Cricket surely cannot be a 10-team sport, but growth of the game at the cost of the core members is not a good sign.
The best example of world cricket’s apathy is the state of Kenyan cricket. Once the darling of the same outrage fraternity is now nowhere on the scene. Kenya has lost their ODI status and have an even bigger battle to qualify for the 2019 World Cup. A 2003 World Cup semi-finalist, Kenya was a victim of poor administration. Again the world cricket community looked the other way as the gains of the 2003 effort was not built on.
Don’t let Zimbabwe slip down further, act now
Re: Don’t let Zimbabwe slip down further, act now
They just cannot resist stealing the money and there appears to be no recourse when they do. I know about the Zim Board and would imagine the other two are the same, it appears well nigh impossible to winkle out the thieves from office.
The option is for ICC to administrate these boards or make them agree to a completely transparent way of doing it themselves, and the only way is to have an ICC representative on site and rotated periodically so they don't get taught the evil ways. They have Zim on the ropes in this regard but they won't twist the knife. ZC knows it's coming hence the appointment of AC as a stalling tactic. It is blatantly obvious that they are completely incapable of self governance.
The option is for ICC to administrate these boards or make them agree to a completely transparent way of doing it themselves, and the only way is to have an ICC representative on site and rotated periodically so they don't get taught the evil ways. They have Zim on the ropes in this regard but they won't twist the knife. ZC knows it's coming hence the appointment of AC as a stalling tactic. It is blatantly obvious that they are completely incapable of self governance.
Re: Don’t let Zimbabwe slip down further, act now
To be fair I think Kenya was smoke and mirrors. 2003 was the end of a golden generation and was never going to be the start of anything bigger. That being said, Kenya should not have declined to the degree they have. Ireland perhaps have a shot at long term success as they have had three World Cups now where they have done well.
Neil Johnson, Alistair Campbell, Murray Goodwin, Andy Flower (w), Grant Flower, Dave Houghton, Guy Whittall, Heath Streak (c), Andy Blignaut, Ray Price, Eddo Brandes
Re: Don’t let Zimbabwe slip down further, act now
Hey all. Long time.
Firstly I want to extend my appreciation to Brendan Taylor and he will definitely be missed on the international cricket scene.
Secondly I want to congratulate Zimbabwe on a hard fought, if unsuccessful World Cup campaign. Zimbabwe should have won against Ireland and had the foundations for doing so against West Indies and India.
Now to the topic of the thread:
That's because people loving rooting for champions and underdogs. Full members who do not perform well are not considered underdogs but simply dogs or wastes of space.
This is best exemplified by Bangladesh. When they were an associate, the associate crowd would root for them and the cricket community would look on them favourably as a budding associate. Once they became a full member though they were generally trashed by the associate crowd and cricket community alike with their place being questioned openly and often. More often than not this questioning and the perceived solutions (demote Bangladesh or demote Bangladesh and promote Ireland) are rooted in total ignorance of how the ICC actually works (full members do not get demoted and full members were NEVER promoted PRIMARILY on performance but mainly on having a cricketing culture and cricket infrastructure and domestic tournaments of multi-day formats in place). At times the questioning and perceived solutions are also outright racism dressed up as promotion of meritocracy.
I don't see why they can't do both. After all a number of things which can be done to help improve the troubled full members and the top associates don't necessarily require enormous sums of cash. For instance the ICC could set out a "Tour Match Program" whereby they mandate touring full member teams to play against teams from the troubled full members and from the associates when going on tour for any of the full members. For example a tour to England by India could see India mandated to play against a West Indies Emerging Players XI as well as Ireland, the Netherlands and Scotland. Not all at once though but perhaps to play a 2-day match against Ireland and a 3-day match against the WI Emerging Players XI before playing a 3-day or 4-day match against a county side. Then maybe a 50-over match against the WI Emerging Players and a 50-over match against a county and then 20-over matches against the Netherlands and Scotland.
For South Africa, a West Indies tour there could see them mandated to play against a Zimbabwe Franchises XI, Namibia and a South African domestic side.
For India, perhaps Australia touring there could see the team playing against a Pakistani team, the UAE and a Bangladeshi team in the UAE as warm ups for India.
That's extremely unlikely I think from where I sit in the WI. You see there has ALWAYS been some mumbling about some territory or other "going it alone". Be it Barbados in the 1970s when Barbados was very, very strong; Jamaica and Trinidad & Tobago in the 1990s and 2000s when those teams were relatively strong and/or some of their players didn't get selected or Guyana I think in the 1970s or 1980s or the British Virgin Islands in the 2000s. However half the time that is just a territory griping about a selection or perhaps trying to get noticed and have their players looked after. The other half of the time it is just some extreme insularity on display. No territory though has ever seriously pushed for it even though they are all free to do so. Most cricket administrators in the territories know full well that leaving the WI system now would put them in the wilderness for at least 10 years during which time they have ZERO guarantees that there will be any sufficient level of support for cricket left for them to apply for full membership (the ICC no longer admits any territory as a full member off the bat.The last was Pakistan in the 1950s. Since then the admission rules have changed so that new territories HAVE to be admitted as affiliates or more rarely as associates and then apply for full membership...and the ICC takes a loooong time before elevating associates to full membership..look at Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh as prime examples). As in other full members, multi-day cricket is currently sustained off revenues from the more popular forms of the game throughout the West Indies. Without the revenues coming in from ODIs, T20Is, and test matches and world cups, most clubs in the WI might end up playing 2-day cricket at most on the weekends and some would likely go the Bermuda route of doing away with anything over 50 overs and even considering doing away with anything over 20 overs. The reason for that is that any territory which seceded would likely do so on the grounds that it could make more money for itself separately, but from that viewpoint all the top administrators in the country would definitely be thinking in short terms with regards to money and not long term. Hence multi-day cricket would likely be chopped as a waste of expenditure rather than an investment in applying for full membership and a seat at the gravy train.
