Advertise on CBF

Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: IPL 2012  (Read 10825 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Cover_Drive

  • Moderator
  • Forum Legend
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5698
  • Trade Count: (+14)
Re: IPL 2012
« Reply #15 on: February 04, 2012, 05:31:01 PM »

Playing against better players makes you up your game.

If Afridi was bowling at Tendulkar, he would be more determined to get him than say Mahmullah

Yeah but in 4 overs you really can't develop your skills really.

Thats just a way I think
Logged
Twitter: @_UzairM

Cover_Drive

  • Moderator
  • Forum Legend
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5698
  • Trade Count: (+14)
Re: IPL 2012
« Reply #16 on: February 04, 2012, 05:32:47 PM »

While I agree with CD about the aspect of Test Cricket being the real test for players, at the same time 20/20 is the real deal for a quality fun-time for the audience and players as well and hence this format is important as well when it comes to the entertainment value of it.

Also face it, not every player is qualified to play proper test cricket. So 20/20 holds special value for them as well.

Love it or hate it, we have seen IPL to be the real deal when it comes to excitement and entertainment value. Someone who says otherwise is surely mistaken or is forcing himself to think in the opposite direction. Whether you will like it as a purist though is a different question.

The other question of course is whether it is good for the game but that, is quite a complicated question.  :)

Well when you talk about any cricketer you look at there test record really, in my eyes Test cricket is real deal and most important aspect of cricket.

Twenty20 is just an entertainment which is for four hours, so from business perspective and entertainment perspective it is good but I would seriously not consider Sachin century in IPL over his century in Lords, never ever!
Logged
Twitter: @_UzairM

kaustav

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1087
  • Trade Count: (+4)
  • Excuse me for requesting your pardon: I am drunk
Re: IPL 2012
« Reply #17 on: February 04, 2012, 05:46:43 PM »

Well when you talk about any cricketer you look at there test record really, in my eyes Test cricket is real deal and most important aspect of cricket.

Agreed that Test cricket is the real deal. But not many end up playing it right? Look at Afridi for example; a highly sought after player who never played that well in Tests. For many of these superstars, past-present-future, 20/20 is just about right to make an impression. Again, I would rather watch a gripping 5 day game than anything else but T/T does not hold back for its entertainment value on an average.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2012, 05:49:27 PM by kaustav »
Logged
In Water I trust!!

Cover_Drive

  • Moderator
  • Forum Legend
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5698
  • Trade Count: (+14)
Re: IPL 2012
« Reply #18 on: February 04, 2012, 05:49:40 PM »

Agreed that Test cricket is the real deal. But not many end up playing it right? Look at Afridi for example; a highly sought after player who never played that well in Tests. For many of these superstars, past-present-future, 20/20 is just about right to make an impression. Again, I would rather watch a gripping 5 day game than anything else but T/T does not hold back for its entertainment value on average.

''But not many end up playing it right?''

Afridi was in Test cricket, he himself opted out of it. It was his decision it was not that he was not able to play test cricket.
Logged
Twitter: @_UzairM

kaustav

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1087
  • Trade Count: (+4)
  • Excuse me for requesting your pardon: I am drunk
Re: IPL 2012
« Reply #19 on: February 04, 2012, 05:57:35 PM »

Yep not many end up playing Test Cricket. Look at the number of guys were there in the Big Bash and in the past IPLs. Not many of them would have played Test cricket or would ever play it in the future. It is like playing first class cricket with some bigger names and with packed audience. What more can these guys want? Look at Vinay Kumar--- 2 million dollars yet with no prospect of having a longish test career.

I know Afridi retired of his 'own accord'. But he has always been a bigger star in the shorter formats of the game. The same can be said of Azhar Mahmood as well.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2012, 06:01:59 PM by kaustav »
Logged
In Water I trust!!

cricketbadger

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2073
  • Trade Count: (+1)
Re: IPL 2012
« Reply #20 on: February 04, 2012, 07:18:16 PM »

some shocking indian players been paid far too much for and some quality players going unsold never mind for cheap prices
all i load of rubbish if you ask me, IPL has run its course
Logged
If we don't beat you we'll knock your bloody heads off.
TCA Coach

kaustav

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1087
  • Trade Count: (+4)
  • Excuse me for requesting your pardon: I am drunk
Re: IPL 2012
« Reply #21 on: February 04, 2012, 07:24:33 PM »

I think the above decision was dictated by the 7 Indian players in each team rule. Otherwise no one in their right minds will pay Vinay Kumar so much....lol  :D
Logged
In Water I trust!!

100 not out

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2244
  • Trade Count: (+11)
Re: IPL 2012
« Reply #22 on: February 04, 2012, 07:31:36 PM »

Vinnay Kumar would struggle to get into a county first eleven in my opinion. The IPL will ruin Indian cricket. These lollipop bowlers becoming overnight stars without putting in the hard yards can't be a good thing.
Logged

kaustav

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1087
  • Trade Count: (+4)
  • Excuse me for requesting your pardon: I am drunk
Re: IPL 2012
« Reply #23 on: February 04, 2012, 07:35:08 PM »

Vinnay Kumar would struggle to get into a county first eleven in my opinion. The IPL will ruin Indian cricket.

