India-South Africa Tour in Danger

Every one expected, after AGM on 29 September, BCCI will open its grounds on the scheduled SA tour. But even after five days there is no sign of any progress. Rather Patel(BCCI Secretary) has said that they are waiting, and SA has broken the protocols by announcing the schedule alone. http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/current/story/676475.html

BCCI have to much power. CSA have shown e-mail correspondence proving that the BCCI agreed with thwarted tour dates. Now they are playing the fool? I think the reality is two-fold:

1) BCCI have a problem with Haroon Lorgat. They asked CSA to "reconsider" the appointment of Forget, which we didn't... Payback time.

2) Sachins 200th Test. They obviously want it to be a home affair, so that they can financially benefit from it. Understandable, given the fact that India are probably on a hiding to nothing in S.A.

It's disgusting given that CSA and BCCI have been close for so long, and indeed, The BCCI-approved IPL is to blame for them administrative mess CSA finds itself in. Now they are looking to hang us to dry.

Let's not pretend we don't all know what this is about. This is about the BCCI continuing to throw its weight around, moving with increasing Chutzpah because nobody dares call them out on it. After the Tim May voting episode, they now wish to dictate to South Africa who they can and cannot appoint as CEO. The BCCI is barely taking the trouble to hide its intentions anymore: we know they view the ICC code of ethics as superfluous and the FTP as a burden (that we know this is thanks to not the ICC which remains as unstransparent as ever, but ironically enough thanks to that bastion of virtue Lalit Modi).

Whilst the BCCI's position on this and other things is clearly indefensible (particularly given the way SA saved their bacon by hosting whichever IPL it was), we should be wary of blaming all the world's ills on the BCCI. That they have as much power as they do is due to the archaic way the ICC in general is run (did I mention that the minutes of their meetings are not readily available?) which all the full members have contributed towards establishing and maintaining. When you leave the power in the hands of a select few you of course run the risk that the most powerful of the few gets essentially all the power, which is what has happened. That most national cricket boards are so corrupt just makes the "bribing" process so much easier.

Moreover if the other big 3 (SA, Aus and Eng) really wanted to, they could surely take on the BCCI somehow - international cricket in those countries would survive without India - but they lack the b@lls to do so.

The argument by some on various forums that the BCCI is entitled to act the way it does or even is in some way justified because others (notably England and Australia) acted similarly in the past is of course nonsense.

Like all bullies there will come a time when the BCCI falls on its own sword if it fails to reform or show more responsibility - it usually takes a major misjudgement which galvanises public opinion against them (I wonder whether the Daily Mail will be more damaged by the Ed Miliband row than they currently think), and on the face of it I doubt this is it. How long until this happens and quite how much damage they can do to the global game beforehand therefore is the big concern.

Mike Selig wrote:Let's not pretend we don't all know what this is about. This is about the BCCI continuing to throw its weight around, moving with increasing Chutzpah because nobody dares call them out on it. After the Tim May voting episode, they now wish to dictate to South Africa who they can and cannot appoint as CEO. The BCCI is barely taking the trouble to hide its intentions anymore: we know they view the ICC code of ethics as superfluous and the FTP as a burden (that we know this is thanks to not the ICC which remains as unstransparent as ever, but ironically enough thanks to that bastion of virtue Lalit Modi).

Whilst the BCCI's position on this and other things is clearly indefensible (particularly given the way SA saved their bacon by hosting whichever IPL it was), we should be wary of blaming all the world's ills on the BCCI. That they have as much power as they do is due to the archaic way the ICC in general is run (did I mention that the minutes of their meetings are not readily available?) which all the full members have contributed towards establishing and maintaining. When you leave the power in the hands of a select few you of course run the risk that the most powerful of the few gets essentially all the power, which is what has happened. That most national cricket boards are so corrupt just makes the "bribing" process so much easier.

Moreover if the other big 3 (SA, Aus and Eng) really wanted to, they could surely take on the BCCI somehow - international cricket in those countries would survive without India - but they lack the b@lls to do so.

The argument by some on various forums that the BCCI is entitled to act the way it does or even is in some way justified because others (notably England and Australia) acted similarly in the past is of course nonsense.