Additionally with the Champions League Twenty20 now there is actually even less incentive for individual territorial boards to split because no WI = no access to the Champions League. After all who can tell me how many Irish clubs currently qualify for a spot in the Champions League T20? The answer of course is none since the organizers of the Champions League T20 (CLT20) have zero incentive to include domestic clubs or franchises from outside the full members. If Trinidad and Tobago split from the WI, then T&T as a national team would be automatically barred from qualifying for the Champions League and T&T clubs are unlikely to be offered any kind of qualification spot. This means that the chance of ever getting US$2.5 million Champions League prize money for the CLT20 winner (out of a total of $6 million in prize money overall) goes out the window. Couple that with the fact that any seceding territory is unlikely to included in the Caribbean Premier League (with its US$250,000 prize money for the winner PLUS a chance to win ten times that much from automatic qualification for the CLT20) and there is massive financial disincentive for leaving.
Hosting rights (and the money that flows from that) also make it unfavourable to leave. The ICC has a more or less unofficial policy of rotating tournaments among full members (and among continents) with those full members being able to choose whether or not they wish to include neighbouring countries in the hosting process. In 2007 the West Indies hosted the Cricket World Cup, but ideas for including Bermuda and Florida as potential venues went nowhere partly because there was little incentive for the individual boards to cut back on the matches that they themselves could host in order to include some territories outside of the WI cricket family. Distance (for Bermuda) and visas (for Florida) also played a role most likely.
And finally the regional integration initiative (the Caribbean Community and its Single Market and Economy or CSME) could potentially cripple any seceding territory in terms of available talent. You see since 2005/06 there has been a right of free movement between the countries making up the CSME if they have certain minimum qualifications. Among the categories of qualifications is being a sportsperson. The current WICB territories are Antigua & Barbuda, St. Kitts, Nevis (one country of St Kitts & Nevis but they play separately within the Leeward Islands), Montserrat, the British Virgin Islands, the US Virgin Islands, St. Maarten, (all the preceding territories make up the first class territory of the Leeward Islands), Dominica, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Grenada, St. Lucia (the four preceding territories make up the first class territory of the Windward Islands), Barbados, Jamaica, Guyana and Trinidad & Tobago. The current CSME members are Antigua & Barbuda, St. Kitts & Nevis, Montserrat (sort of), Dominica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Grenada, Barbados, Jamaica, Guyana, Trinidad & Tobago, Belize and Suriname.
Belize and Suriname do not have cricketers as yet of sufficient calibre that could perhaps move to another territory and basically bang down the door on the selectors for the clubs or for any of the first-class territories, but if say...Barbados were to secede from the WICB but remain as part of the CSME then any Barbadian cricketers would have a very easy route back into the international arena and even if they did not get back into the international arena they would have an easy route back into the West Indies professional cricket league and Caribbean Premier League. With freedom of movement the more talented Bajan cricketers would likely move to any of the other territories in both the CSME and WICB in order to pursue cricket professionally (indeed the WICB in a recent meeting made it mandatory for the first-class franchises to pick 2 players from the next draft that were from other territories and this is facilitated by the CSME's freedom of movement). And they wouldn't need a work permit or have to wait for months upon months for their application to be approved. They could do so very quickly (within 2 months) and in the process the Barbadian cricket scene would be weakened and left bereft of the top talent. What this then does is make it even harder for the seceding territory to maintain a domestic system sufficient for the territory itself to apply for full membership of the ICC.
Now of course the lead underperformers who lead the strike (Bravo, Pollard) are finding themselves more or less sidelined. And they seem to have taken the hint as they have both retired from first class cricket (and hence made themselves unavailable for test selection). They now have ALL their eggs in one basket (T20) and it would not surprise me if over time, better T20 domestic players eventually displaced them in the West Indies T20 side. That will leave them with pretty much only the IPL and CPL. And even there they might feel a bit nervous given that in the recent IPL auction many West Indian players were not picked up by the franchises and for many teams in the IPL part of the star power of international players are those who are actually international players. They might well continue to be given renewed contracts but the value of those contracts might well decrease. Domestically the strikers found scant support among the non-international players since the sponsorship money that the international players had been getting for years as apparent double payment was supposed to be redirected (as negotiated by the WICB and WIPA under a new WIPA president) towards having professional contracts for about 90 domestic players in the six territories. Not many of these 90 players would be thrilled with the idea of well paid international players getting back the money which their players association had negotiated to be paid out to more of the collective membership instead. Indeed, I think even Tino Best spoke out against Bravo and his stance. The matter is now before arbitration and the WICB and WIPA presidents who originally negotiated the deal were both recently re-elected. For the next two years at least I don't see the WICB and WIPA having bad relations and since the ICC came out and basically warned the players not to pull a stunt like that again lest they threaten their spots in lucrative T20 leagues around the world (FICA's feeble protestations to the contrary being ineffective) and with some new players likely to feature then board-player relations should not be as acrimonious in the near to medium term. The outcome of the arbitration would be something to watch though.