Yes and unfortunately yes. This is what worries some of us a lot  >:(

But for sheer entertainment value IPL is huge.

For growth in Test Match Arena, it is a curse.
Logged
In Water I trust!!

Opener

  • County 2nd XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 399
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: IPL 2012
« Reply #24 on: February 04, 2012, 09:30:03 PM »

I only watched the IPL when Pakistani players were involved because the quality of cricket I feel is not that great. It is great entertainment but with no horse in the race I don't have much to follow. Test cricket I can follow any two quality oppositions but with T20 I feel it's not the same. 
Logged

Wills

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1365
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Seams too good to be true
Re: IPL 2012
« Reply #25 on: February 04, 2012, 09:36:25 PM »

I just see the IPL as a massive money making exercise for the franchises involved.
I do watch it regardless of who plays, after all cricket is cricket.
But it's not just the IPL but also the rapid growth in T20 cricket in general which I feel has been the reason for the slight decrease in the standards in the Test arena.

Having said that though, IPL is the main contributor.
Logged

kaustav

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1087
  • Trade Count: (+4)
  • Excuse me for requesting your pardon: I am drunk
Re: IPL 2012
« Reply #26 on: February 08, 2012, 05:45:18 AM »

Couple of interesting articles on the IPL :

http://www.espncricinfo.com/indian-premier-league-2012/content/current/story/552488.html

Modi helped Mumbai get Pollard - official

The secret tiebreaker rule in the IPL player auction was devised by Lalit Modi, the former IPL commissioner, "for Mumbai Indians to get Kieron Pollard" in 2010, an official from one of the original eight IPL franchises has said.

The official's comments were made to ESPNcricinfo after Modi, during an interview to Indian television channel CNN IBN, said the tiebreaker was meant to level the field in the IPL. Modi however did not answer the question as to why the tiebreaker had to be kept secret.

"The tiebreaker only came in because, how do you determine when you have a fixed purse for the tournament. And this is well researched, that you reach the cap and still two teams are bidding, secret tie-breaker came as a penalty clause where the team actually pays back a higher fee but it goes back to the BCCI, which is then used to offset other player costs," Modi said. "But the objective, again, was to make it equal. All bidders get an equal opportunity to buy a player."

The franchise official, however, disagreed and said the field had not been level even during Modi's time as IPL chief. "The truth is, has there been favouritism in the IPL? Of course there has been," the official told ESPNcricinfo. "There has been favouritism in the sense, if you create a rule like the tiebreaker, you know it favours only certain franchises. That rule was made by Modi himself. The tiebreak rule was made for Mumbai Indians to get Kieron Pollard in the auction."

The auction of a player goes into a secret tiebreak when more than one franchise bids the maximum permissible amount for him. The competing franchises are invited to submit secret bids in a sealed envelope, and the highest bidder gets the player. The value of the secret bids are not disclosed and the amount in excess of the maximum open-auction bid goes to the BCCI and not the player.

So far only three players have been bought via this rule. In the 2010 auction, more than one franchise made the maximum open-auction bid - $750,000 - for Pollard and Shane Bond. During the tiebreakers, Mumbai made the winning bid for Pollard while Kolkata Knight Riders bought Bond. In the 2012 auction on February 4, Chennai Super Kings and Deccan Chargers bid their entire purse - $2 million - for Ravindra Jadeja, forcing the sale to be decided via a tiebreaker, which was won by Chennai.

The franchise official also pointed out another example of Modi altering regulations, in the case of the selection of Indian Cricket League players, who were given amnesty after their bans. "The original idea was that there would be draft pick," the official said, explaining that the franchise with the poorest record would get the first pick. "But instead, Modi said anyone can pick anyone. Mumbai Indians immediately picked R Sathish, Ambati Rayudu and Ali Murtuza, who played a significant part for Mumbai in the first three years. Two of the most significant rule changes, which favoured big teams, happened during Modi's time.

During the interview Modi targeted the BCCI president N Srinivasan, who is also the managing director of India Cements, the company that owns the Super Kings. Modi alleged Srinivasan was bending rules to suit Super Kings' needs. While the official ESPNcricinfo spoke to said the rules did favour the bigger franchises, he said it was not cheating.
"If you ask me, if the system favours Mumbai or Chennai, yes wherever it can. For example if there is a rule that Rs 30 lakhs is the limit (for uncapped domestic players) to come and sign whoever you want, you knew that players would be signed by the big guys and they would pay obscene amounts under the table for the players they wanted. But to say that is cheating, is not correct."


Another one:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/indian-premier-league-2012/content/current/story/552470.html


Flintoff sale rigged at 2009 IPL auction - Modi



Lalit Modi, the former IPL commissioner, has said he was arm-twisted in to rigging the 2009 player auction to ensure Andrew Flintoff was sold to the Chennai Super Kings. N Srinivasan, the BCCI president and the managing director of Indian Cements, the company that owns the Super Kings, dismissed Modi's allegations as lacking in "substance or truth".

