The Netherlands

[CDogg16]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-worl...ry/981269.html
http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-worl...ry/979695.html

Two interesting articles here about the amount of games The Netherlands are playing. I can't remember where it was said or who said it but some sort of European championship would be appealing, if only because it guarantees England a trophy. In the last T20 WC, Holland played seven games and won three. What is their reward? Three games at this year's tournament in bad weather conditions.

The Netherlands looked to have a really decent fast bowling attack. Have any of them been picked to play in Premier Leagues around the world. A few of them looked like they would be able to do a job in county cricket.

[Ali TT]

England play too much cricket as it is, they shouldn't be wasting time playing against these guys in some pointless tournament.

[CDogg16]

Originally Posted by Ali TT

England play too much cricket as it is, they shouldn't be wasting time playing against these guys in some pointless tournament.

It could be used as a warm up tournament before a World Cup. What are Dutch pitches like anyway, I suspect their like English pitches judging by the bowlers they have produced.

Anyway, you say England shouldn't be wasting their time playing them but it's not like we have a particularly impressive record against them in recent years.

[Ali TT]

Originally Posted by CDogg16

It could be used as a warm up tournament before a World Cup. What are Dutch pitches like anyway, I suspect their like English pitches judging by the bowlers they have produced.

Anyway, you say England shouldn't be wasting their time playing them but it's not like we have a particularly impressive record against them in recent years.

So your offer to give them more games is one tournament every four years? It doesn't matter how we've fared against them recently, we already play too much cricket as it is. Should we cut out a tour v a test side to play this tinpot tournament? Perhaps stop playing the Windies, let cricket wither and die there, in order to give a bunch of club cricketers in orange a couple more games a year?

Anyhow, as the article is actually arguing, the problem is that associate v associate cricket is struggling for funding, and having to cut games. That's where the investment needs to be, if at all.

[CDogg16]

Originally Posted by Ali TT

So your offer to give them more games is one tournament every four years? It doesn't matter how we've fared against them recently, we already play too much cricket as it is. Should we cut out a tour v a test side to play this tinpot tournament? Perhaps stop playing the Windies, let cricket wither and die there, in order to give a bunch of club cricketers in orange a couple more games a year?

Anyhow, as the article is actually arguing, the problem is that associate v associate cricket is struggling for funding, and having to cut games. That's where the investment needs to be, if at all.

There are three ways the tournament could go

1) England choose a full strength squad to play three games against Holland, Scotland and Ireland.

2) England send out a second string side to play in the three games. It would similar to the Lions but would count as a full international.

3) Scotland, Ireland and Holland all play each other twice with the most successful team playing England in a final in their own country. This could be a real event and raise some awareness for cricket.

You wouldn't have to cut any tours if option two or three are chosen. Also, it's unfair to call them club cricketers. They mite not be Test quality, but they have some decent players, some of which are still developing. Playing against better teams will not only improve these players, but also help to inspire the next generation.

Associate teams should play associate teams, but if they do well they should have the chance to progress. Like I said, the Netherlands did well at the last T20 WC and their reward is less games against the bigger teams. If cricket really took off in Holland, there's no reason why it couldn't spread to other European countries.

[Ali TT]

Associates will develop if they can create a stable pro or semi-pro domestic structure primarily, not by playing an extra game or two a year against test sides. This is what Bangladesh have had to learn the hard way and if their story tells us anything, the horse should really come before the cart.

If associates can't or won't develop domestically and are reliant on recruiting overseas players with tenuous links to the country, then they don't deserve greater exposure.

[cabinboy]

Originally Posted by Ali TT

Associates will develop if they can create a stable pro or semi-pro domestic structure primarily, not by playing an extra game or two a year against test sides. This is what Bangladesh have had to learn the hard way and if their story tells us anything, the horse should really come before the cart.

If associates can't or won't develop domestically and are reliant on recruiting overseas players with tenuous links to the country, then they don't deserve greater exposure.

Rubbish, you're still thinking test match mentality. These teams have no intention of playing tests. If they get more ODIS and Twenty20$, they can get more exposure and become competitive. Ireland have already beaten England, West Indies and Pakistan in World Cups.

England could easily play three extra twenty over games a year against Holland, Scotland and Ireland. The Asian countries already do it with Afghanistan.

If the game doesn't expand into other countries, it will die, strangled by the money generated in other sports who muscle cricket out just as basketball and US Football has done in the West Indies. First class cricket is virtually dead across the globe already, and test cricket probably has a lifespan of no more than 20 years. Cricket associations really need to look at the bigger picture, and if that means getting more players and countries playing the short stuff, playing twenty20s at night during primetime tv, expanding franchises, reducing the number of county matches, then that's what it needs to do.

