Cricket 24/7

Cricket 24/7 (http://www.cricket247.org/community/index.php)
-   International Cricket (http://www.cricket247.org/community/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   A New Cricketing Dawn (http://www.cricket247.org/community/showthread.php?t=22342)

billyguntheballs 4th February 2017 21:03

A New Cricketing Dawn
 
...maybe. Here's the article: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/c...y/1080769.html

There are a lot of things that are still up in the air but I really think this is a step in the right direction and I'm glad there's a likely penalty for teams refusing to play one another.

What still worries me is the 10 team world cup.

Thoughts?

Zebroston Chase 4th February 2017 22:40

I think it's a disgrace that the three nations that actually support and grow cricket's brand globally are now being forced to share the fruits of their substantial labour with sides that are significant embarrassments to international cricket and have no global reach beyond their own parochial concerns.

The ICC is farce. Now where is my Texan with a glass box full of money and a penchant for bouncing wicker-keeper's significant others on their knees?

Rebelstar 5th February 2017 13:49

Test league

Round robin over two years played by the top 9 sides, hmmm. How is that going to work?!?!? Even if England only play say AUS BAN PAK and WIN at home, SRL, NZL, SAF and IND away that's a pretty tight schedule.

And to allow sides to decide if they want to play a one-off Test or series seems rather wishy washy and will devalue any league.

Sounds a little six nations to me, except that's five days and matches per side in a shortish period, not eight series of five day Tests needing travel outside of the continent and rests between with weather making play in some countries at certain times of year impossible.

Also I find it laughable they talk of scheduling bilateral series outside the league structure, if you have to play EIGHT teams/series when exactly are they going to fit any more in?!?!?!?

Be better in my book to ditch Bangladesh along with Zimbabwe from the "championship", play it over three years and standardise the series ie 3 matches. OR play tiers so they can play at their level, Bangladesh are improved in ODIs, Afghanistan holding their own in what series they play against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, and indeed against Ireland who are far from up to much at the moment.

Ireland haven't beaten a Test nation other than Bangladesh and Zimbabwe since February 2015 (West Indies) and won only 5 out of 19 since then despite NINE of those being against Afghanistan (WLWL), Zimbabwe (WLLW) and UAE (W). Their previous win over a decent Test nation was over England in the 2011 World Cup, hardly suggests they are on the brink of a breakthrough. And they can't complain when they have plenty of their team plying their trade in England.



Forfeiture of points

Nice idea, depends how many points or could we face tactical refusals ie figure England will lose in India so why not just forfeit and save time and effort..? (kind of thing) Or simply along the lines of the World Cup (2003?) where teams wouldn't play in Zimbabwe and just "took a hit".

World Cup/ODI cricket

Personally I think they should expand the World Cup to 16 teams not shrink it, but then if they expanded Test cricket to be played in tiers maybe other sides would be improving and make the quality greater.

I loved the 1992 World Cup format, but hate the fact there were no minnows - the only time. I think we've seen in Kenya that countries need more to improve their cricket long term than some success in World Cups, but since there is little else taking it away from them seems wrong. Besides, there's so much dour cricket around seeing a giantkilling or one sided slaughter can make a World Cup better, just not too much of the latter so format is key.

16 teams, 4 groups of 4 playing each other twice, with winners playing group runners-up from another group. Ought to be just enough quality in ENG IND WIN PAK SRL SAF AUS and NZL plus ZIM BAN IRE and AFG that you'd have your likely top two per group plus a "wildcard" in the other four meaning the big eight can't get complacent.

Even if it were considered too many nothing games against the other four sides you could revamp that format to 4 groups of 3 playing each other twice and make ZIM BAN IRE and AFG say play to reach the finals, or preliminary groups like we've seen before

T20s

Frankly with lots of countries jumping on the T20 bandwagon and copying their own IPL with some pretty cheesy names I'd stick to triangulars, quadrangulars and World Cups for this format. Bilateral is perhaps not the best way to sell it, not unless you intend making 3+ match series a norm.

