ICL Vs IPL ??
IPL seems to be the buzz word these days.
Lalit Modi promoted Indian Premier League,backed by the BCCI has caught the attention of cricket followers worldwide with its fat(and exorbitant)auction prices and unprecedented amount of money thats being pumped in.The league is spread over 44 days with players divided into 8 teams and promises a whole new brand of cricket and entertainment(or rather crickentertainment).
On the other hand is the Essel group promoted ICL (Indian Cricket League) branded as a rebel league by the BCCI.This league was started prior to the IPL and there were no T20 leagues back then.It also has 8 teams similar to the IPL minus the big sponsors/ad revenues.Saying that ICL is similar to IPL is a mistake,ICL was started a year back and successfully organized the tourney twice.In fact, I would say IPL is similar to ICL.Its a completely legal league just like any other league/county,Only that BCCI doesn't have a say in any issues.BCCI considered this as a threat to their position/power and promptly labeled the league as rebel league and banned any players and officials associated with the league.Also,Some cricketing bodies have to toe the line reluctantly and comply with the BCCI's decree that any player associated with ICL should be banned,and they know that they are doing a mistake.
In fact only after Dhoni and his team won the T20 World cup, BCCI started organizing T20 matches. Prior to that there were hardly any T20 matches organized,except may be a very few.Probably the inaugural T20 tournament has prompted the BCCI to cash in on the viewer ship and popularity of the shortest version of the game.Though its good to capitalize on the opportunities,the same can't be said on the way they treated the ICL.Cricket grounds under the BCCI were not given for the ICL and in fact they had to organize the tournament in Railway grounds and other venues.
I have watched some of the ICL matches and am yet to watch IPL.Having seen ICL,i feel that the tournament is decently organized and the teams are good.Matches are entertaining and are on par with the other T20 internationals if not more.The teams are balanced and some matches were really entertaining/good.Now the point is,Does BCCI,a non government organization,which is neither accountable to the Parliament nor the general public,have the right to ban some players on the reason that they are playing in ICL? Who and how can it ban players like Kapil dev who is considered to be an icon of Indian cricket? and when it does allow players to play in the other leagues apart from the Indian leagues like county cricket,why cant they be a part of the ICL?And why does a old fagot like sharad pawar and co get to run it?(GOD save cricket as Lallu is tipped to be the next BCCI chief).
Lalit Modi promoted Indian Premier League,backed by the BCCI has caught the attention of cricket followers worldwide with its fat(and exorbitant)auction prices and unprecedented amount of money thats being pumped in.The league is spread over 44 days with players divided into 8 teams and promises a whole new brand of cricket and entertainment(or rather crickentertainment).
On the other hand is the Essel group promoted ICL (Indian Cricket League) branded as a rebel league by the BCCI.This league was started prior to the IPL and there were no T20 leagues back then.It also has 8 teams similar to the IPL minus the big sponsors/ad revenues.Saying that ICL is similar to IPL is a mistake,ICL was started a year back and successfully organized the tourney twice.In fact, I would say IPL is similar to ICL.Its a completely legal league just like any other league/county,Only that BCCI doesn't have a say in any issues.BCCI considered this as a threat to their position/power and promptly labeled the league as rebel league and banned any players and officials associated with the league.Also,Some cricketing bodies have to toe the line reluctantly and comply with the BCCI's decree that any player associated with ICL should be banned,and they know that they are doing a mistake.
In fact only after Dhoni and his team won the T20 World cup, BCCI started organizing T20 matches. Prior to that there were hardly any T20 matches organized,except may be a very few.Probably the inaugural T20 tournament has prompted the BCCI to cash in on the viewer ship and popularity of the shortest version of the game.Though its good to capitalize on the opportunities,the same can't be said on the way they treated the ICL.Cricket grounds under the BCCI were not given for the ICL and in fact they had to organize the tournament in Railway grounds and other venues.
I have watched some of the ICL matches and am yet to watch IPL.Having seen ICL,i feel that the tournament is decently organized and the teams are good.Matches are entertaining and are on par with the other T20 internationals if not more.The teams are balanced and some matches were really entertaining/good.Now the point is,Does BCCI,a non government organization,which is neither accountable to the Parliament nor the general public,have the right to ban some players on the reason that they are playing in ICL? Who and how can it ban players like Kapil dev who is considered to be an icon of Indian cricket? and when it does allow players to play in the other leagues apart from the Indian leagues like county cricket,why cant they be a part of the ICL?And why does a old fagot like sharad pawar and co get to run it?(GOD save cricket as Lallu is tipped to be the next BCCI chief).
posted by kiran @ 12:00 PM
0 comments