However, with Afghanistan now beginning to play FOUR-day domestic cricket (the only non-full member to do so; Ireland currently only has three-day domestic cricket and Argentina has it's annual 3-day North v South match), and building more international quality stadia I think within a decade or so of Afghanistan's rise to prominence (which started in 2008) we might, just might see Afghanistan promoted to being a full member. And I would think that Pakistan and Afghanistan would have little problems touring each other given the similar security environment in each. That might temper the slow down in development of cricket in Pakistan and open a window to tours by other countries in the future if Afghanistan manages to tour there without incident (and vice versa)
Those are not bodies that are going to be transparent and uncorrupt.
Ireland perhaps have a shot at long term success, and that they are finally putting in place the domestic structures to help unearth and build new talent is encouraging. I continue to have suspicions though that for a variety of reasons (the freedom of movement between Ireland and Britain as part of bilateral UK and Republic of Ireland agreements as well as under the European Union and European Economic Area; the draw of English cricket; the desire to ultimately play for England for some Northern Irish players; Cricket Ireland's historically slow moves towards putting in place what is necessary...), Ireland's success may wane in the future after this generation of players. Hopefully not though.
Firstly I want to extend my appreciation to Brendan Taylor and he will definitely be missed on the international cricket scene.
Secondly I want to congratulate Zimbabwe on a hard fought, if unsuccessful World Cup campaign. Zimbabwe should have won against Ireland and had the foundations for doing so against West Indies and India.
Now to the topic of the thread:
vikas wrote:The cricket community seems so concerned about the teams outside the Test playing world, that the members of the elite club are forgotten conveniently.
That's because people loving rooting for champions and underdogs. Full members who do not perform well are not considered underdogs but simply dogs or wastes of space.
This is best exemplified by Bangladesh. When they were an associate, the associate crowd would root for them and the cricket community would look on them favourably as a budding associate. Once they became a full member though they were generally trashed by the associate crowd and cricket community alike with their place being questioned openly and often. More often than not this questioning and the perceived solutions (demote Bangladesh or demote Bangladesh and promote Ireland) are rooted in total ignorance of how the ICC actually works (full members do not get demoted and full members were NEVER promoted PRIMARILY on performance but mainly on having a cricketing culture and cricket infrastructure and domestic tournaments of multi-day formats in place). At times the questioning and perceived solutions are also outright racism dressed up as promotion of meritocracy.
Yes, the situation could be quite grim in a decade. I doubt though that any full member is really in danger of not being around. But being further crippled for a generation or two in terms of cricketing performance and strength is a definite possibility.In all the campaign to get more associates to play the 2019 World Cup, everyone has forgotten the existing Full Members. Some of the Full Members are in a very bad shape and may well not be around in ten years’ time if not much attention is paid now.
Yes, very unfortunate. However in another thread on Franchise stats I noted that there were 38 players in there who were highlighted with an above 40 average with the bat or a below 25 average with the ball. How many of those 38 are still a possibility to feature for Zimbabwe internationally?The sudden retirement of Brendan Taylor from Zimbabwe cricket is a case in point to where one weak Full Member is headed. Since 2004-05 when an entire generation of players exited the scene, Zimbabwe has been in the doldrums. They barely compete when up against the bigger sides and even struggle at times against the Associate nations.
With Taylor pulling out, the fight in the Zimbabwe camp will go down again. The side seemed to have settled with Taylor as captain in all formats, before he was ‘demoted’ to Test captain. Taylor’s decision to become a Kolpak Player, much like former teammate Kyle Jarvis, is a pointer towards where Zimbabwe cricket is headed.
Yep, pay definitely needs to be sorted out as late pay will drive players to pursue other ventures instead of cricket. How is it though that domestic cricket is non-existent? I thought the franchise system meant that you had first-class and list A teams playing double round robin for about 6 years now?Players are not being paid on time, the domestic cricket is non-existent and an even smaller pool of players exists than before.
See above. At least Zimbabwe had a honeymoon period with the cricket community. Bangladesh has been ridiculed without end. Now of course with Bangladesh through (and knocking England out in the process) and performing not too shabbily in this World Cup, that country might at last be in for less denigration even if temporarily.While the rest of the world battles for the Associates, what about some outrage for Zimbabwe? A Test playing nation since 1992, Zimbabwe enjoyed some of the best moments in their cricket in the 1990s, including beating India in an one-off Test in 1998. But sadly, collectively the world has looked away while Zimbabwe slipped towards disaster.
