PDA

View Full Version : ICC meeting


Tasin
March 17, 2005, 04:08 PM
Has the meeting already taken place ? Is there any news which concerns Bangladesh cricket ?

Mahmood
March 17, 2005, 04:32 PM
<a href="http://www.nayadiganta.com/2005/03/18/khela_diganta.htm">Click here for a report in Bengali</a>

Scroll down to the 2nd news there.

Apperently, on the first day they discussed on the tax exemption issue for Champions Trophy in India, Kenian cricket and the format for the next champions trophy.

May be ours is on their tomorrow's agenda.

AsifTheManRahman
March 17, 2005, 05:19 PM
fingers crossed...waiting...:)

couger
March 17, 2005, 06:12 PM
Yeah, lets keep our fingers crossed.

Ejaj
March 18, 2005, 09:11 AM
Seems like not such bad things happend against bBD cricket team. Although... I felt bad to know that Keneya will be stripped off their ODI Membership. Its definitely not good for cricket and kind of path showing future stipping action. BTW.. is the meeting is finished yet or any more agenda is still left?

Mahmood
March 18, 2005, 09:17 AM
What they are doin to Kenya is funny. Kenya will not have ODI status, but when they play any test nation, it will count as ODI. Also, if they play any of the top six Associate nation, it will also count as ODI. So, how is it not a ODI statue???

ICC is reminding me of Clinton (... depends on your definition of...)

Ejaj
March 18, 2005, 09:24 AM
well.. Keneya will not hold ODI Member status. I guess, its something to do with the revenue, income and fund shared by the ODI member countries and Keneya will not have any share of that. This is really ridiculas. Also.. as the system is abolished.. they are also not entitled to have alteast some fixed ODI fixtures in year. That is kinda bad for keneya as.. they have to wait for the mercy of other test playing countries in order to play an ODI. This is all so bad for Keneya Cricket.

Ejaj
March 18, 2005, 09:29 AM
Lady Luck smiled for BD cricket.

I was defintely relieved by the fact that.. ICC meeting raised the points for changes keeping in mind some really Important Agendas, which defintely gave BD cricket some breathing space. Some Important agendas are:

Queted: source: ICC Official Website (http://www.icc-cricket.com)
"
The structure of the international calendar six year options to be examined

The Board debated alternatives to the current five year international playing calendar that requires each country to play each other country once at home and once away during this period in a minimum of two Test matches and three ODI's in each series.

Options examined covered 4, 5 and 6 years.

The Board rejected any proposal to reduce the cycle length and has asked ICC management to investigate the practicalities and implications of moving to a 6 year international playing calendar.

The key principles that the Board has instructed management to take into account in developing this report include:

* That no country would lose its Test status;
* That any calendar must be able to accommodate the ICC events (World Cups, Champions Trophies and Super Series);
* That all Test countries would be entitled to have a minimum of two Tests and three ODI matches scheduled against each other Test playing country on a minimum of once at home and once away during the course of this 6 year cycle;
* That any calendar must accommodate Asian Cricket Council events including the Asia Cup and the Asian Test Championship; and
* That the calendar must accommodate those series that are played on a shorter schedule than the six year cycle such as Australia v England, India v Pakistan and England v the West Indies.

This report, including a draft 6 year program, will be developed over the coming months and be presented to the Board for further consideration.
"

So.. i guess... atleast till next meeting.. we dont need to worry much if our guys do well in games and also.. this gurantees some regular tests and ODI for BD.

Good luck BD cricket.

Navarene
March 18, 2005, 09:45 AM
Another highlight of the executive meeting is the extension of Ehsan Mani's term of office for an additional 12 months. The decision might be a sweet blessing for BD cricket.

Edited on, March 18, 2005, 2:46 PM GMT, by Navarene.

AsifTheManRahman
March 18, 2005, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by Navarene
Another highlight of the executive meeting is the extension of Ehsan Mani's term of office for an additional 12 months. The decision might be a sweet blessing for BD cricket.

Edited on, March 18, 2005, 2:46 PM GMT, by Navarene.

So they did extend the President's reign to three years.

This is a very good decision that the ICC have made. I am indeed relieved. Any kind of cut down on the number of tours would not only hamper our or the Zims' development, but also the development of cricket as a whole.

Btw - I don't support what they did to Kenya; and I don't support the decision of counting the matches they play with the associates as ODI's --> either give the associates ODI status or don't count their matches as official at all.

