August 28, 2011

The international game needs an overhaul

Australia's review has been window-dressing, and India are unlikely to have one at all, but international cricket as a whole needs thinking about, if it's not to be reduced to just Twenty20
75

Following a comprehensive defeat by England, Cricket Australia ordered a major review of its structure. England then crushed India, so does that mean their cricket system is also headed for a major overhaul?

The group who should most favour such a move is India's selection panel. They should hope a review sees them lose their jobs, and with it the daunting task of picking from the rubble a competitive side to tour Australia. The Indian selectors have backed themselves into an alley so blind a maze expert would have trouble negotiating a way out.

I doubt India will follow Australia's example, though. Both countries have in common a recent thrashing by a rampant England but that's where their cricketing DNAs diverge. And anyway, Australia's review appears to include a good deal of window-dressing.

The announcement that CA had ordered a review of its performance by an outside agency provided a major clue as to where the problem lay. If CA had utilised the right balance of expert cricket knowledge and business acumen, it would have been alerted to looming problems. The shortcomings noted, it would then only require making adjustments to limit the short-term damage and take far-sighted decisions to ensure an upward swing was not too far in the future.

Any review of a cricket administration needs to most importantly make sure there's a system in place producing skilful, competitive young cricketers, and a constant supply of proficient leaders. Then it only requires an efficient selection panel with the nous to choose the right combination. With those pieces of the puzzle in place the national team will win regularly, and the rest pretty much takes care of itself.

If the Argus review is saying - in a long-winded, jargon filled document - that the right structure wasn't in place, then there is no solution to the main issue yet. The people who oversaw the crumbling structure are the same ones now charged with the responsibility of implementing the changes to the system.

CA named its major money-spinning tournament the Big Bash - a name that conjures up visions of lunchtime cricket in the schoolyard. It further trivialised the competition by miking cricketers on the field and allowing a celebrity player to represent an interstate team. These moves suggested a not-so-serious competition at a time when cricket was busily trying to stamp out player corruption. Now the revamped Big Bash is encouraging players to cast aside loyalty and follow the dollar wherever it leads.

Why, it was only last decade that the best cricket blueprint was to note what England did and do the opposite. Now everyone wants to copy the English system

While CA has unwittingly diminished a valuable commodity, the rest of the cricket world lavishly rewards players competing in the shortest form of the game. Maximum pay for minimum exertion could well be the theme for the Twenty20 pay structure.

There are exceptions, but in general, human nature will gravitate towards the least demanding option. Not surprisingly, outlandish rewards in T20 cricket (which in many cases don't match ability or effort) are leading to self-interest among the players.

T20 cricket will not stand alone. This is not purely a business enterprise we're talking about, it's a game. If T20 is eventually the only form of the game played, you'll have cricket without artists or artistry. There's already growing evidence that T20 cricket is eroding batting skills.

It's a general rule that cricket administrations fail to fully think matters through before implementing new ideas. Another given that you can bet on as surely as a short-priced favourite: cricket doesn't have a grand plan to provide a cohesive and prosperous future for all three forms of the game.

If there is a mood for restructuring cricket, first rebuild the system that's really failing - the international governance of the game.

To think all this upheaval has been brought about by a rampant England. Why, it was only last decade that the best cricket blueprint was to note what England did and do the opposite. Now everyone wants to copy the English system.

If only the structure of the international game could be turned around so quickly and successfully.

Former Australia captain Ian Chappell is now a cricket commentator and columnist

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • 5wombats on August 30, 2011, 22:37 GMT

    @Dinker Rkn - haven't seen your posts before, but nicely put; "(Indian players) are not UNLUCKY but GUILTY of being unfit, injured". There may be a case for overhauling the "world game" - but ECB, CA, BCCI, etc will squable and never agree on any reforms that don't serve or promote their agendas most. I can't see it happening that the Test match format will be put in it's rightful place at the centre until agreements are arrived at. People have short attention spans now and the marketting men have taken control. IPL pays much more than Test matches..... so why bother with Test matches? This seems to have been the approach of the Indians on this tour. Shameful.

  • on August 30, 2011, 11:18 GMT

    the views expressed by certain Indian posters are detrimental to Indian cricket.Instead of being furious many are justifying and sympathising with the Indian players saying they were "under prepared" "unlucky to be unfit" etc.they are professional cricketers and they are not UNLUCKY but GUILTY of being unfit,injured and out of sorts.That is the case.Infact I should say the world really is round and turns around.This kind of atrocious attitude shows up when you have hit the trough.I remember certain English commentators and viewers (NOT ALL) sympathizing with the winners after the Stanford series.in the nxt test match they were dismissed for 54 in WI.luckily it died in infancy.I aint blaming IPL for everything like some,but it needs to be balanced.hope this gets published.....

  • OliverWebber on August 30, 2011, 7:30 GMT

    (sigh) OK I think it's worth clearing a few things up :) 1. English fans know this is not "the best team ever". It's very good, though. 2. No, England have not played in the subcontinent recently, and yes, when they do, it will be a good test of their all-round ability. 3. No, there is nothing wrong with preparing pitches which favour spin, just as there is nothing wrong with preparing pitches which favour fast bowling. This is the kind of stuff that makes cricket interesting. 4. Yes, we remember the Ashes 2006-7 - it was a disaster for England. Please note: nobody said that it was "unfair" due to Aussie conditions or "it wasn't their fault" as they were badly prepared. 5. The Indian team was very badly prepared for this summer's England series. That doesn't make it "unfair" or "unlucky" that they lost. 6. Surprise - one-day form and test form are *not the same*! Yes, India won the world cup - congratulations; no, England did not do very well - commiserations. That'll do for now!

  • on August 30, 2011, 6:15 GMT

    England have always harbored a certain type and level of systematic competence... even in the 1990s they seemed to do the small things right. That, that competence is now enough to become the most dominant team in the game, is a pronouncement more on the overall quality of test cricket than on specific structures of Indian or Australian systems.

    It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that cricket has entered its age of mediocrity.

  • RandyOZ on August 30, 2011, 0:09 GMT

    Tell you what I don't know who is clutching at straws more, the poms thinking they are the best team ever or India thinking their loss was an anomaly based on injuries. At least Oz will hit #1 soon and end all of this frivolity!

  • jessiedog on August 29, 2011, 20:01 GMT

    Interesting comments hira02??? Not the players fault that they were underprepared,not fit both physically and mentally....whos fault is it then???

  • dragqueen1 on August 29, 2011, 18:33 GMT

    Cricket needs a root & branch overhaul from top to bottom. at the moment it is a 19th Century elitist club masquerading as a 21st Century global sport, what a joke. how the other world sporting bodies must snigger behind the ICC's back.