Well that accounts for 3 out of the 38 top performers listed in the the stats thread.....Taylor is the newest in the list of Zimbabwe players who are being forced to look elsewhere for greener pastures. Jarvis, a seam bowler, would have made a big impact in the Zimbabwe attack, but he too had to pull out. Another former captain Tatenda Taibu had quit the game, albeit for personal reasons.
Yes, the frequent rebuilding doesn't help Zimbabwe, West Indies, Bangladesh or Pakistan.So Zimbabwe’s attempts to build a decent side has gone to bits, yet again.
Yes, that crippled Zimbabwe, but I maintain hope that such a scenario will be unlikely to occur again. Certainly Zimbabwe will lose some good players in a more piecemeal fashion, but losing an entire crop just like that would damage ANY full member. Badly.Zimbabwe’s problems started with the 2003 World Cup when their best-ever batsman Andy Flower and fast bowler Henry Olonga staged a very public protest against the political situation of the country. Then willingly an entire generation of cricketers were allowed to leave, as the cricketing world so concerned about Associates looked the other way.
While Associates like Ireland and Afghanistan showed some spark, the international cricketing community must look to put the Full Member world in order, before trying to bat for the minnows.
I don't see why they can't do both. After all a number of things which can be done to help improve the troubled full members and the top associates don't necessarily require enormous sums of cash. For instance the ICC could set out a "Tour Match Program" whereby they mandate touring full member teams to play against teams from the troubled full members and from the associates when going on tour for any of the full members. For example a tour to England by India could see India mandated to play against a West Indies Emerging Players XI as well as Ireland, the Netherlands and Scotland. Not all at once though but perhaps to play a 2-day match against Ireland and a 3-day match against the WI Emerging Players XI before playing a 3-day or 4-day match against a county side. Then maybe a 50-over match against the WI Emerging Players and a 50-over match against a county and then 20-over matches against the Netherlands and Scotland.
For South Africa, a West Indies tour there could see them mandated to play against a Zimbabwe Franchises XI, Namibia and a South African domestic side.
For India, perhaps Australia touring there could see the team playing against a Pakistani team, the UAE and a Bangladeshi team in the UAE as warm ups for India.
Agreed.What is the point of having 14 sides at a World Cup when the Full Members themselves are in shambles?
You also have the situation in West Indies, where the very identity of the Island grouping will surely come into question shortly.
That's extremely unlikely I think from where I sit in the WI. You see there has ALWAYS been some mumbling about some territory or other "going it alone". Be it Barbados in the 1970s when Barbados was very, very strong; Jamaica and Trinidad & Tobago in the 1990s and 2000s when those teams were relatively strong and/or some of their players didn't get selected or Guyana I think in the 1970s or 1980s or the British Virgin Islands in the 2000s. However half the time that is just a territory griping about a selection or perhaps trying to get noticed and have their players looked after. The other half of the time it is just some extreme insularity on display. No territory though has ever seriously pushed for it even though they are all free to do so. Most cricket administrators in the territories know full well that leaving the WI system now would put them in the wilderness for at least 10 years during which time they have ZERO guarantees that there will be any sufficient level of support for cricket left for them to apply for full membership (the ICC no longer admits any territory as a full member off the bat.The last was Pakistan in the 1950s. Since then the admission rules have changed so that new territories HAVE to be admitted as affiliates or more rarely as associates and then apply for full membership...and the ICC takes a loooong time before elevating associates to full membership..look at Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh as prime examples). As in other full members, multi-day cricket is currently sustained off revenues from the more popular forms of the game throughout the West Indies. Without the revenues coming in from ODIs, T20Is, and test matches and world cups, most clubs in the WI might end up playing 2-day cricket at most on the weekends and some would likely go the Bermuda route of doing away with anything over 50 overs and even considering doing away with anything over 20 overs. The reason for that is that any territory which seceded would likely do so on the grounds that it could make more money for itself separately, but from that viewpoint all the top administrators in the country would definitely be thinking in short terms with regards to money and not long term. Hence multi-day cricket would likely be chopped as a waste of expenditure rather than an investment in applying for full membership and a seat at the gravy train.
Additionally with the Champions League Twenty20 now there is actually even less incentive for individual territorial boards to split because no WI = no access to the Champions League. After all who can tell me how many Irish clubs currently qualify for a spot in the Champions League T20? The answer of course is none since the organizers of the Champions League T20 (CLT20) have zero incentive to include domestic clubs or franchises from outside the full members. If Trinidad and Tobago split from the WI, then T&T as a national team would be automatically barred from qualifying for the Champions League and T&T clubs are unlikely to be offered any kind of qualification spot. This means that the chance of ever getting US$2.5 million Champions League prize money for the CLT20 winner (out of a total of $6 million in prize money overall) goes out the window. Couple that with the fact that any seceding territory is unlikely to included in the Caribbean Premier League (with its US$250,000 prize money for the winner PLUS a chance to win ten times that much from automatic qualification for the CLT20) and there is massive financial disincentive for leaving.