As an alternative, they could probably have postponed international matches featuring Kenya until their board and cricketers figure out solutions to their problems - this would create some pressure on the Kenyan authorities to resolve the issues that have held them back from performing well over the last couple of years.

mahbubH
March 18, 2005, 09:59 AM
the Board agreed that any future matches played between the top six ranked ICC Associate members and matches involving these teams and any of the 10 Test playing Members of the ICC, both within and outside ICC events, would be granted full ODI status.


I thik this decision will help the countires like Scotland, Namibia, etc. to improve their standard.

mahbubH
March 18, 2005, 10:02 AM
The Board agreed to recommend to the Annual Conference 2005 that the current membership sub-category of "ODI Member" be abolished with effect from January 2006 as it was no longer relevant.

If accepted this would see the sole member in this category, Kenya, resume the position of an Associate Member of the ICC.

So Kenya has to play ICC trophy from now on if the recommendation is accepted?

Trueblue
March 18, 2005, 10:03 AM
The Board agreed to recommend to the Annual Conference 2005 that the current membership sub-category of "ODI Member" be abolished with effect from January 2006 as it was no longer relevant.

If accepted this would see the sole member in this category, Kenya, resume the position of an Associate Member of the ICC.

If this recommendation is adopted at the Annual Conference, the Board agreed that any future matches played between the top six ranked ICC Associate members and matches involving these teams and any of the 10 Test playing Members of the ICC, both within and outside ICC events, would be granted full ODI status."

Yes that is the bit I am most interested in. :lol:

Edited on, March 18, 2005, 3:05 PM GMT, by Trueblue.

fwullah
March 18, 2005, 10:07 AM
This is completely outrageous for the ICC to reduce Kenya's ODI membership.

I am not a big fan of Kenya, because firstly they were once our rival and taking off this ODI membership off them means they will be lagging too far behind Bangladesh (which would have otherwise made me happy - because I am jealous of Kenya for the tremendous successes over the years), but even such a jealous fan as myself, I have to disagree with their decision. (And secondly, Kenya have managed to create so many Indian fans over the years and we couldn't)

They're living me no choice but to totally disagree with this decision. If they really implement this, how will the other major ICC Associate nations take this? It will simply 'demoralize' them.

I want to hear some of our Scottsh/Irish (or other Associate member) fans' views on this.

Navarene
March 18, 2005, 10:10 AM
(And secondly, Kenya have managed to create so many Indian fans over the years and we couldn't)
Bujhlam na

Edited on, March 19, 2005, 1:37 AM GMT, by Nasif.
Reason: Please don't use "code" tag, use "quote"

AsifTheManRahman
March 18, 2005, 10:14 AM
It must be demoralizing for the other nations. i mean, it serves no purpose - it will probably have the same effect on the other associates as would a cut down on test status of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. it's just not right. After all, they played in the WC semi finals once. the least the icc could do was give the board a last chance to resolve its issues. ektu threat marlei dekhten kemne baagh bilai howe jaay.


Edited on, March 18, 2005, 3:15 PM GMT, by AsifTheManRahman.

Trueblue
March 18, 2005, 10:16 AM
Why demoralise?

From Scotland's perspective some of our matches will get ODI status as will Kenya's if these teams are ranked in the top six associates.

At first sight this looks ok for Scotland. Frankly the top associates are quite evenly matched and one stretching ahead of the pack to claim the 'next one ODI' spot was going to take some time and was not certain to happen at all. We would be up for taking a formal tilt at a test side and would have welcomed ODI status for our games against Bangladesh.

Edited on, March 18, 2005, 3:18 PM GMT, by Trueblue.

Ejaj
March 18, 2005, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by sports_fan_bd

So Kenya has to play ICC trophy from now on if the recommendation is accepted?

I guess so... as they are no more ICC ODI Member. As far as i Know.. only ODI full member can directly play in the World cup. This is really demoralizing for Keneya Cricket.

AsifTheManRahman
March 18, 2005, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Trueblue
Why demoralise?
Edited on, March 18, 2005, 3:18 PM GMT, by Trueblue.

Well I wouldn't count Scotland in the pool of associates to get discouraged by this move. Scotland's ODI status IMO is around the corner, and they should get it irrespective of what's happening in Kenya. I was referring to other nations to whom Kenya is more of an example than an opponent you know you can beat any day but aren't given the opportunity to :)

PoorFan
March 18, 2005, 10:40 AM
I think taking away ODI status of Kenya could be a penalty of their internal problem.
May be it's also a strong signal to all associate members to maintain good cricket discipline.
Once Kenya overcome their problem, they will get their ODI status like as other associate member.
And I don't think it has any relation with cut down test status of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe,
because they has recommended "That no country would lose its Test status".

