On Jun 17, 11:12 am, arahim <arahim_ara... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

No question, it was. But they had no choice. Here they have the choice
of hosting those matches in India, SL, BD.

Yes but Pakistan is a joint host. And since they have no choice there
then why not let that host choose a convenient alternative?

Because their choice dilutes the concept of s-c world cup.

You wanted to know what is the dilution of concept they are talking
about, I answered it. What will be achieved by fixating on the concept
- I don't know. But they are clear it is that concept they want to
preserve.

Ok. But can the BCCI tell us what will be achieved by fixating on the
concept?

It is not hard to guess. Cricket in every region has its own flavour.
BCCI folks probably feel mixing s-c matches with Dubai wouldn't give
the World Cup a consistent theme. If you want to do a proper Indian
style wedding, you don't want to have a black suit, sit-down dinner
for one of the events.

So wouldn't it be nice to listen to your cohost? After all none of the
games scheduled in the other three hosts get affected.

Not if you don't want to dilute the concept and  your co-host is
intent on doing that.

Mohan

On Jun 17, 7:33 pm, Mohan <dpuse... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jun 17, 11:12 am, arahim <arahim_ara... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

No question, it was. But they had no choice. Here they have the choice
of hosting those matches in India, SL, BD.

Yes but Pakistan is a joint host. And since they have no choice there
then why not let that host choose a convenient alternative?

Because their choice dilutes the concept of s-c world cup.

Does anyone other than BCCI give a flying fred about this?
.....



You wanted to know what is the dilution of concept they are talking
about, I answered it. What will be achieved by fixating on the concept
- I don't know. But they are clear it is that concept they want to
preserve.

Ok. But can the BCCI tell us what will be achieved by fixating on the
concept?

It is not hard to guess. Cricket in every region has its own flavour.
BCCI folks probably feel mixing s-c matches with Dubai wouldn't give
the World Cup a consistent theme. If you want to do a proper Indian
style wedding, you don't want to have a black suit, sit-down dinner
for one of the events.

I see, this is blatant trolling....not one of your better efforts
unfortunately. You've lost the knack.

So wouldn't it be nice to listen to your cohost? After all none of the
games scheduled in the other three hosts get affected.

Not if you don't want to dilute the concept and  your co-host is
intent on doing that.

Mohan

OH NOES! We have diluted concept of a world cup in India and its
sattelites! How will the world continue?
Shows how mediocre BCCI is, that they should stoop to this petty
grandstanding and control freakery. No wonder world cricket is going
down the toilet when its run by these jokers. Bad enough that they
stole the event for the 4th time. In normally governed sports,
international competitions are shared around. Even the Olympics and
the soccer world cup aren't as blatantly farmed by the US/Europe
respectively.

On Jun 20, 7:16 pm, eusebius <eusebiu... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:





On Jun 17, 7:33 pm, Mohan <dpuse... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jun 17, 11:12 am, arahim <arahim_ara... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

No question, it was. But they had no choice. Here they have the choice
of hosting those matches in India, SL, BD.

Yes but Pakistan is a joint host. And since they have no choice there
then why not let that host choose a convenient alternative?

Because their choice dilutes the concept of s-c world cup.

Does anyone other than BCCI give a flying fred about this?
.....

You wanted to know what is the dilution of concept they are talking
about, I answered it. What will be achieved by fixating on the concept
- I don't know. But they are clear it is that concept they want to
preserve.

Ok. But can the BCCI tell us what will be achieved by fixating on the
concept?

It is not hard to guess. Cricket in every region has its own flavour.
BCCI folks probably feel mixing s-c matches with Dubai wouldn't give
the World Cup a consistent theme. If you want to do a proper Indian
style wedding, you don't want to have a black suit, sit-down dinner
for one of the events.

I see, this is blatant trolling....not one of your better efforts
unfortunately. You've lost the knack.

So wouldn't it be nice to listen to your cohost? After all none of the
games scheduled in the other three hosts get affected.

Not if you don't want to dilute the concept and  your co-host is
intent on doing that.

Mohan

OH NOES! We have diluted concept of a world cup in India and its
sattelites! How will the world continue?
Shows how mediocre BCCI is, that they should stoop to this petty
grandstanding and control freakery. No wonder world cricket is going
down the toilet when its run by these jokers. Bad enough that they
stole the event for the 4th time. In normally governed sports,
international competitions are shared around. Even the Olympics and
the soccer world cup aren't as blatantly farmed by the US/Europe
respectively.

What is this "stealing the 4th time" thing, Eusebius? As far as I can
remember India has hosted the world cup only twice before i.e. 87 and
96, and in 2011 it will be the 3rd time. But, anyway how is it
stealing? If anything the CWC being held only in 1 country 3 times
consecutively seems like abuse of power. From 87 each area in the
world has had equal opportunity to hold the world cup once without any
one country/area getting hostage significantly higher than others and
thereby indicating abuse of power. In 2011 I'd think the cycle starts
again, unless I forgot some major country/ geographically closely
located countries that play cricket.

