Cricket match prediction discussions

[Theones]

^^ If i am being honest then I would say Ganguly was much better choice back in 2018-19.

But after his recent gig, i hardly doubt if he deserves ICC President's chair, the way he managed the team or BCCI affairs in recent times, not to mention those shitty leaks. He deserves to kick out but unfortunately, it's not going to happen.

Kicked out and replaced by whom? Ex players such as Sachin and Laxman are not interested in administration. Guys like Wasim Jaffer have been accused of nepotism. Then obvious choice would be members of mafia such as Supriya Sule, Rupa Gurunath and Kalanithi Maran. Unless there is a suitable replacement, I would rather prefer Ganguly. And for the post of ICC chairman, my first preference is Kumar Sangakkara. He has hinted his interest in the past, but the issue is that the SLCB is not ready to support him.

Personally, my first preference will be Kumar Sangakkara over Sourav Ganguly as I think Sangakkara would be a better fit for the chairman position as I don't think Sourav Ganguly has done that good in recent times Plus Sangakkara seems like a humble being in your opinion.  I think this selection is going to be crucial for the future of cricket in general so I think the voting needs to be done in a correct manner  to save cricket.

I was wondering after listening the news of Pak umpaire Asad Ruaf.
They all were star once and when their career ends they are no more in lime - such is the brief fame of glitter and glam and that is what the life is
I also believe Sangakkara is good choice.

[laurenB7742]

Since there are no big-4 in women's cricket as far as I am aware, I honestly believe that women's cricket is going to improve a lot faster than men's cricket given the fact there is no big-4 in women's cricket. Thus, there is no restriction whatsoever on the number of teams that are going to be taking part in the World Cup. In men's cricket, however, the big four are very careful about losing the territory they have acquired over the years. Furthermore, I believe that they have a good deal of authority over the International Cricket Council. They don't want to lose that and that is a big reason why they really don't want too many teams playing cricket regularly. I think the improvement in women's cricket is already very visible compared to men's cricket.

In women cricket there is no big 4 but big 3 i.e. Australia, Newzealand and England. The irony is that no board less these 3 countries is taking women cricket seriously. Also there is not much viewership for women cricket. As long as there are not many countries in men cricket there won't by many in women.

There are many factors for having things like this because Women sports are having many issues in many regions specially in Asia and Africa with there is no good opportunities for them and mostly women's in dark age but with these events things are changing, and we have some bright side as well which will be good and well-developed with events like these surely going to encourage good number of countries to bring women in their main stream for games which is good and important for positive changes.

After having too many young girls teams feeling good as these can bring good change but here we need some tough check and balance like mostly native girls need more exposure because if they are not going to have policy then surely this is not going to be had any positivity in these events.

It seems to me that the biggest problem in women's cricket at the moment is the lack of viewership. This is because they are so used to watching men's cricket. Therefore, when people watch women's cricket they expect lightning pace, powerful hitting, and very agile fielding, which is probably too challenging for women. There is no intention on my part to offend anyone. I am just stating a few facts that I believe to be true.

In addition, it must also be noted that there is a perception that the other teams don't really take women's cricket seriously except for England, Australia, and New Zealand. Nevertheless, I really believe that women's cricket has the potential to generate more revenue as compared to men's cricket in the future.

[GigaBit]

Since there are no big-4 in women's cricket as far as I am aware, I honestly believe that women's cricket is going to improve a lot faster than men's cricket given the fact there is no big-4 in women's cricket. Thus, there is no restriction whatsoever on the number of teams that are going to be taking part in the World Cup. In men's cricket, however, the big four are very careful about losing the territory they have acquired over the years. Furthermore, I believe that they have a good deal of authority over the International Cricket Council. They don't want to lose that and that is a big reason why they really don't want too many teams playing cricket regularly. I think the improvement in women's cricket is already very visible compared to men's cricket.

In women cricket there is no big 4 but big 3 i.e. Australia, Newzealand and England. The irony is that no board less these 3 countries is taking women cricket seriously. Also there is not much viewership for women cricket. As long as there are not many countries in men cricket there won't by many in women.

There are many factors for having things like this because Women sports are having many issues in many regions specially in Asia and Africa with there is no good opportunities for them and mostly women's in dark age but with these events things are changing, and we have some bright side as well which will be good and well-developed with events like these surely going to encourage good number of countries to bring women in their main stream for games which is good and important for positive changes.

