Domestic cricket overhaul in a country

[Richard]

Am I missing something? Simply because the selectors have written them off after one failed run? That is the issue IMO.

The point I was trying to make is that maybe if they'd waited a bit said run wouldn't have been a failure.

 

[Goughy]

Limpopo (Centurion)

****ing Limpopo? What has that got to do with Pretoria or Northern Gauteng?

Centurian is in a completely different Province and Limpopo is poor and underpopulated.

It would be like having Manchester United play at Old Trafford but calling them Cumbria.

Half of me guesses you only said that to stir the pot

Id rather Tshwane than Limpopo and that is saying something

 

[adharcric]

The point I was trying to make is that maybe if they'd waited a bit said run wouldn't have been a failure.

Fair enough. In the end, there will always be risk involved and that risk merely diminishes with additional years of FC experience. Making an early judgment call on someone who is dominating FC cricket shouldn't be completely out of the question though.

 

[Goughy]

This is actually a pretty interesting thread.

Not disagreeing with the 1st post, but wouldnt the first thing for Indian cricket to sort out be making a career in FC cricket a semi-lucrative one?

Its fine for the Test guys to make a lot of money but the career domestic players are what any system is built on. Not everyone can be an up and coming player or an international and the guys that spend 10 years at a FC side are the foundations on which a club and league is built.

 

[adharcric]

Good point Goughy - the BCCI should have plenty of money to take care of that as well.

Regarding the reduction of the number of teams, that's not a very realistic option. SS, the scenario that you described is virtually what happens in the Duleep Trophy and Deodhar Trophy. The other ideas are good - a fitness regime needs to be installed for potential cricketers early on.

 

[adharcric]

As I mentioned in another thread, changing the captain or a coach after something goes wrong is like taking Tylenol for a brain tumor. It will never be effective unless many other things change.

That's fine, but you still need to address "minor" issues such as the captain and the coach. That may not be the most important thing but it is definitely important.

 

[Pup Clarke]

So by changing captain and coach India's problems will just go away just like that?.That would be the completely wrong thing to do IMO because it is a knee-jerk reaction and one that has not been thought through right.

 

[adharcric]

You missed the point. First of all, you don't have to change the captain but merely "address" the situation. The point: you can't just ignore the captaincy simply because it's not the most important issue. It still holds importance.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Did you even read my post? First of all, you don't have to change the captain but merely "address" the situation. The point: you can't just ignore the captaincy simply because it's not the most important issue. It still holds importance.

It does still hold importance but I ask what difference will happen to Indian cricket when a new captain is appointed compared to Dravid?.

 

[adharcric]

It does still hold importance but I ask what difference will happen to Indian cricket when a new captain is appointed compared to Dravid?.

It could certainly affect the performance of the Indian team. The same reason every other change in captaincy takes place? That's just a reason - not saying he should be sacked.

 

[open365]

The English domestic structure gets a bit of criticism for having too many teams of which some is warranted.

However, to me at least, having more teams creates more fans and fan loyalty which is what i want FC cricket to be like. The domestic team imo should be a competition in itself, not just a breeding ground for international cricketers, for example there's no way i'd support say "north west zone" as much as i do Lancashire.

One thing i would defintely change in English cricket is the structure of the season, i'm not sure what to, but right now it's ridiculously over complicated imo, and i think not many English supporters would disagree with me.

 

[Richard]

I wouldn't. It's poor.

Personally I'd go back to the old C&G format - straight knockout, with all Major and Minor counties involved, plus all the Board XIs - first 2 rounds a la FA Cup with the big fish coming in in the 3rd round.

Then I'd have a combined First-Class and one-day league - same games, same everything, except a points-tally combined. This'd cut down on travel costs - massively - and make it harder to try in one form and not the other. You could include Ireland and Scotland in an ideal World.

Then, of course, you'd have the short'n'sharp Twenty20 Cup in the middle of the summer, which would be done-and-dusted ASAP, so as not to kill the golden goose.

Ideally, too, one-day league games would be 45 or 50 overs, not 40.

 

[viktor]

This is actually a pretty interesting thread.

Not disagreeing with the 1st post, but wouldnt the first thing for Indian cricket to sort out be making a career in FC cricket a semi-lucrative one?

Its fine for the Test guys to make a lot of money but the career domestic players are what any system is built on. Not everyone can be an up and coming player or an international and the guys that spend 10 years at a FC side are the foundations on which a club and league is built.

