Australian news June 2, 2010

Australia envisage separate Test and T20 teams

Cricinfo staff
35

Australia could one day have separate Twenty20 and Test teams playing simultaneously, according to the chief executive of Cricket Australia James Sutherland. The gap between the formats has grown and only five of the 11 who lost the World Twenty20 final to England are regulars in Australia's Test outfit.

Sutherland believes the separation will continue to grow, with more and more Twenty20 specialists likely to appear. The Australian reported that Sutherland outlined the vision in his keynote speech at a Cricket Australia conference in Queensland on Tuesday.

"While hosting Tests here, Australia could have its Twenty20 team touring somewhere else," Sutherland said. "It is difficult not to see a generation of players coming through with an eye to becoming Twenty20 specialists. As more Twenty20 cricket is played there are clearly opportunities for players to choose to be specialists.

"Taking it through to its natural extension, if you have a specialist team then why can't you have a specialist Twenty20 team and a specialist Test team [playing] at the same time? In rugby union, for example, the ARU has a sevens team and a Wallabies team."

However, while such an idea might suit older players who retire from first-class cricket to pursue a Twenty20 career, such as Dirk Nannes, it could make for some tough choices for younger men. Steven Smith, for example, has made his name as a Twenty20 player but his Test hopes could be scuppered if such a concept was in place.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • dragon_head on June 6, 2010, 6:58 GMT

    if you have seperate test and 20-20 teams, you'll end up having a team that india sent to zimbabwe...all hype and no substance...

  • vijaysun1 on June 2, 2010, 23:59 GMT

    While I agree that the teams in the two formats could be composed of different players I certainly don't agree with the possibility that a T20 international could occur at the same time as a Test. Think about it. The players this would penalize most is those who are actually talented and flexible enough to play in both formats; why should these players be asked to make a choice rather than getting rewarded. Won't either format be poorer for not having the services of top players like Warne, Ponting, Tendulkar, Lara or Akram who would have excelled at any format of the game ? Having some players that only participate in one format is nothing new; there are countless limited overs specialists playing today anyway. Not sure what the great "insight" here is in the remarks by Sutherland.

  • antleredzen on June 2, 2010, 17:52 GMT

    I thinks its a great and inevitable idea. Im just thinking of say David Warner who is a brilliant 20/20 player but not that defensive Vs Simon Katich, more of a grapher who will probabably never smash it round for 6. The question is... Will it kill test cricket as there is pobably no money in it?

    I would like to see much 20/20 played and a couple of tests every year. Test could be a thing to savor, like a world cup or championships where 20/20 could be the staple which certainly dosent go on for days and is more palatable for the masses.

    Big decisions need to be made!

  • on June 2, 2010, 16:04 GMT

    Couldnt agree more. In fact i am from the school of thought that believes no player should play all 3 versions of the game. He should choose at most 2 versions.

  • Thunee_man_Naidoo on June 2, 2010, 15:00 GMT

    ICC should ban international T20's or atleast encourage players to stive in all formats of the game

  • knowledge_eater on June 2, 2010, 14:56 GMT

    it is 2010 I meant .. its just that stupid movie boggling in my mind hahaha btw. many people do believe in that idiotic thing that there won't be world after that. In fact, that culture knew that Humans don't have capability to live that longer since there was lot of killings at that time but in fact we did. So, it is time to evolve and focus on real Human stuff. More social stuff, like I am doing right now. Cheers

  • deanc on June 2, 2010, 14:47 GMT

    This concept is something I and others have been discussing for a while and I think for all the right reasons is inevitable. Due to our structure, development and depth I'll take it a step further by suggesting there should be three playing squads for the three formats - and it may well become policy that if you are a regular test player you can forget playing T20. Whilst I'm not a fan of T20 it's not going anywhere in a hurry and now is the time to plan for it's addition to our international schedules. First priority is the development and performance of the test team, then our ODI team and as James suggests having a distinct specialist T20 team. Ironically Clarke playing T20 is almost the opposite of this concept. An astute captain he may be but he is simply not a T20 batsmen and who really wants him to be. I'm sure most would prefer to see him make a few classical test tons to help us win the Ashes later this year.

