Arrgh as much as we both hate it, given how wide apart we are, this one will be an around in circles argument. So I had half a mind to not respond, but I will give it one go. After that we can agree to disagree.
UEFA CL, is nothing about testing a set trio of skillset, as you put it to see whether you can be European Champs with the side that made you National champs, or made them qualify for the CL. Its just about winning the Champs League at all cost, as it winning the national league at all costs and for that all teams do all kind an manner of upgrades every season.
Take Liverpool this year - The team that got back into the champs league last year has undergone all kind and manner of changes, and its a virtually new team. If teams don't change the trio its because they think that the team with the three is good enough to win the UEFA CL. If they think not, then they will change the trio at the drop of a hat. All teams want to take the next step and win. That is the goal.
The target is most definitely not to test and see if the trio that won them domestic league can win them that CL too. Thats just not even remotely true. If the trio from last year is retained its because the club thinks that they are good enough. Or they are changed all the time for the club to take the next step. Just look at all the mental transfer activity that goes on in the big clubs. If they all just wanted to test the trio that would not happen. CL is not a test of skillset, its a win at all cost tournament and skillset trios are chopped and changed all the time when required. For instance in Chelsea Costa and Fabregas were not even part of the team last year, they were brought in this year only. So in cricket as in football, key players that get you to qualify are often changed, and Cricket has to deal with it.
If cricket sides want a player to also play for them in the CL, then contractually oblige them.
Again once teams get in the CL, they are chopped and changed all the time. Liverpool this year sold Suarez, they key player. Last year Chelsea sold Mata their two time player of the year and a vital cog in their wheel. Lampard is another. Some yaers back Fabregas the player around whom the team was built was sold to Barcelona with Arsenal in the CL.
So to say chopping and changing happens only in cricket teams before CL is clearly incorrect, and even in football teams have to let go of players who were vital to them getting in the CL, as evidenced above.
I won't say you don't understand how football club dynamics works, but based on your comments here you seem to be confused about it to a large degree with some intricate details, which makes your cross comparisons totally off. And in general nothing you said doesn't disapprove the baseline point of what the C-league's aim is.
Firstly as i think i mentioned before, the key difference in all of this is how star players move between clubs. In football stars stay at one club during a season. They don't help more than one teams qualify for the champions league.
In cricket your narines, pollard, bravo, Gayle's Malinga's, Ross Taylor, Vettori, Sakib, Dilshan, Maxwell, Bollinger, Hafeez etc etc can & have played in different T20 leagues during a calendar year. Artificially enhance them & help more than one teams reach the champions league as their designated star player. But come C-league time they all would chose their respective IPL teams over all teams. That is madness, unfair & undervalues the true meaning of a champions league from the outset.
You cannot compare basic football squad improvement i.e Chelsea buying Atletico Madrid/Barca stars Costa, Luis Felipe, Fabregas to the aforementioned cricket scenario.
Every elite football team treats winning their league & C-league with equal importance clearly also, don't confuse yourself.
Perfect Little example of C-league stupidity with player movement would be Barbados trident in the ongoing tournament. Given the dynamics we know of the tournament run by three boards, they lost Pollard, Smith to IPL teams & Shoaib Malik to the Big bash team. The they brought in James Franklin & this Sri Lankan opener Dimuth Kuruwante (spell check), none of these two players were registered part of the Barbados trident squad this CPL season.
Last i checked Franklin was playing county T20 in England this year. While he was not retained by the Guyana Amazon warriors CPL team, who had a upgrade in modern Kiwi all-rounder James Franklin. Don't know where the Sri Lanka guy came from, but this shows clearly that the core of the team was breaken up. And the process to improve the team for the C-league was just a hurry up nonsense & process that seems very confusing to bring in players.
The Liverpool, Lampard, Mata, Fabregas examples don't hold water.
The core of the Liverpool squad that got 2nd in England is still the same, just Suarez left. So even with the new players around which was obviously given the extra games they will play this, the "Liverpool style" under Rogers will still be seen on the C-league even without Suarez.