Ali TT 5th February 2017 14:03

Milk that cow until the product is so diluted as to be meaningless and utterly devalued. This is like mandating that the West End theatre companies have to ensure so many performances a week are done by the Grimblethorpe amdram society. I shan't be paying money to watch England demolish Ireland or Afghanistan at Lord's. Expand the game by all means but do so in the shorter formats where the associates can compete on a more level playing field.

Hector 5th February 2017 14:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebelstar (Post 750642)
Test league

Round robin over two years played by the top 9 sides, hmmm. How is that going to work?!?!? Even if England only play say AUS BAN PAK and WIN at home, SRL, NZL, SAF and IND away that's a pretty tight schedule.

And to allow sides to decide if they want to play a one-off Test or series seems rather wishy washy and will devalue any league.

Sounds a little six nations to me, except that's five days and matches per side in a shortish period, not eight series of five day Tests needing travel outside of the continent and rests between with weather making play in some countries at certain times of year impossible.

Also I find it laughable they talk of scheduling bilateral series outside the league structure, if you have to play EIGHT teams/series when exactly are they going to fit any more in?!?!?!?

Be better in my book to ditch Bangladesh along with Zimbabwe from the "championship", play it over three years and standardise the series ie 3 matches. OR play tiers so they can play at their level, Bangladesh are improved in ODIs, Afghanistan holding their own in what series they play against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, and indeed against Ireland who are far from up to much at the moment.

Ireland haven't beaten a Test nation other than Bangladesh and Zimbabwe since February 2015 (West Indies) and won only 5 out of 19 since then despite NINE of those being against Afghanistan (WLWL), Zimbabwe (WLLW) and UAE (W). Their previous win over a decent Test nation was over England in the 2011 World Cup, hardly suggests they are on the brink of a breakthrough. And they can't complain when they have plenty of their team plying their trade in England.



Forfeiture of points

Nice idea, depends how many points or could we face tactical refusals ie figure England will lose in India so why not just forfeit and save time and effort..? (kind of thing) Or simply along the lines of the World Cup (2003?) where teams wouldn't play in Zimbabwe and just "took a hit".

World Cup/ODI cricket

Personally I think they should expand the World Cup to 16 teams not shrink it, but then if they expanded Test cricket to be played in tiers maybe other sides would be improving and make the quality greater.

I loved the 1992 World Cup format, but hate the fact there were no minnows - the only time. I think we've seen in Kenya that countries need more to improve their cricket long term than some success in World Cups, but since there is little else taking it away from them seems wrong. Besides, there's so much dour cricket around seeing a giantkilling or one sided slaughter can make a World Cup better, just not too much of the latter so format is key.

16 teams, 4 groups of 4 playing each other twice, with winners playing group runners-up from another group. Ought to be just enough quality in ENG IND WIN PAK SRL SAF AUS and NZL plus ZIM BAN IRE and AFG that you'd have your likely top two per group plus a "wildcard" in the other four meaning the big eight can't get complacent.

Even if it were considered too many nothing games against the other four sides you could revamp that format to 4 groups of 3 playing each other twice and make ZIM BAN IRE and AFG say play to reach the finals, or preliminary groups like we've seen before

T20s

Frankly with lots of countries jumping on the T20 bandwagon and copying their own IPL with some pretty cheesy names I'd stick to triangulars, quadrangulars and World Cups for this format. Bilateral is perhaps not the best way to sell it, not unless you intend making 3+ match series a norm.

Agree with your thoughts on fixtures.

The bit about Ireland is a catch 22 situation. (As it would be for many teams aspiring to test status) Yes, they have players in the CC but they run an inherent risk of losing them to England. That doesnt help with continuity. They now have a first class structure which they will need to make competitive so that Irish players dont need to come across to the CC. But how else are they supposed to grow and improve without test status? If they produced 3/4 decent players England would come sniffing around. And, with the exception of Morgan, the experience has not been good for Irish cricket. So they have to produce good enough players for first class level but not so good that they are of international standard and are then poached. And then they get criticised for not being of a decent standard. An impossible situation.

