Its a pretty interesting phase for the game of cricket and for the cricket lovers. Firstly, introduction of the Indian Cricket League (ICL) and then following the same context the Indian Premiere League (IPL). And not to mention their interesting rivalry. Now, IPL is backed by all the cricket boards and ICC to counter the ICL which is tagged as rebel league. Question is, as a cricket lover or a cricket goer what is your take? Would you really like to call ICL a rebel league while terming IPL the valid one.
Quite a long back, one of the famous cricket writer commented that no other business can match cricket in India. In a country where 'cricket' is the religion and 'cricketers' are the GOD, its not surprising that such a comment is very much apt and true. Board of Cricket Control in India (BCCI) is one of the richest organization in the world after the famous era of the former president Mr. Jagmohan Dalmiya. He did the real magic and brought money not only to the BCCI or ICC but to the game of 'Cricket'. Today if you look at the office bearers of the organization or even at the state level boards, you can understand why the big names including the politicians and ministers are so interested in capturing the top slot in the organization; why those persons meant to do some other works are spending their valuable times campaigning for their candidates in the board elections. Its all about money; if somebody says that his only goal is the development of cricket in that particular state or in India....excuse me!!! its not the only; it must be coupled with the intention of making money. Sometime I really wonder how the chief minister or an important central minister can get involved.
So to capture the immense potential of the Indian market Zee group came up with a very interesting concept of the domestic cricket league. I am not honest if I say that this concept has nothing for development of the Indian cricket. Of course, it has immense potential to develop the Indian cricket as well. Looking at the success of big European football leagues, ICL was a great idea indeed. My point is...boss, let them make money; but do something good for the game. And ICL does so. They are putting money into game, giving young players a real chance to work and learn with the world famous players, developing the cricket infrastructures. And in that sense they deserve the real kudos.
But our board personnel has their own idea. How can they tolerate any other organization doing better business and making more money than them. Its really nice to see the BCCI increasing the match fees for the domestics tournaments. Also increasing the fees for match referees and umpires, increasing prize money of domestic tournaments. Very much welcome idea indeed. But point is that does BCCI really need something like ICL to make these decision? Had there been no ICL, BCCI would have still taken these steps. The richest board of the world needs a reminder to do good work for the game of cricket. Shame on this.
Then BCCI introduces the IPL; It may be for making money; may be for doing good to cricketers and to cricket; may be just to counter with ICL. Whatever it is IPL emerged more colorful as expected. Things like IPL is much more welcome. Some people including players did not like the idea of the auction; but I would say, for the first time that's alright but second edition onwards clubs should do all the business with players. Now IPL got the support from all the cricket boards. Considering the powerful image of the BCCI it was not unexpected. That means, all boards through out the world sanction a notice to their players stating that they have full right to play in IPL but not in ICL. Players were reprimanded: whoever will join the ICL would lose the right to play for his country. What a stupidity? As a cricketer why should one interact with all those dirty politics?
Any cricketer has full right to play his cricket - be it for ICL or be it for IPL. In this era of professionalism its really upsetting to see the rule makers of cricket are making these absurd rules. In europe, a footballer can play for any of the clubs in any of the league - be it La liga or be it premiership or be it serie A. Then why a cricketer can not play for the league he wants to.
Its a loss for the cricket lovers to miss the action of players like Shane Bond, Andrew Hall, Macmillan, Kemp, Lui Vincent and so many. One may argue with the age of the players playing in ICL; but can any body argue with their quality? And what about the young bloods like Rayaduu or Jhunjhunwala? They were the future of the Indian cricket and we would miss them definitely.
In many other parts of the world, cricketers are not as highly paid as in India. Take New Zealand for an example. Playing cricket for livelihood is not that easy. Their board is neither that rich. For them, ICL was an opportunity to make some money and to make safe their future. What is wrong in that if a professional player wants to ensure his family future? And none has the right to stop them to do so.
BCCI along with other cricket boards are trying to monopolise the game of cricket. BCCI is an independent organization and responsible for its own constitution. But it has no right to tweak the game of cricket. If somebody has some better idea, why they should not accept that for the betterment of the game? As a private organization the cricket boards have no right to stop a player from playing for his own country if he is qualified enough.
I understand the need of a organization like BCCI; but there must be something to which these office bearers must be accountable. There must be some entity who would act to stop all these dirtiness to put the interest of the country above all the other things. There is no way some people would be allowed to play with the 'religion' of the cores of the cricket lovers. I understand, this entity should be Indian government in this case. But as number of big names and politicians are involved in the BCCI that is not also happening.