  • OliverWebber on August 29, 2011, 18:27 GMT

    @Karthy Thik: yes, of course! Just like after the disastrous Ashes 2006-7

  • 5wombats on August 29, 2011, 17:08 GMT

    @hira02 "as for this 4-0 series loss im not concerned at all it wasnt the players fault they were unlucky with injuries..lackd preparation and importantly mentally unfit". So everything in India cricket is fine eh? Laughable. @zico123; You have posted a comment that doesn't include the word "unfair". What's wrong? I think it's unfair that practically everytime anyone with the name of Chappell makes a comment a load of Indians come on here to say that the Chappells are gunning for them. LOL.

  • on August 29, 2011, 17:07 GMT

    what if english loses 4-0 in india does it mean they r not orgainsed needs special reform?

  • 5wombats on August 30, 2011, 22:37 GMT

    @Dinker Rkn - haven't seen your posts before, but nicely put; "(Indian players) are not UNLUCKY but GUILTY of being unfit, injured". There may be a case for overhauling the "world game" - but ECB, CA, BCCI, etc will squable and never agree on any reforms that don't serve or promote their agendas most. I can't see it happening that the Test match format will be put in it's rightful place at the centre until agreements are arrived at. People have short attention spans now and the marketting men have taken control. IPL pays much more than Test matches..... so why bother with Test matches? This seems to have been the approach of the Indians on this tour. Shameful.

  • on August 30, 2011, 11:18 GMT

    the views expressed by certain Indian posters are detrimental to Indian cricket.Instead of being furious many are justifying and sympathising with the Indian players saying they were "under prepared" "unlucky to be unfit" etc.they are professional cricketers and they are not UNLUCKY but GUILTY of being unfit,injured and out of sorts.That is the case.Infact I should say the world really is round and turns around.This kind of atrocious attitude shows up when you have hit the trough.I remember certain English commentators and viewers (NOT ALL) sympathizing with the winners after the Stanford series.in the nxt test match they were dismissed for 54 in WI.luckily it died in infancy.I aint blaming IPL for everything like some,but it needs to be balanced.hope this gets published.....

  • OliverWebber on August 30, 2011, 7:30 GMT

    (sigh) OK I think it's worth clearing a few things up :) 1. English fans know this is not "the best team ever". It's very good, though. 2. No, England have not played in the subcontinent recently, and yes, when they do, it will be a good test of their all-round ability. 3. No, there is nothing wrong with preparing pitches which favour spin, just as there is nothing wrong with preparing pitches which favour fast bowling. This is the kind of stuff that makes cricket interesting. 4. Yes, we remember the Ashes 2006-7 - it was a disaster for England. Please note: nobody said that it was "unfair" due to Aussie conditions or "it wasn't their fault" as they were badly prepared. 5. The Indian team was very badly prepared for this summer's England series. That doesn't make it "unfair" or "unlucky" that they lost. 6. Surprise - one-day form and test form are *not the same*! Yes, India won the world cup - congratulations; no, England did not do very well - commiserations. That'll do for now!

  • on August 30, 2011, 6:15 GMT

    England have always harbored a certain type and level of systematic competence... even in the 1990s they seemed to do the small things right. That, that competence is now enough to become the most dominant team in the game, is a pronouncement more on the overall quality of test cricket than on specific structures of Indian or Australian systems.

    It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that cricket has entered its age of mediocrity.

  • RandyOZ on August 30, 2011, 0:09 GMT

    Tell you what I don't know who is clutching at straws more, the poms thinking they are the best team ever or India thinking their loss was an anomaly based on injuries. At least Oz will hit #1 soon and end all of this frivolity!

  • jessiedog on August 29, 2011, 20:01 GMT

    Interesting comments hira02??? Not the players fault that they were underprepared,not fit both physically and mentally....whos fault is it then???

  • dragqueen1 on August 29, 2011, 18:33 GMT

    Cricket needs a root & branch overhaul from top to bottom. at the moment it is a 19th Century elitist club masquerading as a 21st Century global sport, what a joke. how the other world sporting bodies must snigger behind the ICC's back.

  • OliverWebber on August 29, 2011, 18:27 GMT

    @Karthy Thik: yes, of course! Just like after the disastrous Ashes 2006-7

  • 5wombats on August 29, 2011, 17:08 GMT

    @hira02 "as for this 4-0 series loss im not concerned at all it wasnt the players fault they were unlucky with injuries..lackd preparation and importantly mentally unfit". So everything in India cricket is fine eh? Laughable. @zico123; You have posted a comment that doesn't include the word "unfair". What's wrong? I think it's unfair that practically everytime anyone with the name of Chappell makes a comment a load of Indians come on here to say that the Chappells are gunning for them. LOL.

  • on August 29, 2011, 17:07 GMT

    what if english loses 4-0 in india does it mean they r not orgainsed needs special reform?

  • rahulcricket007 on August 29, 2011, 16:52 GMT

    @ERIRCL. IF INDIA MAKES DUST BOWLS THEN WHY DOES THE BATSMEN FROM THE OTHER TEAM GOT OUT CHEAPLY ON THESE TRACKS . THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO PLAY SPINNING BOWLS . LOL... I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUEMENT .WHEN INDIA GOES IN ENGLAND , AUS ,SA THEY PREPARE FAST BOUNCY TRACKS TO TAKE HOME ADVANTAGE SO INDIA ALSO TAKES HOME ADVANTAGE BY PREPARING DUST BOWLS .OH ... I FORGOT ENGLISH BATSMEN CAN ONLY SCORE HEAVILY ON GREEN PITCHES .THAT'S WHY TO ME TEST CRICKET IS RUBBISH FORM OF CRICKET .

  • zico123 on August 29, 2011, 15:00 GMT

    why is every article of chappel is about India! he tries to show as if he is suggesting for betterment of Indian cricket, but the truth is he wants India's big 3 to retire quickly so that India sink further down. truth is india's big 3 have to play atleast until end of next year, as younger lot likes of Kohli, Rohit are not yet ready, Pujara got injured before he could cement his place, Raina and Yuvraj has failed even after extended run.

  • OliverWebber on August 29, 2011, 14:31 GMT

    @hira02- well I guess it's up to the BCCI and the selectors to be concerned or not, but if I were an Indian fan I'd be more than just concerned, I'd be furious! "Unlucky with injuries"? So were England, who lost their best batsman (Trott) and a key strike bowler (Tremlett) for most of the series. You say it wasn't their fault, but that they lacked preparation and were mentally unfit- so who's fault is that? When England were humiliated in Australia 2006-7, everyone was frustrated and angry and rightly so. They made bad selections, had terrible preparation, the wrong captain and bad attitude. The enquiry afterwards made sure England would never be so complacent again, and that's the attitude India needs now.