Like all bullies there will come a time when the BCCI falls on its own sword if it fails to reform or show more responsibility - it usually takes a major misjudgement which galvanises public opinion against them (I wonder whether the Daily Mail will be more damaged by the Ed Miliband row than they currently think), and on the face of it I doubt this is it. How long until this happens and quite how much damage they can do to the global game beforehand therefore is the big concern.

I agree with basically all of that.

The BCCI are able to, in effect, hold all other boards to ransom less through explicit bullying but more through tactfully predicting and manipulating the responses of other players.

To get there man (or should I say puppet) nominated as players rep they only needed to put him on the ballot - all of a sudden those with something to lose by going against India's wishes changed their votes. I doubt they ever needed to do much more than indicate that they supported Sivaramakrishan to get SLC and WICB thinking about what is now in their overall interests.

The other boards know that if they vote with India there are clear rewards on offer: note that, for no real benefit to Indian cricket, they have arranged additional fixtures in West Indies and Sri Lanka. Those could easily be withdrawn.

The same thing, at a somewhat more sinister level, is happening with South Africa.

The BCCI didn't like Haroon Lorgan when he was ICC Chief Executive. Like most ICC chiefs (Richardson falls into a similar category) he was less supportive of India's maneuvering than the Chief Execs committee as a whole - the Chief Exec , or course, has less to lose from doing so. Towards the end of Haroon's premiership he supported the Woolf Report and also upset the current Indian administration - in which Jagmohan Dalmiya, the head of the Kolkata Cricket Association plays a major part - by moving high profile World Cup matches away from Kolkata.

When Lorgat was linked with the CSA job attempts were made to exert the same type of pressure as happened during the May/ Siva furore. Unusually it didn't work. They can't depose him now but they can try and exert their influence, picking up on anything they don't agree with - in this case a tour schedule not being rubber stamped before it was announced.

If CSA could afford to they would have cancelled the tour. But they can't. All of the power in this case is with India. Tours involving India make, by a distance, more money than other tours. Furthermore there is no viable replacement available - a series against West Indies would lose money whilst WI may be reluctant to damage their, fast improving, relations with India. Quite simply cancelling the tour would be financial suicide.

In the end I expect the tour will go ahead. The schedule will be reduced (due to both time constraints and the desire, on India's part, to demonstrate that they've 'won').

The whole thing sets a dangerous precedent. Would India do such a thing to England - who might not be so dependent on their relations with England? Could they even threaten to pull out of ICC events if they disapproved of the hosts/ ICC decisions?

As Mike says I expect it will blow up in their face eventually. But it might be a way off. The Indian media work in different ways to the media over here - individual newspapers and journalists carry less clout. Furthermore, a journalist knows that his access/ career is being risked if he starts writing subversive articles.

It is wrong to blame the BCCI for all of these ills. All of the Full Member boards to some extent do the same thing - whatever the rights and wrongs of the argument lets not forget that the ECB have had no bi-lateral relations with Zimbabwe for a decade. It just happens that India are currently in the position to exploit the situation more than the others.

As a final point everything, in effect, comes back to the ICC's constitution. It is in effect a federal body and so individual (Full Member) boards are not accountable for there actions. There are no real sanctions for the ICC to use (bar removal as a FM - something that is clearly an extreme option) and in any case the ICC is a relatively small overseeing and facilitating organisation rather than a body holding real power. The ICC constitution has been ineffective for years but, as any change - which would inevitably disadvantage the FMs - would need unanimous FM consent it is very difficult to envisage any change in the near future.

The BCCI, hit and giggle experts, have been throwing their weight around for too long.

I ask the ICC, who's running this game? You or them?

I truly agree with the words of Mike and Shelsey. I am an Indian and more than this politics, I like cricket. I was waiting for this high profile series between India and South Africa, just after march. Well CSA announced the schedule in July and BCCI objected. http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-africa-v-india-2013-14/content/story/649521.html

And sure that time Srinivasan has stepped aside as the president and CAB chief Dalmiya has taken the charge. I can understand the rift between Dalmiya and Logart(which is the prime reason of this danger), a match between India and England in Kolkata shifted to Banglore, leading to some monetary loss to both CAB and BCCI. \

But I don't know why they are ruining this beautiful game because of personal rifts.
Most of the Indian fans wanted the bat and bowl battle with South Africans this winter, rather than WI. I don't know what to say but our own cricket board has let us down.

some thought and observations:

1) BCCI's power is a product of the system.