The current raiding of South African talent on Kolpaks shows how difficult it is for countries outside of the big 3 to keep their players.

JRC67 5th February 2017 17:57

For England this isn't really extra workload we play 2 teams nearly every winter and summer.

Longterm developing the game globally has to be the right thing. Whether Ireland has the domestic support to finance an international team I've no idea. I don't really see this as a major problem.

Hector 5th February 2017 18:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRC67 (Post 750651)
For England this isn't really extra workload we play 2 teams nearly every winter and summer.

Longterm developing the game globally has to be the right thing. Whether Ireland has the domestic support to finance an international team I've no idea. I don't really see this as a major problem.

A couple of their recent ODI's have attracted 10k sell outs in Malahide.

Along with the 2 ODI's against England they are also hosting a tri-series with NZ and Bangladesh in May in Dublin so that will be an interesting test of their onfield skills and the interest at large for the sport.

JRC67 5th February 2017 18:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hector (Post 750647)
Agree with your thoughts on fixtures.

The bit about Ireland is a catch 22 situation. (As it would be for many teams aspiring to test status) Yes, they have players in the CC but they run an inherent risk of losing them to England. That doesnt help with continuity. They now have a first class structure which they will need to make competitive so that Irish players dont need to come across to the CC. But how else are they supposed to grow and improve without test status? If they produced 3/4 decent players England would come sniffing around. And, with the exception of Morgan, the experience has not been good for Irish cricket. So they have to produce good enough players for first class level but not so good that they are of international standard and are then poached. And then they get criticised for not being of a decent standard. An impossible situation.

The current raiding of South African talent on Kolpaks shows how difficult it is for countries outside of the big 3 to keep their players.

Maybe post Brexit teams could be allowed one overseas player and one from an associate country. At the moment a lot of players come over to prepare for test series whereas an Afghan or Irish player would just benefit in general for the experience.

Hector 5th February 2017 18:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRC67 (Post 750653)
Maybe post Brexit teams could be allowed one overseas player and one from an associate country. At the moment a lot of players come over to prepare for test series whereas an Afghan or Irish player would just benefit in general for the experience.

I would love to see a county take a punt on someone like Mohammad Shehzad for the T20 Blast. He looks a cracking player, one that would probably be popular and would be a leading light for associate cricket as he's a very entertaining, gung-ho player. I'm not convinced that snobbery wouldn't triumph though and counties would prefer to go for a nondescript Australian or South African instead.

JRC67 5th February 2017 18:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hector (Post 750654)
I would love to see a county take a punt on someone like Mohammad Shehzad for the T20 Blast. He looks a cracking player, one that would probably be popular and would be a leading light for associate cricket as he's a very entertaining, gung-ho player. I'm not convinced that snobbery wouldn't triumph though and counties would prefer to go for a nondescript Australian or South African instead.

That's why I think there could be a 2 tier system. Afghanistan have some very strong spin bowlers.

Hector 5th February 2017 20:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRC67 (Post 750655)
That's why I think there could be a 2 tier system. Afghanistan have some very strong spin bowlers.

I agree. A 2 tier system with promotion and relegation between the two would be a much better system than the 9 + 3 and would give aspiring test teams a pathway.

CDogg16 5th February 2017 20:53

How long have the ICC been talking about a Test league for, think it was originally suppose to start in 2013. Would take all of this with a pinch of salt until any of it put on a schedule.

AJ101 5th February 2017 21:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRC67 (Post 750655)
That's why I think there could be a 2 tier system. Afghanistan have some very strong spin bowlers.

Can we get them qualified to play for England?

billyguntheballs 5th February 2017 21:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ali TT (Post 750645)
Milk that cow until the product is so diluted as to be meaningless and utterly devalued. This is like mandating that the West End theatre companies have to ensure so many performances a week are done by the Grimblethorpe amdram society. I shan't be paying money to watch England demolish Ireland or Afghanistan at Lord's. Expand the game by all means but do so in the shorter formats where the associates can compete on a more level playing field.