  • NALINWIJ on August 29, 2011, 14:24 GMT

    Any system to remain competitive it needs to reassess then consider solution that are implemented and results are reassessed. These feedback loops are necessary for any system not only sport but every organization. Ian Chappell""s comments are accurate and it appears that Indian fans are like their administrators who only hears what they want to hear. This diminishes the reassessment and looking for solutions and the system stagnates and falls behind while others who moves forward.The recent series is a wake up call that confirms what Chappell has been trying to say. Will India""s bowling be good enough and how are they going to develop depth and quality? How and when are they going to gradually replace the aging 3 of the fab 4? The talent is there but is the implementation good enough? IPL will not help the above 2 issues but it might help the neglected Achiles heel- FIELDING!!!!

  • ansram on August 29, 2011, 13:19 GMT

    I beleive the whole thing issue of "system review" based on one thumping series loss is an over reaction. IPL appears to play a part in India's debacle in England but tell me why India was not a great team in the 90s or before IPL? India's temporary rise to the top and their winning the WC coincided with the arrival of IPL, strangely enough. Every one knows India is not a great team on the alien soil ( though their recent record is better than 20 years ago due to some formidable batting) and this has nothing to do with IPL nor any poor team selection or policies of late. If India happens to loose home series like this I would say it is time for panic and review. Loosing abroad is nothing new for India and this needs no special review. This time the defeats were heavy because they did not give enough time for the players to recover after the IPL. Just schedule better next time and it will be allright and they can loose overseas games less comprehensively!!

  • Lord_Dravid on August 29, 2011, 11:32 GMT

    @5wombats- if you read it closely enough you woud understand that Chapell in this article indirectly has a poke at india as is the case with ALL his articles! Whatever and whenever he writes about he has to mention india!lol..im saying he's just jealous maybe of indian crickets glitz and glamours players and its financial might..as for this 4-0 series loss im not concerned at all it wasnt the players fault they were unlucky with injuries..lackd preparation and importantly mentally unfit.. ipl created injuries and further exhaustion and coming into this important series we had no proper test match practice..everything went wrong for india so im not that concerned we can regroup and im sure will beat the aussie..we have new talents out there like kohli, sharma..aaron etc they just need to play more of international cricket and get use to different conditions then we'll be absolutely fine..as for all the critics stand back and watch!

  • Lord_Dravid on August 29, 2011, 11:20 GMT

    @RandyOZ im saying that if you say australia are at a rebuilding phase then why does Chapell who is a critic of the bcci and indian cricket make it out as if australia are going top be as good as england?! he keeps mentioning what team india is going to send to australia just beacuse they lost 4-0 recently for which wasnt their fault really (blame bcci) ..and by saying that he indirectly tries to undermine india's credibility..he gives the impression that australia is going to be invincible come december which make me laugh!

  • AidanFX on August 29, 2011, 10:31 GMT

    It's not only eroding batting but also bowling (something I am sure IC already knows likewise). In T20 four overs is not enough to show case quality bowling. In test matches a bowler may take the best part of an entire spell just to get a wicket; it requires set planning and good execution of the plan. 50 over cricket can also showcast genuine good bowling. Too many Fast bowlers are being lazy and retiring from Test match cricket. Ok maybe too much cricket is played; but perhaps the are some things players can opt out of too. I am happy the Argus review has urged making Test a priority.

  • on August 29, 2011, 9:37 GMT

    contd..forgive me for being a bit out of context here BUT since the article is related to test cricket i think this can be mentioned here.Laxman (who is in the dying breed of elegant batsmen in world cricket) was a failure during the just concluded India england test series.This was after he started the tour positively with a half century.Interestingly it is not at all mentioned by the critics that out of 8 innings he batted ; in atleast 4 innings he was asked to bat at no3.well Lax has made almost all runs at Nos 5and6.Ideally if yu are a player short there should be a natural progression in batting order for all batsmen BUT in India No:4 seems to be reserved.This is absolutely ridiculous and sent India's most reliable match saver (along with dravid) to the gallows.It is a bit like asking a spinner to take wickets from Day1 of a test match and then blaming him for the loss after the match.Lax being a backfoot player doesnt try to cull swing as one should if he has to survive in UK

  • ecricl on August 29, 2011, 8:47 GMT

    Actually winning in subcontinent is good to prove that U r No-1 team but not always necessary.Coz history shows all No-1 teams beat all countries up except india in india.on the contrary india got beaten up in all overseas tour (barring a few single test win or a handfull series win) but thrashed all team in their home ground, so indian fans dnt say that winning in SC is necessary to be real no-1, if one team can win thats a good achievement. on the contrary u can say winning in india is all that matters to be no-1 ,because ur the only country who can win series only in home ground by making dusty pitches where even Yuvraj becomes a Bedi.

    its ur fault in system thats why u dnt have fast bowlers (quality ones), and if any talent comes he is spoiled.

    indian selectors select team based on IPL performance to ODI and t-20 form, and if they get pass mark put them to test team. in this way u wnt have any good team in futue

    a game where yusuf pathan is a big star needs serious thinkin

  • on August 29, 2011, 6:51 GMT

    @Sheikh Washimul you have hit the nail RIGHT ON the head.but unintentionally..i am afraid...re:ur statement "If ICC wants cricket to become the world's no1 sport in terms of TV audience " is that what the ICC wants.OR has the ICC got the will and means to make "cricket the best sport in the world which rewards high degree of sporting skill and grit" I am aftraid former is the case and THAT IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM.I have to say this article is quite ambiguous and drifts from one topic to another.@5Wombats its surprising you chose to answer the comments made by Vicky.For Indian cricket this is not the time to panic but act after panicking!!!!!period.there are alarm rings (death bells?)ifor all aspects of Indian cricket especially Test cricket...but I am afraid those wont be heard by the right people..Regarding your comment "legendary" Indian batsmen its tragic that this series has put Sachin and laxman in poor light but as you rightly said "Whose fault"--Their own..

  • on August 29, 2011, 5:50 GMT

    @Vicky Dineshchandra : Chappell is clearly talking about T20 in general, the IPL just happens to be the premier T20 league, and was the pioneer. The Big Bash came after the beginning of Australia's decline, and is only assuming a clearly organised form this coming season (Australia was much slower in seeing the potential of T20 and taking it seriously than India or England). Also: there is clearly a tone that is very critical of Cricket Australia. Why this chip on the shoulder need to turn everything into an attack on India? Still---the key problem to me in this article seems to be Chappell's lack of focus (which seems to have been something of a problem recently). He rambles from one topic to another, and you're never quite sure what he thinks the key arguments are. Maybe it's this muddle that allows you to see an attack on India?

  • Browndog1968 on August 29, 2011, 3:05 GMT

    Unfortunately when sport becomes business it eventually gets dragged away from what it was meant to be. Business and the God of Profit taints a pure pursuit. When England ran the game they understood, when Australia ran the game it was balanced and now India run the game. Business is different in India, life is different on the subcontinent. Like FIFA is to football, the BCC is to cricket and just as unfortunate, other boards have to follow suit or wither away. When a business competitor gets down into the mud you either follow or close shop. Cricket is the loser, fans are the losers.