Now lets get back to the big question. What do you think as a cricket lover; should players participating in ICL be allowed to play for their countries? Should they be allowed to take part in all other domestic tournaments? Most importantly, should they be treated as a cricketer and allowed to play cricket?
Quite a long back, one of the famous cricket writer commented that no other business can match cricket in India. In a country where 'cricket' is the religion and 'cricketers' are the GOD, its not surprising that such a comment is very much apt and true. Board of Cricket Control in India (BCCI) is one of the richest organization in the world after the famous era of the former president Mr. Jagmohan Dalmiya. He did the real magic and brought money not only to the BCCI or ICC but to the game of 'Cricket'. Today if you look at the office bearers of the organization or even at the state level boards, you can understand why the big names including the politicians and ministers are so interested in capturing the top slot in the organization; why those persons meant to do some other works are spending their valuable times campaigning for their candidates in the board elections. Its all about money; if somebody says that his only goal is the development of cricket in that particular state or in India....excuse me!!! its not the only; it must be coupled with the intention of making money. Sometime I really wonder how the chief minister or an important central minister can get involved.
So to capture the immense potential of the Indian market Zee group came up with a very interesting concept of the domestic cricket league. I am not honest if I say that this concept has nothing for development of the Indian cricket. Of course, it has immense potential to develop the Indian cricket as well. Looking at the success of big European football leagues, ICL was a great idea indeed. My point is...boss, let them make money; but do something good for the game. And ICL does so. They are putting money into game, giving young players a real chance to work and learn with the world famous players, developing the cricket infrastructures. And in that sense they deserve the real kudos.
But our board personnel has their own idea. How can they tolerate any other organization doing better business and making more money than them. Its really nice to see the BCCI increasing the match fees for the domestics tournaments. Also increasing the fees for match referees and umpires, increasing prize money of domestic tournaments. Very much welcome idea indeed. But point is that does BCCI really need something like ICL to make these decision? Had there been no ICL, BCCI would have still taken these steps. The richest board of the world needs a reminder to do good work for the game of cricket. Shame on this.
Then BCCI introduces the IPL; It may be for making money; may be for doing good to cricketers and to cricket; may be just to counter with ICL. Whatever it is IPL emerged more colorful as expected. Things like IPL is much more welcome. Some people including players did not like the idea of the auction; but I would say, for the first time that's alright but second edition onwards clubs should do all the business with players. Now IPL got the support from all the cricket boards. Considering the powerful image of the BCCI it was not unexpected. That means, all boards through out the world sanction a notice to their players stating that they have full right to play in IPL but not in ICL. Players were reprimanded: whoever will join the ICL would lose the right to play for his country. What a stupidity? As a cricketer why should one interact with all those dirty politics?
Any cricketer has full right to play his cricket - be it for ICL or be it for IPL. In this era of professionalism its really upsetting to see the rule makers of cricket are making these absurd rules. In europe, a footballer can play for any of the clubs in any of the league - be it La liga or be it premiership or be it serie A. Then why a cricketer can not play for the league he wants to.
Its a loss for the cricket lovers to miss the action of players like Shane Bond, Andrew Hall, Macmillan, Kemp, Lui Vincent and so many. One may argue with the age of the players playing in ICL; but can any body argue with their quality? And what about the young bloods like Rayaduu or Jhunjhunwala? They were the future of the Indian cricket and we would miss them definitely.
In many other parts of the world, cricketers are not as highly paid as in India. Take New Zealand for an example. Playing cricket for livelihood is not that easy. Their board is neither that rich. For them, ICL was an opportunity to make some money and to make safe their future. What is wrong in that if a professional player wants to ensure his family future? And none has the right to stop them to do so.
BCCI along with other cricket boards are trying to monopolise the game of cricket. BCCI is an independent organization and responsible for its own constitution. But it has no right to tweak the game of cricket. If somebody has some better idea, why they should not accept that for the betterment of the game? As a private organization the cricket boards have no right to stop a player from playing for his own country if he is qualified enough.
I understand the need of a organization like BCCI; but there must be something to which these office bearers must be accountable. There must be some entity who would act to stop all these dirtiness to put the interest of the country above all the other things. There is no way some people would be allowed to play with the 'religion' of the cores of the cricket lovers. I understand, this entity should be Indian government in this case. But as number of big names and politicians are involved in the BCCI that is not also happening.
Now lets get back to the big question. What do you think as a cricket lover; should players participating in ICL be allowed to play for their countries? Should they be allowed to take part in all other domestic tournaments? Most importantly, should they be treated as a cricketer and allowed to play cricket?
No comments:
Post a Comment