After having too many young girls teams feeling good as these can bring good change but here we need some tough check and balance like mostly native girls need more exposure because if they are not going to have policy then surely this is not going to be had any positivity in these events.

It seems to me that the biggest problem in women's cricket at the moment is the lack of viewership. This is because they are so used to watching men's cricket. Therefore, when people watch women's cricket they expect lightning pace, powerful hitting, and very agile fielding, which is probably too challenging for women. There is no intention on my part to offend anyone. I am just stating a few facts that I believe to be true.

In addition, it must also be noted that there is a perception that the other teams don't really take women's cricket seriously except for England, Australia, and New Zealand. Nevertheless, I really believe that women's cricket has the potential to generate more revenue as compared to men's cricket in the future.

Women's cricket team is now well known as compared to the previous. People may not watch their games in the gallery but they are more popular online or in TV media. But if this continues, women's cricket may become more popular in the future. At present, England, New Zealand, India and Australia are performing well.

[WatChe]

]
Women's cricket team is now well known as compared to the previous. People may not watch their games in the gallery but they are more popular online or in TV media. But if this continues, women's cricket may become more popular in the future. At present, England, New Zealand, India and Australia are performing well.

India who has biggest league for men has no money to start women IPl. Indian players are not allowed to play in any Premier league while women players are asked to play foreign leagues to get necessary experience. Till the time boards start taking women cricket seriously there is little scope for women cricket.

[zuzie]

I was wondering after listening the news of Pak umpaire Asad Ruaf.
They all were star once and when their career ends they are no more in lime - such is the brief fame of glitter and glam and that is what the life is
I also believe Sangakkara is good choice.

Maybe you mean Asad Rauf,  player and Umpire from Pakistan cricket who recently died at the age of 66 years.
In terms of career Asad Rauf is well known in Cricket world. After undergoing the Last A List match on October 2, 1991, it did not stop there Asad Rauf continue his career as a Umpire at One Day International (ODI) in 2000. And it continue to make his name known in Cricket before ending in 2013.

[YinShuiSiYuan]

Maybe you mean Asad Rauf,  player and Umpire from Pakistan cricket who recently died at the age of 66 years.
In terms of career Asad Rauf is well known in Cricket world. After undergoing the Last A List match on October 2, 1991, it did not stop there Asad Rauf continue his career as a Umpire at One Day International (ODI) in 2000. And it continue to make his name known in Cricket before ending in 2013.

Yes he was no doubt a great umpire and member of ICC elite panel of umpire. He umpired 64 tests, 139 ODI and 28 T20I. He has a good going career that ended when he was banned for 5 years by ICC on charges of misconduct and corruption. May the departed soul rest in peace.

[fullhdpixel]

India who has biggest league for men has no money to start women IPl. Indian players are not allowed to play in any Premier league while women players are asked to play foreign leagues to get necessary experience. Till the time boards start taking women cricket seriously there is little scope for women cricket.

Really feeling shame for them as these women's are doing amazing job in last few years but sadly no positive things happening for them in their own country where BCCI is having world's most prestigious franchise league and having the biggest profit in sports industry around the world really sick mind peoples are these who doing things like this because they can manage this easily even having some lost which is affordable for them because they are fearing few things are going to be not good for them, but they have to start as this could be good and positive if they look into long run.

Australia and England doing good job even they are having small market instead of India, and they are having nothing positive just because of their poor tactics which are surely not going to help them if they are not going to work in this way as well.

[JSRAW]

India who has biggest league for men has no money to start women IPl. Indian players are not allowed to play in any Premier league while women players are asked to play foreign leagues to get necessary experience. Till the time boards start taking women cricket seriously there is little scope for women cricket.

Really feeling shame for them as these women's are doing amazing job in last few years but sadly no positive things happening for them in their own country where BCCI is having world's most prestigious franchise league and having the biggest profit in sports industry around the world really sick mind peoples are these who doing things like this because they can manage this easily even having some lost which is affordable for them because they are fearing few things are going to be not good for them, but they have to start as this could be good and positive if they look into long run.

Australia and England doing good job even they are having small market instead of India, and they are having nothing positive just because of their poor tactics which are surely not going to help them if they are not going to work in this way as well.

