Finding the best schedule for world cricket

[War]

Interviews : Dave Richardson: 'The biggest challenge is making the international calendar work' | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Ian Chappell : Ian Chappell on the unwieldy international cricket schedule | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

In light of new ICC CEO Dave Richardson's and Ian Chappell's interview and comment on cricinfo recently about the problems of the international calendar. I think it would be good discussion topic if us fans, arm-chair experts ha, speak about what we think could be the perfect solution to this problem.

Some of the big questions that needs answering are:

- Can test cricket, ODI & T20's co-exist or is time for one of the shorter formats to go?.

- How can we make the Future tour programmes (FTP) more balanced, so that we don't have a case where teams like India, AUS, ENG, SA - dont see like they are avoiding playing teams like SRI, PAK, NZ, WI

- Is the idea of a test match championship really a good idea, especially when it will based on a very faulty ranking system?

- What is the best format for future 50 overs and t20 world cups and how many teams really should be part of each tournament?

- Should t20 leagues like the champions league, bigbash, sri lanka premier league being allowed to exist?

- Should the IPL have a formal or informal window?


I have my strong views on all of the above, which i believe can be solved if the ICC were a stronger governing body not being manipulated by the BCCI.

Such is their incompetence is that its crazy that how could they have a champions trophy next year without involving bangladesh. I know its the last of such a tournament and its only back because the TV broadcasters did not approve of the test match world cup - but you really can't have a world tournament without Bangladesh these days, that is a bit insulting to them.

But i'd be interested to hear what other thinks can could be the potential solutions to these problems, before i lay out my thoughts??

 

[sifter132]

OK I'll bite Here's my blueprint for world cricket.

- Can test cricket, ODI & T20's co-exist or is time for one of the shorter formats to go?.

I mentioned in the other thread a little bit about my ideals:
I like only 2 formats for international cricket, just to clear the scheduling clutter a bit and endless rule confusion and changes that would probably keep occuring to try and prop up 50 over cricket. I think the 2 formats should be Test cricket and a one day cricket format, probably 40 overs. Reasons for that: It's long enough to get good ad revenue for a match, and to see big individual scores, but shorter than 50 and hopefully would encourage more abandon in stroke play that fans have come to love from T20. I like T20 as a format, I just don't like what it's doing to the schedule.

- How can we make the Future tour programmes (FTP) more balanced, so that we don't have a case where teams like India, AUS, ENG, SA - dont see like they are avoiding playing teams like SRI, PAK, NZ, WI

- Is the idea of a test match championship really a good idea, especially when it will based on a very faulty ranking system?

We can make answer BOTH these at once. Make the FTP more balanced by tieing it into the Test championship, making sure that results against the lesser sides are given as much credit in that championship as results against the top sides ie. if a nation wants to win the Test championship, playing Bangladesh for their full quota of matches will help them stay on top. Ignore Bangladesh and that should be penalised on the standings. So forget the rankings in other words, because if you have a balanced schedule you won't need rankings since everyone will play each other evenly and you can just have a W/L ladder like every other league in the world.

I know some people like the idea of a standard, balanced 3 Tests -3 ODIs -3 T20Is tour schedule. I like that idea (but without T20Is). Have a standardised format that each side has to play AS A MINIMUM for EVERY tour. That means Aus-Ban gets 3 Tests, just like Aus-Eng. But if the boards of Aus and Eng want to do 5-5 instead, that's fine, but they will have to schedule those extra matches 'on their own time' ie. if those boards want those extra matches (more money!), then they can't complain about their teams being overworked.

- What is the best format for future 50 overs and t20 world cups and how many teams really should be part of each tournament?

Don't know! Sometimes I really like the idea of just the best 8 being involved ie. a tough tournament to get into. Other times I like the idea of a real tournament of nations. I could be swayed either way.

- Should t20 leagues like the champions league, bigbash, sri lanka premier league being allowed to exist?