There is a democratic system in place using which and leveraging the funding / financing / money availbale for the game in India.....BCCI has worked  itself into a superpower in the microcosm of cricket

and like the super-powers in the global world of Realpolitik....when the superpower decides to use it's muscle...it crushes the small opponents and damages the larger ones.

You can grudge BCCI for being a superpower...but not blame them...they have gotten there climbing the steps of democratic system.

2) What is dangerous is the intent of Aus and Eng to side with the super-power and create a veto-club of the Big_boys...I posted a link on the forum carrying a report from the sidelines of the last ICC meeting exaplingin this dangerous desire of ECB and CA.

3) What is disaappointing is the immaturity and flashy display of power  of BCCI  like the noveau riche.
Power is in knowing and not showing.......but like the first generation noveau riche they are enjoying the sense of power throuhg arrogant displays.
There is much of internal growing repulsion in India towards the Srnivasan's style of arrogant brute display of power.
With passing years BCCI will mature. Srinivasan will last one more year constituionally.

4) The tour of SA......will happen......reduced version...and with some more rubbing the nose to ground of Lorgat by BCCI.

Well I have never questioned on how India become the super power, it is step wise, correct and every one know this. Eng-Aussies always questioned the steps of BCCI, because they feel being over ruled most of the time, the latest example is DRS, which is in question by many Aussies fans, every one know the reason. On one stance I would agree with mike

Mike Selig wrote:The argument by some on various forums that the BCCI is entitled to act the way it does or even is in some way justified because others (notably England and Australia) acted similarly in the past is of course nonsense.

I personally feel that the rift because of shifted match in the WC 2011, is surely ruining the game now. I like test cricket more than ODIs or T-20 and a reduced series will engulf all the enjoyment or thrill that we used to enjoy earlier. Rather I was thinking that a 4 test match with 5 ODI, would have been better than 3 test and 7 ODI, but now the condition is so bad that I feel the series would be reduced to 2 test matches.

It really really isn't a democratic system though KPF. Apart from the archaic and unfair voting system (a principle of democracy is that at least in theory each vote is worth the same - this can't happen if you allow a power of veto), there is no accountability, transparency (the meetings are published where?), and conflicts of interest are routinely ignored or not disclosed.

I agree you cannot really blame the BCCI for becoming a superpower, but you certainly can blame them for how they've behaved since.

Comparisons with realpolitik are interesting and pertinent: the UN is not run like a democratic body either for broadly similar reasons, except at least there the security council allows in theory anybody to be a member of it at some stage. However it is interesting to note that the US is acting with IMO increasing responsibility (some people would IMO mistakingly call this weakness) whereas the BCCI shows no signs of this yet.

Mike Selig wrote:It really really isn't a democratic system though KPF. Apart from the archaic and unfair voting system (a principle of democracy is that at least in theory each vote is worth the same - this can't happen if you allow a power of veto), there is no accountability, transparency (the meetings are published where?), and conflicts of interest are routinely ignored or not disclosed.

the principle of democracy is that the constitution decides the voting rights and mechanisms. And the constitution itself is framed by the members.
The ICC constituion was done by it's members consensually .
The ICC voting is governed by it's constitution.
similarly BCCI also has it's convoluted constitution...not liked by many....as it has given as it has given too much power to the BCCI head and too much autonomy to it as a body.
But even the courts and ministries have to respect it...because it was formed under the governing laws in a democratic country.

I agree you cannot really blame the BCCI for becoming a superpower, but you certainly can blame them for how they've behaved since.

already adressed by me throuhg item-3 of my post.

Comparisons with realpolitik are interesting and pertinent: the UN is not run like a democratic body either for broadly similar reasons,

and i would point you to a similar situation...that UN is governed by it's constituition...which is consensually formulated by it's members.

However it is interesting to note that the US is acting with IMO increasing responsibility (some people would IMO mistakingly call this weakness) whereas the BCCI shows no signs of this yet.