Arsenal have been to every C-league in the last 18 years or something. So the times when Fabregas was at Arsenal & was their key player he played in the C-league with them for many season, reaching a final once in 2006. So the Arsenal with Fabregas as their key player from the League was seen at C-league level.
They unfortunately never made an impact on C-league so Fabreagas left
permanently for Barcelona. Key difference with cricket ludicrous C-league where stars play for numerous teams at one, star in football play with one team.
Lampard was sold because he was no longer Chelsea best player in recent seasons, any Chelsea fan from the football section of planetcricket would tell you this. When chelsea won C-league 2012 & got to the final in 2007, Lampard was at his best & thus we saw the Chelsea of the league with Lampard as a the key player for many many seasons.
Mata was their best player, but the coach Mourinho didn't think his talent suit the team & Chelsea many would argue with their recent signing are a much better team without him anyway.
More pertinently though many teams that win their leagues generally win their domestic leagues & went on to win the C-league largely would keep the same squad together. The recent legendary Barca team that won the tournament twice in 2009 & 2011 (i think) hardly every changed. Same with the AC Milan teams circa 2003-2005 under Carlo Ancelotti.....list goes on & on
Football has a clearness with rules & fluidity with player movement across clubs that cricket lacks.
Actually with regard to T20, in cricket, I would say Domestic cricket does take precedence over Int'l cricket. Except when there is a World T20. But even in Football, when there is a World Cup it takes precedence over club football and is bigger than any domestic league, which are effective background noise.
So with regard to T20, the star movement analogy does work.[/quote]
There is debate going on in world football now with people saying whether the world cup or champions league is the bigger/better/more important/more competitive/prestigious football tournament. Lets just say so as to avoid bringing it to this cricket forum, no side of the argument whether it be past players/esteem football journalist has come to clear winning argument to date. So it would be unwise for you are anyone with lesser knowledge than them to call domestic football "background noise".
Actually no one plays to be #1. Except with regard to tests, because there is no real tournament to win in tests, so that Test table has some meaning. Which is why I have said tests matter the most. That is the only area where being no. 1 matters.
ODIs are a side show consolation prize for the loser and T20s not even a proper side show. No one plays One Days thinking its adding to the table, not even remotely. Its about that series.
Saying teams in cricket play one days to be #1 is like says teams in football play to be Fifa #1. Both those table are meaningless, and there are far more concrete things to be won. In sport winning real tournaments are what matter and not rankings. In tests there are no tournaments to be won, so rankings take over, but where there are real tournaments to be won, that is where the real glory is and that is what teams strive for. Not to be ranked on some table, no one understands to begin with.
For One Days, any side, would rather win the world cup than be #1. Just as any side would rather win the World Cup than be #1 Fifa rankings. Even in tennis where being #1 has a lot of prestige any player would rather win the slams than be ranked #1.
The ODI table is as pointless as it comes. Being #1 is a side show, winning the World Cup the real stuff. Same for T20s no one cares about #1, the biggest T20 achievement is the World T20. With those bigger tournaments on offer teams don't really care about some ranking table which no one understands in the first place, and thus don't play to be #1 One Day or #1 T20 side.
Also the rankings are a very recent addition, in the past 15 years, if that. For long this is how tours have worked. Tests as the main event, One days as the side show consolation in Bilateral tours and continue today. T20 is totally lost and regardless of how many T20s are there, it will still mean nothing.
I did say teams play for # 1 in test alone. I mentioned nothing about them doing so for ODIs & T20s.
I'm very much aware of the other dynamics of ODIs that you mentioned. All i said was that bilateral ODI series are preparation for the world cup (or champions trophy (when it existed) whether you are in the early building stage 4 years out from the next tournament or as the case in now in September 2014, where every team now is fine tuning their squads to get their best XI & squad for the 2015 W-Cup.