That was indeed the case before but

For good reasons BCCI has changed its mindset and now trying to set up WIPL too, we were discussing this couple of months back when they made a new announcement regarding WIPL.

BCCI seems to have a change of heart nowadays, first handing over incentives to ground staff and now news coming out that they are actively working towards Women IPL. They are in talks with other cricket boards and ICC for separate window for WIPL.

Key points:
- 6 teams
- Existing IPL franchise already showing some interest (KKR, RR and CSK)
- Suitable window -March- just before the Men's IPL.
https://www.newindianexpress.com/sport/cricket/2022/jun/01/march-2023-likely-to-see-inaugural-womens-indian-premier-league-2460500.html

[Sithara007]

Naah, ICC is trying.

They are organizing qualifier in the pacific region for T20 world cup 2024, and those teams consist of native players.
Vanuatu just qualified from Qualifier A, and will be playing against Philippines, Papua new guinea and another team from Qualifier B.

Qualifier B consist of japan, south korea and Indonesia. It starts from October 15 and you can watch it for free at ICC's website. I was watching QUalifier A and it was pretty fun. These teams had good quality batsmen and fielders, but they lack good bowlers.

Cricket is definitely expanding, it has seen many new additions in the last decade. Its expansion in new countries also depends on their culture. ICC needs to target school children and promote cricket to them. Which they are already doing in pacific region, not sure about Western hemisphere. It's a very loooong and slow process.

Pacific teams (especially PNG and Fiji) are not dependent on foreign players, as they have a long cricketing history. But recently these teams have seen their fund inflows reduced to 5% or 10% of the previous amounts, due to the changes in distribution criteria. Most of the ICC funds now go to teams with foreigners such as Oman, United States and UAE, because these teams are able to win matches as a result of their foreign imports.

I would classify associate nations to three categories:

Category A: Teams with nearly 100% native players - Scotland, Namibia, Nepal, PNG, Vanuatu, Argentina, Israel, Myanmar, Iran.etc. These teams in general are getting more and more irrelevant, as they are unable to compete against teams such as Oman who pack their XI with foreigners. Only exceptions are Scotland and Namibia.

Category B: Teams that used to have 100% native players, but now transforming towards 100% foreigner composition - Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Japan.etc. These teams want to stay competitive and they realize that the only way to do that is to pack their teams with foreigners. Two decades ago, 90% of the players in the Denmark team used to be natives. Now they usually have XI without any native players.

Category C: Teams with 100% foreign composition - UAE, United States, Singapore, Hong Kong, Oman.etc. These countries doesn't have any native players and no one supports their matches from their respective countries. But in the end, they end up with the largest chunk of the ICC revenues, because they are able to defeat teams comprised of natives.

[hichamito37]

Naah, ICC is trying.

They are organizing qualifier in the pacific region for T20 world cup 2024, and those teams consist of native players.
Vanuatu just qualified from Qualifier A, and will be playing against Philippines, Papua new guinea and another team from Qualifier B.

Qualifier B consist of japan, south korea and Indonesia. It starts from October 15 and you can watch it for free at ICC's website. I was watching QUalifier A and it was pretty fun. These teams had good quality batsmen and fielders, but they lack good bowlers.

Cricket is definitely expanding, it has seen many new additions in the last decade. Its expansion in new countries also depends on their culture. ICC needs to target school children and promote cricket to them. Which they are already doing in pacific region, not sure about Western hemisphere. It's a very loooong and slow process.

Pacific teams (especially PNG and Fiji) are not dependent on foreign players, as they have a long cricketing history. But recently these teams have seen their fund inflows reduced to 5% or 10% of the previous amounts, due to the changes in distribution criteria. Most of the ICC funds now go to teams with foreigners such as Oman, United States and UAE, because these teams are able to win matches as a result of their foreign imports.

I would classify associate nations to three categories:

Category A: Teams with nearly 100% native players - Scotland, Namibia, Nepal, PNG, Vanuatu, Argentina, Israel, Myanmar, Iran.etc. These teams in general are getting more and more irrelevant, as they are unable to compete against teams such as Oman who pack their XI with foreigners. Only exceptions are Scotland and Namibia.