US is not only the mellow Obama regime......but US was also the brash Bush Jr and Sr. 12 years between them.
BCCI will also see other "rulers" ...Srinivasan can constituionally have one more year only. And with time this display of power will give way to maturity I believe ( or atleast hope)

Both Mike and KPF have put forward their points quite clearly, but I feel you people have bit diverted from the topic. I questioned the rift, which is clearly dangerous for test matches but you people moved to democracy, UN, US and all.

With apologies for remaining off topic, but...

KP_fan wrote:the principle of democracy is that the constitution decides the voting rights and mechanisms. And the constitution itself is framed by the members.

just wrong, sorry. There are many democracies without constitutions (the UK and Israel most prominent amongst them).

The overriding principle of democracy is that every person (or member) is equal; this is clearly not the case for the UN (the general assembly has little or no real say, the security council involves only 15 members at 1 time, and 5 members have right of veto, so their vote counts for more) or the ICC (which has no general assembly, and where 95 of 105 members get virtually no say at all).

It is not enough to say that the constitution has been decided by the members, when the constitution is set up so new members don't get a say in it. The analogy would be a country deciding that only its current nationals would ever be allowed to vote - any new citizens whether through birth or other will never be allowed the vote; a country could theoretically do this, but such a country couldn't then reasonably be described as democratic.

Apologies again for keeping off topic, but it is wrong and dangerous to peddle the myth that the ICC is run as a democratic body. It is run according (partly) to its constitution (although as I say the code of ethics is considered superfluous for example) but that is a very different thing.

Mike Selig wrote:With apologies for remaining off topic, but...

KP_fan wrote:the principle of democracy is that the constitution decides the voting rights and mechanisms. And the constitution itself is framed by the members.

just wrong, sorry. There are many democracies without constitutions (the UK and Israel most prominent amongst them).

The overriding principle of democracy is that every person (or member) is equal; .

It seems you are not familiar with US as an example where constitutionally it follows an electoral college......and every citizen vote with equal weightage...... principle does not apply.
Now you can choose to call US also un-democratic  

The underlying principle in a democracy is that that a nation or body or institution consensually decides how to run it's elections and governance.......they may have a constituition or may not as per examples given by you.

and ICC is a democratic process and it's procedures have been forumalted by consensus of it's members.

Your may not like the way it runs or agree with it's procedures / constituition and may have very valid arguments also...but that is a separate issue.

KP_fan wrote:
It seems you are not familiar with US as an example where constitutionally it follows an electoral college......and every citizen=1 vote principle does not apply.

It does though. Every citizen gets a vote. How that vote then contributes towards the election of the president is then a convoluted matter, but the principle is the same - one vote is not worth more than any other vote. Note that the president is not the only elected official - congress and senate votes are independent of electoral colleges and here the straightforward principle of every vote being equal is easily observed.

KP_fan wrote:The underlying principle in a democracy is that that a nation or body or institution consensually decides how to run it's elections and governance.......they may have a constituition or may not as per examples given by you.

Rubbish. What a strange notion of democracy you seem to have. I repeat (a variant) the question: if tomorrow the government of country x decides that only people with the letter "s" in the second position of their surname may vote, and modifies its constitution accordingly, can that country reasonably be called democratic?

KP_fan wrote:and ICC is a democratic process and it's procedures have been forumalted by consensus of it's members.

Rubbish. Please stop saying this, it is wrong and misleading. Its procedures have been formulated by consensus of a small minority of its current members. And the principle of "one member = one vote" doesn't hold.

Mike Selig wrote:

KP_fan wrote:
It seems you are not familiar with US as an example where constitutionally it follows an electoral college......and every citizen=1 vote principle does not apply.

It does though. Every citizen gets a vote. How that vote then contributes towards the election of the president is then a convoluted matter, but the principle is the same - one vote is not worth more than any other vote. Note that the president is not the only elected official - congress and senate votes are independent of electoral colleges and here the straightforward principle of every vote being equal is easily observed.

KP_fan wrote:The underlying principle in a democracy is that that a nation or body or institution consensually decides how to run it's elections and governance.......they may have a constituition or may not as per examples given by you.

Rubbish. What a strange notion of democracy you seem to have. I repeat (a variant) the question: if tomorrow the government of country x decides that only people with the letter "s" in the second position of their surname may vote, and modifies its constitution accordingly, can that country reasonably be called democratic?

