Should cricketers from the stronger nations be able to play for minnows/associates

[Red]

I have thought for a while that it'd be beneficial for teams like Australia, SA, England, India to release certain players (perhaps solid FC cricketers over the age of 30 who haven't played a test/many tests) to the associate nations and minnows in order to make them more competitive, as well as to build interest from the bigger nations' fans in the weaker teams.

You see obvious advantages in other sports, particularly AFL imo, when players from stronger clubs join weaker clubs at the end of their careers and bring a stronger culture with them.

Obviously there'd be some limitations and regulations but I cant see any issue. Also means that more of the best players in the world get to play at the highest standard. Fine example would be someone like David Hussey who never got to even play a test bringing his skills and leadership to a minnow team for 3 or 4 years.

Interested in people's thoughts.

 

[mr_mister]

Brendan's Nash pretty much did this right

 

[Prince EWS]

Nah, it really defeats the purpose of actually having Test teams and eligibility if you can do this. One of the things I like about Test cricket is that you can't (or well, it's very hard to) just go and recruit good players to improve your side -- you have to actually create them through good structures. I find it much less soulless than other franchise-based sports for this reason.

If we were going to go down this path I think I'd rather end the pretence and just move entirely to a franchise model.

 

[Adders]

I have thought for a while that it'd be beneficial for teams like Australia, SA, England, India to release certain players (perhaps solid FC cricketers over the age of 30 who haven't played a test/many tests) to the associate nations and minnows in order to make them more competitive, as well as to build interest from the bigger nations' fans in the weaker teams.

You see obvious advantages in other sports, particularly AFL imo, when players from stronger clubs join weaker clubs at the end of their careers and bring a stronger culture with them.

Obviously there'd be some limitations and regulations but I cant see any issue. Also means that more of the best players in the world get to play at the highest standard. Fine example would be someone like David Hussey who never got to even play a test bringing his skills and leadership to a minnow team for 3 or 4 years.

Interested in people's thoughts.

Yeah, that's club sports though.....not International.

 

[Gnske]

Nah, it really defeats the purpose of actually having Test teams and eligibility if you can do this. One of the things I like about Test cricket is that you can't (or well, it's very hard to) just go and recruit good players to improve your side -- you have to actually create them through good structures. I find it much less soulless than other franchise-based sports for this reason.

If we were going to go down this path I think I'd rather end the pretence and just move entirely to a franchise model.

Agree with this whole post. But in regards to the bold, is this not the inevitable future of cricket at this point?

Where cricket more takes the form of like the NRL and AFL where international rep matches are like a side note or act as more of an exhibition when it isn't world cup time? I can't even remember the last time I recall anything to do with international rules come to think of it.

 

[Prince EWS]

Agree with this whole post. But in regards to the bold, is this not the inevitable future of cricket at this point?

Where cricket more takes the form of like the NRL and AFL where international rep matches are like a side note or act as more of an exhibition when it isn't world cup time? I can't even remember the last time I recall anything to do with international rules come to think of it.

Yeah I think it is too. I'm not happy about it, but I think if we're going to go that way I'd rather not have the pretend stage in the middle where we still have national teams but washed up Sheffield Shield cricketers are playing for Bangladesh.

 

[Flem274*]

I don't think it is. The Indian market might (though I think the majority of their fans still get more passionate about India than their IPL team) but no where else will. You try getting an Australian, Englishman or kiwi to care more about one of our franchise teams than the national side.

Franchise teams in sports where traditionally the national side means everything will never be more than Super Rugby-esque in their popularity relative to the national side.

Of my IRL friends who are cricket fans, I think I'm the only one who cares about NZ teams other than the NZ team

 

[sledger]

Well, I wouldn't be comfortable with someone like Alastair Cook going to play for India for example, so it's a no from me.

 

[trundler]

Well, I wouldn't be comfortable with someone like Alastair Cook going to play for India for example, so it's a no from me.

I take it the off-topic subbie is slow today.

 

[sledger]

I take it the off-topic subbie is slow today.

It's never not slow.

 

[Borges]

Well, I wouldn't be comfortable with someone like Alastair Cook going to play for India for example, so it's a no from me.

He has been playing for India in this series; he probably does not realise that you are not comfortable with it. But for one innings, he has also played for Australia recently.

 

[Jack1]

Only if they qualify fairly

 

[turnstyle]

Isn't pretty much every Associate (bar a few) doing this now already?

 

[Red]

Nah, it really defeats the purpose of actually having Test teams and eligibility if you can do this. One of the things I like about Test cricket is that you can't (or well, it's very hard to) just go and recruit good players to improve your side -- you have to actually create them through good structures. I find it much less soulless than other franchise-based sports for this reason.

If we were going to go down this path I think I'd rather end the pretence and just move entirely to a franchise model.

In terms of clarifying, I should have said teams would be limited to perhaps two or three international ring-ins. I agree 100% on never moving toward a franchise model.

If anything, I'd hope my idea was more in line with improving the structures and systems in the weaker test nations and associates.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Hell nah.

Teams evolve over time. Their spheres of influence gets larger. The quality improves.

 

[marc71178]

In terms of clarifying, I should have said teams would be limited to perhaps two or three international ring-ins. I agree 100% on never moving toward a franchise model.

If anything, I'd hope my idea was more in line with improving the structures and systems in the weaker test nations and associates.

Not sure how exactly parachuting in mercenaries is going to improve underlying structures and systems.

 

[cpr]

Brendan's Nash pretty much did this right

Tim Murtagh currently doing this in Ireland.

And lets not forget Luke Ronchi stepping back....

 

[Athlai]

I don't really mind the Brendan Nash/Luke Ronchi method here. If they do the hard yards to play for another country, fair enough.

If David Hussey wanted to become a New Zealander or Jamaican then sure, but he can't still be an Australian playing for those places.

 

[Camo999]

I have agreat admiration for the likes of John Davison, Trent Johnston, Joe Scuderi, Shane Deitz, Ryan Campbell, Con de Lange etc who have to some extent had a role in advancing the cricket of various associates and affiliates they have had a connection with. In international sport though, I feel that it is important you do have this association or connection, and are properly qualified to play for countryyou are representing.

Scotland has beaten four full members - Eng, SL, ZIM and Afg over the past year and a bit and probably would have beaten WI too if not for rain. I'd suggest we would be close to being the leading associate at the moment. As far as I can tell, we weren't given a single fixture in any format when the future tours programme came out recently, let alone a test match. Nepal won their first ODI a week or so back. Netherlands are a decent side too. These teams and several others are already good but generally they struggle for funds to organise any matches at all let alone to pay second rate players from the big three with zero connection to their country who rock up purely so they can put an international cap on their CV. In my opinion it is a question of the larger teams giving far more fixtures and opportunities to associates to actually playgames. THAT will increase their exposure and popularity with cricket fans worldwide.

There's a big difference to Luke Hodge putting in a cameo for the BrisbaneLions in a comp when every club has to spend at least 90 odd % of a defined salary cap compared to him playing for an associate where the entire turnover of the cricket board would be lucky to match his salary.

No doubt people will say giving these teams more matches will result in more one-sided matches while at the same time the likes of Aus lose by 242 runs to the English team outgunned by Scotland.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Why would they want to though? 30+ year old washed up Shield cricketer has probably got a young family and settled life at home I can't see them spending months away with minnow cricket teams playing the Intercontinental Cup or living in a slum in Bangladesh