Which option is better for us: warming the bench or playing cricket?

Baundule · #1 May 13, 2009, 01:28 AM

Guys,

To avoid some fight, let me first clear my stance. I completely support the leagues like ICL or APL for the sake of cricket and I believe those leagues should be recognised by the ICC and the ban against those players is unjustified. I do not consider them as unpatriotic or something like that, rather I consider them as professionals.

I have full respect to the opposite view, except calling them gaddar etc. One can see that they knew the consequences (though unjustified and overawed by the BCCI on the BCB's part) and still they joined the ICL. SO, they do not deserve any sympathy.

Those are the things we have discussed quite a lot. But I was thinking what is good for cricket: will the emergence of leagues like ICL, APL be helpful for cricket, or they will create anarchy? Take our cricketers for example. Last year Razzak played in the IPL and got only a single match - 2 overs of bowling and then batting at 11 and Dravid was refusing singles, even when the match was already lost. This year, Mashrafe was a big signee; but he has not played a single match so far and the same is true for Ashraful. They are just warming the bench. On the other hand, in the ICL we have a team of our own and the way they played in the first season, they did perform quite well and with confidence.

So, in your opinion, which is better? Warming the bench or playing cricket? Which option is better for cricket? Banning ICL or co-existing such leagues with IPL?

Purbasha T · #2 May 13, 2009, 09:00 AM

Lol, had gone there too many times to do it again. But if asked for an opinion in few lines, I would say ICL-ers (barring some) didn't do anything wrong. Our Ash and Mash went to IPL, and our Warriors (again, barring some) went to ICL. Now if a ban on ICL is unfairly posed, it's not ICL-ers' fault. Everyone has the right to earn money. Just for an example, our Aftab-Alok-Nazim-Nafees are much much better than at least 50% of the players playing in IPL. Still they won't get chances there even if they come back from ICL. Bcoz? We all know. and ICL-ers said themselves, they'll play for BD national team whenver they're asked. But why should they get rid of the ICL contracts for that if IPL-ers don't need to do similar stuff? If some of they can, good, no problem. But if someone doesn't, no blame to be posed. So I would rather watch my ICL players PLAYING some cricket, rather than IPL-ers playing nothing...........and all these leagues should co-exist. And the ruling should be that anyone can play anywhere, but as soon as they players are called for the national team, they should be available.

cricket_dorshok · #3 May 13, 2009, 09:17 AM

The word 'should' is good for logic/counter logic but useless in the real world. and we are living in a real world whether you accept it or not.

Akib · #4 May 13, 2009, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Purbasha T
Lol, had gone there too many times to do it again. But if asked for an opinion in few lines, I would say ICL-ers (barring some) didn't do anything wrong. Our Ash and Mash went to IPL, and our Warriors (again, barring some) went to ICL. Now if a ban on ICL is unfairly posed, it's not ICL-ers' fault. Everyone has the right to earn money. Just for an example, our Aftab-Alok-Nazim-Nafees are much much better than at least 50% of the players playing in IPL. Still they won't get chances there even if they come back from ICL. Bcoz? We all know. and ICL-ers said themselves, they'll play for BD national team whenver they're asked. But why should they get rid of the ICL contracts for that if IPL-ers don't need to do similar stuff? If some of they can, good, no problem. But if someone doesn't, no blame to be posed. So I would rather watch my ICL players PLAYING some cricket, rather than IPL-ers playing nothing...........and all these leagues should co-exist. And the ruling should be that anyone can play anywhere, but as soon as they players are called for the national team, they should be available.

How in the world is afab, alok, nazim and nafees better than 50% of the IPL players? If so, they should have dominated ICL, but they did not.

And although playing cricket is good, I'd rather have players playing 4 day matches, rather than just 20/20.

limon · #5 May 13, 2009, 11:00 AM

Thank you Baundule for nice post. I am a big fan of ICL rather than IPL. IPL is nothing except money.

Nafi · #6 May 13, 2009, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akib
How in the world is afab, alok, nazim and nafees better than 50% of the IPL players? If so, they should have dominated ICL, but they did not.

They did...? what league were you watching? NFL??

Tigers_eye · #7 May 13, 2009, 11:10 AM

Not playing T20 at all, if that was an option.
++++
Now T20 WC is a parmanent fixture in BD's FTP. In that case, observing the potential opponents, being part of analytical process in breaking down opponents strength and weaknesses is better than playing with someone who wouldn't help in any of our future FTPs. In other words, warming bench.
++++
Khamba koi?

Tigers_eye · #8 May 13, 2009, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nafi
They did...? what league were you watching? NFL??

Dear Naf,
They didn't even make it to the semis. How did they dominate? That is what Akib was saying. Aftab, Nazim, SN weren't among the highest run getters, Taposh, Mosharraf wasn't among the highest wicket takers. Alok's only heroics was that single innings.

limon · #9 May 13, 2009, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigers_eye
Dear Naf,
They didn't even make it to the semis. How did they dominate? That is what Akib was saying. Aftab, Nazim, SN weren't among the highest run getters, Taposh, Mosharraf wasn't among the highest wicket takers. Alok's only heroics was that single innings.

At least better team than KKR.
[..] IPL as well as KKR

Neel Here · #10 May 13, 2009, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by limon
At least better team than KKR.

that's not saying much is it ?

some might even consider it to be an insult !

Ajfar · #11 May 13, 2009, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by limon
Thank you Baundule for nice post. I am a big fan of ICL rather than IPL. IPL is nothing except money.

and icl is .....????

Murad · #12 May 13, 2009, 01:47 PM

Warming up the bench is a better option to me. Nothing is better than free money.. you know..

Mashrafe wasn't fit when he left Bangladesh to play in the IPL. I was always hoping that he will not be selected. NOw he got more than a month break and I'm sure he has regained his fitness and will bowl fullspeed in the worldcup next month.

Zeeshan · #13 May 13, 2009, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bangladesh_sy
and icl is .....????

...for flirting with miss mayanti

MohammedC · #14 May 13, 2009, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muradnyc
Warming up the bench is a better option to me. Nothing is better than free money.. you know..

Mashrafe wasn't fit when he left Bangladesh to play in the IPL. I was always hoping that he will not be selected. NOw he got more than a month break and I'm sure he has regained his fitness and will bowl fullspeed in the worldcup next month.

Good point. Not only he had a month off, he has been practising regularly in nets. So he will be fit.
Only thing that can bother anyone is not seeing how he performs in match situation against some quality batsmen since we played Srilanka back in february. Thats nearly 3 months of easy cricket for Mash.

Purbasha T · #15 May 13, 2009, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MohammedC
Good point. Not only he had a month off, he has been practising regularly in nets. So he will be fit.
Only thing that can bother anyone is not seeing how he performs in match situation against some quality batsmen since we played Srilanka back in february. Thats nearly 3 months of easy cricket for Mash.

Well, I guess the practice matches at KKR must've helped a little or something.