KP_fan wrote:and ICC is a democratic process and it's procedures have been forumalted by consensus of it's members.

Rubbish. Please stop saying this, it is wrong and misleading. Its procedures have been formulated by consensus of a small minority of its current members. And the principle of "one member = one vote" doesn't hold.

1) Re. US electoral college and every citizen's vote being equal......I differ from you interpreptation and most other would.

2) If a government / country / body decides a certain procedure "consensually" (this is the key word) to vote and govern itself in a ceratin way...then it is democratic.
for example some members may have less weighate and some given exceptional weightage and rights ( such as in the name of affirmative action, minorities, traditons etc).
Once all have agreed...then it is it.

3) Similarly ICC members ( including the new , tiny minor ones ) when joining the ICC accept that they have no voting rights....that is it.
whatever voting and governance rules exist in ICC ...are "consensually" agreed by all members and hence it's a democratic system.

Your POV...if different is by now known to all.....that's OK.....we can leave it at this and let other readers make up their minds.

KP_fan wrote:
Once all have agreed...then it is it.

That is really the key isn't it? Because certainly not all ICC members agreed with the current structure in place, even when it was introduced. The point is rather that even then the vast majority of members didn't get a say.

Could you please answer my straightforward question: if tomorrow the government of country x decrees that only people with y characteristic can vote, and passes this resolution respecting the laws currently in place, would you still consider that country as democratic? Simple yes or no question.

Mike Selig wrote:

KP_fan wrote:
Once all have agreed...then it is it.

That is really the key isn't it? Because certainly not all ICC members agreed with the current structure in place, even when it was introduced. The point is rather that even then the vast majority of members didn't get a say.

I can bet they all sign a terms and conditons sheet when they apply for membership to ICC...accepting the rules of ICC

Could you please answer my straightforward question: if tomorrow the government of country x decrees that only people with y characteristic can vote, and passes this resolution respecting the laws currently in place, would you still consider that country as democratic? Simple yes or no question

Ha Ha........your question cannot be answered in a simple yes/ no.....because you haven't covered all the possibilites with your questions....so we have to elbaorate your question.....

Ques) if it is a democratically elected government and follows the process agreed in that country...such as parliamentary voting( whihc generally required 2/3rd or 3/4th majority) or referrendums.....and comes up with a decision to restric the voting on a certain charceteristic...or lack of it ?

then the answer) YES..it is acceptable

obviously it will be hard for government to achieve such a 2/3rd or 3/4th majority in it's parliaments.....but if they do achieve it.....then yes all democratic proceeses have been followed to eliminate a sub-group from voting

Well If the question has come up with What actually democracy is? Then

1.  Democracy is the government of the people,for the people and by the people. In democracy people are the king and the whole working is centered with the interest of people.
2.  Democracy gives each individual a right to defend itself, if in case something wrong is happening with them, in all cases, either they are minority or majority. For example the question raised by Mike that

Could you please answer my straightforward question: if tomorrow the government of country x decrees that only people with y characteristic can vote, and passes this resolution respecting the laws currently in place, would you still consider that country as democratic? Simple yes or no question wrote:

Well in that case people of characteristic other than Y can question the government and force the government to change such rule even if they are minority. So KPF here you are wrong.

Regarding the voting in ICC, where new boards are not allowed to vote, I would only say that voting right is with Test Playing nations. Test cricket is supereme, above all formats, and oldest too. So the main criterion revolves around who play test cricket. So Mike think how a non-test playing nation can decide the matter with voting when they are not even playing the game at International Level. That's why In ICC they are not allowed to vote. And ICC is not a country, it is an organisation, so comparing its democracy with the democracy of a country is not justified.

Regarding the case of UN, though having a full member General assembly, security council has only limited members. So that's an administrative issue nor governing issue. Just like secretariat though forms the base of the government but actually responsible is government.

I fear this discussion is going around somewhat in circles, so it may be time to draw a line.

I simply cannot accept that the ICC can be considered a democracy. It fails several important criteria:
- non equality of members
- no respect of part of its constitution (e.g. code of ethics)
- no transparency
- no accountability
- no independent overview - indeed the latest independent review of its governance was dismissed unilaterally by one member, hence by the organisation...

