Comments on: Amendments http://crucket.co.nz/2009/07/amendments/ Dedicated to the best little cricket team in the world – New Zealand's Black Caps Wed, 12 Oct 2011 07:42:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Another victim for R. Premadasa | Crucket http://crucket.co.nz/2009/07/amendments/comment-page-1/#comment-2023 Another victim for R. Premadasa | Crucket Tue, 08 Sep 2009 21:30:51 +0000 http://crucket.co.nz/?p=966#comment-2023 [...] was disappointed when the tour schedule was changed from 5 ODIs against Sri Lanka to a miniature tri-series with India, but considering how one-sided [...] [...] was disappointed when the tour schedule was changed from 5 ODIs against Sri Lanka to a miniature tri-series with India, but considering how one-sided [...]

]]> By: Suhas http://crucket.co.nz/2009/07/amendments/comment-page-1/#comment-1829 Suhas Sat, 11 Jul 2009 04:49:49 +0000 http://crucket.co.nz/?p=966#comment-1829 For those of us disappointed by this change in schedule, there's a two-point message in it which comes with a "get used to it" clause from the ICC (or the BCCI, if you look at it that way): 1. In this middle of all this talk about striving for a balance between the T20 expansion and the need to protect test cricket, the ODI has fallen by the wayside. In spite of the current stipulation that teams play no more that two T20s on tour, I think the ICC has decided that dropping some ODIs off the calendar is a convenient solution - nevermind that they could be focusing on improving the 50 over format or get down to organising a decent World Cup for once. By contrast, the amount of importance given to staging the Champions Trophy seems to indicate that bilateral ODI series are on their way out. 2. This solution is perfect for India (read: BCCI), as the tri series fills up a gap in their schedule. It also suits Sri Lanka fine - they still get to host a sizable number of games with the Indians guaranteed to bring in the crowds, and their players get a bit of a breather. Not so good for NZ, because ODIs are their strength after all. But we already knew where NZ figures in the ICC's priority list, right? For those of us disappointed by this change in schedule, there’s a two-point message in it which comes with a “get used to it” clause from the ICC (or the BCCI, if you look at it that way):

1. In this middle of all this talk about striving for a balance between the T20 expansion and the need to protect test cricket, the ODI has fallen by the wayside. In spite of the current stipulation that teams play no more that two T20s on tour, I think the ICC has decided that dropping some ODIs off the calendar is a convenient solution – nevermind that they could be focusing on improving the 50 over format or get down to organising a decent World Cup for once. By contrast, the amount of importance given to staging the Champions Trophy seems to indicate that bilateral ODI series are on their way out.

2. This solution is perfect for India (read: BCCI), as the tri series fills up a gap in their schedule. It also suits Sri Lanka fine – they still get to host a sizable number of games with the Indians guaranteed to bring in the crowds, and their players get a bit of a breather. Not so good for NZ, because ODIs are their strength after all. But we already knew where NZ figures in the ICC’s priority list, right?

]]>