I don't think the current proposals state that AFG or Ireland have to play any of the top nations but if it does happen it can be a one off test. Nothing wrong with that. Yes those teams are likely to be demolished but without expanding horizons, we would never have gotten teams like Pakistan and SL playing test cricket and missed out on some of the sports greatest players.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRC67 (Post 750651)
For England this isn't really extra workload we play 2 teams nearly every winter and summer.

Longterm developing the game globally has to be the right thing. Whether Ireland has the domestic support to finance an international team I've no idea. I don't really see this as a major problem.

Agree with this entirely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hector (Post 750658)
I agree. A 2 tier system with promotion and relegation between the two would be a much better system than the 9 + 3 and would give aspiring test teams a pathway.

I used to be in favour of the 2 tier idea but the more I thought about it, the more I realised we'd never see WI v England again or another Bangladeshi "moment" against any of the major test sides. Not to mention SL probably isn't guaranteed to be consistently in the top 4 or 5 sides, considering they have never had a test side as good over an extended period as Aus, ENgland, Pakistan or India.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDogg16 (Post 750660)
How long have the ICC been talking about a Test league for, think it was originally suppose to start in 2013. Would take all of this with a pinch of salt until any of it put on a schedule.

The plans are almost done and will feature a vote either this year or I think next leading to it being brought to fruition y 2020 (I think thats the deadline proposed at this point)

square leg umpire 5th February 2017 22:49

There are too many teams and too many matches. The programme needs drastically pruning not enlarging.

cabinboy 5th February 2017 23:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by square leg umpire (Post 750674)
There are too many teams and too many matches. The programme needs drastically pruning not enlarging.

How can increasing the number of teams be a bad thing?

If cricket continues to only be played by nine counties, it's going to be dead by 2030. Or certainly test cricket will be.

If a sport isn't expanding, it's going backwards, because believe you me, football or some other sport will fill that vacuum.

cabinboy 5th February 2017 23:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ajinkya Zebrahane (Post 750634)
I think it's a disgrace that the three nations that actually support and grow cricket's brand globally are now being forced to share the fruits of their substantial labour with sides that are significant embarrassments to international cricket and have no global reach beyond their own parochial concerns.

The ICC is farce. Now where is my Texan with a glass box full of money and a penchant for bouncing wicker-keeper's significant others on their knees?

Troll.

cabinboy 5th February 2017 23:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ali TT (Post 750645)
Milk that cow until the product is so diluted as to be meaningless and utterly devalued. This is like mandating that the West End theatre companies have to ensure so many performances a week are done by the Grimblethorpe amdram society. I shan't be paying money to watch England demolish Ireland or Afghanistan at Lord's. Expand the game by all means but do so in the shorter formats where the associates can compete on a more level playing field.

Just think, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and even Pakistan and India would never have gained test status if the ICC had taken that attitude.

Ali TT 6th February 2017 08:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by cabinboy (Post 750680)
Just think, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and even Pakistan and India would never have gained test status if the ICC had taken that attitude.

Historical comparisons really aren't relevant here as the game is vastly different to how it was 30 years ago, let alone 70.

DanielVettoriSpin 6th February 2017 10:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hector (Post 750654)
I would love to see a county take a punt on someone like Mohammad Shehzad for the T20 Blast. He looks a cracking player, one that would probably be popular and would be a leading light for associate cricket as he's a very entertaining, gung-ho player. I'm not convinced that snobbery wouldn't triumph though and counties would prefer to go for a nondescript Australian or South African instead.

Rashid Khan would be great to see in County Cricket. I'm sure the Afghans would come relatively cheap too for some of those counties struggling for funds at the moment.

Anyway, I'd be glad to see Afghanistan and Ireland in Test cricket. At the very least, teams touring England could play a Test in Belfast or Dublin as a warm up to the Test series in England. Would be much better preparation than the very limited (or no) preparation that most touring teams bother for these days.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 16:48.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org