Modi, who was sacked as the league's commissioner on charges of financial irregularities and is currently based in London, also claimed that the exclusion of Pakistan players from the 2009 IPL season was because of "arm-twisting" by BCCI officials.

"I shouldn't have let that [the rigging of Flintoff's sale] happen", Modi said during an interview to CNN-IBN, an Indian news channel. He also said the IPL was no longer the level playing field on which it was built, and that rules were changed to suit the bigger franchises. He conceded there was a lack of transparency and said the tournament had moved far enough from its basic principles to affect its long-term viability.
Srinivasan, who was BCCI secretary at the time of the 2009 auction, denied the allegations. "All I can say is that there is absolutely no substance or truth in what he [Modi] is saying," he said. "If he is talking about 2009 why is he saying all this in 2012."

The most damaging of Modi's statements concerned Flintoff's auction. Asked whether it had been rigged, he said: "Yes that is a fact. I made it clear that time. That onus was on me and as chairman I should have not allowed that to happen then. I was arm-twisted to allow Andrew Flintoff to go to Chennai Super Kings. I'm to blame for that. It's a fact."
Chennai bought Flintoff for $1.55 million at the auction in Goa, making him the most expensive player at the time alongside Kevin Pietersen. In buying JP Duminy for $950,000, Mumbai Indians had effectively ruled themselves out from the bidding for Flintoff, and Royal Challengers Bangalore did not enter the bidding for him at all. Rajasthan Royals tried to keep pace, but after buying Shaun Tait they had only $1.5 million left in their purse. The Deccan Chargers showed no interest in Flintoff, and Chennai eventually got him. Flintoff, however, played only three matches in the 2009 season before returning home injured. Knee surgery then ruled him out of the 2010 tournament.

In the interview, Modi also commented on the absence of Pakistan players from the 2009 tournament. They played the first season in 2008 but the Mumbai terror attacks in November that year put their future participation in doubt. Some Pakistan cricketers were part of the 2009 auction but they did not attract a single bid from any of the eight franchises. Modi said "arm-twisting" by the BCCI "that nobody should pick them" had led to the shut out of Pakistan cricketers.

The BCCI has been under scrutiny and criticism following the decision by Sahara, the sponsors of the Indian team and owners of the Pune Warriors IPL franchise, to pull out of its association with Indian cricket. Pune Warriors did not take part in the IPL's supplementary auction held in Bangalore on February 4. Modi said that in the light of the Sahara dispute, he would not have allowed the auction to take place. "I would have not allowed the rules to be changed at first place. There would have not been a problem with Mr Subrata Roy or anybody had the rules been consistent."

The pullout he said was "a big blow" for the BCCI, which was struggling to retain its sponsors. "We cancelled the contract with Nimbus without encashing their bank guarantee. With Kochi, Sahara, Nimbus and Sony contracts going down, it's close to Rs 10,000 crores [approximately $2 billion] loss to BCCI."

Modi also criticised the IPL's decision to allow the franchises to retain up to four players after the contracts expired at the end of the 2010 season. Chennai and Mumbai Indians were the only teams to retain four players.
"The retention clause was only for first three years. All players were supposed to go back to auction after first three years," Modi said. "In the fourth year [2011] that did not happen and they allowed the players to stay back. That became a problem... [it] was at the detriment of the new teams. When the new teams come in, that's a problem for them and I had pointed out it last year. If you pull out few things the entire model is going to fall apart."

QUICK COMMENT
Modi kills his own dream

Lalit Modi turned up on India's TV screens again, earnest, confessional, talking about what had happened to the IPL and Indian cricket in his absence. One IPL team has pulled out, two more are in arbitration, a fourth in litigation, the BCCI has dissociated with its broadcast partner Nimbus, lost its team sponsor Sahara, the team itself is losing and rights are hard to sell. Modi spoke forcefully about a list of the errors committed by BCCI's honchos in the IPL and its discriminatory practices that worked against all but the two strongest teams and even admitted to wrongdoing on his part - of being "arm-twisted" by "senior BCCI officials."
During his tenure, Modi was the IPL's chief mascot and the BCCI's most energetic fund-raiser, earning the clout to twist a few arms himself. Not the meek accessory he says he was in the cases of Flintoff and the Pakistan players. Unlike the IPL's current governors, Modi ensured that the league always looked like its marketing plan. It was a shiny, megabucks, high-octane package of cricket and glamour that drew big spenders towards its bonfire of vanities. To make that happen, though, the IPL's rules became its bendy toys - starting in Modi's time itself. Sometimes the rules were applied, sometimes rejigged, to suit a few beneficiaries. Money from public auctions "tie-breakers" was kept private and team ownership patterns were equally opaque and could never really be understood.
Now in exile, Modi's new marketing strategy is to become the IPL's lone truth-teller when he is in fact the man who wrote its source code. What he said on TV is merely affirmation of what was largely known: that the IPL's glitter disguised a closed-door clique of the wealthy who, rather than playing by the rules, played with them.
Sharda Ugra
Logged
In Water I trust!!
Pages: 1 [2]
 

Advertise on CBF