Hosting rights (and the money that flows from that) also make it unfavourable to leave. The ICC has a more or less unofficial policy of rotating tournaments among full members (and among continents) with those full members being able to choose whether or not they wish to include neighbouring countries in the hosting process. In 2007 the West Indies hosted the Cricket World Cup, but ideas for including Bermuda and Florida as potential venues went nowhere partly because there was little incentive for the individual boards to cut back on the matches that they themselves could host in order to include some territories outside of the WI cricket family. Distance (for Bermuda) and visas (for Florida) also played a role most likely.
And finally the regional integration initiative (the Caribbean Community and its Single Market and Economy or CSME) could potentially cripple any seceding territory in terms of available talent. You see since 2005/06 there has been a right of free movement between the countries making up the CSME if they have certain minimum qualifications. Among the categories of qualifications is being a sportsperson. The current WICB territories are Antigua & Barbuda, St. Kitts, Nevis (one country of St Kitts & Nevis but they play separately within the Leeward Islands), Montserrat, the British Virgin Islands, the US Virgin Islands, St. Maarten, (all the preceding territories make up the first class territory of the Leeward Islands), Dominica, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Grenada, St. Lucia (the four preceding territories make up the first class territory of the Windward Islands), Barbados, Jamaica, Guyana and Trinidad & Tobago. The current CSME members are Antigua & Barbuda, St. Kitts & Nevis, Montserrat (sort of), Dominica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Grenada, Barbados, Jamaica, Guyana, Trinidad & Tobago, Belize and Suriname.
Belize and Suriname do not have cricketers as yet of sufficient calibre that could perhaps move to another territory and basically bang down the door on the selectors for the clubs or for any of the first-class territories, but if say...Barbados were to secede from the WICB but remain as part of the CSME then any Barbadian cricketers would have a very easy route back into the international arena and even if they did not get back into the international arena they would have an easy route back into the West Indies professional cricket league and Caribbean Premier League. With freedom of movement the more talented Bajan cricketers would likely move to any of the other territories in both the CSME and WICB in order to pursue cricket professionally (indeed the WICB in a recent meeting made it mandatory for the first-class franchises to pick 2 players from the next draft that were from other territories and this is facilitated by the CSME's freedom of movement). And they wouldn't need a work permit or have to wait for months upon months for their application to be approved. They could do so very quickly (within 2 months) and in the process the Barbadian cricket scene would be weakened and left bereft of the top talent. What this then does is make it even harder for the seceding territory to maintain a domestic system sufficient for the territory itself to apply for full membership of the ICC.
Indeed. The most poisonous era though was when Ramnarine was head of the West Indies Players Association WIPA) and used legal avenues (as well as trickery apparently) to hold the board over a barrel. He once apparently got the WICB to agree to continuing paying sponsorship money (which had originally been agreed to in lieu of central contracts) even after the board started offering central contracts by threatening legal action if they didn't agree to honour the promise of one of their directors to him in an email to do so (the director apparently did not really understand what he was agreeing to in that email). Michael Holding said as much once not too long ago when the most recent payment dispute arose. As a result of Ramnarine, many WI international players got used to the idea of ever increasing pay that was in no way linked to performance. He even once tried to take a legal avenue to sue the board over a player's non-selection (which would have been dangerous had it succeeded since it would basically take selection out of the hands of the selection panel and put it more or less in the hands of WIPA). His last legal tussle was an attempt to keep an old MOU between the WICB and WIPA going indefinitely despite it having expired in 2011. The court in this case ruled for the WICB in 2013 (and before the ruling Ramnarine left the scene at WIPA) and the old MOU (which was massively stacked in favour of WIPA) finally came to an end. Ramnarine's legacy is that a whole crop of international players now have a spoilt attitude as evidenced by that debacle in India (in which it is rumoured Ramnarine also played a role by advising the lead strikers from the sidelines). There we saw a bunch of players telling the WICB to negotiate directly with them despite many of the same players having fully supported a successful lawsuit pursued by Ramnarine and the WIPA some years earlier which forbade the WICB from negotiating with individual players who are members of WIPA (note that Marlon Samuels is NOT a member of WIPA and thus negotiates directly with the WICB through his own agent). That the board refused to do so is unsurprising since they were sued heavily for pursuing that very course of action in earlier times. And now we see where those rebelling players have not sued the board for the refusal (after all they can't - which judge is going to rule that the WICB should have negotiated with them individually while they were still members of WIPA?).West Indies players have rebelled time and again, as they battled the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) over payment issues. Senior players Dwayne Bravo and Kieron Pollard are not there Down Under with the squad as a punishment for rebelling.