Category B: Teams that used to have 100% native players, but now transforming towards 100% foreigner composition - Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Japan.etc. These teams want to stay competitive and they realize that the only way to do that is to pack their teams with foreigners. Two decades ago, 90% of the players in the Denmark team used to be natives. Now they usually have XI without any native players.

Category C: Teams with 100% foreign composition - UAE, United States, Singapore, Hong Kong, Oman.etc. These countries doesn't have any native players and no one supports their matches from their respective countries. But in the end, they end up with the largest chunk of the ICC revenues, because they are able to defeat teams comprised of natives.

The problem is I don't think ICC is going to give the amount of money depending on how many native players they have on the team. They are always going to give money depending on how much revenue each team can make. And currently, they are not giving any penalties for having the whole team made out of foreign players. And as long as ICC does not take any steps against it the teams are also not going to change the way of having the whole team made out of foreign players.

[JSRAW]

~snip~

The problem is I don't think ICC is going to give the amount of money depending on how many native players they have on the team. They are always going to give money depending on how much revenue each team can make. And currently, they are not giving any penalties for having the whole team made out of foreign players. And as long as ICC does not take any steps against it the teams are also not going to change the way of having the whole team made out of foreign players.

ICC funding policy is a joke when it comes to associate nations. They could potentially solve this issue if the ICC stop romanticizing test cricket for the associate nations and just focus on T-20.

Also about the highlighted part, if that was the case then BCCI will run away with more than 50% of revenue because ICC's 70-80% revenue comes from the Indian market only.

[justdimin]

ICC funding policy is a joke when it comes to associate nations. They could potentially solve this issue if the ICC stop romanticizing test cricket for the associate nations and just focus on T-20.

Also about the highlighted part, if that was the case then BCCI will run away with more than 50% of revenue because ICC's 70-80% revenue comes from the Indian market only.

Here I agree now it's time for changes and ICC need to be done this as well if they are serious about better future of this game and try to encourage teams for T-20 format instead of all formats because this is nothing positive for this game and good future of this game even I feel they need to be generous about India as they are surely the biggest shareholder in revenue, so they deserve big part of this profit as well but here now also time for changing in ICC system is also needed which will bring good increase in revenue and lifelike for many countries which are going to be in cricket specially like West Indies, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh which are not good and have no enough quality for test format because this need good investment and better structure which is not possible with current financial situation in these countries.

In long run they need to have thought about just two formats like test and T20 with leagues like T10 and The Hundred depend on boards own commitment because this is currently not suitable for them as well but can play good role in future for many new teams.

[Sithara007]

ICC funding policy is a joke when it comes to associate nations. They could potentially solve this issue if the ICC stop romanticizing test cricket for the associate nations and just focus on T-20.

Also about the highlighted part, if that was the case then BCCI will run away with more than 50% of revenue because ICC's 70-80% revenue comes from the Indian market only.

And this is why the election for the post of ICC chairman is so important (due in a few months from now). Already there are rumors that the BCCI may nominate Narayanaswami Srinivasan, who first came up with the pig-3 formula. However, it is not going to be easy. In order to win, BCCI needs 9 out of the total of 16 votes. At this point they can count on 6 votes. Getting the remaining 3 votes will be tricky, but some of the Associate nominees are reported to be very close to the BCCI. Imran Khwaja, Pankaj Khimji and Neil Speight are currently the associate representatives and out of that Khimji (Oman) is in BCCI camp.   

[savetheFORUM]

ICC funding policy is a joke when it comes to associate nations. They could potentially solve this issue if the ICC stop romanticizing test cricket for the associate nations and just focus on T-20.

Also about the highlighted part, if that was the case then BCCI will run away with more than 50% of revenue because ICC's 70-80% revenue comes from the Indian market only.

And this is why the election for the post of ICC chairman is so important (due in a few months from now). Already there are rumors that the BCCI may nominate Narayanaswami Srinivasan, who first came up with the pig-3 formula. However, it is not going to be easy. In order to win, BCCI needs 9 out of the total of 16 votes. At this point they can count on 6 votes. Getting the remaining 3 votes will be tricky, but some of the Associate nominees are reported to be very close to the BCCI. Imran Khwaja, Pankaj Khimji and Neil Speight are currently the associate representatives and out of that Khimji (Oman) is in BCCI camp.   

