*cough* Travis Head! *cough*And of course Michael Bevan. Who arrived at sussex as the self proclaimed 'best one day player in the world'. Trouble was, based on his sussex performances, nobody could work out which 'one day' that was.
*cough* Travis Head! *cough*And of course Michael Bevan. Who arrived at sussex as the self proclaimed 'best one day player in the world'. Trouble was, based on his sussex performances, nobody could work out which 'one day' that was.
thisI'd bin off the hundred and expand the CC. But I guess this is a bit fantasy land.
How can the talent be too diffused in England and not in Australia? We have, as near as dammit, exactly the same number of first-class teams per head of population.
On current population, the 6 Australian teams between 27,000,000 works out to 4.5million people per team.There’s just too many teams with 18 counties. There are only 6 Sheffield Shield teams in Oz. This means not only too much cricket but also the talent is too diffused, making the overall standard not demanding enough.
It’s Australia’s national sport, whereas a relatively small % of our population play (or have interest in) cricket. The more accurate comparison would be between ‘playing populations’. There’s a reason why, with a few notable exceptions, they’ve generally been better than us (since the 80s anyway), despite a much smaller overall population.On current population, the 6 Australian teams between 27,000,000 works out to 4.5million people per team.
The 18 English and Welsh teams share about 59,000,000 people, which works out to 3.3million people per team. Which is notably less but not drastically so.
If New Zealand (for example) were to base their first class system on the Australian teams/people ratio, they'd end up with one team. Who would have to field and bat at the same time while playing a fixture list exclusively consisting of matches against themselves.
On the other hand, if India were to rejig their system to reflect Australia's, they'd have 311 first class teams.
I want to say bollocks, utter tosh.A lovely thought, but unfortunately The Hundred is here to stay due to it's financial value as it has been created to be sold off to franchises.
Once we accept that The Hundred is here to stay in some form we then have to work out how to incorporate it into the schedule, whilst not clashing with the football season in August. The way this is done unfortunately is eventually binning off the T20 Blast as a major competition and making it a secondary level, minor competition.
Basically the smaller counties are getting shafted. It doesn't matter what ideas we come up with as an alternative schedule.
It will be decided at the corporate level with multi-million bids coming in for each franchise.
The likes of Colin Graves and Rod Bransgrove will be sailing off into the sunset with IPL owners running the show in England.
The IPL now runs the South African T20 competition, The Caribbean competition and the UAE competition.
They are in discussions with Saudi Arabia for a new competition there. There is also a new T20 competition beginning in USA.
The biggest game in this years T20 World Cup between India and Pakistan is being played in New York City.
The shit future we worried about is already here.
All the previous ideas on this thread are very laudable and well meaning but basically we are being swallowed up by a monster that is offering debt-ridden counties too much money to refuse.
We are about to sell our Crown Jewels (if we haven't already).
Any suggestions on how to re-shape future English summers is just like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
We are still in a battle, but India has already won the war.
Well by that logic, if we take the participation figures at face value (I wouldn't for either country), England should only have 3 teams.It’s Australia’s national sport, whereas a relatively small % of our population play (or have interest in) cricket. The more accurate comparison would be between ‘playing populations’. There’s a reason why, with a few notable exceptions, they’ve generally been better than us (since the 80s anyway), despite a much smaller overall population.
The problem with doing this in cricket is the same as it has been in other sports. People don't just have an affinity to the sport, they have an affinity to their favourite team.This won’t be a popular opinion, but here it is anyway.
There’s just too many teams with 18 counties. There are only 6 Sheffield Shield teams in Oz. This means not only too much cricket but also the talent is too diffused, making the overall standard not demanding enough. Two (or 3) divisions doesn’t deal with that (our best ever Test batsman is currently playing in Div 2). I think they missed a trick not creating Regional instead of city based Franchise teams, and having them play across formats. South (Sussex/Hampshire), South East (Kent/Essex), South West, East Midlands, West Midlands, North West, North East, Wales and London would give 9 sides. 4 days games would move around the regions. A two week 50 over tournament could be held around the May half term/second bank holiday, adding Scotland, Ireland and Netherlands in 2 groups of 6, with 5 ‘game weeks’ played concurrently over 10 days, followed by semis and a final. Again, using a mixture of grounds across the region. Then a single T20 or Hundred tournament (they’re basically the same format) in the school summer holidays. The existing counties would then be organised in the tiers below this Regional system, in a pyramid system (with minor counties able to get promoted up the tiers and vice versa).
It would provide less, and better, cricket. But its too radical for most and people will hate the idea of killing off the County Championship.
Which just goes to show how moronic in so many senses industry people are. Perhaps when we observe how utterly sh*te Sugar's BBC Apprentice candidates are, they actually fit the mould.The problem with doing this in cricket is the same as it has been in other sports. People don't just have an affinity to the sport, they have an affinity to their favourite team.
Robert Maxwell thought that he could merge Oxford and Reading and get Thames Valley Royals with twice the fanbase. Maurice Lindsay thought he could merge Castleford, Wakefield Trinity and Featherstone Rovers to get a new team with three times the fanbase. But the fans didn't want to play.
It's a dodgy way of doing business to upset your current customers in hopes of attracting new ones.
Besides to answer the OP, trying to cut down the amount of domestic cricket to what is acceptable to a test player, can't be done. If they had to play twice they would want to play only once. The amount of cricket isn't half now compared with 50 years ago, and still they complain.
And we still haven't got to alex Carey (one of the said part time few game mercenaries) who managed in the 2019 t20 quarter final against Worcestershire to get out cheaply for 8 and then dropped moeen on 6 and 12 before he went on to score a match winning 120ish in 60 odd balls.*cough* Travis Head! *cough*
I’d argue there’s a bigger gap in the bowling. We haven’t had a spinner comparable to Lyon for years, and before that they had Warne. And their 3 quicks currently are superb.Well by that logic, if we take the participation figures at face value (I wouldn't for either country), England should only have 3 teams.
The issue isn't that England have too many teams, that has as many benefits as it does problems, the issue is a smaller playing population (definitely not going to be helped by removing the professional game from most of the country) and conditions that are less conducive to the sport.
Even as it is, I'd suggest that if you replaced Steve Smith with a "typically good Australian test cricketer" over the last 10 years, most if not all of the difference between the teams would disappear. Obviously you could also say that England would be a worse team without Root, but the most he's averaged in an Ashes series is 57 in 2015, while Smith managed 56, 137 and 110 over 2015, 2017/18 and 2019. If he'd "only" averaged 57 in that 2019 series there's a decent chance England would have won every game.
I think, most places outside Australia, there's not much between the seam attacks. If we could ever go to Australia with a fully fit side we might even be competitive on that score (and it's not like the seamers in and around the England team are being flogged to death on the county treadmill because they're normally too injured to get on the field for their counties).I’d argue there’s a bigger gap in the bowling. We haven’t had a spinner comparable to Lyon for years, and before that they had Warne. And their 3 quicks currently are superb.
Indeed. Great article and for me these two paragraphs sum up the Hundred:This article from Barney Ronay IMHO is excellent and sets out all the reasons why the ECB and the counties need to think a little longer before they sell off our wonderful game to overseas investors.
A decision that will put a nail in the coffin of counties like Sussex and Kent.
If you have a spare five minutes please give it a read, it's very important.
Selling off the summer? Why Hundred plans should matter to all cricket lovers - Barney Ronay