Draft FTP- Home and away requirements scrapped

[Bugz]

From Cricinfo;

New details of the proposed post-2012 Future Tours Programme have emerged with David Morgan, the ICC president, stating the home-and-away component of the current model could be scrapped. All teams at present must play each other twice in Test and one-day series over a six-year cycle, but Morgan said the new FTP could reduce the mandatory requirement to one series.

Such a move would allow national boards greater flexibility in arranging bilateral "icon" series, and could lead to an over all reduction in scheduling depending on their maneuverings. Morgan was hopeful the relaxation of the home-and-away requirement would appease player unions, who have been outspoken in their criticism of the demands currently placed on elite cricketers.

"The process is similar but the results will be different," Morgan told Cricinfo of the draft FTP. "I can't elaborate, but at the moment it's a requirement that in any six year cycle each full member has to play the other home and away in a minimum of two Tests and three one-day internationals. I believe there will be a relaxation of that. Perhaps not in the number of games, but there's the possibility of instead having to play everybody home and away in a fixed cycle, you may either play them away or home.

"The FTP essentially is a basket of bilateral agreements between the ten full members with some consideration given to the more proficient associate countries like Ireland and the Netherlands. That set of bilateral arrangements is continuing. I firmly believe that it is very important to consult with the players. Where FICA [Federation of International Cricketers' Associations] is recognised, which is in the majority of countries, we are very happy to liaise and discuss things with Tim May and his team. I find them a responsible body."

FICA last month called on the ICC to scrap the FTP in its current format and enlist the services of independent consultants to devise a new scheduling system. In a letter addressed to the chief executives of cricket's ten full-voting countries, which has been obtained by Cricinfo, May, the union's chief executive, proposed an annual Test and one-day championship he believed would add context and attract renewed interest in the game.

The notion of a Test championship model has been supported by a number of cricketing bodies, Cricket Australia and the Marylebone Cricket Club among them. FICA's proposal would see the top eight nations split into two four-team conferences, with semi-finals and finals to be played every three years. The fourth and final year of the proposed cycle would be referred to as an "icon year", and include the World Cup as well as high-profile bilateral series such as India-Pakistan and the Ashes.

"We believe that the model of bi lateral ad hoc series that have been cricket's structure for the past century (and again from 2012-2020) is fast becoming an outdated model, and will be unable to cater for the changing cricket landscape," May wrote. "It is unusual for FICA to request the ICC and its member boards to review a decision of the ICC board, however, we are of the firm opinion that there are serious flaws in the proposed 2012-2020 FTP that will severely threaten the primacy of international cricket in future years."

The likelihood of such a model being adopted appears remote, however, with chief executives gravitating toward an FTP similar to that currently in operation, with the exception of the home-and-away requirement. Following a two-day board meeting in Johannesburg in October, the ICC issued a release stating an in principle agreement had been reached on the draft FTP.

[al Furqaan]

definitely BCCI (and to a lesser extend ECB, CA, and CSA) pushing this thru. basically we won't be playing in india ever, and england, australia, and possibly SA.

on the other hand, it could be good in that it could force us to become a powerful side at home and then perhaps gain a bit more leverage at earning away tours. but the result will be that we will be excessively weak away from home.

lets see what happens. but the powers that be it seems are hell-bent of making cricket a top 6 or top 8 nation sport at any cost.

[_Rafi_]

Not a good thing for BD. It means we wl play lesser test match. No country will invite ur except Zim for playing test matches.

Posted via BC Mobile Edition

[dash]

elitist, fascist, racist, ignorist, shaby, selfish and..........

what more u can expect from a game body which in the past had not allowed women to enter in its home of cricket they call "Lords"

[Eshen]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
definitely BCCI (and to a lesser extend ECB, CA, and CSA) pushing this thru. basically we won't be playing in india ever, and england, australia, and possibly SA.

on the other hand, it could be good in that it could force us to become a powerful side at home and then perhaps gain a bit more leverage at earning away tours. but the result will be that we will be excessively weak away from home.

I don't see that as a bad thing. As I said many times, I don't enjoy watching the team thrashed over and over in the Test arena. We are still far from being a force to be reckoned with at home. That should be our goal to achieve in next 8 years, then we can demand to be hosted overseas.

If the other boards are losing money by hosting our team, asking them to still host the team is same as asking for charity.

[auntu]

"I can't elaborate, but at the moment it's a requirement that in any six year cycle each full member has to play the other home and away in a minimum of two Tests and three one-day internationals.

Well to me that mean we would play England, India, Australia and probably Sauth Africa one series with each in this six years of time cycle. Yes why they would bother playing more with such a weak (in terms of making money) team like Bangladesh?

