UPDATE - KL Rahul ruled out of BGT as he is planning a movie or might be busy with his new wife

In the meantime, Australians are in a gun-blazing mode. A lot of media coverage and mind games are being done. Found out that they have hired Mahesh Pithiya who does not looks like Ashwin but has an action similar to him. I have never seen them so serious about the Ashes as they are for BGT. In the meantime, ICT is busy chilling and is least bothered with anything related to BGT.

Seeing Zimbabwe playing a test match after a long time. The first test between Zimbabwe and West Indies is in progress at Bulawayo. West Indies have a slow start as they have made 54 runs in 27 overs (going with just 2 runs per over).
Tagenarine Chanderpaul son of legend S Chanderpaul is opening from West Indies side. He has played 2 test matches and we have yet to see century from him. It's a good chance for him to score century.

To be very honest, i would not blame ICC if the players are not getting enough rest. Basically there are so many leagues these days and they give good money to the players so every cricketer wants to be part of each and every one of them.

Since they also have to play for their own country, this will make their schedule more busy. I would blame cricketers for being remain busy in playing for most part of the year and not getting the appropriate rest. Greediness of earning money is something to be blamed for and not the ICC alone is responsible for it.

OK.. my bad. For now, let's assume that Ashwin will lead the spin attack for India, along with Jadeja and Axar. Jadeja has been out of action for sometime, but he performed well recently in one of the Ranji trophy matches. Regarding Kuldeep Yadav, he has a terrific test record (bowling average of 21.55) but unfortunately he is not going to be the first pick for the selectors. And most of his wickets have come against weak teams such as Bangladesh. On the other hand, Australia are going to struggle with their spin options. Nathan Lyon is the only experienced spin bowler in their squad.

The under 19 team (both men &women) have performed exceptionally well in ICC tournaments. They have each won the T20WC against big countries which proves India has a good talent base. I do not know what happened to these players when they join the senior team, they start losing the same ICC tournaments. I guess the fame & money takes over the innocense and the zeal to perform. Last time India won the T20WC was in 2007.

T20I is the only ICC ranking system where the associate nations are included. Match between associate nations are awarded T20I status and therefore considered for ranking. On the other hand, only matches with full members are considered for ODI and Test ranking. So how can the funding be decided based on ODI/Test ranking, when only 10-12 countries are effectively included there? I understand that the T20I team rankings can be quite volatile. The solution here is to take the average of ranking over a 4-year period, rather than look at the rank on a particular cutoff date.

Ashwin is included in the squad this time, although I am not sure whether he will play or not. I have noticed somethign interesting. Touring spinners do have a good track record at Nagpur. but the problem for Australia is that they don't have any quality spin bowlers.

If Iyer is unable to play, then someone else will get the chance. Ranji Trophy championship is over-saturated with quality batsmen. But the selectors give little importance to those who perform there. We always hear analysts complaining about not selecting Sarfaraz Khan to the national team, but no one actually care about players such as Abhimanyu Easwaran and Mayank Agarwal. There is enough depth in the player pool within India. But the selectors need to stop taking instructions from the senior players, regarding team selection and do their job without any bias.

I think it's pretty evident now that Gill is the next big thing for India in cricket, we have got the number 1 choice of opener with Rohit Sharma, probably Ishan Kishan can fill the position once Rohit retires. I am just hoping gill performs similarly in test cricket as well because if he does one can say he is the next Indian prodigy. But I will be much more confident about him once he scores with similar potential on foreign pitches as well. Also this clearly shows that how he can change gears while he is batting.

Ideally any funds received by the BCCI from ICC should be tax-free. Because most of the funds end up as salary for the players (both international and domestic) and these players are paying income tax of up to 43% for this amount. Now if the government taxes the amount at source, then it will amount to double taxation. As far as I know, none of the other countries tax funds from ICC. And in almost all the cases, revenues collected from ICC tournaments are tax-free as well. India is the only country that refuses to provide tax exemption. But in this case, the ICC can't do anything. They can't reimburse the taxes, as it will be unfair to the smaller boards.

BTW, I am not hearing much about the ongoing media rights auction. After the sub-continent auction, ICC seems to have gone completely silent over it.

SKY Sports (UK) sealed the media rights deal with the ICC for 8 years. Both parties are yet to disclose the final price and unofficial reports are that the Australian deal is also done for 4 years.

We should get some details soon, fingers are crossed for some spicy drama.  