Of course just like test, teams don't play each other in structured home/away basis in ODI series. It all gears towards the playing one set of teams who you think you gonna get money from (India) - so getting a fair ODI table or proper ranking of ODI teams is frustrating as it is in tests.
Regardless of your opinion of int'l T20, it has a world cup right now. So the format deserves at least 3 matches on tour just like how ODIs have done for years, so teams can have similar preparation.
When cricket was thought to me as a little boy, I have never understood the one-day series of a tour to be as you claim: "One days as the side show consolation in Bilateral tours".
I agree with ICC, there is no need to control T20, as ts not serious enough cricket. If teams suddenly want to play T10, why should the ICC feel the need to control it.
Don't be naive to the realities of world cricket my friend. We have had many examples with with many of weaker financial nations players since T20 took of globally i.e the west indians, NZ with Bond, SRI star players, Bangladesh recent with Sakib where the lure of T20 money & how boards handle their players going off to leagues is a very troubling issue.
Those boards never payed their players like AUS/ENG/SA & it is noticebale how generally these 3 countries players except for the recent Pietersen/ENG saga has turned down IPL/T20 league deals to stay with their national teams.
ICC failure to control T20 rise & its narrative globally still threatens the future of test cricket in certain parts of the world. It was their duty as a governing body to make it clear to everyone that test cricket should be 1st priority & T20s should be last, despite the obvious financial benefits & new audience it brings to the game.
But they have left it for individual boards to war with its players/player representatives over years & in many cases its only players good sense & patriotism has not seen many of them give up T20 cricket and become mercenaries as yet.
India created CPL? How and why is IPL "dumb"? What exactly makes IPL "dumb" and not Big Bash or B'desh T20 League or SL T20 league?
I am not a big fan of T20, but I like that T20 domestic leagues give players the chance to earn money, and have a good living the more the better, and IPL does it better than any other league. In terms of cricket, all leagues are pointless. But players earn good living so I am all for domestic leagues. Int'l T20 not so much.
I meant C-league instead of CPL, typo
IPL is dumb because its too Indian biased & has 4-player international restriction on the starting XIs. Thus making it a low quality T20 tournament glamorized to a grotesque level.
That rule makes no sense to have on a starting XI. IPL has the ability to be the cricket version of the premiership, la liga, bundesliga, serie a. Imagine if those top footy leagues had a int'l player cap of their starting XIs how foolish & low quality those leagues would.
Those leagues have restriction on how much international player they can have in a squad. If IPL allowed teams to be picked on merit, the tournament would have a proper global following like those football leagues & India/BCCI would still make as much money as they currently do if not more. Only then should it get an official ICC window.
But yet somehow the smart ICC gives the crazy C-league a "official window" & because IPL is so powerful, international cricket suddenly stops during IPL season because nobody wants player clash problems with IPL, even though it has a "unofficial window". Utter foolishness.
No other T20 league has the money to rival IPL, so what little they do to make money from their selves in their leagues is basically irrelevant.
Again I don't think that the no. of T20s will in anyway increase the improtance of T20s on a tour. They will remain the most meaningless of meaningless side shows. My problem is not too much T20 cricket or that they cloud the calender. My problem is T20 is not cricket, or not good enough cricket that should be played at the highest level. Its just dumbed down, six hitting competition, and shouldn't exist at the highest level.
If it was good enough cricket, I would say make room for Int'l T20 on the calender and let Tests, One Days and T20s, all exist on the Int'l calender. However T20 falls well short of what I would expect cricket at the Int'l level to be. T20s okay purely because players earn well, and we want that surely. Int'l T20 what is the point.[/QUOTE]
As i said, your want int'l t20 scrapped, but they have been may players, journalist in recent years who have given arguments for scrapping ODIs or changing it to some degree: - The future of ODIs | In Focus | Cricket News | ESPN Cricinfo
The common factor in all arguments is the fixture congestion & for reasons i've already stated, we just need more order to how teams play home/away & all three formats can exist at international level.
