Thought of the Day: The solution to Crickets problems

One of the great things about the game of cricket is that its fans and followers are always looking to find issues with it.  What other sports have these sorts of issues? 

Soccer (as a game) is fine, most of the issues seem to arise from the actions of the fans.  Basketball seemingly peaked with Michael Jordan's career, but is still widely played and supported and the supporters don't seem to bemoan changes in the game or dwell on the games seemingly inevitable demise.

Apart from maybe this guy.

So what is it about Cricket? 

The game of cricket has benefited and suffered from its colonial past; all of the current top Test playing nations were or are members of the British Commonwealth, which gives it a large playing and supporter base (particularly in India), though it has struggled to expand past these borders.






Still, a lot of cricket is still being played and the level of interest in the game has actually increased over the last five years with the advent of Twenty20 (T20) Cricket.

Given that the game is in a healthy state, where are these complaints coming from and what are they all about?

Essentially, all of the complaints seem to relate to all aspects of the way the game is run.  T20 is bemoaned for corrupting the game, confusing the annual playing schedule, wearing out players and corrupting the techniques of young cricketers.

India is criticised for bullying all other nations into playing by their own rules, though this criticism does have some justification.

May or may not be an employee of the BCCI

The amount of cricket being played is criticised for being unwieldy, disinteresting and disorganised.  Organised matches are criticised for being uneven contests, for having poor pitches and poor attendance.

There is currently a T20 World Cup held every two years, a Champions League T20 every year, an ODI World Cup every four years, as well as regular tours, domestic leagues and competitions between different nations.

There is a rankings table for each team playing each version of cricket (there are also criticism's about their being too many versions), though this is criticised for being irrelevant and confusing.

The game just can't win.

Or can it?

The overall issue seems to be that, while all of these issues are integrated in their nature, they aren't in practice.  The International Cricket Council (ICC) simply needs a way to organise cricket so that it can support all of the versions of the game in a way that aids growth and development, while keeping supporters happy.  If that is possible.



The trick is to organise a schedule that allows for all three versions of the game that everyone knows and understands, as well as understand how the results of the games impact the international rankings.

The games should be organised to ensure that they are competitive, but also allow for the game and the teams playing it to develop.

To do this, all the top teams should be organised into groups in which they all play off against one another over a ten month period (see table, below). 

This allows every team to have a break (the bye) as well as allow a two month period every year for incidental competitions (e.g. ODI World Cup, IPL, Champions League etc). This two-month window also allows for extended tours (e.g. the Ashes) where / if required) and a break from competition for players (if they want it).

The two month period allocated for competition between teams can be used for Tests, ODIs and T20s - however those teams want to use it.

The 2 teams that finish at the bottom of their league at the end of the 12 month period will move into the league below theirs, while the teams at the top would move up.  This would create much more relevance around the rankings tables and interest in competition.

The only real issue with this format is where two teams are due to play each other but are from the same hemisphere, meaning it may not be the right season for cricket.  That being said, the structure is not set in stone, it can be moved around to allow for the seasons.

The T20 World cup can be kept every two years and involve all the teams from the top three leagues in the two month break (lets call it Round 6).  This World Cup will enable the teams in the bottom league to have exposure to the top teams to help them develop, as well as share in the money to be earned from media rights (similar to the Carling Cup in the EPL).

The ODI World Cup should be more restricted, but help less experienced / developed teams get used to a longer format of cricket.

With this structure in place, it *should* give cricket fans something to be happy about, or at least find another thing to complain about.  Whatever, or whoever, that may be about.

Not naming names

Thought of the Day: A clash of cultures requires more than one culture

Dean Jones isn't known as a man of subtleties.  During his playing days, "Deano" was a member of a 'new generation' of cricketers who captured the Australian cricket-followers interest as a member of the 1987 World Cup winning team and as a dasher between wickets.  He also scored a few runs in Chennai.

Jones spends his days as a cricket coach and commentator these days, and it is in the latter profession that he has made a score of late.