I don't accept KPF's inference that if all due processes are followed then that's ok. Should a properly elected parliament and government decide to give powers to the prime minister/president that gives him the power of a de facto dictator that country cannot surely still be considered a democracy, it has become a dictatorship by definition.

Or to take the ICC example, when a board (because of the way it is run) decides to exclude the majority of its members from what is in effect the AGM (the president's day can no longer be attended annually by affiliates) it cannot continue to consider itself as a democracy.

subhranshu.kumar.5 wrote:
Regarding the voting in ICC, where new boards are not allowed to vote, I would only say that voting right is with Test Playing nations. Test cricket is supereme, above all formats, and oldest too. So the main criterion revolves around who play test cricket. So Mike think how a non-test playing nation can decide the matter with voting when they are not even playing the game at International Level. That's why In ICC they are not allowed to vote. And ICC is not a country, it is an organisation, so comparing its democracy with the democracy of a country is not justified.

You are conflating test cricket with international cricket. Almost all these countries play international cricket, surely therefore they should have a say in the way it is governed. The reason they can't play test cricket is because the current test cricket nations decide who is allowed to play test cricket. A bit of a chicken and egg situation, or rather, that you can't expect turkeys to vote for Christmas...

CSA has been given a chance to visit India and discuss the tour with srinivasan and Patel although Lorgat has made conspicious by being told not to come to India

KPF and Make interesting points, one works with a formal notion of democracy, and the other with a substantive and at times idealistic notions of democracy, and as someone who makes a living out of teaching political science, I can see merits in both set of claims.
But most importantly, I share KPF's hope that the bloody BCCI would mature at some point. All boards throw up as much attitude as possible within the given context. None has shown the kind of maturity required of a cricket administration superpower so far. Hopefully in the not too distant future, the BCCI would go that way. But the signs now aren't good, the entire SA tour fiasco has been a show of power from the BCCI, who really don't care too much about the fans of the game in India. And most recently, they've managed to have Sanjay Manjrekar excluded from the commentary team for the Australia series as he didn't want to go all exclusive for the BCCI. Srinivasan and co are behaving like a set of thugs at the moment, I just hope somehow the SA tour would be saved at least.
And on a side note, I won't mind if they cut down on the 7 match ODI series anyway.

I don't know why they have Inserted WI tour in between. Was there a monetary issue or they wanted to show CSA that they can organize any alternative on short information with any board.

Well what so ever be the reason, one match is in Kolkata, so will definately go to Eden to see Sachin for one last time.

subhranshu.kumar.5 wrote:I don't know why they have Inserted WI tour in between. Was there a monetary issue or they wanted to show CSA that they can organize any alternative on short information with any board.

Well what so ever be the reason, one match is in Kolkata, so will definately go to Eden to see Sachin for one last time.  

Makes sure you are there all the time, in time to see Tendulkar's inning right from the start.......he won't last too long given his eye-sight and reflexes  

KP_fan wrote:

subhranshu.kumar.5 wrote:I don't know why they have Inserted WI tour in between. Was there a monetary issue or they wanted to show CSA that they can organize any alternative on short information with any board.

Well what so ever be the reason, one match is in Kolkata, so will definately go to Eden to see Sachin for one last time.  

Makes sure you are there all the time, in time to see Tendulkar's inning right from the start.......he won't last too long given his eye-sight and reflexes  

What so ever KPF. I have never seen him batting as because I have never been to stadium to watch a match. So for five minutes also but I will be there to enjoy his stance.

If SA crawl and rub their nose...whihc they have shown to do......I believe in their display of magnanimity and to make the CSA presdiedent look good ( compared to Lorgat) BCCI will grant them full 3 tests.....
and give the constrain of time....the ODIs or part of it may be scheduled until after the NZ series

Let them not play any ODIs as part of the tour, but lets have the 3 test series. Not that I have something against ODIs as such, but a 7 match series on top of the borfest against Austrlaia is far, far too much.
Think Tendulkar's retirement has been one reason to bring in a home test series in between, whatever be the reasons, I like them playing more test matches.
The world cup isn't too far away, ODIs bring in money, so if the CSA and the BCCI want to play a few, then play at most 5 ODIs. Looking forward to the negotiations on Friday.

msp83 wrote:Let them not play any ODIs as part of the tour, but lets have the 3 test series. Not that I have something against ODIs as such, but a 7 match series on top of the borfest against Austrlaia is far, far too much.
Think Tendulkar's retirement has  been one reason to bring in a home test series in between, whatever be the reasons, I like them playing more test matches.
The world cup isn't too far away, ODIs bring in money, so if the CSA and the BCCI want to play a few, then play at most 5 ODIs. Looking forward to the negotiations on Friday.