  • knowledge_eater on June 2, 2010, 14:40 GMT

    Hey @Popcorn read this. Finally somebody is handling press properly on this side of the world. It is about time. More formats, more players, more coaches, more audience, more funding, more investments, more people are getting healthy, more jobs, more money going to hard working family, more cricket, more sports, more reporters, more tv channels, More vendors, more grass, better for environment, more cleaning staff, more bats, more bowl, more products sponsoring, more products production sell on ground. More more and more. People who whine about it are nothing more than self righteous hypocrites who never wants to come out of their fairy tail world. It is 2012. Human Population is increasing at exponential rate, how do you explain them that and keep them doing sane jobs like sports and not allow them to fall from cribs. Ask Micheal Holding and Geidon Heigh how do you plan to give more employments to once who will never make it to Test/ODI teams ? Thank you Peace

  • on June 2, 2010, 13:08 GMT

    I dont understand indian mentality .. I mean its australia.. let them do what they want to do..

  • on June 2, 2010, 11:20 GMT

    i swear i wud have cracked up soo much had sumbudy else proposed dis idea but its cuming 4rom Aus so its okayyy........... I MEAN I AM AN INDIAN WHOL IVES IN AUSTRALIA and watch the domestic tournaments here- the players have sooo gud talent and wud have made it 2 any squad but Australia.... i mean players lyk Paine, Steven Smith, HUGHES, Katich, Mitch Marsh nd alll........ its unbelievable that shaun marsh cant play 4 Australia in t20!!!!!

  • dragon_head on June 6, 2010, 6:58 GMT

    if you have seperate test and 20-20 teams, you'll end up having a team that india sent to zimbabwe...all hype and no substance...

  • vijaysun1 on June 2, 2010, 23:59 GMT

    While I agree that the teams in the two formats could be composed of different players I certainly don't agree with the possibility that a T20 international could occur at the same time as a Test. Think about it. The players this would penalize most is those who are actually talented and flexible enough to play in both formats; why should these players be asked to make a choice rather than getting rewarded. Won't either format be poorer for not having the services of top players like Warne, Ponting, Tendulkar, Lara or Akram who would have excelled at any format of the game ? Having some players that only participate in one format is nothing new; there are countless limited overs specialists playing today anyway. Not sure what the great "insight" here is in the remarks by Sutherland.

  • antleredzen on June 2, 2010, 17:52 GMT

    I thinks its a great and inevitable idea. Im just thinking of say David Warner who is a brilliant 20/20 player but not that defensive Vs Simon Katich, more of a grapher who will probabably never smash it round for 6. The question is... Will it kill test cricket as there is pobably no money in it?

    I would like to see much 20/20 played and a couple of tests every year. Test could be a thing to savor, like a world cup or championships where 20/20 could be the staple which certainly dosent go on for days and is more palatable for the masses.

    Big decisions need to be made!

  • on June 2, 2010, 16:04 GMT

    Couldnt agree more. In fact i am from the school of thought that believes no player should play all 3 versions of the game. He should choose at most 2 versions.

  • Thunee_man_Naidoo on June 2, 2010, 15:00 GMT

    ICC should ban international T20's or atleast encourage players to stive in all formats of the game

  • knowledge_eater on June 2, 2010, 14:56 GMT

    it is 2010 I meant .. its just that stupid movie boggling in my mind hahaha btw. many people do believe in that idiotic thing that there won't be world after that. In fact, that culture knew that Humans don't have capability to live that longer since there was lot of killings at that time but in fact we did. So, it is time to evolve and focus on real Human stuff. More social stuff, like I am doing right now. Cheers

  • deanc on June 2, 2010, 14:47 GMT

    This concept is something I and others have been discussing for a while and I think for all the right reasons is inevitable. Due to our structure, development and depth I'll take it a step further by suggesting there should be three playing squads for the three formats - and it may well become policy that if you are a regular test player you can forget playing T20. Whilst I'm not a fan of T20 it's not going anywhere in a hurry and now is the time to plan for it's addition to our international schedules. First priority is the development and performance of the test team, then our ODI team and as James suggests having a distinct specialist T20 team. Ironically Clarke playing T20 is almost the opposite of this concept. An astute captain he may be but he is simply not a T20 batsmen and who really wants him to be. I'm sure most would prefer to see him make a few classical test tons to help us win the Ashes later this year.