  • RandyOZ on August 28, 2011, 23:54 GMT

    @crikketfan, you need anymore straws to clutch at mate? @Spa-Master, tendulkar is in the running this year? You have got to be kidding me. @hira02, you discredit geniune test cricket fans in India. Even though Oz are going through a rebuilding stage, the fact is India are going to look every bit as listless in Oz as they did in England. Get ready to go home with your tail between your legs yet again.

  • OliverWebber on August 28, 2011, 23:46 GMT

    @Ricardo - I agree with your assessment, but I think one of the most interesting features of the current England team is that they are very successful *without* an obvious superstar like Flintoff - and in fact I think Flintoff's retirement (with all due respect to a wonderful cricketer) marked a positive turning point for the team. No longer did they depend on one man conjuring up a performance, and no longer did they depend on having an all-rounder in the team. For too long, in the wake of the 2005 Ashes success, they hung on the performances of superstars (especially Flintoff and KP). They won the 2009 Ashes without KP, and with Flintoff hanging on by a thread to a career sadly shortened by injury. I think the current team balance, with a more mature, team-focussed KP, & 2 or 3 bowlers who can bat properly (Bresnan, Broad, arguably Swann, and waiting in the wings you have guys like Woakes, Patel, Rashid), is much healthier and avoids the constant search for the "new Botham/Flintoff".

  • 5wombats on August 28, 2011, 22:06 GMT

    @Vicky Dineshchandra; Someone has their head in the sand; "Realisticaly, it would be stupid to panic right now, and to have faith in a system that bought India to world No1 in Test, win the inaugural T20, and be World Cup Champs. England are a good team but have to prove they can win in the subcontinet; the best teams adapt to alien conditions". After a 4-0 whitewash with some record defeats, with "legendary" batsmen near the end of their careers and nothing waiting to replace them - when would you panic then? Another year, or 3? @hira02; which article are you commenting on? This article is NOT about Chappell having a poke at India! Why are you still trying to excuse the inexcusable? "wasnt mainly their fault..they lacked preparation, unlucky with injuries and crucially mentally exhausted!" RUBBISH. The top team in the world on the brink of a crucial series "mentally exhausted" after long lay-offs - WHY? "wasn't their fault"!!! Well whose fault was it then?

  • on August 28, 2011, 18:36 GMT

    @landl47: Put into that perspective, all those innings victories (which I did notice, having watched many of those Tests) are impressive. If England continue this form away from home, especially in Asia, for a few more years, then they will be a truly great side in the mould of '80s WI and '90s Australia. Arguably more so, since England now has fewer 'superstars' in the lineup. I do wonder what this team would be like with Flintoff at six!

  • aarpee2 on August 28, 2011, 17:41 GMT

    Unless BCCI has the resolve to dismantle the zonal representation in selection,it is unlikely real talent in Tests will emerge..In the last decade under Ganguly and with Vengsarkar we managed a slightly better selection and identification of talent.. This was made easier by the fact that with FAB 5 and with Viru,Gauti,Dhoni, Zaheer and Bhajji even a schoolboy could pick a 11. The scope for the zonal preferences was generally in the area of the bench where compromises and deals would be struck. The absence of IPL also helped in objectivity This gets badly exposed when the team has form,fitness and injury problems as it did in the recent tour of England. Unless we go to 3 man selection panel based on experience in International cricket this imbalance and crime will continue.If I am not wrong 2 of the current panel have not played at international level /overseas and now will manage selection for T20/ODI/TESTS- What is the value they can bring to the table ?IAN is right on the money

  • PrajithR on August 28, 2011, 17:38 GMT

    @Vishal_07: absolutely correct!... I still remember vividly Ronnie Irani and co trotting in to bowl and bat (and they could do neither!)...India has to find new talent but I am hopeful Rohit Sharma, Badrinath, Manish Pandey, Pujara, Kohli, Ashwin and Rahul Sharma will climb up the ladder given time

  • on August 28, 2011, 17:28 GMT

    Mr Chappels is way over exhadurating India's defeat and blaming it on T20s as he thinks it will kill Test and ODI cricket. Relating to the two after just one series isn't fair and you should see what happens in the future series: Why doesn't anyone blame Austrailia's decline because of the Bigbash? Anyone else notice all his previous stories are there to write off Indian Cricket.... Realisticaly, it would be stupid to panic right now, and to have faith in a system that bought India to world No.1 in Test, win the inaugural T20, and be World Cup Champs. England are a good team but have to prove they can win in the subcontinet; the best teams adapt to alien conditions, India didnt do that well, thats why they are now No.3 after just 1 away series.

  • on August 28, 2011, 17:05 GMT

    ENGLAND would crush any side any day. Theres nothing wrong with AU/INDIAN teams . They are just not powerful enough to fight ENGLAND. If ICC wants cricket to become the world's no1 sport in terms of TV audience then it has to reduce cricket to just 20 overs game . Nothing is more exciting than a T20 game in any form of sport

  • 5wombats on August 28, 2011, 16:51 GMT

    "it was only last decade that the best cricket blueprint was to note what England did and do the opposite." Sweet poke in the eye there from Ian. @Natx - I agree that Ian was better than Greg, but for all his chat about the "Grand Plan" - his words betray him. This article is really him railing at the demise of Aus cricket and the steps that are intended to rectify that. If changes in the "international governance of the game" assist Australia back to the top you can be sure that Ian Chappell would be the first in line to vote for it. In all the cross-talk between Indians and Aussies in recent years - the real sub text is "who controls the game"? While Aus was Number 1 it was Aus, then it was India - who have by now developed a huge and secure monetary clout. The truth is - both Indian and Australia administrators will only take action if they see their financial positions threatened. I doubt that the calamities in the Tests constitute such a threat to India.

  • landl47 on August 28, 2011, 16:35 GMT

    @Ricardo Wiggett: In the last year, England have played the #6 test side, #5 test side, #4 test side and #1 test side. Results: won 11, lost 2, drawn 3. Of their last 9 test wins, 7 have been by an innings. No-one's unbeatable, but that's a pretty good record, don't you think?

  • Vishal_07 on August 28, 2011, 15:34 GMT

    I do agree with many of the articles posted here (on the stupidity of revamping "the system"). Remember Cricinfo just ran an article a couple of days ago 'when Nasser Husain was booed' or something like that and how England hit rock bottom exactly 12 years ago. There was no T20 back then and England still had the same county system as they have now. It is a matter of finding the talent and nurturing them which they have done beautifully. Doesn't mean that their system was bad back then and awesome right now!

