Global Cricket

Editorial: Full Member Greed, CEO Conflict of Interest

Decent hearted cricket fans around the world are deeply disappointed that the ICC 2011 Cricket World Cup will be contested by only 14 nations instead of 16 as previously promised.

Sickeningly but not surprisingly, the ICC Chief Executives Committee have voted to cut two associate nations from the 2011 World Cup that will be co-hosted by India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

Cricket is the only sport in the world that is openly discouraging countries from competing at it’s premier international event.

Soccer, baseball, rugby union, rugby league, basketball, field hockey and even ice hockey are expanding rapidly. It is the policy of these sporting organizations to showcase it’s newest members and to embrace the cultural diversity that different countries can bring to a major sporting event.

Meanwhile, cricket shoos away new countries like flies at a barbecue.

Continue reading

February 21, 2008 Posted by | Editorial | , , , | 9 Comments

Editorial: ICC Must Reject Proposed World Cup Format Changes

The International Cricket Council must insist that there is no reduction in teams for the 2011 Cricket World Cup.

The tournament’s hosts India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh have proposed that the number of teams that should compete at the 2011 event be reduced to just 14, with four associate countries “allowed” entry instead of six.

In other sports, such a proposal would be laughed at and shown the door without hesitation. Cricket, however, is a game that pays little attention to the spirit of competing and the cultural diversity that should automatically constitute a “World” Cup event.

Subsequently, this narrow minded and ill conceived proposal is actually being considered by the game’s governing body. Cricket World Cups are owned by the ICC and allocated to grateful and supposedly gracious hosts but such is the financial clout wielded by India (BCCI) these days, it is feared that the game’s keepers will cave in to BCCI pressure.

Continue reading

January 27, 2008 Posted by | Editorial | , , , , , | 22 Comments