Fazal
March 18, 2005, 11:04 AM
>>The Board agreed to recommend to the Annual Conference 2005 that the current membership sub-category of "ODI Member" be abolished with effect from January 2006 <b>as it was no longer relevant. </b>

If approved, doesn't look like they have any plan to bring back category of "ODI Member" even Kenya overcome their problem


Edited on, March 18, 2005, 4:59 PM GMT, by Fazal.

milton_eng
March 18, 2005, 11:33 AM
The structure of the international calendar six-year options to be examined

http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2005/MAR/209315_WCI_18MAR2005.html

Kenya to lose ODI member status

Link (http://usa.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2005/MAR/209247_KENYA_18MAR2005.html)

What do you guys think about that !

Edited on, March 19, 2005, 1:38 AM GMT, by Nasif.
Reason: URL too long

Zunaid
March 18, 2005, 11:39 AM
# That no country would lose its Test status;
# That any calendar must be able to accommodate the ICC events (World Cups, Champions Trophies and Super Series);
# That all Test countries would be entitled to have a minimum of two Tests and three ODI matches scheduled against each other Test-playing country on a minimum of once at home and once away during the course of this six-year cycle;
# That any calendar must accommodate Asian Cricket Council events including the Asia Cup and the Asian Test Championship; and
# That the calendar must accommodate those series that are played on a shorter schedule than the six-year cycle such as Australia v England, India v Pakistan and England v West Indies.

Good news - see the bold sections. This implies the farcical proposal of playing home only did not make it. We may have a reduced shcedule but not limited to home only. I suspect the Zim rebels opting back in helped in this decision.

Shame about Kenya. More due to administrative shenanigans and problems than due to performance,

Zunaid
March 18, 2005, 11:42 AM
Merged

chinaman
March 18, 2005, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Zunaid
We may have a reduced shcedule but not limited to home only. I suspect the Zim rebels opting back in helped in this decision.

Shame about Kenya. More due to administrative shenanigans and problems than due to performance,

Yeah, that might be the case. Also our credible showings in the last few months must have played a huge part to silence a few critics.

Kenya has no one to blame but themselves.

AsifTheManRahman
March 18, 2005, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by chinaman
Kenya has no one to blame but themselves.

Interesting. Because when you come to think of it, it was indeed the board's fault. How much can you blame the players? I'd surely blame them, but then also have some sympathy for them. The greatest irony is that the general public don't know anything about cricket at all, and the stripping of the ODI status will not leave too many deprived or stranded (except for 10/12 players and a couple of deserving board members).

Xavier
March 18, 2005, 12:41 PM
I apologise for my ignorance about that but if One Day matches played by 5 best associate members and Kenya, with test status nations and amongst themselves, will be considered "official" ODI matches that does mean that they will be counted in the ICC ODI Championship ?
If not what is the sense in considering those matches as official? What does it change?

AsifTheManRahman
March 18, 2005, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Xavier
I apologise for my ignorance about that but if One Day matches played by 5 best associate members and Kenya, with test status nations and amongst themselves, will be considered "official" ODI matches that does mean that they will be counted in the ICC ODI Championship ?
If not what is the sense in considering those matches as official? What does it change?

well Xavier, we're as clueless as you! it really doesn't change anything at all...stupid decision by the ICC!

the game is going to the dogs! :)

Trueblue
March 18, 2005, 01:42 PM
Nor am I sure of the implications. I presume that they may be included in the ICC ODI Championship. If so then more chance of more points for Bangladesh.

However even if there were no Test or ODI Championships would a Bangladesh supporter not bother about an 'official' win against England.

It must make a difference since I see regular posts here wondering if a match has ODI status and being less bothered about a non 'official' match.

What does it change? For an associate country it means that a good performance will not be dismissed as just a friendly. Within that country it also gives more recognition to the national team and to the game of cricket and raises the level of interest and support. Would Bangladesh have more or less support if it played matches of less status.

Edited on, March 18, 2005, 6:58 PM GMT, by Trueblue.

Mav
March 18, 2005, 02:27 PM
What about cutting "away" serieses for Bangladesh and Zimbabwe? was anything decided on that??

Xavier
March 18, 2005, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by AsifTheManRahman

well Xavier, we're as clueless as you! it really doesn't change anything at all...stupid decision by the ICC!

the game is going to the dogs! :)

Hello Asif, apart from the doubt on One Day Championship I think that increasing the number of country playing "officials" ODI would be a good idea to promote the game in the world, as I have already written on this forum, whether it is right to let test status only to the ten countries who deserve to play it.