  • vichan on August 28, 2011, 15:31 GMT

    There still seems to be some criticism of England's "naturalised" South Africans. However, in all fairness, only Trott could really fall into that category. The others are of English parentage and either moved to England as young kids (Strauss, Prior) and learned all their cricket in that country, or moved at the start of their professional careers (KP, also of English parentage). I doubt there would have been as much criticism if these guys had Indian parents and moved back to India... In fact, I know for a fact there wouldn't have been - didn't a certain W. Indian of Indian origin go back there and have an international career a few years ago? In any case, the best English batsmen at present are easily Cook and Bell and the entire bowling unit including back-up players (Anderson, Swann, Broad, Tremlett, Bresnan, Onions, Finn, Panesar, Shahzad) are all home-grown English players. So any criticism in that sense is basically a sign of jealousy in my opinion, rather than reasoned logic.

  • m_ilind on August 28, 2011, 15:28 GMT

    I think BCCI can just buy it out from Aus, or maybe implement it the same way as Aus would, since both got a similar type of drubbing from Eng.

  • Vishal_07 on August 28, 2011, 15:28 GMT

    T20 is here to stay. TV money is the source of revenue for cricket these days, as with any other sport and there is going to be more viewership for a T20 than a Test. Honesty, you can't expect people to leave their work and be glued to the TV 5 straight days. For Test, I can keep tab on score while at work but I am not going to be in front of TV (at work or at home) the whole day. T20 is something I can come back from work and watch it. As bad as that sounds to some people, including myself, that is the truth of it!

  • here2rock on August 28, 2011, 15:28 GMT

    The whole review is a lot of crap, the Australian system was the envy of the world now it needed a whole review because of one series loss to England! figure that one out. As always spot on Ian!

  • itsthewayuplay on August 28, 2011, 15:21 GMT

    T20 is also a sign of the times we live in where due to the power of the internet the young generation are used to getting what they want now. This is reflected in T20. They want to see a result in 3/4 hours. Whilst I have no issue with this, it has a knock-on effect on ODIs and in particular Test cricket. Some of the 'softer' skills required for the latter format are patience ie time, the acceptance of the possibility of a draw, the appreciation of the skill and judgement required to leave a ball etcl. We have 2 significant different formats of the games that are intertwined and one having a disproportionate effect on the other. Will T20 rescue Test cricket in the same way that ODIs all those years ago? Not unless the ICC and the individual cricket boards work together to find a solution? And what are the chances of this happening? Planning for the future has to take place now before we reach a point of no return.

  • itsthewayuplay on August 28, 2011, 15:04 GMT

    ODIs were introduced at a time when Test cricket as a spectator sport was in serious decline. Ironically ODIs revived interest in Test cricket as skills used in this format were transferable to Tests and in fact the same fans generally then followed both formats. If you follow a 100-over game then generally you will likely follow a 5-day match although not necessarily every over of every day. T20 is entirely different because it appeals to people who think an ODI is too long so you have an entirely different audience and they are driving the demand and also the supply of the level of skill and ability required for this format. Cricket does not have the money that football does so players who do not play at the highest level have uncertain income with no future once they have retired at say 40. T20 offers an opportunity never experienced before in cricket however we are already seeing the negative effects of this on the 'proper' game of cricket .

  • Natx on August 28, 2011, 15:00 GMT

    This is one of the best articles from Ian while other former cricketers are shy of speaking openly due to money and politics. More strategic and spot on. This guy is direct and speaks his mind with a single vision of betterment of the global game. He is 1000 times better than his brother who is a better cricketer than anything else. Unless everyone learns to fix this T20 mess and give priority to tests and ODI, the writing is on the wall for the future of cricket. God save the game. If money is the sole criteria, the boards can work together to make these two formats more attractive to both players and audience. Think of innovations like day/night cricket, Max 120 over per test innings, scheduling over holidays, technology integration, better pitches, etc. than wasting time for quick $$ and overall killing of a very good game for the sake of all global cricket lovers.

  • on August 28, 2011, 14:39 GMT

    @Bala

    And when was the last time if you happen to remember? You sound like it happened again just in 15 days!

  • bumsonseats on August 28, 2011, 14:26 GMT

    ian a place should be found for u on the icc, because u seem to be the only guy who talks sense. funny enough for 20 years i thought u talked balxxxxx lol. but the last few years i seem to agree to all u write. iv enjoyed test cricket since the mid 60s. test cricket should always be the pinnacle of cricket and im afraid india want to make ipl bigger than tests .that been the case the indian public seem the only thing to talk about. the icc should stamp it athority on cricket as a whole not just with the asian bloc. dpk

  • kumsie on August 28, 2011, 14:23 GMT

    Oh god , this chappel is realy boring . Its time to change the people who are providing their opinion. Time , game , taste everything changes and people should also change accordingly in their thoughts , comments etc . Pls chapps you are a good cricketer but just dont see the ball as you saw it 30 or 40 years before

  • on August 28, 2011, 14:12 GMT

    @landl47: England is indeed currently a very strong Test side but it may nonetheless be presumptuous to think they will be like '80s WI or '90s Aus. In terms of raw talent, some earlier Eng teams may have been better (e.g. 2005, 1970s, 1950s). What Flower's squad does bring to the table, however, is very strong team spirit, work ethic, discipline and clinical efficiency, similar IMO to the German soccer squad. This can take one a long way even without too many 'superstars' in the ranks.

    Cook and Trott are great bats but might not strike fear into oppositions' hearts in the manner of, say, a Trescothick or a Flintoff. Similarly, the England bowling unit is very good but there is no Holding, Marshall, McGrath, Ambrose, Warne or even Steyn among its ranks.

    England is deservedly #1 on their current performance but IMO they are definitely beatable. Others aren't necessarily 'playing for second place', at least not yet.

  • CricketChat on August 28, 2011, 13:55 GMT

    We should have illusions. T20 will be a cash cow for all the countries sans Eng which will also support to keep tests alive. I have heard some comments from experts and fans alike that it is high time to expand competitive cricket beyond the present 9/10 nations. We must spread it far and wide to make it a truly global sport. T20s and 3-day tests against top 10 associates is the only way to go. Countries like, Canada, Netherlands, Scotland, Namibia, Kenya, Afghanistan, Hong Kong, Denmark, should be playing cricket against the present lot on a regular basis.

  • grant8 on August 28, 2011, 13:00 GMT

    Sports is centered towards viewership.. One has to be un employed to watch test matches..

    Test matches must be banned

    T20 is the future....May be ODI world cup alone

  • KingOwl on August 28, 2011, 12:57 GMT

    I find this whole debate about over-hauling totally rediculous. It's only in sport you find this type of stupidity. Just because a competitor is marginally better than you - and temporarily as well - does not mean that one needs a complete overhaul of the system. Systems that worked quite well don't breakdown all of a sudden. It is not the system that is wrong, it is just about talent in the teams. England has found some talent and Aus has lost some talent. India on the other hand never had that kind of talent to be world beaters (except in batting), so no surprise there. This debate is good for people to kill time, but otherwise, it is utterly pointless.