Read this:
1975 - Eng
1979 - Eng
1983 - Eng
1987 - Ind/Pak
1992 - Australasia (both Test Nations)
1996 - Asia (all 3 Test Nations)
1999 - Eng
2003 - Africa (both Test Nations + one associate)
2007 - WI
2011 - Asia (planned for all 4 but now 3 Test Nations)
2015 - Australasia (both Test Nations)

Stop bashing BCCI for all ills in cricket. I am not a big fan of BCCI
but your accusation of BCCI is baseless. To remind you, Eusebius, your
accusation was "No wonder world cricket is going down the toilet when
its run by these jokers". If you want to stick to that accusation,
Eusebius, provide some hard evidence that clearly demonstrates that
cricket is worser than it was before the mid-late 90's (since it is
from this time that BCCI realized its potential for becoming the top
player in international cricket administration).

And just in case you don't know how to og about providing evidence,
here are some pointers...first define criteria based on which you can
evaluate BCCI. Then ensure that the criteria are just and fairly
represent what people want from a cricket administration that has
greatest clout. Then provide evidence for or against.

On 17 Jun 2009, Mohan wrote

No. Pak is also part of the sub-continent, so whether the
matches are held in India, Pak, SL and BD or just India,SL and
BD it remains a 100% sub-continental world cup.

Sorry; late contribution here, but "sub-continental world cup" is an
oxymoron...

--
Cheers,
Harvey
"

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:19:17 -0700 (PDT), Nirvanam wrote:

And just in case you don't know how to og about providing evidence,
here are some pointers...first define criteria based on which you can
evaluate BCCI. Then ensure that the criteria are just and fairly
represent what people want from a cricket administration that has
greatest clout. Then provide evidence for or against.

Well that's just complete rubbish.
What you're proposing is that "evidence" has to be tailored to "what people
want from" the BCCI. errr. Which "people" would that be? And exactly how
are we able to know what they "want"?  

You are a member of the BCCI and I demand my 5 free whacks of an umpire.

alvey

On Jun 21, 2:23 am, alvey <al... at (no spam) play.com> wrote:





On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:19:17 -0700 (PDT), Nirvanam wrote:

And just in case you don't know how to og about providing evidence,
here are some pointers...first define criteria based on which you can
evaluate BCCI. Then ensure that the criteria are just and fairly
represent what people want from a cricket administration that has
greatest clout. Then provide evidence for or against.

Well that's just complete rubbish.
What you're proposing is that "evidence" has to be tailored to "what people
want from" the BCCI. errr. Which "people" would that be? And exactly how
are we able to know what they "want"?  

You are a member of the BCCI and I demand my 5 free whacks of an umpire..

alvey

Alvey,
how is it rubbish? Where have I indicated that the evidence needs to
be tailored? All I've said is to do the following:
step 1) establish criteria for evaluation...since you surely have made
decisions in your life you will be aware that when you want to choose
something, for example a car, you evaluate different cars (all cricket
boards) or your specific model of interest (bcci) against things like
cost, mileage, power, or whatever matters to you (these are criteria)
step 2) you then evaluate the performance of a specific option (bcci)
against these criteria to decide whether that option meets your
expectations or not, and how well it meets them

You would also be aware that, from your work experiences, that in some
cases decisions need to be made by a group of people therefore you
need to consider others' evaluation against the said criteria of the
available options to agree upon a final evaluation of whether that
option meets your evaluation criteria and how well it meets them. In
order to do so, you will appreciate that if objective data (not
necessarily numbers) is available it is easier to evaluate. This
objective data is what is meant by "hard evidence". But yes, some
decisions/evaluations can be made with subjective criteria as well but
the criteria being subjective means it is based on opinion and not
evidence. Opinions in themselves are rarely 'absolute right' or
'absolute wrong' so you would appreciate the need for objective
criteria. I hope this answers the need for "hard evidence".

The points you have mentioned are exactly what you said...they are
your opinions. They don't add much value for evaluating BCCI.
Currently, they stand as just mumbles, nothing more. At least if you
would've cared to define some criteria we could have used them as
subjective data and evaluate BCCI. So, do that first if you are
bothered enough to evaluate BCCI even subjectively.

Someone can present 6, no 1 more than what you have presented 7,
points of "good" things that BCCI has done and claim that BCCI is a
success. You wouldn't accept that, right? Or will you?

If you want to stick to that accusation,
Eusebius, provide some hard evidence that clearly demonstrates that
cricket is worser than it was before the mid-late 90's (since it is
from this time that BCCI realized its potential for becoming the top
player in international cricket administration).

And just in case you don't know how to og about providing evidence,
here are some pointers...first define criteria based on which you can
evaluate BCCI. Then ensure that the criteria are just and fairly
represent what people want from a cricket administration that has
greatest clout. Then provide evidence for or against.

No. Pak is also part of the sub-continent, so whether the
matches are held in India, Pak, SL and BD or just India,SL and
BD it remains a 100% sub-continental world cup.