That's what I was also thinking msp. If we ignore some of the one day games, then it will allow them to adjust a test more. Actually when there was no talk of shortening the series, I was thinking of 4 test and 5 ODI, but now the senario is different. Lets see what happens.

the staelmate continued today....it seems SA has been offered 2 tests and 3 ODIs.....and they have to take it or leave it.
annoucement likely next week.

Disappointing if it is only 2 tests, but something is better than nothing.......

msp83 wrote:Disappointing if it is only 2 tests, but something is better than nothing.......

makes dhoni's task easier to not lose and overseas series.....one win or 2 draws will do it:) 

KP_fan wrote:

msp83 wrote:Disappointing if it is only 2 tests, but something is better than nothing.......

makes dhoni's task easier to not lose and overseas series.....one win or 2 draws will do it:) 

A high profile test series should atleast have 4 tests, because it contains everything, i.e. start exitement, thrill, suspense more like a Bond movie. And being satisfied with 2 test match is just like we are watching a movie and when we started taking interest, movie gets over. Disappointing.

^2 tests are better than no series at all

BCCI shouldnt be deciding the itinerry for this tour, they are travelling to SA therefore SA should be doing the schedules..yet again BCCI for some reason have too much power and spoling the game!

If this tour does go ahead, I hope South Africa win every game, and the Tests by an innings. The BCCI are ruining this sport - come on South Africa, kick 'em into the gutter!

Duty281 wrote:If this tour does go ahead, I hope South Africa win every game, and the Tests by an innings. The BCCI are ruining this sport - come on South Africa, kick 'em into the gutter!

 
ECB is going down the same route...aspiring a wannabe BCCI...and placating them to win "friendship"...which will bring:

-- freeing up the May asn IPL window....an IPL opening foir their players....

--a nomination into shareholding of CLT20.
--grant of full 5 tests and 5 ODIs in the summer of 2014( and hence a lot of reveneue ) from BCCI....
--and a status as the 3 nations with a  veto power ( aus and offcourse India being other two)
 
b.t.w losing the series 2-0 doesn't alter BCCI strength any way...I am sure "even you" would understand that  
 
to stop and humble BCCI the other 2 big boys have to stand up and unite against BCCI..... but unfortunately as explained above governed by self interest...they are all aligining with BCCI

No it wouldn't alter their strength, but there's very few things I like to see more in cricket than watch an arrogant has-been team lose.

Duty281 wrote:No it wouldn't alter their strength, but there's very few things I like to see more in cricket than watch an arrogant has-been team lose.

they have not been losing as much thouhg to give delight.....unfortunately to those seeking delight ..throuhg that perverse route.

No. 1 in ODis...No. 2 in tests for a long time , world cup andf CT holders.

Only 1, possibly 2 at a pinch, that I care about there.

And England are actually, very rightly, no.2 In Tests at the moment.

Duty281 wrote:Only 1, possibly 2 at a pinch, that I care about there.

And England are actually, very rightly, no.2 In Tests at the moment.

 
at the moment is key.....they are standing on knife edge with equal point to India.
 
India have a relatively easier home series against WI 2 tests...can't take them for-granted...but an easier challange...wins will incrtease india's points...and especially if England even draw a test against relatively lower ranked Aus

Neil Manthorp writing from Dubai:
 
The ICC’s staff members are drawn from all over the world and headed, of course, by a South African — CE David Richardson.

There is a great deal to administer in six divisions of the World League and global events in all three formats — the inaugural Test Championship was launched on Saturday night. They work hard and do not deserve the dismissive disdain with which they are often treated.

But like almost all the expats in this country, they know they are living in a parallel and false universe.

Behind every water feature there is barren desert. Behind the line of palm trees, carefully sustained by water drawn and desalinated from the ocean, there is more desert.