  • on August 28, 2011, 12:52 GMT

    The Indian team was battered & bruised by england & has left a lot of quetions unanswered.The much praised batting line up were once again only good in papers.In am much contrast to england which did smaller things to perfection , was also having a very powerful bowling arsenal.Indians could also take a leaf out of them in how to manage the injured players.The equation was narrowed down to england when indians were missing the services of Zaheer Khan.

    Also the team must have been there a bit earlier adjusting to the cricketing environment in british empire.

  • on August 28, 2011, 12:16 GMT

    Chappell's argument that "you'll have cricket without artists or artistry" reminded me of the famous German philosopher/social theorist, Max Weber's argument that modernity produces "specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart". So T20 does to cricket as modernity does to humanity?

  • JDReed on August 28, 2011, 12:02 GMT

    Amol Shinde - You have no idea how right you are! For all our success in test cricket of late England still really struggle in ODI's. Just look at the Sri Lanka series recently, if the ODI's had of matched the tests is would have been an easy victory, as it turns out it was a huge struggle and quite a surprise that we actually won the series. I don't think we can beat India in the ODI's even if it is at home, the difference of home advantage just doesn't seem to be there for us like it is in tests, we always seem primed for the taking in a one day series. The T20 will be fun, for all you Indians out there keep an eye on Jos Buttler, you'll be seeing alot more of him in the future probably in the IPL as well as for England. Regarding India, they will use the success in the ODI's to make everybody forget, you get the feeling they only started actually caring about tests when they became number 1 anyway, ODI's has always been their priorityas it is the real money spinner.

  • Herbet on August 28, 2011, 11:52 GMT

    Any series between 2 of the top 5 ranked sides should be a minimum of 4 tests and ODI only series would be banned. I'd start now and scrap the England Oz ODI,s next year and extend the SA tests to a 5 game series. Also, i'd ban the signing of T20 specialists by counties and rule that they have to pick players from their 4 day squad.

  • Lord_Dravid on August 28, 2011, 11:45 GMT

    @crikketfan..i so agree with you what your saying!! its funny how Chapell thinks india playing england is going to be exactly the same as india playing australia in december! whats even more funny is that he's now saying what team are india gonna pick from this 'rubble' for australia. Yes they did hav a bad series in england but that wasnt mainly their fault..they lacked preparation, unlucky with injuries and crucially mentally exhausted! Of course india is gonna play the same batsmen sehwag gambhir tendulkar dravid laxman n dhoni for australian tour..its just the bowling they need to think about but if zaheer comes back fit and they all regroup as bowlers im sure they'll do fine..chapell's making it out as if australia is going are going to be invincible like the west indies of 80s lol ..not suprised that chapell always has something negative to say about india in all his articles..watch closely!

  • CollisKing on August 28, 2011, 11:29 GMT

    Mr Chappell know's what he is talking about. Greedy administrators and TV Executives are killing the game. Don't we all now have a limited-overs champions trophy competition to look forward to? ZZZzzzzzz. The mouth-watering England v South Africa series next summer is only three test's, and yet the Australian's are coming over for five meaningless one-day internationals. WHY ? Oh yes: full houses and TV schedule's must be filled. International cricket dominated by the T20 format - a nightmare scenario for all lover's of the game.

  • smudgeon on August 28, 2011, 11:27 GMT

    Am I the only who doesn't see any major problems with the state of Australian cricket? Australia had a couple of bleak years (it's what happens when you lose that many good players in a short amount of time), too much focus on trying to replace lost talent with band-aid solutions rather than taking some short-term pain to nurture a new generation. And that next generation is looking fairly good. Australia & India were beaten soundly by a good team that has been years in development, featuring one of the best all-round bowling attacks of the last 10 years. It doesn't mean the end of test cricket.

  • VEXXZ on August 28, 2011, 10:27 GMT

    It is TRUE that " there is growing evidence that T20 is eroding batting skills ." As i see it , the only PUREST in batsmanship at present is IAN BELL.

  • Chris_P on August 28, 2011, 10:21 GMT

    @crikketfan. Chappell mentioned the Aussies got touched up, but dig deeper you'll find an Australian side unsettled and changing. They did win a game by a strong margin at Perth and for the first 3 days of Brisbane, Australia held the whip hand. The final part is that Australia faced a quality attack, their bowling averaged in the 40's against England whereas India, on seamer friendly conditions averaged more than 70 whilst their batsmen failed to pass 300 in 8 attempts. I have read the article a number of times and he hasn't questioned India's chances in Australia at all, so not sure where you are digging this up? He has merely asked about review systems. To the many genuine India cricket fans there, surely there can be no complacency about the future. Your board has not prepared for it, dark days beckon you when the legends retire. It's a long process to get bac & neeeds a program, & currently there isn't one to suffice, that fact is undisputable.

  • screamingeagle on August 28, 2011, 10:13 GMT

    Well, it is all fine with the chest beating by Eng and the cries for reviews by Ian and his ilk; but the point is that there is nothing spectacularly different happening in World cricket at the moment. Ok, Eng won; but that doesnt mean everyone else is sliding back. I for one, finds it strange that when Ind was No.1 it was all about them being unworthy. Suddenly when Eng win (based on an away win in Aus and two series wins in UK) they are pretty much deserving No.1, not just now, for all eternity. I will believe Eng is No.1 when they actually tour the sub continent and win. India..do not worry about Ind, they will bounce back, pretty much a good thing they got wasted in UK, all that success was going to the players heads. And landl47, I know where you are coming from, Eng does well with the excellent players coming in. OK, they are naturalised Englishmen, but pray tell, why did they decide to play for Eng? Anyway, enjoy the feeling while it lasts. :P

  • markofcaloundra on August 28, 2011, 10:10 GMT

    I agree somewhat with Chappelli and landl47!! in my view the problem with Australia's test team is generational/ability. When we had a side of 6-8 greats we were dominant, with Ponting the last and declining we do not have one world class player (Johnson on occassions} certainly not in our batting yet. Maybe Hughes, Watson ,Khawaja, Lynn even Maddison might progress to be goodish test players or better. Clarke was a good test standard player surrounded by greats but is not in the Gilchrist, Hayden, Langer, the Waughs, Jones class and Hussey M like Ponting still worthy but in decline from their peak. Our bowlers are not in the same class as Warne, McGrath, Gillespie. Our current batting up and coming crop ...Marsh, Ferguson, D Hussey C White are not in the class of Lehmann, Law, Katich,, M Love,Siddons, Rogers all averaged around 50 in first class cricket but could not regularly get a game. First class pitches need to be test standard and our test players play more Shield

  • fairdinkum on August 28, 2011, 10:03 GMT

    crickket fan: Ian has not said in this article that India has no chance in Australia. There is no mention of it at all. Nor has he whitewashed from memory the thrashing England gave Australia. He specifically mentions it. Are commenting on some other article?