Now of course the lead underperformers who lead the strike (Bravo, Pollard) are finding themselves more or less sidelined. And they seem to have taken the hint as they have both retired from first class cricket (and hence made themselves unavailable for test selection). They now have ALL their eggs in one basket (T20) and it would not surprise me if over time, better T20 domestic players eventually displaced them in the West Indies T20 side. That will leave them with pretty much only the IPL and CPL. And even there they might feel a bit nervous given that in the recent IPL auction many West Indian players were not picked up by the franchises and for many teams in the IPL part of the star power of international players are those who are actually international players. They might well continue to be given renewed contracts but the value of those contracts might well decrease. Domestically the strikers found scant support among the non-international players since the sponsorship money that the international players had been getting for years as apparent double payment was supposed to be redirected (as negotiated by the WICB and WIPA under a new WIPA president) towards having professional contracts for about 90 domestic players in the six territories. Not many of these 90 players would be thrilled with the idea of well paid international players getting back the money which their players association had negotiated to be paid out to more of the collective membership instead. Indeed, I think even Tino Best spoke out against Bravo and his stance. The matter is now before arbitration and the WICB and WIPA presidents who originally negotiated the deal were both recently re-elected. For the next two years at least I don't see the WICB and WIPA having bad relations and since the ICC came out and basically warned the players not to pull a stunt like that again lest they threaten their spots in lucrative T20 leagues around the world (FICA's feeble protestations to the contrary being ineffective) and with some new players likely to feature then board-player relations should not be as acrimonious in the near to medium term. The outcome of the arbitration would be something to watch though.
Very true, but there is precious little the ICC can actually do about that. Nobody is going to tour Pakistan unless they feel absolutely safe. And that is out of the ICC's hands and entirely in the hands of Pakistan and her international partners in terms of security.Similarly with Pakistan the fact that the side does not get to play at home and also has limited opportunities in lucrative leagues, has meant that the development of the sport there is slowing down.
However, with Afghanistan now beginning to play FOUR-day domestic cricket (the only non-full member to do so; Ireland currently only has three-day domestic cricket and Argentina has it's annual 3-day North v South match), and building more international quality stadia I think within a decade or so of Afghanistan's rise to prominence (which started in 2008) we might, just might see Afghanistan promoted to being a full member. And I would think that Pakistan and Afghanistan would have little problems touring each other given the similar security environment in each. That might temper the slow down in development of cricket in Pakistan and open a window to tours by other countries in the future if Afghanistan manages to tour there without incident (and vice versa)
Wholeheartedly agreed.Can cricket still afford to be concerned about the associates, when their actual strength the Test playing world is struggling? It is all very well to battle for the rights of an Ireland and Afghanistan, but what about Pakistan, West Indies and Zimbabwe? Cricket surely cannot be a 10-team sport, but growth of the game at the cost of the core members is not a good sign.
Agreed, although for Kenya in truth the Kenyans did not do enough for themselves to build on their achievements and press for continued growth. They should have put in place a 3-day competition in 2002-2004. Instead they tried to do so in 2008 during which that attempt was hit by the election violence at the time and it floundered; eventually being reduced to a 2-day competition that was never held again. The meltdown of the Kenya Cricket Association and its replacement by Cricket Kenya in 2005 did not help cricket overall in Kenya. Things should never have reached the state they did in 2005 in the first place and there was plenty of blame to go around between the administrators and players.The best example of world cricket’s apathy is the state of Kenyan cricket. Once the darling of the same outrage fraternity is now nowhere on the scene. Kenya has lost their ODI status and have an even bigger battle to qualify for the 2019 World Cup. A 2003 World Cup semi-finalist, Kenya was a victim of poor administration. Again the world cricket community looked the other way as the gains of the 2003 effort was not built on.
The ICC running those boards would likely be of little help. The ICC is the sum of its parts and the big three parts of the ICC just recently refocused the international structure of cricket to better suit their bottom lines.....Googly wrote:They just cannot resist stealing the money and there appears to be no recourse when they do. I know about the Zim Board and would imagine the other two are the same, it appears well nigh impossible to winkle out the thieves from office.
The option is for ICC to administrate these boards or make them agree to a completely transparent way of doing it themselves, and the only way is to have an ICC representative on site and rotated periodically so they don't get taught the evil ways.
Those are not bodies that are going to be transparent and uncorrupt.
For now. I hold out hope that things will change in the future.They have Zim on the ropes in this regard but they won't twist the knife. ZC knows it's coming hence the appointment of AC as a stalling tactic. It is blatantly obvious that they are completely incapable of self governance.
Agreed on Kenya. That also played a massive part, especially after than golden generation basically left/got discarded/got despondent following the prolonged board and player issues between 2003 and 2005.eugene wrote:To be fair I think Kenya was smoke and mirrors. 2003 was the end of a golden generation and was never going to be the start of anything bigger. That being said, Kenya should not have declined to the degree they have. Ireland perhaps have a shot at long term success as they have had three World Cups now where they have done well.
Ireland perhaps have a shot at long term success, and that they are finally putting in place the domestic structures to help unearth and build new talent is encouraging. I continue to have suspicions though that for a variety of reasons (the freedom of movement between Ireland and Britain as part of bilateral UK and Republic of Ireland agreements as well as under the European Union and European Economic Area; the draw of English cricket; the desire to ultimately play for England for some Northern Irish players; Cricket Ireland's historically slow moves towards putting in place what is necessary...), Ireland's success may wane in the future after this generation of players. Hopefully not though.
-
foreignfield
- Posts: 4944
- Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:39 am
- Supports: Mountaineers
Re: Don’t let Zimbabwe slip down further, act now
Wow, massive essay, but some very interesting insights into the Windies situation. 