The reality for Richardson and his staff is that, effectively, they have been appointed managers of a private, gentleman’s club. They can oversee the rules and regulations of the club. Theoretically, they can even forcibly apply them. But what then? Take the case of the Board of Control for Cricket in India ’s treatment of Cricket South Africa and the contentious end-of-year tour.

"The Indian Board is technically in breach of contract and we could throw the book at them," one ICC employee told me. "But they’ll just throw it straight back at us and, with England and Australia falling into line with whatever India wants, we haven’t got a chance."
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Duty281 wrote:No it wouldn't alter their strength, but there's very few things I like to see more in cricket than watch an arrogant has-been team lose.

You must love watching England lose then.

ShankyCricket wrote:

Duty281 wrote:No it wouldn't alter their strength, but there's very few things I like to see more in cricket than watch an arrogant has-been team lose.

You must love watching England lose then.

Never seen England to be arrogant (KP a touch though) or has-been.

Certainly not like India - the "revenge series" of last year against England. Haven't laughed harder in all my life.

Only 2 test matches, and that too against a high profile test nation SA. BCCI you are losing faith of your own nation mates.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-africa-v-india-2013-14/content/current/story/680651.html

That's a great pity. But let's face facts

1) No way India were going to let something as lucrative as SRT10's 200th Test be played anywhere but India. No chance.

2) India's last two major away series' ended in 4-0 demolition jobs. Against a South African team that has dismissed three Test playing nations for less than fifty in our last ten home Tests. Doubt an organisation as inherently self-interested and self-serving as BCCI ever really wanted to risk the potential embarrassment.

4) An abbreviated series means, as Pakistan are finding out, there is a greater chance of catching S.A. cold, giving India a greater chance to sneak a series win/draw.

5) At the end of the day power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The first non-white Test team was the Windies in 1928, and yet the MCC found no motivation to force South Africa to play against non-white teams until socio-politico pressure forced our exile. 42 years later! I don't see why anyone is pretending the BCCI are ground-breakingly evil.

Don't think the considerations are really cricketing as such, kingraf.
Its really all about Lorgat and his personal issues with the powers that be in the BCCI. Its all political, and its shameful, but it really is not cricketing as such. They could so easily have fitted in Sachin's 200th test without going to all these lengths. There was a window in August, and a week or so of adjustment in South Africa and New Zealand would have anyways done it if they wanted it.
India are playing a 5 test series in England next year. England have defeated India home and away within the last 2 years.......

England haven't bowled three different teams out in the forties. England haven't scored 626/2. England haven't lost only once in sixteen tests. England don't have two bowlers averaging five wickets a match. England dont have the most statistically imposing cricketer of all time. England dome have the winningest captain of all time.... A complete tour to South Africa would have resulted in complete annihilation. I think.

Just realised I somehow cut #3... oops

Well, I am sure Duty and others will have a take on this. But India didn't lose the last time they toured South Africa, nor could SA win the series last time when they were here. Graeme Smith was the captain then, Jacques Kallis, Hashim Amla and AB de Villiers were part of the side then, and Dale Steyn was the leader of their attack. And South Africa have just lost a test match to a team that lost to Zimbabwe recently.
But seriously, Steyn, Philander and Morkel can be quite a handful for the Indian batsman as and when the tour takes place and India might lose both the tests even now. If they play Ishant Sharma, there is no hope whatsoever even in the ODIs!!.

The gap between England and South Africa isn't that big. I hate excuses, but it's clear that with an England camp divided, England were nowhere near full strength for last summer. Can't wait till we play South Africa again, either home or away.

Only lost 2 Test series since the spring of 2009 have England - one against South Africa which was England's lowest point for three years, and one in the UAE, where South Africa are currently losing.

The gap - not that wide. England are better than South Africa in some areas, South Africa are better in some areas.

kingraf wrote:England haven't bowled three different teams out in the forties. England haven't scored 626/2. England haven't lost only once in sixteen tests. England don't have two bowlers averaging five wickets a match. England dont have the most statistically imposing cricketer of all time. England dome have the winningest captain of all time.... A complete tour to South Africa would have resulted in complete annihilation. I think.

Winningest?

Oh christ that word is horrible. An abuse to the English language.

And England haven't lost in 13 Tests - so that point is nearly redundant.