[Ali TT]

Originally Posted by cabinboy

Rubbish, you're still thinking test match mentality. These teams have no intention of playing tests. If they get more ODIS and Twenty20$, they can get more exposure and become competitive. Ireland have already beaten England, West Indies and Pakistan in World Cups.

England could easily play three extra twenty over games a year against Holland, Scotland and Ireland. The Asian countries already do it with Afghanistan.

If the game doesn't expand into other countries, it will die, strangled by the money generated in other sports who muscle cricket out just as basketball and US Football has done in the West Indies. First class cricket is virtually dead across the globe already, and test cricket probably has a lifespan of no more than 20 years. Cricket associations really need to look at the bigger picture, and if that means getting more players and countries playing the short stuff, playing twenty20s at night during primetime tv, expanding franchises, reducing the number of county matches, then that's what it needs to do.

I didn't say a first class domestic structure, if they want to concentrate on T20 that's fine, although you should be telling your countrymen this, not me. You are probably correct that first class cricket is dying and tests increasingly irrelevant outside a few countries. In fact, I've argued for a reduction in test matches and test class nations.

However, I disagree that cricket will die if it doesn't expand to other countries. The vast population of and the game's popularity in India suggests it could survive quite well no matter who else is interested.

I wouldn't be opposed to a Dublin side in an ECB T20 league, but there are more conservative opinions than mine who would block such moves. I don't think there'd be the interest to expand to have franchises in Edinburgh or Rotterdam; however, maybe games could be played there to test the water.

[cabinboy]

Tuesday

Originally Posted by Ali TT

I didn't say a first class domestic structure, if they want to concentrate on T20 that's fine, although you should be telling your countrymen this, not me. You are probably correct that first class cricket is dying and tests increasingly irrelevant outside a few countries. In fact, I've argued for a reduction in test matches and test class nations.

However, I disagree that cricket will die if it doesn't expand to other countries. The vast population of and the game's popularity in India suggests it could survive quite well no matter who else is interested.

I wouldn't be opposed to a Dublin side in an ECB T20 league, but there are more conservative opinions than mine who would block such moves. I don't think there'd be the interest to expand to have franchises in Edinburgh or Rotterdam; however, maybe games could be played there to test the water.

I think the testing the water approach has a lot of merit and is the direction to go. It's the impression that it's not a closed club that is key, and I think it's very much in England's interest to have European and UK competition. I've certainly noticed the optimism around the Ireland team has completely flagged as they haven't had the chance to progress and play regular one day/twenty 20s.

I agree with you that there's too many tests. I wouldn't think it's the end of the world if New Zealand, Bangladesh and the West Indies became one day/twenty20 teams solely.

I also think we are at a crossroads now in cricket and the national associations need to take a lead and see what's working and what's not.

[sharky]

Any news on how close Ireland are to their provincial tournament being given first class status? That would be a huge step towards getting full Test member status and thus more ODIs.

[Chin Music]

Originally Posted by cabinboy

Tuesday

I think the testing the water approach has a lot of merit and is the direction to go. It's the impression that it's not a closed club that is key, and I think it's very much in England's interest to have European and UK competition. I've certainly noticed the optimism around the Ireland team has completely flagged as they haven't had the chance to progress and play regular one day/twenty 20s.

I agree with you that there's too many tests. I wouldn't think it's the end of the world if New Zealand, Bangladesh and the West Indies became one day/twenty20 teams solely.

I also think we are at a crossroads now in cricket and the national associations need to take a lead and see what's working and what's not.

Test cricket definitely looks in trouble in West Indies, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe in particular. The problem that all three of those have is that they have federations that are either corrupt, incompetent or a serious combination of both. The former two countries have/still have a lot of cricket interest in them, but are definitely being held back by administrative issues. Not sure I'd necessarily class Bangladesh with them now as they've started to show signs of progress, especially at home.

NZ and Pakistan still have enough cricket in them administrative issues or otherwise to still back as test teams. Frankly I enjoyed the test series that England played against those two countries far more enjoyable than the 3rd ******* Ashes series in 3 years and that apology of a series that England played v India in 2014. If the future of test cricket is just v India and Australia then I'm not sure I want to stay interested in it. Cricket needs to look after the countries that play it to a decent extent whether big or small. The game has contracted in England and that doesn't mean that England deserves more than it's fair share of the pie if it is not even looking to grow the game on its own doorstep.

[CDogg16]

Originally Posted by sharky

Any news on how close Ireland are to their provincial tournament being given first class status? That would be a huge step towards getting full Test member status and thus more ODIs.