It's all about money.

[IanW]

Dash,

it's called Lords, because it used to be the back paddock of a cow farmer called Thomas Lord, and he lent it to his local cricket club, the Marlebone Cricket Club. Thus, Lord's Ground.

Eshen,

Without overseas tours, players dont develop. Regrettably, they dont develop on bullshit tours with one or two first class games and a test match or two, either. And thats part of the reason that we have so many crap sides around these days (Australia is the weakest in thirty years. Ditto England. Ditto New Zealand. Ditto Pakistan. India and Sri Lanka are doing ok, although Murali's replacement doesnt exist).

Finally, developing cricket, and cricketers, requires losing some money. Heck, have you seen the "crowds" in either the Sheffield Shield or whatever we're calling the local one-day comp these days ?

Dont play at the biggest and most expensive grounds - I wouldnt complain if the Tigers played Victoria at the Junction Oval, NSW in Newcastle, and Tasmania at Hobart, prior to a Test in Hobart and another one at the Junction Oval.

But without touring, teams just dont get better.

[Ashfaq]

I think Botham nailed it. Greed is destroying the game as we knew it. Sad but inevitable.

[Raynman]

Isn't it funny how to WI and NZ, limiting to top 5 or 6 is elitist but expanding to 8 and excluding BD and ZIM is fair and for Bangladeshis 8 is elitist but 9 is the perfect number and ZIM and IRE are seen as devaluing the 'pure orgasmic' test format.

It doesn't take a fortune teller to see whats coming. BCCI, CA, ECB are hell bent on changes and the other boards have just kept quiet instead of offering solutions. The problem with Test cricket is that NO board has a desire to see the format expand and all believe they are the chosen ones. In reality all of them (besides AUS and ENG) were given Test credentials to expand the game to begin with.

Just more of the same only less matches for certain nations including Bangladesh.

By 2012, IPL will be taking 12 weeks, Champions trophy another 3/4 weeks. Leaves plenty of time for Ashes and other 'iconic' series but not too much for us. If you thought we play ZIM way too much in ODIs, brace yourself for the same in Test cricket.

[BANFAN]

This will almost become an alternative to tier system. The top teams will try to play maximum within themselves; while the weaker one's will be left to play between them only. So you can forget about Playing specially Ind/Aus/SA/Eng because their borads will be impossible to convince by BCB to host a series against BD.

[dash]

[quote=IanW;1019379]Dash,

it's called Lords, because it used to be the back paddock of a cow farmer called Thomas Lord, and he lent it to his local cricket club, the Marlebone Cricket Club. Thus, Lord's Ground.

Good to know that; thanks for the info.......

i dont have a problem with the name 'lords" anyway....

cheers

[beshideshi]

Why dont they just strip off our test status? why the hell do they keep on saying *top 8 team* ?
this is becoming agonizing now, cant help but feel that the big boys think BD as a burden. Come on BD, lets show that we ARE in the top8

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Eshen
I don't see that as a bad thing. As I said many times, I don't enjoy watching the team thrashed over and over in the Test arena. We are still far from being a force to be reckoned with at home. That should be our goal to achieve in next 8 years, then we can demand to be hosted overseas.

If the other boards are losing money by hosting our team, asking them to still host the team is same as asking for charity.

the motive behind is certainly bad...no denying that.

the outcome, is not great, but it can be something positive for us, if we, as you have mentioned start to improve upon our already improved showings at home.

however, i will categorically reject this BCCI-brained thinking that cricket should be solely about money. i would understand if the BCCI was an impoverished board as india is an impoverished country. that is not the case, in the world of cricket, financially BCCI is like the USA and EU combined.

international cricket should be about playing for one's country, win or lose, money or no money. thats what club cricket and IPL, champions league, standford cup and all that other bullshit is for. no one goes to the FIFA world cup for money, they play for their people.

its safe to say that India, England, Australia, South Africa will not host us. if they don't host us, chances of us convincing them to tour will also be slim perhaps. we may have to pay them to come and tour us, which is a dangerous but necessary scenario.

the only countries that will host us would be SL, NZ, and WI.

basically be prepared to join the likes of afghanistan and kenya, if we keep that "house negro" mentality you just advocated as our official policy.

[Shoikoth]

As I have always mentioned - this is an elitist game.

But to have some mitigating thoughts -

a) WI did not accept or allow Pakistan games for a good period of 20 yrs due to monetary reasons also, between 60s - 80s.

b) India's role is very disturbing. Its only been in recent times that they have emerged as a powerhouse. Where would all of these tiering thoughts placed them, had Pakistan/SL gone down this avenue in the 90s. What about WI thumping England with blackwashes after blackwashes in the 80s/90s. The weak Australians of the 80s can probably be excused due to the Packer effect.


