Does Gilchrist wants ICC taken over by the BCCI?

It is really hard to decide whether as an Indian to feel good that there are players who support the BCCI though they once belonged to a different nation. And, this is what Gilchrist has to offer off late when he wants the IPL window to be included in the ICC international schedules table. Reason: The players no matter from which countries can feature themselves in the IPL and at the same time, needless to be said earn big bucks in addition. This, even though is not Gilchrist's personal problem with him already retired from all forms of international cricket.

It would not be a million dollar guess that if the IPL schedule is included in the ICC table, as a captain of the Deccan Chargers, Gilchrist can hope to have a lot and better choice of selecting the playing XI. However, this is not a problem when it comes to selecting 7 players with the rule that there should be atleast 7 players from India featuring in the playing XI. But, the question would obviously be the remaining 3 players if Gilchrist himself is excluded. And, there is Andrew Symonds who is at present not been found making it to the Australian squad and may be by the next year after the 2011 world cup he might retire as well.

However, coming to the point, irrespective of what plans Gilchrist has got in his mind, having IPL as a part of ICC international tours table would no doubt be a sort of putting pressure on the world governing body. Had the IPL been named as WPL then, may be the suggestion can be thought of seriously. But, the IPL has got to do a lot with India alone and not the world. Like, restrictions have been made regarding the number of players from outside India that can be included in the playing XI and also the venue where the tournament is held is India.

So, what has the ICC got to do with India alone with 8 other teams being a permanent part of it? And, if the IPL window is thought about, in what way does it make justice by keeping similar leagues held by other cricketing nations out of the ICC tours table? Is it for the sole reason that the IPL can guarantee great money for all players of the world that Gilchrist joins his hands for such an appeal? The BCCI has in the past as well been adamant on its issues though other boards have given their nod for the same. The best example for this would be the clauses put forward by the WADA that was accepted by all nations except India.

And, if the IPL window is given a nod, no doubt it would surely make the BCCI decide the international tours for the year and not the ICC.

Is Lalit Modi really interested in saving test cricket?

Well news on cricinfo cites that the IPL chairperson - Lalith Modi assures that the IPL will not last for more than 7 weeks despite there being a great hunger for the same. The reason he cites being that in case the IPL moves on further, there will be little or no scope for the remaining two formats of the game namely the test and the one day formats. But, if the ICC test calender for the year in given a close look at, the naxt time after the IPL) that team India will be playing a test series would be somewhere after 2011.

The sport's leading website- the cricinfo shows no tours featuring India even until the Ashes 2010 which will be heppening later this year. One can take a look at the test series' that are scheduled by the ICC until 2011, which would show the Ashes 2010-11 as the last test series that would be scheduled. This was the main reason for the BCCI to think over the fact that "how long can India retain their recently acquired number 1 rankings in test cricket?". And, if Lalith Modi is concerned about the players from overseas, one has to wonder what made him restrict the number of foreign players in the playing XI to just 4.

Is Lalith Modi interested in backing the domestic cricket that mainly involves test cricket in tournaments like the Ranji trophy, Duleep Trophy and Irani trophy? Then, what makes the BCCI play such matches on grounds located in lesser known places like Mysore when the same can be played either at Eden Gardens or the Firozshah Kotla? And, as far as my knowledge regarding these tournaments goes, all these test series' are being allowed to be watched free of cost. So, which revenue was Lalith Modi talking about? So, according to Lalith Modi, it has to be test cricket that attracts more viewership than the other two formats.

I remember people coming back cursing after being denied a ticket for a one dayer with the status of the same being house full or tickets being sold out. But, that has not been the case with test matches where fans are found leaving the stadiums the moment they get to know that there can be no more excitement expected from the match. If Modi is really interested in bringing crowds back to test cricket why doesn't he insist that there be a tournament similar to the Sheffield Shield tournament which features players from all over the world which is a 4 day tournament? The only reason why the IPL cannot last 7 weeks is bacause that is the fastest duration within which a tournament can be finished with 2 games being played daily and no as Lalit Modi says.

The fate of batting records these days...

In today's world of cricket, it would not be wrong to say that records are created rather than achieved by anyone. The latest one would be the 47th test hundred by none other than SachinTendulkar. Until a decade back, there was only Sunil Gavaskar who had scored more than 30 centuries in test cricket. But, today, there are five others excluding Gavaskar namely SachinTendulkar, Ricky Ponting, Brian Lara, Jacques Kallis, Steve Waugh and Mathew Hayden who have scored 30+ hundreds in international test cricket. It was somewhere in late 80s when Gavaskar achieved this feat.

But, the remaining six have done it in the past decade. It took 36 years for someone like Brian Lara to break Gary Sobers' record for the highest test score of 365* and just 6 months to break Mathew Hayden's score of 380 against Zimbabwe in 2003. There was a time when the bowler used to bowl the ball at the batsman the way he liked, with no restrictions upon the number of bouncers that a bowler can bowl in an over unlike it is today. There was no rule of a bowlers being prohibited to bowl further incase he bowls a dangerous delivery that is referred to as beamers in today's cricket.

Gone are the days when a test match used to yield results despite a team putting up a 700+ total. Yes, it is possible in today's cricket provided the team should be facing either the West Indies or Bangladesh for that to happen. One has to indeed thank the ICC for banning Zimbabwe from paying test cricket. In today's cricket, a total of 700+ on the board needs no further reason for it to be termed a draw in most of the cases. In today's cricket, a bowlers' main idea is to just bowl maiden overs than to get the opposition out.

No blaming the bowlers when the life for a batsman is made so easy that even tail enders like Harbhajan Singh & Mitchell Johnson can boast of 50+ scores and a debutant like Ravindra Jadeja can take the opposition bowlers for a ride. Batsmen need not bowl if they don't feel like. But, as the team loses wickets, bowlers will have to get in and take to the crese irrespective of whether it is his cup of tea or not. Finally, the bats that are available today can be considered to be those made of springs than willow that was the case a decade ago. The bats have so much power in them that a solid defence can find the ball go past the boundary.

Added to these would be the extended powerplays, batsmen friendly pitches, a free hit off a no ball and the advent of the T20 cricket. This can give rise to a lot of Sachins and Sehwags and less McGraths and Kumbles. Thanks for the entertainment ICC!