Yes! Particularly if I plan to discontinue T20Is. That way boards can make money out of their own local leagues and have an exclusive product. Also, players can feel like they've graduated once they've been picked for international cricket, stepping up to 40 overs from 20 overs.

- Should the IPL have a formal or informal window?

Nope. Not until they let more internationals play in each XI. Stopping all world cricket for 4 international players from 8 franchises isn't right. Champions League should have a window, but it should also not be owned by 3 boards only and should be giving the teams from other countries a fair chance to qualify ie. not rigging the qualifying process and not buying the best players from states/counties with promises of big compensation from IPL franchises.

 

[mrtwisties]

I used to love ODIs, but then I discovered T20s. They're just so accessible - you can invite your cricket sceptic friends along for a few hours, you watch the game, there's a great atmosphere and then you head out drinking or whatever. I really do see them as cricket's "gateway drug", capable of introducing the casual fan or neutral observer to the subtleties and storylines that make proper cricket so engrossing.

Here's how I think just about every tour should start:

Week 1: Touring team arrives in country
Week 1, Tue/Wed: Touring team plays televised T20s against local CL-quality teams
Week 1, Fri/Sat/Sun: Three T20is in marquee locations (eg SCG/MCG)

By this point you've engaged the casual fans, introduced the players and the storylines, and even given underdog nations a chance to build some momentum (I'm looking at you West Indies/Bangladesh/Zimbabwe/Ireland). I don't know about you, but I reckon most people would be more likely to want to see the West Indies play three Tests against Australia after they've won a T20I series 2-1 and showcased their talented young stars.

What happens next? I almost don't care, so long as it happens fast. Cricket is not a primary sport for most people. To succeed it needs to operate like the Olympics - you grab the public's attention for a few weeks, but then you let them return to their scheduled programming.

----------

I'd also like to patent the "three week tour" to encourage fraternisation with minnows.

Week 1: T20I introduction, per the above
Week 2, Mon/Tue/Wed: Three day friendly
Week 2-3, starting Friday: Test match
Week 3, Wed/Thu: Coaching clinics, community relations et al
Week 3, Fri: Tour awards ceremony

I'm thinking of nations like Ireland or Kenya or the Netherlands coming to Australia in the early summer and helping to get things going with a tour of this nature. It'd be great for Ireland. Frankly, it'd be great for cricket - and all it would cost is three weeks out of the early summer schedule.

 

[sifter132]

^Yeah I like these ideas. Use T20 as a way of getting 'bums on seats', try and create a buzz about the game and to build the fanbase. At the moment they get thrown in the middle of a crowded summer and it's assumed that anyone watching them already knows a lot about cricket eg. commentary is full of jargon, rules are not explained etc.

 

[spooony]

^Yeah I like these ideas. Use T20 as a way of getting 'bums on seats', try and create a buzz about the game and to build the fanbase. At the moment they get thrown in the middle of a crowded summer and it's assumed that anyone watching them already knows a lot about cricket eg. commentary is full of jargon, rules are not explained etc.

Seriously guys. T20 should have its own set of players and its own squads. Have regular T20 tournaments like the 7's circuit in rugby where players not taking part in test or ODI duties can play. New type of player and T20 stars will be born as well as minnows will have more competition to get better as they do not play test cricket.

 

[War]

OK I'll bite Here's my blueprint for world cricket.


I mentioned in the other thread a little bit about my ideals:
I like only 2 formats for international cricket, just to clear the scheduling clutter a bit and endless rule confusion and changes that would probably keep occuring to try and prop up 50 over cricket. I think the 2 formats should be Test cricket and a one day cricket format, probably 40 overs. Reasons for that: It's long enough to get good ad revenue for a match, and to see big individual scores, but shorter than 50 and hopefully would encourage more abandon in stroke play that fans have come to love from T20. I like T20 as a format, I just don't like what it's doing to the schedule.