In the last couple of years, some money has actually trickled down to the FC level...
http://www.hinduonnet.com/tss/tss2907/stories/20060218001001700.htm
Thats a decent chunk of money. Plus what with the team sponsors and all, a Ranji player can make a decent living now. So that part has and is being taken care of.

 

[silentstriker]

I disagree. The problem is not picking these "phenoms" at a young age but rather forgetting about them thereafter. Look at Chawla - he was picked for a trial match, sent back and remains on the selectors radar. No harm done. I concur that first-class experience should be a crucial factor for selection but as Fusion said, the once-in-a-lifetime prodigy should be considered by the selectors. The real issue is to continue grooming him in the domestic circuit and not to throw him out the window if the selection turns out to be premature.

What do you mean no harm done? You just compromised our test team because you picked a guy who you knew wasn't ready. Test cricket is not a playground.

And the problem with once-in-a-lifetime prodigy is that they usually aren't. Also, who exactly does it hurt if these once-in-a-lifetime prodigies actually play domestic cricket for two years? It can only help them.

 

[silentstriker]

Fair enough. In the end, there will always be risk involved and that risk merely diminishes with additional years of FC experience. Making an early judgment call on someone who is dominating FC cricket shouldn't be completely out of the question though.

Um, how many FC games did Parthiv Patel play? And Chawla hardly played enough games for you to conclude he was 'dominating' anyone. A lot of times people burst on the scene and then taper off.

 

[silentstriker]

Not disagreeing with the 1st post, but wouldnt the first thing for Indian cricket to sort out be making a career in FC cricket a semi-lucrative one?

Its fine for the Test guys to make a lot of money but the career domestic players are what any system is built on. Not everyone can be an up and coming player or an international and the guys that spend 10 years at a FC side are the foundations on which a club and league is built.

Absolutely. But the problem is that even the BCCI doesn't have that much money. Playing FC cricket is lucrative nowadays. In fact, they do make a decent amount of money. The problem is that you can never pay enough money to come close to the money Test cricketers make due to endorsements.

I think the latest figure is about $20,000 rupees per day of cricket paid. That is around $400 USD, and its quite a bit of money. It is more than enough to live off. The problem is that you can never match (or even try to) the $10+ million that Sachin and Dravid make off endorsements. Unfortunately, that will always remain on another plane.

 

[silentstriker]

Regarding the reduction of the number of teams, that's not a very realistic option. SS, the scenario that you described is virtually what happens in the Duleep Trophy and Deodhar Trophy. .

Thats not a whole season. And I realize it wasn't a realistic option - I said so with my first paragraph. This is if you could start over.

 

[adharcric]

What do you mean no harm done? You just compromised our test team because you picked a guy who you knew wasn't ready. Test cricket is not a playground.

Chawla was a special case - the selectors did not really select him as a genuine option but rather tried to give him exposure. In general, there is always risk involved with national selection. If a player is so talented that one year of domestic cricket is adequate in the selectors minds and the risk factor isn't too high, go ahead and give it a shot.

And the problem with once-in-a-lifetime prodigy is that they usually aren't. Also, who exactly does it hurt if these once-in-a-lifetime prodigies actually play domestic cricket for two years? It can only help them.

That's why I said they should all play for one season. Three is far too many as a strict minimum requirement.

 

[adharcric]

Um, how many FC games did Parthiv Patel play? And Chawla hardly played enough games for you to conclude he was 'dominating' anyone. A lot of times people burst on the scene and then taper off.

Parthiv's selection was stupid. In fact, most of these Indian "phenom" selections have been stupid. I am not disputing that at all. Chawla - see above.

 

[silentstriker]

Chawla was a special case - the selectors did not really select him as a genuine option but rather tried to give him exposure. In general, there is always risk involved with national selection. If a player is so talented that one year of domestic cricket is adequate in the selectors minds and the risk factor isn't too high, go ahead and give it a shot.

That's why I said they should all play for one season. Three is far too many as a strict minimum requirement.

Why though? Plenty of times it takes more than a seaon for a bowler or a batsman to be worked out by other players. I'd rather his weaknesses be exposed at the domestic level. It's better than him being carted around by Ponting and Hussey in Melbourne. You are weakening the national team by putting in unproven youngsters in place of experienced players who know their game.