In his latest piece for "The Age", Jones writes of the on-going animosity between the South African and Australian teams since the period of South Africa's re-entry to International Cricket, drawing comparisons with the Australian teams respectful relationships with other opponents such as the West Indies and India.

And herein lies Jones' dash; the level of respect exists as both teams recognise each others different cultures and respect them, whereas South Africa had none.

That's not to say there wasn't a culture within the post-apartheid South African team, just one that the players weren't supposed to represent, and like the awkward kid at school; they were trying a little too hard to impress everyone else with the culture they decided they wanted to represent.

The Star Wars kid may or may-not have been their cultural advisor.

Jones gives telling examples of the crowds using 'sheep' jokes (implying relationships between Australians and sheep) with them, assuming a familiarity that wasn't there, as well as pointing live guns at the opposition; seeming once more like that awkward kid wanting to be seen as 'cool' or respected, without any knowledge of how.

This isn't to say that there isn't a culture within the South African team now.  The Proteas are now the undisputed Number One test team in the world and are a true representation of their country's diversity. They have had a balanced side for a number of years and seem free of the anxiety or wanting to fit in or be respected.

Lets hope the South Africans have also learned that Sheep jokes should be aimed at Kiwis too.

Thought of the Day: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Cricketer

Shane Watson has a lot to thank Andrew Flintoff for.

Flintoff was Man of the Series in the 2005 Ashes, no mean feat considering the contributions of his teammates with the bat (e.g. Pietersen, Trescothick) and ball (e.g. Jones, Harmison, Hoggard). His contributions with bat and ball, however, were often at crucial times and his ability to inspire teammates with these efforts were key to England winning.

Thus, Cricket Australia decided it needed an all-rounder in its own team to replicate the success of England.  Interesting in that it didn't look to rid itself of some of the players that were past their prime, or start developing new players, but that's another story.

The stand-out candidate for the all-rounder position at the time was Shane Watson, who had debuted 6 months prior in Sydney as a bowling all-rounder.  Watsons' highlight from his first test would have to be either his first wicket (Younis Khan LBW) or falling over during his first over.

His efforts against a mediocre Pakistan were satisfactory, though not enough to earn a place in England.

The only other all-rounders in consideration were Andrew McDonald, who didn't have Watsons abilities with the bat, and Andrew Symonds, whose medium pace wasn't threatening enough and whose part-time spin was already being misrepresented by a fleet of others.

Not naming names.

His next chance came courtesy of Flintoff in the 2009 Ashes, after the English bowler worked out that Phillip Hughes (the incumbent Australian opener) couldn't play the short ball, leaving Australia in desperate need of an opener.

With no other batsman available, Watson was asked to open the batting, as well as help out with the bowling.  Being a good cricketer with good technique, Watson did well in the role; leaving balls outside off and driving and pulling anything too straight or short.  His shot-limitations didn't seem to limit his success and he cemented his place at the top without ever making a big score.

"Thanks!"

In fact, his inability to make a big score, or even a hundred, became a national focus point.  I will never forget the day that he did make the milestone (again, against a mediocre Pakistan team) and the public celebrations of it.  I was walking down Collins Street in Melbourne and people were running into pubs and restaurants to find a television to witness the moment. 

I had never seen so much celebration regarding an Australians test century before.  Times were obviously tough.

Since then, Watson went on to win the Alan Border medal for best player of the season, and has been one of the best in the team since; when fit to play.

And herein lies the issue: Watson has been a very good player in a very poor team and so has been asked to, and has volunteered to, play out-of position and as often as possible.  This has resulted in considerable injuries and disruption to the team.

Flintoffs own career was ultimately ended by injuries, though these were more caused by the spinal issues that fast bowlers face.  While Flintoff did play in some unsuccessful teams initially, he was a crucial part of several Ashes-winning sides that lifted the profile of his sport and the morale of his team.

So while Watson may have Flintoff to thank for convincing Cricket Australia to include him in the side, he may want to ask Andrew if he can give CA a call to convince them to manage his workload better.