[am1m]

Originally Posted by shipnil

I feel for the IPL team owners who see minimal contributions from Aussie players after spending big bucks.

That's a good point. But also wondering how much of a difference does winning the IPL really make to a team's revenue stream? I remember reading that KKR was the only team that made a profit during a couple of seasons and that was when they were consistently at the bottom half of the tables.

I think the owners already gain a lot of brand value (which translates into ad revenue) by just having some big names on their team. But certainly, no one likes a non-performing asset.

Would be fascinating to read some cost-benefit analysis for the IPL teams, am sure it's a business model that's quite different from other types of cricket.

[PPS]

Originally Posted by hemanth.anand

I don't have much hopes on the T20I series too.

T20 bridges the gap between teams because of the shorter duration of the game. But then we don't have a good T20 team!

Originally Posted by padmrajravi

I am hoping this series will prompt the selectors to look beyond Kohli for captaincy.

Even if England completely annihilate India at home in the coming months, I doubt thats going to happen. Maybe after the T20 WC next year. BCCI should also sack the fielding coach in the immediate future. Can't believe they stuck with Sridhar & rejected Jonty Rhodes!

Originally Posted by msdivy

Maybe BCCI must have asked for T20s, then ODIs and Tests. That would have helped Indian players coming right out of IPL.

I would prefer it the other way round infact- Tests,ODIs,T20, notwithstanding IPL. And 2 four-day practice games before Test Series in SENA countries is a must!

[Eddy]

Looks like schedule is screwed world over. NZ and West Indies are playing a test match and a red ball game between their A teams simultaneously.

[NPV]

Originally Posted by Eddy

Looks like schedule is screwed world over. NZ and West Indies are playing a test match and a red ball game between their A teams simultaneously.

The cricket boards of various countries and the ICC are finding it difficult to balance revenue and schedule in the calendar each year leading to player fatigue.

Some, like the Australian board step in when things seem to be going against their national team's interests and the Aussie players themselves draw a line and rest themselves sometimes. I think there's more on a global level to be done to get things to a more saner state but in the meantime BCCI and our own players also need to do something about it.

[libranof1987]

Originally Posted by Eddy

Looks like schedule is screwed world over.

Which is why I think we're soon going to be near a flash point when it comes to IPL. As it is, the IPL runs almost two months long; if BCCI gets its way, it'll be ten teams next year (as early as Mar/Apr). The players sure benefit (game-wise and financially), perhaps Boards too; but the IPL will be increasingly blamed for injuries/fatigue etc. by everyone.

Cricket seems to be run based on economic calculations over the past several years so there could likely be some confrontations. Let's see how long BCCI's financial clout manages to hold fort.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by libranof1987

Which is why I think we're soon going to be near a flash point when it comes to IPL.

There will certainly be issues raised, but I think in the end, it will end up like football where players play more for their clubs than they do for their countries and arrangements will be worked out where clubs need to release players to prepare for important international tournaments like the World Cup.

Most of the players also want it that way, playing T20 leagues is definitely more lucrative than playing for country and there are more opportunities. Boards want it that way. Team owners want it that way. And certainly TV channels and advertisers too want it that way. The majority of viewers too seem to find short, entertaining cricket more watchable than the other forms. So it's inevitable, I think. The debate of 'club vs country' is an old one in football and it's pretty obvious what dominates in that sport today.

[AtheK]

I think it's time ICC rethinks ODI's, i think with this time and age a 50 over game is just too long. Maybe change it to 35 overs a side, this will reduce fatigue on players and make the game interesting as well. If i had my way, I will let go off this 50 over altogether, just have T20, or maybe T25, and Test matches. Too many formats right now.

This will reduce the burden on players too, and boards can maybe concentrate on having a very different core of Test Team players.

In other news India is batting and Natrajan is making his debut and Bumrah has been rested for Today's match. Samson has been preferred over Iyer, I hope he makes it count, he has the talent but missing temperament.

[srishiva]

I thought both Samson and Iyer will do good. Still waiting.. IPL with all the hype hasn't contributed to any consistently good batsmen. We got a few bowlers.

I agree that 50 overs ODIs are too much. There used to be 40 overs which they can go back to again.

[VWAllstar]

Originally Posted by AtheK

I think it's time ICC rethinks ODI's, i think with this time and age a 50 over game is just too long. Maybe change it to 35 overs a side, this will reduce fatigue on players and make the game interesting as well. If i had my way, I will let go off this 50 over altogether.

ODIs are the charm for true enthusiasts. It is like saying cease 1.5+ L NA engines and manufacture only smaller turbo engines. Although this is the norm, the true fun of both cannot be depleted.
Better than changing international cricket, ICC should make IPL and Big Bash legit. Reduce the number of matches espcially in IPL and provide a window to both of these leagues. Keep one T20 WC once in 3 years and one ODI WC once in 4 years and an on-going world test championship.

[KPR]

By the time Indians got grip of ODIs they've now lost grip of T20s. What a master plan to conduct ODIs first and then T20s ! Over to you Dada for some power in scheduling.

[AtheK]

Originally Posted by KPR

By the time Indians got grip of ODIs they've now lost grip of T20s. What a master plan to conduct ODIs first and then T20s ! Over to you Dada for some power in scheduling.

Good game, though the talking point will be Sub more then the victory, even after dropping two catches in a row.

Good start.

[NPV]

Good that India managed to eke out a win in the first T20I despite not getting a very big total.
Chahal turned the tables and ended up man of the match after coming in a a "concussion substitute" for Jadeja

Justin Langer (of all people) was seen arguing with match officials on the decision to allow Chahal to replace Jadeja. Karma ?

[NPV]

Originally Posted by AtheK

I think it's time ICC rethinks ODI's, i think with this time and age a 50 over game is just too long. Maybe change it to 35 overs a side, this will reduce fatigue on players and make the game interesting as well. If i had my way, I will let go off this 50 over altogether, just have T20, or maybe T25, and Test matches. Too many formats right now.

That's a tough one - doing away with the 50 over format, after all there's almost a 50 year legacy to ODI's now (of course what started as 60 over games was reduced to 50 overs after few years). With history worth half a century I don't think the powers that be of International cricket will let go of the format.

[VWAllstar]

Why is Steve Smith not been given captaincy? He served the ban for a year or was there a mention of he or Warner to not be the captain of a National Side ever? I am missing some detail here.

Wade's place in the team is debatable so making him the captain shouldn't be the future plan.

[SoumenD]

Excellent finish by Hardik. He has been in great touch with the bat on this tour both in one days and now T20s. If he gets the bowling half as good as his batting we will have a genuine all rounder

Overall good all round performance by the men in blue in T20 series. 1st match was won by the bowlers, 2nd one belonged to batters. A whitewash would be great going into the Tests