We can make answer BOTH these at once. Make the FTP more balanced by tieing it into the Test championship, making sure that results against the lesser sides are given as much credit in that championship as results against the top sides ie. if a nation wants to win the Test championship, playing Bangladesh for their full quota of matches will help them stay on top. Ignore Bangladesh and that should be penalised on the standings. So forget the rankings in other words, because if you have a balanced schedule you won't need rankings since everyone will play each other evenly and you can just have a W/L ladder like every other league in the world.

I know some people like the idea of a standard, balanced 3 Tests -3 ODIs -3 T20Is tour schedule. I like that idea (but without T20Is). Have a standardised format that each side has to play AS A MINIMUM for EVERY tour. That means Aus-Ban gets 3 Tests, just like Aus-Eng. But if the boards of Aus and Eng want to do 5-5 instead, that's fine, but they will have to schedule those extra matches 'on their own time' ie. if those boards want those extra matches (more money!), then they can't complain about their teams being overworked.

Yes! Particularly if I plan to discontinue T20Is. That way boards can make money out of their own local leagues and have an exclusive product. Also, players can feel like they've graduated once they've been picked for international cricket, stepping up to 40 overs from 20 overs.

I hear what you are saying here my friend and it certainly makes sense. But i guess this where we may disagree, since i personally think all three formats can co-exists internationally. I see this has something unique to our sport, which under proper management can easily work.

What has made world cricket schedule unsustainable since the first t20 w-cup in 2007, is the rise of IPL and other T20 leagues essentially.

If as you rightfully mentioned:

- each international series under balanced FTP schedule has a minimum of 3 test, 3 odi's, 3 t20's (only the ashes and a few other series due to tradition could have 5 tests)

- a world test championship based on this balanced FTP every 3 years to determine the # 1 test team properly (so no need for the faulty ranking system)

- 50 overs world cup every 4 years

- t20 world cup every 2 years

- annual IPL without the international players restriction

Then all the cricket schedule problems are covered without any fuss i would think.

Countries can still revamp their domestic t20 competition to invite a few overseas stars to play in them. But the need for nations (weak financial boards) to copy the IPL for themselves will not be needed. Mainly because the FTP will be fair to everyone and all the nations will be getting a good cut out of the cricket money pie, that comes from television revenue from hosting major teams etc etc.

Only country this may affect is Pakistan given the terrorist situation. But they seem to be adapting well to playing in Dubai & Sharjah for the time being.

Don't know! Sometimes I really like the idea of just the best 8 being involved ie. a tough tournament to get into. Other times I like the idea of a real tournament of nations. I could be swayed either way.

For me the 50 overs world-cup should be just the major 9 nations using the 1992 world cup format. The ICC had the right idea of trying to do this after the 2011 world cup, but the weak administrators bowed to the useless cries of the associate nations, that they wanted to be included and scrapped this idea.

Given the uniqueness of cricket, that i mentioned above T20 is the format that associate nations can be used to prove themselves in a world cup format.

So for T20 world-cup i'd have as much as 16-teams in 4 groups of 4. If after a while an associate nations really improves, then we can add them to the 50 overs world-cup etc.

Another format for the T20 world-cup of 16 teams that i really like, is this rugby 7's format, suggested in previous thread by new zealand poster cg123:

http://www.planetcricket.org/forums/2379751-post16.html

The Rugby Sevens format would be the perfect one to follow. Have 16 teams in four pools of four, with "the top two teams in each pool advance to the Cup competition. The four quarterfinal losers drop into the bracket for the Plate. The Bowl is contested by the third and fourth-place finishers in each pool, while the Shield is contested by the losing quarterfinalists of the Bowl."

Therefore everyone will play at least five games, instead of this stupid format atm where four teams are going to be heading home after only playing two games. Also there would be limited blowouts, because after the pool stage the teams get seeded with other similar teams and the lesser teams still get a chance to experience the World Cup. And at the later stage the lesser teams can just play their games at the same time as main teams, so it doesn't drag out.