They need to win the intercontinental cup, which they are currently on course to do, then they will play Zimbabwe in 2017. If they win they will be granted Test status, but I wouldn't bet against the ICC moving the goalposts between now and then.

Originally Posted by cabinboy

If the game doesn't expand into other countries, it will die, strangled by the money generated in other sports who muscle cricket out just as basketball and US Football has done in the West Indies. First class cricket is virtually dead across the globe already, and test cricket probably has a lifespan of no more than 20 years. Cricket associations really need to look at the bigger picture, and if that means getting more players and countries playing the short stuff, playing twenty20s at night during primetime tv, expanding franchises, reducing the number of county matches, then that's what it needs to do.

First class cricket is still going strong in England, despite what some people may say. However, in India it now plays second fiddle to the IPL and there should be concerns that the Big Bash will damage the state structure in Australia.

Originally Posted by Ali TT

If associates can't or won't develop domestically and are reliant on recruiting overseas players with tenuous links to the country, then they don't deserve greater exposure.

Of course it can also be the other way round. Morgan, Rankin, Joyce etc all left Ireland because of a loophole in the rules. If these players had played for Ireland their whole careers, their cricket team would be much better.

Didn't Australia poach Dirk Nannes of the Netherlands? Even if he was born in Australia, he had committed to the Netherlands but was allowed to go back to playing for Australia, thus stripping Holland of their star bowler.

[Ali TT]

While Ireland have lost a number of players to England, something I don't think has shed great light on Team England, they've also had plenty of South African and Aussie players turn out for them over the years, and the odd English (Murtagh?), although they much more "home grown" now.

Nannes is a fair dinkum Aussie who came late to pro-cricket and played for the Dutch after being overlooked by Australia. He used the 2009 tournament to launch a career with his home country and a pretty successful franchise career too. I like him, but he's your classic t20 mercenary so not a great example for you to use.

[Maty]

Originally Posted by cabinboy

Rubbish, you're still thinking test match mentality. These teams have no intention of playing tests. If they get more ODIS and Twenty20$, they can get more exposure and become competitive. Ireland have already beaten England, West Indies and Pakistan in World Cups.

England could easily play three extra twenty over games a year against Holland, Scotland and Ireland. The Asian countries already do it with Afghanistan.

If the game doesn't expand into other countries, it will die, strangled by the money generated in other sports who muscle cricket out just as basketball and US Football has done in the West Indies. First class cricket is virtually dead across the globe already, and test cricket probably has a lifespan of no more than 20 years. Cricket associations really need to look at the bigger picture, and if that means getting more players and countries playing the short stuff, playing twenty20s at night during primetime tv, expanding franchises, reducing the number of county matches, then that's what it needs to do.

I agree with you to a large extent, like you I don't see long term sustainability in Test cricket as we know it. It's going to get boring very quickly when you've got only India, Australia and England with the credentials to maintain interest in the longer format. Yes a few others - notably Pakistan,New Zealand and South Africa - will be able to cling on for a good while, but it's not like the big three, who let's face it yield all the power and financial clout, have shown any genuine desire assist with reinvigorating the game within these nations. It makes me laugh when people criticise players from other nations turning their backs and pursuing T20 careers, who can blame them when you consider the fairly limited money they can earn from their own boards compared to what they can get from franchises around the world.

England could easily sack off some of these pointless ODIs to cater for some form of Twenty20 cricket against the likes of Netherlands, Scotland and Ireland. Although if I had my way i'd consign ODIs to the scrap altogether, I don't really see what purpose they now serve but that's an argument I'm not likely to win anytime soon. Another alternative as others have voiced is potentially adding Scotland, Ireland and even the Netherlands back in to domestic cricket in some capacity. I wouldn't be adverse to some form of four division setup, but good luck pushing that one past the purists. Similarly South Africa could be doing more to assist with the likes of Namibia.

Cricket just seems to have its head in the sand to me.

[Ali TT]

I think Namibia play in the provincial tournament in SA don't they?

[Maty]

Originally Posted by Ali TT

I think Namibia play in the provincial tournament in SA don't they?

I was trying to recall that as I was typing that message, but yes I think they do in some degree. Zimbabwe also used to participate a little bit as well, but not sure if that still happens. The Zimbabwean's are themselves a pretty curious case, you'd think they'd benefit from fixtures against Ireland and Afghanistan but seem to barely play at all. I guess that comes down to finances on both sides.

[Ali TT]

I see Somerset legend Roelof van der whatsisname is now turning his arm over for the men in orange.