  • knowledge_eater on June 2, 2010, 14:40 GMT

    Hey @Popcorn read this. Finally somebody is handling press properly on this side of the world. It is about time. More formats, more players, more coaches, more audience, more funding, more investments, more people are getting healthy, more jobs, more money going to hard working family, more cricket, more sports, more reporters, more tv channels, More vendors, more grass, better for environment, more cleaning staff, more bats, more bowl, more products sponsoring, more products production sell on ground. More more and more. People who whine about it are nothing more than self righteous hypocrites who never wants to come out of their fairy tail world. It is 2012. Human Population is increasing at exponential rate, how do you explain them that and keep them doing sane jobs like sports and not allow them to fall from cribs. Ask Micheal Holding and Geidon Heigh how do you plan to give more employments to once who will never make it to Test/ODI teams ? Thank you Peace

  • on June 2, 2010, 13:08 GMT

    I dont understand indian mentality .. I mean its australia.. let them do what they want to do..

  • on June 2, 2010, 11:20 GMT

    i swear i wud have cracked up soo much had sumbudy else proposed dis idea but its cuming 4rom Aus so its okayyy........... I MEAN I AM AN INDIAN WHOL IVES IN AUSTRALIA and watch the domestic tournaments here- the players have sooo gud talent and wud have made it 2 any squad but Australia.... i mean players lyk Paine, Steven Smith, HUGHES, Katich, Mitch Marsh nd alll........ its unbelievable that shaun marsh cant play 4 Australia in t20!!!!!

  • on June 2, 2010, 11:11 GMT

    Well I am a grade cricketer, and I believe that there are a lot more people at T20 games than at the "real deal" two days (tests). And playing team simultaneously will result in AUSTRALIA T20 SIDE getting more audience than AUSTRALIA TEST SIDE. Thats really not cool, does anyone agree? Thats unfair for the Test Boys aint it?

  • loggerfloodles on June 2, 2010, 10:14 GMT

    I think this is a brilliant idea, because no one I know bothers about rugby 7s in any way, shape or form. If same happened to T20 it wouldn't bother me too much. If people wouldn't watch cricket if it weren't T20 then why are cricket administrators drooling so much about getting them onboard?

  • boris6491 on June 2, 2010, 9:16 GMT

    I don't feel that a complete separation of the two formats is what beckons. What about young players apparently 'pigeonholed' as T20 specialists such as Steve Smith and Dave Warner? Both players have expressed a keen desire to play tests for Australia. Yet if they had the choice between playing for Australia in T20 cricket or biding their time in state cricket in an attempt to the reach the test side, it is obvious what any rational player would do. All players would like to play for Australia but some in more than one format. Moreover, what of the players who do play both formats? If the test side is touring concurrently with the T20 side, the T20 team (presuming most players prioritise test cricket) would be without the likes of Shane Watson, Mitchell Johnson et al. who are vital components. This is just a plan which does not seem to work and gives further independancy to T20s, the last thing we need in the fight to maintain tests as the upper echelon of international cricket.

  • Tigg on June 2, 2010, 9:00 GMT

    Surely the best 11 are generally the best 11 in all formats.

    With the exceptions of players retired from one form or another (like Nannes and Tait).

    Recent test openers? Watson (plays T20Is) Hughes (Could easily play T20Is) Katich (lead his side to the Champions Trophy).

    Top/Middle Order: Ponting (Would be in the team if he hadn't dropped the format), Hussey (In the side), Michael Clarke (Plays T20Is), Haddin (In the side) North (Probably the only player here who wouldn't make it).

    Lower/Tail: Johnson (Plays), Hauritz (Probably a better spinner than Smith at the moment although a weaker batter), Bollinger/Hilfenhaus/Siddle/Harris (Pick 2, they all play any format).

    The only player who doesn't play Tests regularly and would make the T20 side is Cameron White.

  • jackiethepen on June 2, 2010, 8:43 GMT

    After all I have seen written about twenty-20 redneck has put it in a nutshell: "i can see cricket killing off its supporters it currently has, all in its quest to find new ones!" This should be sent to all the chief executives and other managers throughout the world. It's the classic mistake, not only made by marketing men but at a different level by political parties. It's not too late to keep twenty-20 in Britain as a club fest for families. When it is overstretched into a world cup and worst of all into the sponsor-drenched IPL then cricket fans are being turned off. All the hype in the world cannot conceal that the form of 20 overs reduces the game to a lottery where players gamble - not literally - on risking their wickets for quick runs. To see great players bashing away is just heartbreaking. Ponting decided not to play to his credit. Eventually it will reduce the great game handed to this generation to a shadow. The global market is to blame - that and greed of course.