Just think of football: it is the most popular game in the world and each country has its place in the FIFA world ranking (they are more than two hundreds!).

By the way... I have discovered that Italy in cricket is n. 29, after ending 7 in wcqs2, it' s a long way till we get to Australia!:lol:

RazabQ
March 18, 2005, 03:33 PM
Obviously, like any Bangladeshi, I am relieved that our schedule has not been curtailed. Also, regardless of my personal desire to see them whupped by us everytime BD playes 'em, I am dismayed to learn that Kenya lost ODI status. But beyond these two mainstream issues, the following to captured my attention:

1) Super series getting Test match /ODI status.

I think this is not right. Will the Packer series be retroactively included on this? I really feel they should have created a special category of 1st class cricket for this thing.

2) Sri Lanka rep changes

Sheesh! These cricketing bodies are so bloody unprofessional. Ours has an exec board that's suing or what not. Kenya & US gets suspended status & funding cuz theirs are feuding. Pakistan & Windies are yet to introduce central contracts. UK one just sold their soul to Sky TV. Seriously, I wish there was some accountability to these people

couger
March 18, 2005, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Rajputro


ICC is reminding me of Clinton (... depends on your definition of...)

Ha ha ,good one.

"I smoked but didn't inhale"--the line that launched a thousand comedian's career.

Hasib
March 18, 2005, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by razabq:

1) Super series getting Test match /ODI status.

I think this is not right. Will the Packer series be retroactively included on this? I really feel they should have created a special category of 1st class cricket for this thing.



The Packer Series was not arranged by the ICC...infact they weren't happy with it...

fwullah
March 18, 2005, 11:33 PM
Comments by Andrew Miller (http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2005/MAR/209521_WCI_18MAR2005.html)

RazabQ
March 19, 2005, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by Hasib
The Packer Series was not arranged by the ICC...infact they weren't happy with it...

I'm aware that Packer series was not organized by the ICC. That doesn't change the fact that the standard of cricket in those matches were arguably some of the highest in the history of cricket. Who can forget Sobers double century against Lillee in full cry? Or Holding breaking the late, not-so-lamented-by-me, Hooksies jaw with a vicious bouncer?

Tasin
March 19, 2005, 01:14 AM
'''''''''Instead, the ICC approached the issue with a bargepole tucked under their arms and, without singling any team out for special treatment (as had been widely expected), they instead gave each Test-playing nation six years instead of four to fulfil the terms and conditions of the Future Tours Programme, which requires all sides to play at least two Tests and three one-day internationals home and away over a fixed period.

On the face of it, it is a typically fudged issue. But, thanks to a craftily disguised sub-clause which permits the popular series (England v Australia, India v Pakistan) to keep their current timeframes, the fudge could in fact prove to be a cleverly worked compromise.

By opting, therefore, for a six-year compulsory cycle with provision for four, the responsibility has in effect been passed back to the individual nations. The popular (and by the same token, the profitable) series will be played over four-year cycles; the others shoehorned in where necessary. """"""

Source: http://nz.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2005/MAR/209521_WCI_18MAR2005.html


Is it really all a thumps up situation for Bangladesh ? It appears that the 'two tier' system is indirectly "imposed" on, not only Bangladesh but apart from the four countries- Australia, England, India & Pakistan- to the rest of the Test playing countries. The 'Elite' group being able to play according to their current four year time frame, but the rest won't be able to do so. The rejoice being Bangladesh able to play 'away' series, as well as home series, and the minimum number of the Future Tours Programes games.

My apologies if I am totally wrong.


Edited on, March 19, 2005, 6:19 AM GMT, by Tasin.

Edited on, March 19, 2005, 6:40 AM GMT, by Tasin.

Edited on, March 19, 2005, 4:30 PM GMT, by Tasin.

Edited on, March 19, 2005, 6:03 PM GMT, by Tasin.
Reason: Addition

Ahmed_B
March 19, 2005, 11:02 AM
"...they instead gave each Test-playing nation six years instead of four to fulfil the terms and conditions of the Future Tours Programme, which requires all sides to play at least two Tests and three one-day internationals home and away over a fixed period."

that means all the nations will have to do their Tours within 6 years instead of 4... not just the minnows.

Shehwar
March 19, 2005, 11:58 AM
What ever it is.....Its bloody confusing thats for sure...