Nope. Not until they let more internationals play in each XI. Stopping all world cricket for 4 international players from 8 franchises isn't right. Champions League should have a window, but it should also not be owned by 3 boards only and should be giving the teams from other countries a fair chance to qualify ie. not rigging the qualifying process and not buying the best players from states/counties with promises of big compensation from IPL franchises.

Exactly on the IPL. But the Champions league makes no sense to me, even if it were not owned by 3 boards, but instead by a strong ICC. Just like how UEFA owns the C-League in football.

That is one thing you can't copy from football because for one, club football runs football - international cricket runs cricket.

In football players they are no football globetrotters like gayle, pollard, malinga, afridi, nannes etc etc are t20 globetrotters in cricket, who can turn up and play for a premiership , la liga, serie a teams en route to qualifying for the champions league. That doesn't happen thank god.

Pollard for example in one calendar year could help trinidad win the caribbean t20 and qualify for the c-league. Then he could play in the ipl with mumbai indians and help them qualify for the c-league. Then he can come to england with somerset and help them reach the c-league. Then suddenly he has to make so weird choice to choose one of those teams in that crazy tournament. This is the height of the foolishness.

People in trinidad i was reading was even accusing him of not being patriotic for not playing for the trini's in this years c-league. Which is just unfortunate, since all he was doing is just cashing in on the money available from that form of cricket.

One thing we should all be cognisant of with T20 cricket is that although it is the cash cow and format that will bring more fans/interest to the game. It essentially is the water down format in cricket and ICC has to treat it that way, which is why too much t20 leagues world wide cannot be allowed to pop up everywhere.

 

[spooony]

Other question is when is each of the nations rain season?

 

[AnshtheDj]

A worthwhile read in the present context

Cricket needs a season revamp | Cricket News | Cricbuzz.com

 

[War]

A worthwhile read in the present context

Cricket needs a season revamp | Cricket News | Cricbuzz.com

The article is correct in the suggestion, that a clear separation in the world calendar between "internationals" and "domestic" cricket needs to happen as it is in football, so as to avoid illogical clashes.

But as i mentioned above that should not be necessary because cricket unlike football is run by international cricket. Thus a proliferation of T20 leagues should not be allowed to pop up everywhere.

The ICC regardless of all the fervour the T20 has and money it clearly brings, needs to make it clear to everyone that T20 is low class/watered down cricket and should be treated that way.

Which is why if the IPL is the main focus T20 league in the world, without player restriction. The IPL can really be English premier league of cricket, to see all the best players in the world playing for the various teams during an uninterrupted 2-month period. The world would definitely watch that with much greater interest.

No other nation (even England & AUS) has the money to pay players like India for domestic league. So the possibility of things balancing out as it in football with prominent leagues outside the premiership such a la liga, bundesliga, serie a would not happen. Which is why the cricket champions league concept would become redundant.


Plus India don't have to make the same mistake that England made with football premiership & let it become owned by foreigners and suppress Indian talent. They just have be wise with the amount of foreign players they buy & use the massive money gained for IPL revenue to: a) develop youth academies b) mechanism help Indians produce more fast bowlers, c) better batsman who can play fast bowling when India go overseas, d) preserve their spin bowling talent legacy.

If the IPL is done that way, i would think it would go along way in helping India be a force in test cricket, which surely should be India's ultimate aim like every other major nation.

 

[spooony]

It all depends what India say. They are the bosses in the end

 

[mrtwisties]

The ICC regardless of all the fervour the T20 has and money it clearly brings, needs to make it clear to everyone that T20 is low class/watered down cricket and should be treated that way.

...

No other nation (even England & AUS) has the money to pay players like India for domestic league. So the possibility of things balancing out as it in football with prominent leagues outside the premiership such a la liga, bundesliga, serie a would not happen. Which is why the cricket champions league concept would become redundant.

Sounds perfectly rational, but IMO it flies in the face of the evidence.