  • on June 2, 2010, 8:34 GMT

    Not a bad idea to have seperate test & T20 teams but a bad idea to have them play simultaneously. Cricketers especially fast bowlers are having tough time due to injuries and you tell them to choose between "test team" and "T20 team" there will definitely choose T20 team and this means that test team and cricketing world will be void of the agggressive test-made fast bowlers. It will also mean that there would be no overlapping cricketers which wouldn't be nice and will fade test cricket

  • Geordie613 on June 2, 2010, 8:25 GMT

    A great idea. Rugby nations have totally separate test and 7's teams, because its a different game. T20 is based on cricket but the skills required to excel are so different to those required in the test arena. Well done, Aussies!!

  • on June 2, 2010, 8:22 GMT

    I agree with Sutherland's point of view. Purists might not agree. Die-hard fans of Tests and ODI might detest such suggestions. But the fact is that there is an obvious gap and its only growing. The gap is in the fan base of these formats, Tests and ODI versus T20. I am not a great fan of T20 myself, but I would like to see how T20 would fare when it is played at the same time as Tests or ODI. The true test is when both are played simultaneously. My hunch is that, in such an eventuality, Tests and ODI would grow in popularity for the mere quality of cricket! I could be wrong but I would like to see what happens :)

  • on June 2, 2010, 8:16 GMT

    I think james sutherland is taking the concept a bit too far... Although, I agree with the fact that you will have separate set of players playing tests and T20... but can't envisage the fact that u have one aus team playing T20 somewhere and the other playing tests somewhere else...That would be ridiculous to say the least... For me, the idea is something close to what john buchanan said about ambidextrous players....

  • Maestro_of_Cricket on June 2, 2010, 7:05 GMT

    Right, this would mean that more players can be at the international level at the same time. On Aussie perspective, the pace department is already experiencing this scenario; Nannes and Tait are never going to play Test cricket, and people like Bollinger, Siddle and Hilfenhaus will be considered as Test specialists. Johnson also, in my opinion, should be playing Test cricket, while Lee could be drafted into the T20 squad. This would also solve Clarke's problems as a T20 player too. No question about Warner, White and David Hussey; permanent members of the T20 squad. But what about players like Watson, Mike Hussey and Haddin? They are invaluable in every format of the game. Questions to ponder. If we had Gilchrist still playing, then no problem about who does wicketkeeping on what format. But I don't think Paine or Manou are compatible at any stage.

  • on June 2, 2010, 6:51 GMT

    Such a concept would almost completely kill ODI cricket. Guys like Shaun Tait and David Warner who are potentially still possibilities for the one day team are less likely to play ODIS if they know they are assured of their place in the T20 team and can get payed the same for doing so. As mentioned popcorn Sutherland doesn't mention ODI cricket once and this suggestion would destroy ODIs. Test cricket is the pinnacle form of the game and if we had a T20 team touring somewhere I would hope players like Shane Watson who are good enough to play both forms of the game would choose Tests over T20s. Otherwise Tests which have been in existence for 140 years could be destroyed forever as teams would be playing B sides. My love of the game would go with it if such a concept took place.

  • kamal_lak on June 2, 2010, 6:40 GMT

    Such an idea would have been laughed at if it had come out of any other country but such is the depth of talent in Australia that the idea makes a lot of sense. There are at least 25 players is Australia who could have played international cricket for any other country if not born in Australia.

  • Perplexed on June 2, 2010, 6:20 GMT

    I've been advocating separation of the two codes for a while now. I'm happy to see that this is seriously considered at national level!

  • Vasik on June 2, 2010, 6:02 GMT

    As we've seen of late, the best TEST players are turning out to be very good T20 players: Mike Hussey, Mahela Jayawardena, Sangakarra, Sachin Tendulkar, AB De Viliers. It has been proven that T20 is not a place for sloggers. And having 11 sloggers in the team would just produce ugly cricket altogether.

  • RussDegnan on June 2, 2010, 5:41 GMT

    What a disgraceful idea. As if there isn't too much international cricket already, now they want to double up the schedule by farming out an under-strength T20 side for a bit of extra cash. Has it ever occurred to CA that there could be more to cricket an an endless series of meaningless international fixtures played against the highest bidder?