I wonder if SA/Australia will host us vs. their A teams.

Get some more players into County cricket.

After what WI did to BD in this last series does not give them the right anymore to complain against elitism.

[cricman]

Our Time will come one day when we get to call the shots, the transformation will happen so fast we won't be able kow when it actually happened.

I'm telling you were gonna beat England 2-0, it's gonna come crashing down really fast for them ... there still clueless vs our SLA

[Eshen]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
however, i will categorically reject this BCCI-brained thinking that cricket should be solely about money. i would understand if the BCCI was an impoverished board as india is an impoverished country. that is not the case, in the world of cricket, financially BCCI is like the USA and EU combined.

international cricket should be about playing for one's country, win or lose, money or no money. thats what club cricket and IPL, champions league, standford cup and all that other bullshit is for. no one goes to the FIFA world cup for money, they play for their people.

Any sport, played at club or national level, should be about rivalry. Better the rivalry is, naturally more money will come to it, as people value good entertainment.

Unfortunately, Test matches involving Bangladesh are very rarely good entertainment for people except die hard Bangladeshi fans.

Regardless how financially weak or strong BCCI, ECB, or CA is, I think they fully deserve the right to host or not to host Bangladesh team. I know you are dying to see Bangladesh team playing in this countries, but what matters most is whether people living in those countries interested to watch Bangladesh playing against their teams.

basically be prepared to join the likes of afghanistan and kenya, if we keep that "house negro" mentality you just advocated as our official policy.

So, you have no problem looking down upon countries ranked bellow us, but screaming discrimination when stronger countries do that to us!

Not sure how not keep asking for charity tours is house negro mentality. If we are proud of our team, should not we ask them to earn their value so other countries invite them to play, instead of begging other countries to host our team?

Other boards let us live on favors for 12 years (till 2012), it's high time we show our own worth.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Eshen
Any sport, played at club or national level, should be about rivalry. Better the rivalry is, naturally more money will come to it, as people value good entertainment.

Unfortunately, Test matches involving Bangladesh are very rarely good entertainment for people except die hard Bangladeshi fans.

fair enough.

Regardless how financially weak or strong BCCI, ECB, or CA is, I think they fully deserve the right to host or not to host Bangladesh team. I know you are dying to see Bangladesh team playing in this countries, but what matters most is whether people living in those countries interested to watch Bangladesh playing against their teams.

not at all...this is house negro mentality.

sporting bodies should be the ultimate authorities of sports and that inculdes scheduling. i'm not asking for 5 test series against the top sides, heck i'm not even asking for 3.

the NBA schedules games, and in so doing, a crappy team like the nets gets exactly as many games as does the lakers. moreover, the lakers cannot refuse to host the nets at staples center merely because of financial reasons. no one is gonna show up to watch kobe drop 50 points in a half against the nets. at least not compared to a match-up against the celtics.

even in NCAA, 2nd division basketball teams routinely play against the top dogs and you have mismatches like cornell against UNC, etc. and here we're talking about bangladesh a team which is cricket's top division. we're not talking about inter-divisional shits here.

So, you have no problem looking down upon countries ranked bellow us, but screaming discrimination when stronger countries do that to us!

not at all. i just said, if we accept the "yes massah" attitude, we'll be at afghanistan's level in no time, lickity split. and for the record, i'm a big proponent - probably biggest proponent - of BD playing a proportionate number of games against the likes of afghanistan, ireland, zimbabwe, and possibly kenya as well (the top associate/minnow sides).

however, i don't think we should play all of our matches against them.

thats the difference. BCCI only wants to play against ECB, SA, CA, etc.

in my opinion they should play us as often as we play the associates. plain and simple.

Not sure how not keep asking for charity tours is house negro mentality. If we are proud of our team, should not we ask them to earn their value so other countries invite them to play, instead of begging other countries to host our team?

Other boards let us live on favors for 12 years (till 2012), it's high time we show our own worth.

asking for your right - as stipulated by the current or previous FTP rules - is not asking for a charity. i'll agree our test status was "charity", but thats a moot point now, and regardless, if the point of cricket is to expand, then we were the next best side and thus deserved test status.

i'm not asking for our team to play more matches and play badly. but we will never improve if we don't play abroad. india, pakistan, Lanka have played more matches over a longer period of time abroad, and still have managed to combine for just a single win at a venue like perth.

losing to the power of BCCI, ECB, CA, etc is not a crime, but bending over backwards and displaying the house negro mentality is. we have to at least try to secure our position, whether it happens or not. we can easily get SL, NZ, and WI, and also PAK in on our side. this proposal is very much a "top 4" issue, and those teams will not be pleased with the results. we must work to get them into our corner.