  • tmd1 on August 28, 2011, 9:43 GMT

    "landl47" i gather the bunch of good players coming through are South African born. It seems interesting to me that Englands improvement has run hand in hand with less English born players in the team.

  • Boycott246 on August 28, 2011, 9:25 GMT

    "...a comprehensive defeat by England...a recent thrashing by a rampant England..." Tee-Hee!

  • on August 28, 2011, 9:06 GMT

    The IPL is full of Aussie Coaches... what does that say about the IPL?

  • Bobby_Talyarkhan on August 28, 2011, 8:55 GMT

    In test cricketing terms India are now a second string outfit who will have to get used to scrapping with the likes of new zealand and west indiesfor midtable respectability. This will lead the BCCI to place greater emphasis on ODI and T20 crickete with exactly the consequences Ian outlines. The BCCI will never reprioritise its financially driven objectives and it is incapable of the kind of long term thinking Ian demands - it is incapable of seeing that Test cricket is the highest form of the game and needs to be prepared for and given due importance at the expense of the other forms of cricket. Fact is if BCCI had its way India would be playing a lot less test cricket than it is doing - only when India became no:1 did BCCI belatedly "discover" test cricket. Result: they piled tests on top of odi's and t20 leading to too much cricket. Now as India declines in test cricket, expect a lot less test cricket. The ICC needs to step in and save world cricket from BCCI.

  • on August 28, 2011, 8:47 GMT

    Here is my recommendation

    T20s end of cricket season (4 weeks) ODIs start of cricket season (6 weeks) Tests main part of cricket season (8 weeks)

    No T20s between countries -- just professional teams and champions league -- it is more entertainment than skill

    ICC has to enforce this or something similar on all its members

  • Governor on August 28, 2011, 8:30 GMT

    I do agree with Chappelli. Michael Brown and James Sutherland are more worried about branding and money!!

  • rajatgupta_indianfan on August 28, 2011, 8:29 GMT

    I think the article touches more upon overhauls of individual country cricket structures (India, Australia or examples from England) instead of overall international game overhaul. I think the routing that India or Australia have seen at the hands of England are parts and parcels of the game and nothing new. They are not a matter of concern to cricket in itself. I think the more important issue is no expansion of cricket despite it being played actively for so many years. The last quality test team to have been added was Sri Lanka which was 20+ years back. There are huge geographic groups where cricket is not known, forget being played. Eg. Far East Asia, North Asia, East Europe, North Africa, South America. Essentially, only a select few commonwealth countries and the ones where Indians and pakistani origin people are present in plenty are the countries playing cricket. ICC needs to set its priorities right and expand cricket by identifying and investing in potential countries.

  • rahulcricket007 on August 28, 2011, 7:54 GMT

    CHAPPELL SIR . I AGREE WITH YOU THAT BCCI SHOULD ALSO TAKE A REVIEW . BUT I THINK THIS IS TOO EARLY FOR INDIA .CRICKET AUSTRALIA IS TAKING A REVIEW BECAUSE ENGLAND THRASHED THEM BOTH HOME AND AWAY AND IN THE WC TOO THERE WIN COMES AGAINST WEAKSIDES . AGAINST PAK AND IND THEY LOST CONSECUTIVELY . I M SURE SL SHOULD ALSO HAVE DEFEAT THEM IF MATCH WAS NOT WASHED BY RAIN . JUST ONE SERIES DEFEAT FOR INDIA DOESN' T MEAN WE NEED REVIEW .HOWEVER IF ENGLAND DEFEAT INDIA NEXT YEAR IN INDIA .THEN BCCI SHOULD TAKE REVIEW .

  • SixoverSlips on August 28, 2011, 7:34 GMT

    What non-sense! Just because Australia had a review committee for their Ashes loss, India should have one? There is no need for doomsday examination. Australia have been floundering for a while, and the Ashes loss was the final nail in the coffin. India have been no.1 for two years, and have lost a series for the first time in 3 years.

    Ian Chappell only likes Indian cricket slightly better than his brother. This is the guy who wrote off Tendulkar a couple of years back. Guess what? Tendulkar won Cricketer of the Year last year, and is in running this year. Chappell is not the most objective person when it comes to Indian cricket.

  • crikketfan on August 28, 2011, 7:05 GMT

    Ian keeps repeating this argument of "India got thrashed in England, so what chance have they in Australia?" as if this is the year 2001 not 2011.

    It is possible that India may find Australia challenging, but it is by no means a certainty. Has 517-1, 245&304 vs 620-5, 98&258 vs 513, 280&281 vs 644 been whitewashed from memory already?

    Ultimately the thrashing that Australia got from England was every bit as comprehensive as the one that India received and that was in conditions that should have supposedly narrowed the gap.

    Just because a slightly understrength and unprepared Indian side couldn't cope with England, it doesn't follow that the same will be true in Australia.

  • ygkd on August 28, 2011, 7:00 GMT

    Anyone who has had as little as a cursory interest in political affairs will recognise a review as a convenient way of dodging hard decisions. That is no reflection on Argus or those who aired their feelings - it is always the implementation of any recommendations that is most lacking. Without a new broom (for the implementation) the old one can all too easily succumb to sweeping everything under the carpet of public relations.

  • on August 28, 2011, 6:44 GMT

    once the odi series is won.....everyone in INDIA will forget the tests trashing.....

  • Cpt.Meanster on August 28, 2011, 5:31 GMT

    I agree with Ian's view on how Australia and India are different in their approach towards a REVIEW of their respective teams' humiliation in the hands of England. India WILL NEVER order a major review. No matter how bad that sounds, that's just how Indian cricket has operated, is operating, and will continue to operate for years to come. The fact of the matter is Indian cricket is afraid of its inadequacies. This is the reason why many of their former players including the 3 greats currently playing for the team have had long careers. In a land of a billion people there are no suitable replacements to these aging stars. Hence comes the question of a review; cause the BCCI's logic is simple, why have a review when there are no adequate players for replacement. I think that makes sense. Australia's is a different issue; the problem for them is about identity, about pride of wearing the BAGGY GREEN in tests, what it is to be the BEST. I would be MOST worried about India at the moment.