  • MSDonLSD on June 2, 2010, 5:25 GMT

    I think the BCCI missed out on this separate team implementation idea because I believe such a concept would work wonders not only for the players but for the corporate cricket as well. Just imagine being able to practice and focus on your cricketing talents with a clear goal of becoming either a test or T20 player and well as far as drawing money into cricket is concerned you can only imagine how many more marketing opportunities this could create. Australia as much as I hate them as a cricket team, I must admit their board definately has a better vision for cricket and its general well-being. Its about time BCCI move away from this unneccessary Modi bashin IPL mess and put their heads to some innovative ideas for cricket.

  • howizzat on June 2, 2010, 5:12 GMT

    Its an excellent suggestion from CA boss. The established teams have enough talent to have their best and seperate teams for T20 and Tests(and ODI). Instead of the 15, the 30 best players of a country will be in action. FTP will also become more accomodating. Players will also wont stressed out.

  • Geraldine on June 2, 2010, 4:58 GMT

    Separate teams are inevitable even though Australia fought against the idea initially, and are still resisting by having Michael Clarke in the T20 side.

  • mandi on June 2, 2010, 4:46 GMT

    agree t20 is not cricket.its a entertainment show,icc need to stop t20 cricket.

  • redneck on June 2, 2010, 4:30 GMT

    and what happens when all the best players want to follow the money and play twenty20??? who will be playing tests? australia a? there should be only one australian cricket team playing at once, name the best test team, the best ODI team, and the best twenty20 team you can put on the park by all means. but dont make players nominate what format they want to play because the one with the money will be their option! then where does that leave test and ODI cricket. take west indies captain chris gayle for example he would pick twenty20 in a heartbeat and then west indies cricket would be the poorer for it having its best batsman not playing tests! and thus put forward a weaker test side!i can see cricket killing off its supporters it currently has, all in its quest to find new ones! personly the day australia dont put its best 11 on the park for a test is the day i stop caring about this sport! i doubt ill be alone in that either!

  • Hoggy_1989 on June 2, 2010, 4:12 GMT

    I completely agree with Anthony Hunter's comments about it not being cricket, but I think the idea has merit. T20 can be like a travelling circus act, for players who are nearing the end of their careers (Flintoff, Gilchrist, Hayden etc), younger 'exciting' players like David Warner who don't really fit the Test player mould, or very good cricket players who would rather chase the big money than play for their respective countries, like Chris Gayle for example. The purists can then have Test and ODI cricket go on uninterrupted with players who want to play for national pride and enjoy the thrills of Test cricket.

  • popcorn on June 2, 2010, 3:31 GMT

    NOT A WORD FROM JAMES SUTHERLAND ON ODI CRICKET?

    Do I read something between the lines?

    Twenty20 is NOT cricket. Ask Michael Holding, ask Gideon Haigh. See for yourself whether any skill is required for Twenty20. It is a lottery.

    The dilemma - love of the game, or love for money?

    Love for the game = Test Cricket and ODI Cricket.

    Love for money = Twenty20.

  • champion1469 on June 2, 2010, 3:17 GMT

    what a silly concept. cricketers should be able to maximise their potential both in terms of financial gains, (through t20), and in terms of cricketing ability, through the longer formats, having records that can stand the test of time and truly determine whether you are a great player. as well, how would seperate competitions help the cricketers who are equally adept at all 3 or 2 of the formats? all three formats need to be able to be played by the best players.

  • on June 2, 2010, 2:49 GMT

    There will most certainly be separate test and twenty20 teams in the future. As for them tour separately... unlikely.

    I would go one step further then different teams. I would remove the name 'cricket' from all twenty/20... it's just not cricket

  • TwitterJitter on June 2, 2010, 2:37 GMT

    Good plan by James Sutherland. Tests and T20 are separate formats and they need separate teams and can have parallel schedules and separated out for all practical purposes. While test teams can play during the day, the T20 teams can use the same ground (different pitches) at night. For all purposes they should be separated out and ICC (atleast cricket and marketing commitees) can also split itself one for handling T20 and other for T20s. In corporate world, this is called spinoff and this is exactly what is needed. Test cricket fans can go and follow their tests while T20 fans get their format. Cricinfo can stop covering T20s (which the editors seem to hate) and all should be well.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • TwitterJitter on June 2, 2010, 2:37 GMT