[Eshen]

Originally Posted by IanW
Eshen,

Without overseas tours, players dont develop. Regrettably, they dont develop on bullshit tours with one or two first class games and a test match or two, either. And thats part of the reason that we have so many crap sides around these days (Australia is the weakest in thirty years. Ditto England. Ditto New Zealand. Ditto Pakistan. India and Sri Lanka are doing ok, although Murali's replacement doesnt exist).

Finally, developing cricket, and cricketers, requires losing some money. Heck, have you seen the "crowds" in either the Sheffield Shield or whatever we're calling the local one-day comp these days ?

Dont play at the biggest and most expensive grounds - I wouldnt complain if the Tigers played Victoria at the Junction Oval, NSW in Newcastle, and Tasmania at Hobart, prior to a Test in Hobart and another one at the Junction Oval.

But without touring, teams just dont get better.

No argument there. But keep getting thrashed in hand of stronger teams is not the only way to gain overseas experience. I think our players will learn better by playing competitive matches against strong FC sides in NZ, SA, Australia, and England, ie in A-team tours to those countries.

[al Furqaan]

http://www.banglacricket.com/alochon...tan+odi+status

scroll towards the bottom for my thoughts on hosting the afghan team...

[Eshen]

Asad, you have to earn your rights to ask for it. Currently Bangladeshi team is like non-productive teenagers totally dependent on their parents but keep asking for right for this or that.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Eshen
Asad, you have to earn your rights to ask for it. Currently Bangladeshi team is like non-productive teenagers totally dependent on their parents but keep asking for right for this or that.

not unless its already been given. ICC gave us test status, didn't they?

so how on earth can you infer that means we should NOT play tests?

i didn't see any "home matches" only proviso in that ICC decision.

what you are condoning is the BCCI/ECB/CA acting as the ICC for themselves and that is totally unacceptable, no matter what.

its a different issue the BCB was saying this. but our business should be in our hands or the ICCs. not some overly pompous boards with a pimp-like personality disorder.

and your argument is wrong, because BD hasn't exactly earned the right to play home tests, ODIs, or t20 matches either. are you advocating us relenquishing all those as well?

[Eshen]

I think the main reason for disagreement between I and Asad here is how we perceive ICC. Asad sees it as USA government that can tell states how they have to deal with each other. I see it as UN that can only admit a nation as its member and then act as a mediator between that member and other members.

ICC can give Test status to a country, but it was never given the authority to force other countries to play that one country. ICC can only suggest number of matches each country should play with each other, it's up to individual boards to figure out the FTP based on mutual understanding.

As far I know, there is no ICC rule that says a country can't refuse to host team from another country. It was a mutual understanding between different boards that they will play each other on home and away basis, and that understanding can be changed between boards.

So, regardless how disturbing you find it, our Test status does not give the team entitlement to a tour of India or Australia.

[Eshen]

Another thing people tend to forget is that India, Australia, England, and South Africa have dominant teams in Test arena largely because they invested a lot on FC structures of their own countries. If they look down upon other countries who have not done that, I can't really blame them.

On the other hand BCB sees NCL only as a token league to fulfill ICC requirement for full membership. In previous years, players put some efforts in NCL so that they could catch attention from top Dhaka clubs. Now that DPL has taken place before NCL, the next NCL will matter to only a few players on the fringe of national team selection. BCB (which is now essentially run by Dhaka club reps) don't seem to have much of a concern how NCL is digressing.

[Eshen]

BTW, Asad, I think it's ironic that you bring up the negro issue. Obama's election proves that color is not an issue in America anymore, but it's the Black community that's holding itself back. Now if some Black guy says its their own fault that so many Blacks live in poverty, I am sure he will be called a house negro.

*To be clear, I don't count Obama as Black, though he has done well get both Black and Brown communities to vote for him.

[Raynman]

Originally Posted by Eshen
BTW, Asad, I think it's ironic that you bring up the negro issue. Obama's election proves that color is not an issue in America anymore, but it's the Black community that's holding itself back. Now if some Black guy says its their own fault that so many Blacks live in poverty, I am sure he will be called a house negro.

*To be clear, I don't count Obama as Black, though he has done well get both Black and Brown communities to vote for him.

Even though Obama's election was a historical moment in US history, to equate that as an end to the color issue in America is like saying that following Benijir Bhutto's election or Hasina/Khalda elections Pakistan and and Bangladesh do not have issues with women's rights anymore.