  • landl47 on August 28, 2011, 5:16 GMT

    It's strange, but first Australia and now India seem to think that being beaten by this England team means all their systems are wrong and have to be fixed. I'm sure they can find some things to fiddle about with, but I'm betting they won't be much use. The fact is, this is a very good England team. Sooner or later, the pendulum had to swing in England's direction, and now is the time. Australia and India won't beat England again until either they get a new crop of better players or the England team falls apart. At present, the reverse is true; Aus are still trotting out the last of their great side of the early 2000s because there is no-one to replace them and India are about to lose their legendary batsmen with nothing approaching their class on the horizon. Neither Aus nor Ind have any bowlers looking like world class. England have a relatively young test side now (only one man over 32) and a bunch of good young players coming up. Get used to playing for second place.

  • on August 28, 2011, 3:19 GMT

    When Australia was winning, everybody wanted to copy australia just to replicate that success by hiring Australian coaches and coaching staff. Eng, WI, Ban, IND, SL, PAK all used AUstralian coaching staff with little to moderate success. Troy Cooley and Rod Marsh were able to help england win back the ashes in 2005, Bennett King, John Dyson, Greg Chappell, Geoff Lawson, Dav Whatmore did not have the success that Australia had. Now probably no one around the world would want to pick an Australian coach, given the state of Australian cricket.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on August 28, 2011, 3:19 GMT

    When Australia was winning, everybody wanted to copy australia just to replicate that success by hiring Australian coaches and coaching staff. Eng, WI, Ban, IND, SL, PAK all used AUstralian coaching staff with little to moderate success. Troy Cooley and Rod Marsh were able to help england win back the ashes in 2005, Bennett King, John Dyson, Greg Chappell, Geoff Lawson, Dav Whatmore did not have the success that Australia had. Now probably no one around the world would want to pick an Australian coach, given the state of Australian cricket.

  • landl47 on August 28, 2011, 5:16 GMT

    It's strange, but first Australia and now India seem to think that being beaten by this England team means all their systems are wrong and have to be fixed. I'm sure they can find some things to fiddle about with, but I'm betting they won't be much use. The fact is, this is a very good England team. Sooner or later, the pendulum had to swing in England's direction, and now is the time. Australia and India won't beat England again until either they get a new crop of better players or the England team falls apart. At present, the reverse is true; Aus are still trotting out the last of their great side of the early 2000s because there is no-one to replace them and India are about to lose their legendary batsmen with nothing approaching their class on the horizon. Neither Aus nor Ind have any bowlers looking like world class. England have a relatively young test side now (only one man over 32) and a bunch of good young players coming up. Get used to playing for second place.

  • Cpt.Meanster on August 28, 2011, 5:31 GMT

    I agree with Ian's view on how Australia and India are different in their approach towards a REVIEW of their respective teams' humiliation in the hands of England. India WILL NEVER order a major review. No matter how bad that sounds, that's just how Indian cricket has operated, is operating, and will continue to operate for years to come. The fact of the matter is Indian cricket is afraid of its inadequacies. This is the reason why many of their former players including the 3 greats currently playing for the team have had long careers. In a land of a billion people there are no suitable replacements to these aging stars. Hence comes the question of a review; cause the BCCI's logic is simple, why have a review when there are no adequate players for replacement. I think that makes sense. Australia's is a different issue; the problem for them is about identity, about pride of wearing the BAGGY GREEN in tests, what it is to be the BEST. I would be MOST worried about India at the moment.

  • on August 28, 2011, 6:44 GMT

    once the odi series is won.....everyone in INDIA will forget the tests trashing.....

  • ygkd on August 28, 2011, 7:00 GMT

    Anyone who has had as little as a cursory interest in political affairs will recognise a review as a convenient way of dodging hard decisions. That is no reflection on Argus or those who aired their feelings - it is always the implementation of any recommendations that is most lacking. Without a new broom (for the implementation) the old one can all too easily succumb to sweeping everything under the carpet of public relations.

  • crikketfan on August 28, 2011, 7:05 GMT

    Ian keeps repeating this argument of "India got thrashed in England, so what chance have they in Australia?" as if this is the year 2001 not 2011.

    It is possible that India may find Australia challenging, but it is by no means a certainty. Has 517-1, 245&304 vs 620-5, 98&258 vs 513, 280&281 vs 644 been whitewashed from memory already?

    Ultimately the thrashing that Australia got from England was every bit as comprehensive as the one that India received and that was in conditions that should have supposedly narrowed the gap.

    Just because a slightly understrength and unprepared Indian side couldn't cope with England, it doesn't follow that the same will be true in Australia.

  • SixoverSlips on August 28, 2011, 7:34 GMT

    What non-sense! Just because Australia had a review committee for their Ashes loss, India should have one? There is no need for doomsday examination. Australia have been floundering for a while, and the Ashes loss was the final nail in the coffin. India have been no.1 for two years, and have lost a series for the first time in 3 years.

    Ian Chappell only likes Indian cricket slightly better than his brother. This is the guy who wrote off Tendulkar a couple of years back. Guess what? Tendulkar won Cricketer of the Year last year, and is in running this year. Chappell is not the most objective person when it comes to Indian cricket.

  • rahulcricket007 on August 28, 2011, 7:54 GMT

    CHAPPELL SIR . I AGREE WITH YOU THAT BCCI SHOULD ALSO TAKE A REVIEW . BUT I THINK THIS IS TOO EARLY FOR INDIA .CRICKET AUSTRALIA IS TAKING A REVIEW BECAUSE ENGLAND THRASHED THEM BOTH HOME AND AWAY AND IN THE WC TOO THERE WIN COMES AGAINST WEAKSIDES . AGAINST PAK AND IND THEY LOST CONSECUTIVELY . I M SURE SL SHOULD ALSO HAVE DEFEAT THEM IF MATCH WAS NOT WASHED BY RAIN . JUST ONE SERIES DEFEAT FOR INDIA DOESN' T MEAN WE NEED REVIEW .HOWEVER IF ENGLAND DEFEAT INDIA NEXT YEAR IN INDIA .THEN BCCI SHOULD TAKE REVIEW .

  • rajatgupta_indianfan on August 28, 2011, 8:29 GMT

    I think the article touches more upon overhauls of individual country cricket structures (India, Australia or examples from England) instead of overall international game overhaul. I think the routing that India or Australia have seen at the hands of England are parts and parcels of the game and nothing new. They are not a matter of concern to cricket in itself. I think the more important issue is no expansion of cricket despite it being played actively for so many years. The last quality test team to have been added was Sri Lanka which was 20+ years back. There are huge geographic groups where cricket is not known, forget being played. Eg. Far East Asia, North Asia, East Europe, North Africa, South America. Essentially, only a select few commonwealth countries and the ones where Indians and pakistani origin people are present in plenty are the countries playing cricket. ICC needs to set its priorities right and expand cricket by identifying and investing in potential countries.

  • Governor on August 28, 2011, 8:30 GMT

    I do agree with Chappelli. Michael Brown and James Sutherland are more worried about branding and money!!