The International Cricket Thread

[Risso]

They could play a World Test Championship in 5/6 weeks if they get over this daft obsession to only play one game at a time.

If you have 12 teams - you’d only need 4 grounds in whichever country staged it
Qualifier round teams ranked 5-12 is 4 games played over same 5 days leaves 8 teams so 4 quarter finals again played in tandem then two semis and a final…done and dusted in 6 weeks leaving a few days between rounds

It wouldn't work though, unless you had it in India every time when you could more or less guarantee no rain. Otherwise, you could well have teams drawing all the time, and the better sides being knocked out of the group stages due to the weather. And what happens in the knock out stages if a match gets rained off completely?

[paul_e]

They could play a World Test Championship in 5/6 weeks if they get over this daft obsession to only play one game at a time.

If you have 12 teams - you’d only need 4 grounds in whichever country staged it
Qualifier round teams ranked 5-12 is 4 games played over same 5 days leaves 8 teams so 4 quarter finals again played in tandem then two semis and a final…done and dusted in 6 weeks leaving a few days between rounds

It wouldn't work though, unless you had it in India every time when you could more or less guarantee no rain. Otherwise, you could well have teams drawing all the time, and the better sides being knocked out of the group stages due to the weather. And what happens in the knock out stages if a match gets rained off completely?

Keep a couple of a reserve day for each round and I think it's workable. Schedule wouldn't be massively different to this ashes series where only 1 test was really impacted by weather and would've been completed with a reserve day. Everywhere capable of hosting it would also be able to find a window where they could be fairly sure of the weather. If you're really worried you could even add a 2nd reserve day. Then schedule 5+2 on, 5 off and repeat for each stage, all done in 41-43 days so pretty much 6 weeks.

I do think that would be better than the current test championship which doesn't really work.

[tomd2103]

One of the main drivers for the competition is "kids" and getting them involved at a young age. My query would be that if the kids then head to their local cricket club (and their parents can circumvent the clique) will they find The Hundred format being played?

When we kick off against Newcastle on 12th August the game itself is identical to those kids having a kick about in the park (Jumpers for goalposts? Marvellous isn't it? You know?) whereas the beggering about with overs and balls makes an already complicated game more convoluted.

It depends on how old the kids are, most leagues play t20 from u11-u18 but below that you get 5 or 10 over matches. The same is true in football with lots of stuff at primary school level being 5 or 7-a-side.

Rugby is even more extreme with whole element of the game not included until colt/u18 level (at various points the following are introduced: tackling, kicking, posts, scrums - first uncontested and then later real ones, line outs, rucks and mauls). In fact the rules of youth level rugby are closer to league than union and new elements are slowly introduced when it's safe and sensible for them to be.

As someone who has little interest in cricket other than a quick glance through this thread at times it would appear that The Hundred is potentially a good idea for the let’s get the youngsters involved angle but incredibly poorly executed. If senior cricket is predominantly about 20/20, 50 over 1 day and then Test Cricket then what the suits and blazers seem to have forgotten is how to schedule a new competition into that framework. I have no idea what the answer is but from the outside it’s an absolute shitshow. Would a potential solution be The Hundred played by County 2nd XI and youth system players?

I think it's important to take a step back and look at what the real drivers behind it are. For me there are 2 things that led to it being introduced:

1. t20 gave the sport a massive boost (globally) and gave the sport a format that could be competitive, as an event, with football, rugby, etc because it was just the right length of match in a sport that was previously a 6-8 hour commitment at minimum. However as the rules were cleaned up some of the parts that rushed the gam along got lost and t20 has drifted from the 3hr schedule it started with to a point where most games are closer to 4hrs. I suspect the ECB wanted a format where they could bring back those quicker elements and add a few more (so back-to-back overs from the same end to reduce time resetting the field, for example). I don't agree with it but I suspect someone has some research data that shows 3hrs is the ideal length for a game.

2. They wanted a franchise league and that doesn't work with 18 teams so they needed a way to drop the numbers. Any format that was based on the existing 3 would've seen huge arguments over which teams were included, by making it a weird offshoot with silly rules and completely isolated funding, etc they made it less of a problem to go with 8 brand new franchises. It wouldn't surprise me if the rules do flip to it being a 2nd t20 league in time but by the time it happens the teams that are involved will be settled and considered as genuinely distinct from the county game so they will get their competitor to the IPL, etc.

Point 2 was the main driver Paul.  My theory is that the ECB can't generate income outside of the international game and they flog the international players as much as they possibly can as it is.  They therefore needed a way to generate revenue through the domestic game, which is run by the counties.  They couldn't have another T20 competition, so had to invent something different and a new format which they could trademark and sell to other countries.  It is also well known that certain people at the ECB favour a reduction in the number of domestic teams, so it was also a tentative step in that direction.

There is clearly an impasse between the counties and the ECB which is becoming increasingly fractious.  As someone who follows Welsh rugby, it is following the path of the dispute between the regional sides and the WRU which is now in it's 20th year and is showing no signs of resolution. 

Of course, we don't know the finer details of TV contracts and obligations, so don't really know the full picture.  One way out for the ECB would be to potentially ditch The Hundred and market an 'elite' T20 competition as a replacement.  Still have the Blast, but market the new competition as a level up from that.  Keep the current teams or possibly have six 'regional' sides (Bears, Worcester and Northants become a 'Central' team; Derby, Notts and Leicester become an 'East' team etc.) and pick the best players from those Blast squads (one of the most ridiculous things about The Hundred is seeing players playing for totally unrelated teams -like Jonny Bairstow playing for Welsh Fire) along with some overseas imports.  Not ideal, but think that might just be about palatable. 