Right now as things are going into ICC I have feeling India is winner in long race because their relationship and monopoly is going to be strong in near future with their strong economic system and this is going to be good for them as they can control mostly this big sports organization and just because of this they are not supporting many popular decisions which are bringing more teams in this system.

If Narayanaswami Srinivasan is coming again which is not sure then surely things could be more complicated, or we can face more difficulties for many countries specially associate countries because with his business mind surely he is going to do decisions which are going to help big 3 or 4 and nothing positive development for rest of cricket community which is already in trouble.

[hichamito37]

ICC funding policy is a joke when it comes to associate nations. They could potentially solve this issue if the ICC stop romanticizing test cricket for the associate nations and just focus on T-20.

Also about the highlighted part, if that was the case then BCCI will run away with more than 50% of revenue because ICC's 70-80% revenue comes from the Indian market only.

And this is why the election for the post of ICC chairman is so important (due in a few months from now). Already there are rumors that the BCCI may nominate Narayanaswami Srinivasan, who first came up with the pig-3 formula. However, it is not going to be easy. In order to win, BCCI needs 9 out of the total of 16 votes. At this point they can count on 6 votes. Getting the remaining 3 votes will be tricky, but some of the Associate nominees are reported to be very close to the BCCI. Imran Khwaja, Pankaj Khimji and Neil Speight are currently the associate representatives and out of that Khimji (Oman) is in BCCI camp.   

I think that the election is going to be really important for the future of cricket. It might determine the future of cricket for the associate Nations as I think in order to spread cricket more ICC needs to divert its attention more towards Associate nations. BCCI have always found advantages from ICC and I hope that this thing change after the selection and  ICC will treat almost all if not all team the same.

[Sithara007]

I think that the election is going to be really important for the future of cricket. It might determine the future of cricket for the associate Nations as I think in order to spread cricket more ICC needs to divert its attention more towards Associate nations. BCCI have always found advantages from ICC and I hope that this thing change after the selection and  ICC will treat almost all if not all team the same.

If mafia don Srinivasan becomes the chairman again, then there will be a lot more corruption and once again Associate nations will be the ones to suffer the most. The current chairman is also not much better, as he is a pig-4 nominee. Maybe PCB, SLCB and other smaller boards should unite this time and put forward a single choice for the post of chairman. Siding with the BCCI is not going to be beneficial in the long term, although it will bring rewards in the short run (even the ECB and CA have realized this aspect).

[JSRAW]

I think that the election is going to be really important for the future of cricket. It might determine the future of cricket for the associate Nations as I think in order to spread cricket more ICC needs to divert its attention more towards Associate nations. BCCI have always found advantages from ICC and I hope that this thing change after the selection and  ICC will treat almost all if not all team the same.

If mafia don Srinivasan becomes the chairman again, then there will be a lot more corruption and once again Associate nations will be the ones to suffer the most. The current chairman is also not much better, as he is a pig-4 nominee. Maybe PCB, SLCB and other smaller boards should unite this time and put forward a single choice for the post of chairman. Siding with the BCCI is not going to be beneficial in the long term, although it will bring rewards in the short run (even the ECB and CA have realized this aspect).

Virtually no debate on Srinivasan's dodgy history as everybody is well aware of it.

But you are implying that BCCI was directly responsible for the Associate's suffering. This might surprise you, it was ICC that reduced the fund for associates when they dismantled the BIG-3 system and added Ireland and Afghanistan.

And another fun fact about the 2 board's names you mentioned. In a recent ICC meeting (regarding media rights auction) one of the board was very keen to push for 8 year deal only instead of 4 years. No cookies for any guess that which board and why the focus was on a longer deal. 

[Sithara007]

Virtually no debate on Srinivasan's dodgy history as everybody is well aware of it.

But you are implying that BCCI was directly responsible for the Associate's suffering. This might surprise you, it was ICC that reduced the fund for associates when they dismantled the BIG-3 system and added Ireland and Afghanistan.

And another fun fact about the 2 board's names you mentioned. In a recent ICC meeting (regarding media rights auction) one of the board was very keen to push for 8 year deal only instead of 4 years. No cookies for any guess that which board and why the focus was on a longer deal.  