In the last four years BBL teams have proven just as successful as IPL sides in the Champions League. Top drawer players might enjoy collecting their $500k+ payday from the IPL, but that hasn't stopped them from also travelling the world and collecting $200k here and $100k there from the smaller leagues. It's not just the money, either. There's plenty of international players who've said they actually prefer playing T20 for reasons of it being super-fun to play, and if you go down to the younger & grassroots levels this preference becomes almost overwhelming.

It's not just players - audiences also seem perfectly content with their not-quite-the-IPL domestic leagues. Even in Australia, one of the last bastions of Test cricket, people are preferring BBL games to international Tests - take a look at Bellerive Oval, where a mere 5k people turned up for each day of Ricky Ponting's last ever Test match at his home ground. Just a couple of months later, Hobart Hurricanes vs Sydney Sixers registered 15k!

Put those two factors together, and it seems to me that we can't escape the ongoing proliferation of tough, competitive, profitable T20 leagues. To be frank, I'm not sure why you'd want to. I can remember when cricket was still a national sport in Australia, and I'd actually like to see those days return!

Simply put: you can't plan a cricket schedule with domestic T20 leagues.

I've said this before, but I think the answer lies in compressing schedules for T20 cricket - whether international or domestic. There's no reason in my mind that players shouldn't be playing several days back-to-back. They do this in MLB and NBA games, so why not T20?

 

[Left_Hander]

Get rid of T20. Seems pretty easy to me.

 

[sifter132]

^Easy to say, far harder to do. T20 is perhaps the best moneymaker of all the formats. Hard to just drop your most lucrative product.

 

[War]

Sounds perfectly rational, but IMO it flies in the face of the evidence.

In the last four years BBL teams have proven just as successful as IPL sides in the Champions League. Top drawer players might enjoy collecting their $500k+ payday from the IPL, but that hasn't stopped them from also travelling the world and collecting $200k here and $100k there from the smaller leagues. It's not just the money, either. There's plenty of international players who've said they actually prefer playing T20 for reasons of it being super-fun to play, and if you go down to the younger & grassroots levels this preference becomes almost overwhelming.

It's not just players - audiences also seem perfectly content with their not-quite-the-IPL domestic leagues. Even in Australia, one of the last bastions of Test cricket, people are preferring BBL games to international Tests - take a look at Bellerive Oval, where a mere 5k people turned up for each day of Ricky Ponting's last ever Test match at his home ground. Just a couple of months later, Hobart Hurricanes vs Sydney Sixers registered 15k!

Put those two factors together, and it seems to me that we can't escape the ongoing proliferation of tough, competitive, profitable T20 leagues. To be frank, I'm not sure why you'd want to. I can remember when cricket was still a national sport in Australia, and I'd actually like to see those days return!

Simply put: you can't plan a cricket schedule with domestic T20 leagues.

I've said this before, but I think the answer lies in compressing schedules for T20 cricket - whether international or domestic. There's no reason in my mind that players shouldn't be playing several days back-to-back. They do this in MLB and NBA games, so why not T20?

Countries can still have their own domestic t20 leagues, i'm not advocating that they shouldn't.

But what i'm saying is that no other nation has the financial ability to run a t20 league on the scale of ipl. Which is why i say a revamped IPL without the internal players restriction can be the english premier league of world t20 cricket, where all the world best players go a play their for an 2-month window.

Big Bash comes close to the financial earning of the ipl for sure. And all the nations should revamp their t20 domestic competition to try and make money out of it - it makes sense for many of reasons you stated. But these leagues can't have a window.

 

[Left_Hander]

^Easy to say, far harder to do. T20 is perhaps the best moneymaker of all the formats. Hard to just drop your most lucrative product.

Yes, this maybe true but for me the novelty has worn off. The fact that we almost have T20 series on almost every tour is too far. IMO once Australia stopped putting nicknames on the back of their jersey was when it got too serious. And on that, players like Warner, Hilfhenhaus and Hussey should have multiple Shield game going into the first Test. Instead they played hit and giggle cricket which most people will soon forget about. T20 is fine but when it affects the preparation for any other format of the game, let alone when you are playing the number 1 ranked side in the world, then it should be cut back.