Well, I am saying that performance should be the main criteria, but other factors can be supplementary. In case of Pakistan, injury to their premier fast bowler (Shaheen Shah Afridi) had a major impact on their recent matches. If you check the T20 rankings, Pakistan is at 3rd position and South Africa is at 4th. While deciding about the funding, performance in T20 should get higher priority, because it is the main revenue source. In case of Bangladesh, their performance can't be compared with either Pakistan or South Africa. They are far behind.

Apart from performance, I took other factors as well, such as popularity of cricket in that country and size of the market. Pakistan is a country of 230 million people and cricket is the most popular sport there. South Africa has a population of approx. 60 million and cricket is the 3rd or 4th most popular sport. And at this point, I would say that both the nations are performing at the same level. But the market size should push Pakistan ahead of RSA. Anyway, it is a promotion-relegation system, so after every 3 or 4 years, teams who can't perform will get relegated.

BTW, there is good news coming in from Nepal. The Cricket Association of Nepal (CAN) has lifted its ban on Sandeep Lamichhane. Now he will be eligible to participate in the tri-series against Namibia and Scotland, which will begin later this month (part of ICC Men's Cricket World Cup League 2).

Pakistan performance in last year has been phenomenal throughout, although they didn't get any trophy but still they were in finals of Asia Cup and t20 World Cup (India wasn't in them obviously). The point is just because of test series you cannot change Pakistan ranking and bring it below South Africa,  who is also a very good team.

The number of associate nations have gone up over the years, as the ICC have added dozens of fake teams such as Norway and Czech Republic, which are entirely made up of nationals from India or Pakistan. Now the associate pot already got reduced by a lot in the 2015-23 cycle and then each team receives less amount because there are more number of countries. It is laughable that a country such as Nepal, which has 100% native players and has a cricketing history of many decades receive almost the same amount of funds that is received by Norway, which doesn't have a single national playing for it.

My proposal is to divide the test and associate nations, based on their performance. Each tier receives a proportionate amount of ICC funds.

Tier 1: IND, AUS, NZL, ENG and PAK
Tier 2: SL, WI, BAN, RSA and AFG
Tier 3: IRE, ZIM, SCO, NAM, NED
Tier 4: NEP, UAE, OMN, PNG, CAN
Tier 5: HK, USA, QAT, JER, UGA

I understand it is costly but why such discrimination? I did not enjoy the match for the first reason it was unfair on both the team's part and second it got dominated by India as soon as the captain of WI got out. If you want women's T20 cricket to be engaging as well as entertaining you need to bring it to par with men's T20 cricket.

~snip~
DRS. Perhaps the ICC need to come up with a strict rule, which makes DRS mandatory for all the international matches.

What's happening with the women's T20 tri series between India, SA & WI? I just finished the highlights of the match between India and WI. I was surprised DRS was not used in that game. Is there something that I don't know or in women cricket DRS has been not included or only for this tri series they are not using it. There were couple of questionable outs given by the umpires in favour of both teams. Overall India won the match but it was kind of boring to watch as the match was a one sided one. @JSRAW or @Sithara007 do you have any clue?

Well.. I am confused. No one was complaining when 400+ totals were being made in the ODI matches. 90% of the matches that are being hosted by India are being played in pitches where the bowlers get zero assistance. Once in a while we get pitches like the one in Lucknow and suddenly all the hell breaks loose. Honestly, I am against both types of pitches. Cricket should be played in surfaces where both the bowlers and batsmen have adequate support. Else, the fans will get bored after some time and they will stop watching cricket. Apart from improving the personal stats of individual players, it is not going to benefit anyone.

For the 2015-23 cycle, total funds available with ICC, to be distributed to member nations was $1.774 billion. Out of that, BCCI received a share of $405 million, which amounts for 23%. There is no tax deduction, as the ICC is based in UAE (where there is no income or corporate tax).

I hope after Jofra archers inclusion the weak bowling line up of the English side changes but to an extent he can bowl 10 overs in limited cricket. England needs another two good and responsible  pace bowlers which at the moment is not happening. They tested a few in this series but none of them are good enough it seems.

I think it is actually not bad. In a time when everyone is talking about smashing the ball, it is actually good to see a low scoring match which is competitive, to be honest. And I honestly think low scoring matches are the best because those matches bring out the best of both teams in both batting and bowling. In a high scoring match, it is all about who can smash the ball harder and further. But in these matches, skill is at its highest.

I think the funding for all the associate nations is going to decrease because India is asking for almost 80%. And if that happens, I think ICC will have no option but to actually figure out which cricket boards are poor and actually need the money more.