[Monty]

Not thinking too hard about the logistics, just salivating at the thought of 1-2 months where test cricket is as ubiquitous as football in the World Cup. Hook it directly to my veins.

[paul_e]

Agree with all of that and I suspect that's what will happen in the end, or something similar.

[Richard E]

40 balls a side due to rain. What’s the bloody point?

[Monty]

They could play a World Test Championship in 5/6 weeks if they get over this daft obsession to only play one game at a time.

If you have 12 teams - you’d only need 4 grounds in whichever country staged it
Qualifier round teams ranked 5-12 is 4 games played over same 5 days leaves 8 teams so 4 quarter finals again played in tandem then two semis and a final…done and dusted in 6 weeks leaving a few days between rounds

It wouldn't work though, unless you had it in India every time when you could more or less guarantee no rain. Otherwise, you could well have teams drawing all the time, and the better sides being knocked out of the group stages due to the weather. And what happens in the knock out stages if a match gets rained off completely?

Keep a couple of a reserve day for each round and I think it's workable. Schedule wouldn't be massively different to this ashes series where only 1 test was really impacted by weather and would've been completed with a reserve day. Everywhere capable of hosting it would also be able to find a window where they could be fairly sure of the weather. If you're really worried you could even add a 2nd reserve day. Then schedule 5+2 on, 5 off and repeat for each stage, all done in 41-43 days so pretty much 6 weeks.

I do think that would be better than the current test championship which doesn't really work.

Touring is still lucrative enough to have this added to the calendar at the expense of some less exciting stuff though (oh god I'm thinking about the logistics...!).

Look. How about we abolish plane travel for cricket purposes and go back to the days where getting Down Under for the Ashes took two months by boat. Somehow I think this solves everything.

[Ads]

WTC is gerrymandering to get India into a final where they will inevitability choke again. England and Australia are comfortably the two best sides in the world and produced an absolute worldie of a series.

In India they're producing sub-par pitches, not worthy of test cricket and getting away with 2 run an over tedious dross and they'll go to Australia and be whitewashed in the winter of 24. Yet probably earn more points for chucking rank half volleys down at a decent rate.

[olaftab]

With respect that’s total rubbish. I don’t like Indian cricket board, far too arrogant but Indian team has done rather well in Test cricket over the last ten years especially against Australia. Indian bowlers are not known for chucking pies and their defeat in early June was how it’s always been when they tour England. Never good in early summer. Far too cold. Having said that I do wish ICC would not always bend over backwards to accommodate India.

[PaulWinch again]

India are a good side. The pitches they produce at home of late are shocking. Although in fairness Edgbaston was particularly crap this year.

[tomd2103]

India are a good side. The pitches they produce at home of late are shocking. Although in fairness Edgbaston was particularly crap this year.

Eh?  The first test at Edgbaston went to the last session of the last day? 

[Ads]

With respect that’s total rubbish. I don’t like Indian cricket board, far too arrogant but Indian team has done rather well in Test cricket over the last ten years especially against Australia. Indian bowlers are not known for chucking pies and their defeat in early June was how it’s always been when they tour England. Never good in early summer. Far too cold. Having said that I do wish ICC would not always bend over backwards to accommodate India.

It's not rubbish at all. We've been docked more points in one go, than anybody has been previously. Meanwhile India will produce 5 pitches you wouldn't want to play village cricket on and get away with it year after year...but entertainment? Value? Hmmm. The Aussies will blow them away, as you'd expect they would anybody at home.

[olaftab]

With respect that’s total rubbish. I don’t like Indian cricket board, far too arrogant but Indian team has done rather well in Test cricket over the last ten years especially against Australia. Indian bowlers are not known for chucking pies and their defeat in early June was how it’s always been when they tour England. Never good in early summer. Far too cold. Having said that I do wish ICC would not always bend over backwards to accommodate India.

It's not rubbish at all. We've been docked more points in one go, than anybody has been previously. Meanwhile India will produce 5 pitches you wouldn't want to play village cricket on and get away with it year after year...but entertainment? Value? Hmmm. The Aussies will blow them away, as you'd expect they would anybody at home.

Except on their last two visits to Australia they have won the Test series.

[taylorsworkrate]

India are a good side. The pitches they produce at home of late are shocking. Although in fairness Edgbaston was particularly crap this year.

Eh?  The first test at Edgbaston went to the last session of the last day? 

It was a crap pitch for test cricket. It was only because of Englands approach and at times reckless batting that there was a result. If England had been of a more standard test cricket mindset it would have been an incredibly boring match on a lifeless pitch

[taylorsworkrate]

WTC is gerrymandering to get India into a final where they will inevitability choke again. England and Australia are comfortably the two best sides in the world and produced an absolute worldie of a series.

In India they're producing sub-par pitches, not worthy of test cricket and getting away with 2 run an over tedious dross and they'll go to Australia and be whitewashed in the winter of 24. Yet probably earn more points for chucking rank half volleys down at a decent rate.

I've no sympathy for either side. Both teams overrates were pathetic during the course of the series. The cricket that was played was brilliant to watch, but that is not a get out of jail card when it comes to bowling at 11-12 overs per hour. The ICC needs to get far more of a handle on it in general. Fines and docking WTC points ultimately don't change anything. In game penalties need to be brought in