8 of those top performers, primarily batsmen, are overseas players (including the English-qualified Zimbos Ballance and Querl), a further 6 have retired (only of them might eventually come back).JHunter wrote:However in another thread on Franchise stats I noted that there were 38 players in there who were highlighted with an above 40 average with the bat or a below 25 average with the ball. How many of those 38 are still a possibility to feature for Zimbabwe internationally?Well that accounts for 3 out of the 38 top performers listed in the the stats thread.....Taylor is the newest in the list of Zimbabwe players who are being forced to look elsewhere for greener pastures. Jarvis, a seam bowler, would have made a big impact in the Zimbabwe attack, but he too had to pull out. Another former captain Tatenda Taibu had quit the game, albeit for personal reasons.
-
brmtaylor.com admin
- Administrator
- Posts: 7926
- Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:22 pm
- Contact:
Re: Don’t let Zimbabwe slip down further, act now
And a lot are guys like Matsikenyeri and Mutizwa, who while servicable at times - have not really taken international cricket by storm. It's the guys averaging 60+ that we need more of (ie. people dominating at Logan Cup level - because the bowling is not strong).foreignfield wrote:Wow, massive essay, but some very interesting insights into the Windies situation.
8 of those top performers, primarily batsmen, are overseas players (including the English-qualified Zimbos Ballance and Querl), a further 6 have retired (only of them might eventually come back).JHunter wrote:However in another thread on Franchise stats I noted that there were 38 players in there who were highlighted with an above 40 average with the bat or a below 25 average with the ball. How many of those 38 are still a possibility to feature for Zimbabwe internationally?Well that accounts for 3 out of the 38 top performers listed in the the stats thread.....Taylor is the newest in the list of Zimbabwe players who are being forced to look elsewhere for greener pastures. Jarvis, a seam bowler, would have made a big impact in the Zimbabwe attack, but he too had to pull out. Another former captain Tatenda Taibu had quit the game, albeit for personal reasons.
Agree on the point about CLT20 in the post above. If the big three were serious about encouraging the development of cricket (they are not, we all know it's all about the money) then they'd throw BCB and ZC a bone by opening up a qualifying spot in the CLT20. Just the prospect of a big pay-day in a 4 team competition (so 25% chance in any given season) could be enough to encourage some Zim players to stay in Zim. And encourage more overseas players to join a Zim domestic side too.
I think ZC missed a trick during those ICC/big three negotiations last year. They should have said "SIGN ME UP! On the condition of a CLT20 berth.".
Re: Don’t let Zimbabwe slip down further, act now
Glad you liked it.foreignfield wrote:Wow, massive essay, but some very interesting insights into the Windies situation.
It bothers me sometimes that quite a few supposedly seasoned journalists and commentators (Cozier and Holding especially) repeatedly spurn out tired memes and attempt to analyze situations in the familiar "WICB = bad; WI players = innocent lambs" storyline.
There is NO doubt that the WICB is dysfunctional and corrupt. However from what some others have told me, the WICB used to be even more dysfunctional and corrupt during the West Indian golden age of the 1980s and before. A number of things have changed however including the calibre of the players, the size of the player pool, the quality of cricket which West Indian players are exposed to outside of international cricket (less chances to play county cricket for instance and the negative feedback effect on WI declining international performances on the desire for overseas clubs to pick up West Indian players) and the domestic structure (which was whittled down from double round robin matches as the money dried up when the ICC abandoned the practice of splitting gate receipts and TV revenues between the host nations and visiting nations). As a result the WICB's incompetence is being more exposed even if on an absolute level it is less than might have been the case in the 1980s and 1990s. The 1990s were also an unstable time for the WICB as for a while no WICB president ever got more than one term (each term lasts 2 years), so before any initiative could get going it would invariably be changed. Hunte and now Cameron are actually the first two persons to win more than 1 term consecutively since the 1990s. Cameron was also Hunte's vice president and as a result there seems to be some continuity in policies and goals. And now the WI have held a double round robin first class season for the first time in ages (this time with 90 domestic players on full time contracts to focus on cricket for 12 months of the year) and that will hopefully continue (hopefully the arbitration finds in favour of the WICB on this issue so that they can continuing retaining a larger pool of players to focus on cricket year round). It should provide an improved testing ground for talent and at the very least separate the wheat from the chaff as the shorter tournaments only served to perpetuate a culture of unfitness in the WI team (Gayle, Sarwan, Fidel Edwards and Jerome Taylor are classic examples of this - in most other teams these players would have long since been dropped and told to go on the right fitness regimen before being selected for any format over 20 overs; fitness issues was why a very mediocre player like Darren Powell consistently got selected - he VERY rarely had an injury unlike Taylor or Fidel Edwards)
If everyone followed what many of those journalists and commentators said though then according to them West Indies would have never had a ghost of a chance to make the quarterfinals without Bravo and Pollard (very over-rated players - Bravo had an amazing December 2013 to March 2014 and after that he had trouble averaging 20 with the bat and for some series he averaged 9 or 10...additionally Bravo hadn't played a first class match in about 5 years (hence why he was never selected for the test team) despite saying during that time that he still aspired to play test cricket (how he could do so without any first-class practice under his belt is anybody's guess) before he officially retired from first class cricket this year; Pollard is much the same). And yet WI are in the quarters and the talk of Bravo and Pollard has, as expected for me, vanished since it's quite clear they weren't actually needed (had they been included Lendl Simmons likely would not have played in some matches and neither Darren Sammy - both of those players are better with the bat recently than Bravo and Pollard; Lendl Simmons markedly so). Holder did say their non-inclusion was a blow but I suspect that was the politically correct thing to say as a captain with some players still very much in favour of those two.