    Good plan by James Sutherland. Tests and T20 are separate formats and they need separate teams and can have parallel schedules and separated out for all practical purposes. While test teams can play during the day, the T20 teams can use the same ground (different pitches) at night. For all purposes they should be separated out and ICC (atleast cricket and marketing commitees) can also split itself one for handling T20 and other for T20s. In corporate world, this is called spinoff and this is exactly what is needed. Test cricket fans can go and follow their tests while T20 fans get their format. Cricinfo can stop covering T20s (which the editors seem to hate) and all should be well.

  • on June 2, 2010, 2:49 GMT

    There will most certainly be separate test and twenty20 teams in the future. As for them tour separately... unlikely.

    I would go one step further then different teams. I would remove the name 'cricket' from all twenty/20... it's just not cricket

  • champion1469 on June 2, 2010, 3:17 GMT

    what a silly concept. cricketers should be able to maximise their potential both in terms of financial gains, (through t20), and in terms of cricketing ability, through the longer formats, having records that can stand the test of time and truly determine whether you are a great player. as well, how would seperate competitions help the cricketers who are equally adept at all 3 or 2 of the formats? all three formats need to be able to be played by the best players.

  • popcorn on June 2, 2010, 3:31 GMT

    NOT A WORD FROM JAMES SUTHERLAND ON ODI CRICKET?

    Do I read something between the lines?

    Twenty20 is NOT cricket. Ask Michael Holding, ask Gideon Haigh. See for yourself whether any skill is required for Twenty20. It is a lottery.

    The dilemma - love of the game, or love for money?

    Love for the game = Test Cricket and ODI Cricket.

    Love for money = Twenty20.

  • Hoggy_1989 on June 2, 2010, 4:12 GMT

    I completely agree with Anthony Hunter's comments about it not being cricket, but I think the idea has merit. T20 can be like a travelling circus act, for players who are nearing the end of their careers (Flintoff, Gilchrist, Hayden etc), younger 'exciting' players like David Warner who don't really fit the Test player mould, or very good cricket players who would rather chase the big money than play for their respective countries, like Chris Gayle for example. The purists can then have Test and ODI cricket go on uninterrupted with players who want to play for national pride and enjoy the thrills of Test cricket.

  • redneck on June 2, 2010, 4:30 GMT

    and what happens when all the best players want to follow the money and play twenty20??? who will be playing tests? australia a? there should be only one australian cricket team playing at once, name the best test team, the best ODI team, and the best twenty20 team you can put on the park by all means. but dont make players nominate what format they want to play because the one with the money will be their option! then where does that leave test and ODI cricket. take west indies captain chris gayle for example he would pick twenty20 in a heartbeat and then west indies cricket would be the poorer for it having its best batsman not playing tests! and thus put forward a weaker test side!i can see cricket killing off its supporters it currently has, all in its quest to find new ones! personly the day australia dont put its best 11 on the park for a test is the day i stop caring about this sport! i doubt ill be alone in that either!

  • mandi on June 2, 2010, 4:46 GMT

    agree t20 is not cricket.its a entertainment show,icc need to stop t20 cricket.

  • Geraldine on June 2, 2010, 4:58 GMT

    Separate teams are inevitable even though Australia fought against the idea initially, and are still resisting by having Michael Clarke in the T20 side.

  • howizzat on June 2, 2010, 5:12 GMT

    Its an excellent suggestion from CA boss. The established teams have enough talent to have their best and seperate teams for T20 and Tests(and ODI). Instead of the 15, the 30 best players of a country will be in action. FTP will also become more accomodating. Players will also wont stressed out.

  • MSDonLSD on June 2, 2010, 5:25 GMT

    I think the BCCI missed out on this separate team implementation idea because I believe such a concept would work wonders not only for the players but for the corporate cricket as well. Just imagine being able to practice and focus on your cricketing talents with a clear goal of becoming either a test or T20 player and well as far as drawing money into cricket is concerned you can only imagine how many more marketing opportunities this could create. Australia as much as I hate them as a cricket team, I must admit their board definately has a better vision for cricket and its general well-being. Its about time BCCI move away from this unneccessary Modi bashin IPL mess and put their heads to some innovative ideas for cricket.