Associate funding for 2015-23 cycle was originally set at $62.5 million per year, before Srinivasan with help from Giles Clarke and Wally Edwards reduced it to $26.25 million per year. After Srinivasan was kicked out, the amount was increased to $35 million by Shashank Manohar. But after a deal was reached with the BCCI, it was further reduced to $20 million per year, as Ireland and Afghanistan both walked away with an addition of $5 million each. More details can be found here, in the tweet from Bertus de Jong:

https://twitter.com/BdJcricket/status/962007153169985536

[Swordsoffreedom]

I think that the election is going to be really important for the future of cricket. It might determine the future of cricket for the associate Nations as I think in order to spread cricket more ICC needs to divert its attention more towards Associate nations. BCCI have always found advantages from ICC and I hope that this thing change after the selection and  ICC will treat almost all if not all team the same.

If mafia don Srinivasan becomes the chairman again, then there will be a lot more corruption and once again Associate nations will be the ones to suffer the most. The current chairman is also not much better, as he is a pig-4 nominee. Maybe PCB, SLCB and other smaller boards should unite this time and put forward a single choice for the post of chairman. Siding with the BCCI is not going to be beneficial in the long term, although it will bring rewards in the short run (even the ECB and CA have realized this aspect).

Virtually no debate on Srinivasan's dodgy history as everybody is well aware of it.

But you are implying that BCCI was directly responsible for the Associate's suffering. This might surprise you, it was ICC that reduced the fund for associates when they dismantled the BIG-3 system and added Ireland and Afghanistan.

And another fun fact about the 2 board's names you mentioned. In a recent ICC meeting (regarding media rights auction) one of the board was very keen to push for 8 year deal only instead of 4 years. No cookies for any guess that which board and why the focus was on a longer deal. 

@JSRAW I would like to ask a question. Why do we have to choose between two shit? Why do we always have to make a choice between which one is less snitty or which one is more snitty? There are times when we know that none of them are going to be of any use to us in the future. Is it not possible to bring another candidate forward? Is there no one else eligible for this position of work? If any of the individuals you are being suggested for nomination are nominated, I don't see any improvement for cricket.

@Sithara007 Srinivasan is obviously going to do a terrible job and there will be a lot of corruption no doubt about that. If he is selected again, there is not going to be any improvement for cricket in my opinion. We will be back in the old days again.

[Juggy777]

I think that the election is going to be really important for the future of cricket. It might determine the future of cricket for the associate Nations as I think in order to spread cricket more ICC needs to divert its attention more towards Associate nations. BCCI have always found advantages from ICC and I hope that this thing change after the selection and  ICC will treat almost all if not all team the same.

If mafia don Srinivasan becomes the chairman again, then there will be a lot more corruption and once again Associate nations will be the ones to suffer the most. The current chairman is also not much better, as he is a pig-4 nominee. Maybe PCB, SLCB and other smaller boards should unite this time and put forward a single choice for the post of chairman. Siding with the BCCI is not going to be beneficial in the long term, although it will bring rewards in the short run (even the ECB and CA have realized this aspect).

Virtually no debate on Srinivasan's dodgy history as everybody is well aware of it.

But you are implying that BCCI was directly responsible for the Associate's suffering. This might surprise you, it was ICC that reduced the fund for associates when they dismantled the BIG-3 system and added Ireland and Afghanistan.

And another fun fact about the 2 board's names you mentioned. In a recent ICC meeting (regarding media rights auction) one of the board was very keen to push for 8 year deal only instead of 4 years. No cookies for any guess that which board and why the focus was on a longer deal.  

@JSRAW I would like to ask a question. Why do we have to choose between two shit? Why do we always have to make a choice between which one is less snitty or which one is more snitty? There are times when we know that none of them are going to be of any use to us in the future. Is it not possible to bring another candidate forward? Is there no one else eligible for this position of work? If any of the individuals you are being suggested for nomination are nominated, I don't see any improvement for cricket.

@Sithara007 Srinivasan is obviously going to do a terrible job and there will be a lot of corruption no doubt about that. If he is selected again, there is not going to be any improvement for cricket in my opinion. We will be back in the old days again.

@Swordsoffreedom I don’t see any other strong candidate to challenge Srinivasan if he’s eligible to contest, and I also doubt that those team’s will unite behind a single candidate. Furthermore do you’ll actually believe that Srinivasan will repeat his old tricks this time too?, because I felt that even if he returned he would be under heavy scrutiny from the media and fans and therefore he would have to strictly follow the rules.