Hmmm...so the 8 and 6 include the 3 referred to previously right? As in Taibu, Jarvis and Taylor?8 of those top performers, primarily batsmen, are overseas players (including the English-qualified Zimbos Ballance and Querl), a further 6 have retired (only of them might eventually come back).JHunter wrote:However in another thread on Franchise stats I noted that there were 38 players in there who were highlighted with an above 40 average with the bat or a below 25 average with the ball. How many of those 38 are still a possibility to feature for Zimbabwe internationally?Well that accounts for 3 out of the 38 top performers listed in the the stats thread.....Taylor is the newest in the list of Zimbabwe players who are being forced to look elsewhere for greener pastures. Jarvis, a seam bowler, would have made a big impact in the Zimbabwe attack, but he too had to pull out. Another former captain Tatenda Taibu had quit the game, albeit for personal reasons.
That still leaves 24 players though who seem to be top performers. That's at least 2 squads worth (and change) of top performers. What's happening with them?
Re: Don’t let Zimbabwe slip down further, act now
Oh I see. So those 24 form the nucleus from which Zimbabwe needs to find really good talent which can average 60+ in the Logan Cup....ouch!brmtaylor.com admin wrote:And a lot are guys like Matsikenyeri and Mutizwa, who while servicable at times - have not really taken international cricket by storm. It's the guys averaging 60+ that we need more of (ie. people dominating at Logan Cup level - because the bowling is not strong).foreignfield wrote:Wow, massive essay, but some very interesting insights into the Windies situation.
8 of those top performers, primarily batsmen, are overseas players (including the English-qualified Zimbos Ballance and Querl), a further 6 have retired (only of them might eventually come back).
Precisely. 25% odds of a big day every year are FANTASTIC odds! That would definitely encourage more Zim players to stay and could mean the difference between being able to live okay as a cricketer and absolutely having to consider moving to another country to play cricket or switching careers inside Zimbabwe.Agree on the point about CLT20 in the post above. If the big three were serious about encouraging the development of cricket (they are not, we all know it's all about the money) then they'd throw BCB and ZC a bone by opening up a qualifying spot in the CLT20. Just the prospect of a big pay-day in a 4 team competition (so 25% chance in any given season) could be enough to encourage some Zim players to stay in Zim. And encourage more overseas players to join a Zim domestic side too.
I think ZC missed a trick during those ICC/big three negotiations last year. They should have said "SIGN ME UP! On the condition of a CLT20 berth.".
And if the big four (including South Africa as one of the owners of the CLT20) weren't even willing to throw the BCB and ZC a bone like that, why on earth would they throw a bone to Cricket Ireland or even a Barbados Cricket Association that had seceded?
It really is all about money. First, foremost and last.
ZC definitely missed an opportunity, but I'm hoping things will stabilize in Zimbabwe and that cricket will begin to really grow again.
-
foreignfield
- Posts: 4944
- Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:39 am
- Supports: Mountaineers
Re: Don’t let Zimbabwe slip down further, act now
That's 8 and 6 plus Jarvis and Taylor = 22 players. The huge problem is that while we have a half-decent squad now, barring any more retirements, most of those guys are in their late twenties, early thirties and there is little talent coming through, especially in the batting. Our U19s have been performing abysmally in the World Cups for years now, and what talent there is is often headed to England after leaving school or even while at school (à la Gary Ballance) and only a handful will eventually return.JHunter wrote:Hmmm...so the 8 and 6 include the 3 referred to previously right? As in Taibu, Jarvis and Taylor?8 of those top performers, primarily batsmen, are overseas players (including the English-qualified Zimbos Ballance and Querl), a further 6 have retired (only of them might eventually come back).
That still leaves 24 players though who seem to be top performers. That's at least 2 squads worth (and change) of top performers. What's happening with them?
...
Oh I see. So those 24 form the nucleus from which Zimbabwe needs to find really good talent which can average 60+ in the Logan Cup....ouch!
Most of our young batsmen in the Logan Cup average in the mid twenties, even when the senior bowlers are away with the national side. Experience tells us that a guy who averages 40 in Zim domestic cricket will probably average 20-25 in international cricket, hence our desperation for a youngster who can dominate with the bat on the domestic scene.
Re: Don’t let Zimbabwe slip down further, act now
Great reading, thanks JHunter! I had also heard that basketball was gaining in popularity at schoolboy level and the big athletic youngsters were being lured by the prospect of an NBA berth, any truth in that rumor?