| 
Posts and words
Loading ...The national boards probably go along with it in return for other favours. You know, I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine? And since the ICC have already given England permission to add someone else to their existing 30, it just seems to be a bit of bureaucratic nonsense anyway. Gives them something to do, rather like these blogs for us nobodies 
Who makes these rules, and why do we put up with them?
By Scott 3 years ago, at the start of February Add your comment below
Via Cricinfo:
Andrew Symonds can be named in Australia’s World Cup squad and be replaced if he fails to recover from a serious arm injury, the ICC has ruled. Australia made the request because they are unsure how long Symonds will be out with a torn biceps.
Symonds suffered the injury during Friday night’s loss to England and had surgery on Sunday morning. Estimates on the speed of his return seem to vary from six weeks to six months, but he is in serious doubt for the tournament in the Caribbean. Australia’s first game of the World Cup is against Scotland on March 14 while the more important Super Eight stage begins on March 27.
Australia must announce their 15-man squad by Tuesday and Cricket Australia did not want to be forced into a situation where Symonds would be picked in the outfit and then have to drop out, leaving them a player short. AAP reported Dave Richardson, the ICC’s general manager of cricket, allowed the change.
I have some things to ask at this point. Why did national bodies allowe the ICC to determine how large their World Cup squads can be. And I do not see why they should not be changed?
What is the difference between the World Cup and the Ashes, where both nations can call up players that were not in the original sides. What about West Indies, who are hosting this tournament- why should they have to name a squad? The extra flexibility of being a host is denied them.
I’m just staggered that no one ever seems to have asked why the national boards allowed the ICC to dictate this nonsense to them in the first place.
Tags: 2007-world-cup, andrew-symonds, dave-richardson, ICC |
12 Responses to “Who makes these rules, and why do we put up with them?”
February 7th, 2007 at 6.31 am
February 7th, 2007 at 8.38 am
there should be complete freedom to choose..
this 30 man squad etc… makes no sense..
February 7th, 2007 at 9.33 am
The ICC has to have rules so that they can break them when they feel like it, I suppose.
February 7th, 2007 at 10.24 am
I thought they were required so that the ICC could make sure the programs for sale at the ground were printed on time. Or some equally spurious reason
February 7th, 2007 at 11.24 am
What ICC is trying to force on others doesnot make any sense. Restricting the squad to some players make the less game interesting. It clearly gives the opposition team who r all going to play and target them. This make it less interesting.
Also, if the board is not sure whether the player will be fit for the tournament or not, they will not take the risk of picking the player and wasting the option if he is not fit at the moment. So, it forces the board to drop good players which reduces the interest in the world cup.
The cricket board of the respective countries should be able to protest against ICC which is taking the wrong decision most of the time.
February 7th, 2007 at 12.09 pm
“Dave Richardson, the ICC’s general manager of cricket, allowed the change”
Wasn’t that nice of him?
I’ve always thought it was a stupid rule too … maybe it so they can get merchandise made up before hand?
February 7th, 2007 at 8.01 pm
ICC makes the rules, but ICC is the national boards, and my guess is that they simply copied football.
February 7th, 2007 at 8.46 pm
ICC makes those rules so they can:
A)put the appropriate player profiles in the (probably ridiculously overpriced) World Cup souvenir book.
B) Give themselves something to do, thus justifying their existence.
C) Show everyone that they make the rules, therefore they’re the ones in control, etc.
February 8th, 2007 at 2.41 am
Good thought Scott. I was kind of thinking along the same lines as RL – how does FIFA do it?
I don’t understand why the various boards must submit a list of players to the ICC (a rather small list at that) for a two month long tournament that can change in dynamics from one day to the next. This is the premier cricketing event on the 4-yearly calendar. We want to watch the best teams and players, whoever they are on any given day, throughout the tournament.
Besides, what if a certain unnamed team has a rash of players pulling up with cracked ribs? And concussion? And Stress Disorder? Will England, er, this unnamed team, be forced to play with less than 11?
February 9th, 2007 at 7.19 pm
Presumably it’s to limit the cost to the smaller nations involved?
February 10th, 2007 at 7.32 pm
“For the record, I do not believe spectators should be that close to the players..
Match referee Chris Broad
Not sure the Members at Marylebone will be too happy with that observation…..
February 13th, 2007 at 8.26 am
a Postscript: Although this is now a dead rubber subject, I just want to register my annoyance that the ICC has prevailed over Cricket Australia as to who is the team’s main sponsor for the World Cup. It came home to me when I saw the Cup team annouced in front of an Emirates logo with two air hostesses flanking Ponting and Hidditch.
Comments
« England take on New Zealand for a place in the finals | Main | Collingwood takes England to a famous victory »
