Monday, 10 January 2011

Is it too radical...

Is it too radical to pay out and wipe ALL CA test contracts and say to the players: "we are picking the Test team V Sri Lanka on performances in Shield cricket between now and then"?

Is it too radical to insist that all Shield teams field at least 3 players under 21?

Is it too radical to insist that all shield teams can field at maximum 3 31 year olds?

Is it too radical to say to teams that no matter how well they do in the big bash and how much money they make in India in the Champions league that the winnings will be pooled between the competition?

Is it too radical to ask players to pledge allegiance to Shield (and possible) Test cricket in front of T20?

Methinks not.


  1. Re contracts; yes I think it's too radical. 30 or so players are on CA contracts, period. They're not test or ODI contracts. Hodge bloody has one! This helps states financially so I'm fine with that. It's highly likely a few players will either get a run or not in Sri Lanka based on the rest of the shield season anyway.

    Re age requirements; love it! The IPL is assisting India in the short versions by having mandatory Indian contingent as well as age requirements. I think this could work wonders for developing shield players. I think it's a bit too much to limit max age at 31 - especially at 3 players. Youth benefit so much from having experience around I think it could be either 5 players over 31 or lift the age to 34 and limit it to 3. You have to be careful that the shield quality isn't lowered as this will adversely affect the test team. Some argue currently (well, at least Ponting) that the quality is already down. From what I've seen this season; especially with batting, this appears to be the case.

    Re pooling cash; CA get 10% of the amount Aus players go for in the IPL. I think the respective states should get this - not CA. I think states should be rewarded for success so I can't get behind pooling the money. You do the hard work you deserve the reward. This is not communist China. If it were doctors would be paid the same as shoe shiners but have sacrificed years of their lives to a profession. Why should a state team going nowhere gain support from Vic or NSW who do the hard yards as well?

    Re allegiance; how do you do this when the big bash is enforced on players? 2/3 of what state players play is limited overs cricket. It's odd that while there's a 50 over world cup Aus is fielding a 45 split innings comp at domestic level. Get rid of this crap and then you've only got 20/20 and the real stuff. It's then easier to have players who specialise in one or the other (but some will play both because they're that good) and your allegiance stuff is a forgone conclusion.

  2. yes (and no for proposed selection process)
    yes- this isn't cricket socialism, just like at my grommets school the "EVERYONES A CAPTAIN" attitude rewards those not worthy.
    yes- players won't perform if forced to play a format they aren't interested in.

    I totally agree with the elimination of the middle format Lefty. it is done, dusted, and in the way.

  3. I'm not sure about radical but it certainly is gnarly.

    The test team should be picked on shield and county form. ODI and T20 form means jack all on a test strip with a test ball.

    The age requirement argument, especially the upper limit smells like cum, blood and fingernails. Using that logic over the years we would be risking losing players to the national side like thingo and whats his face with the grey hair. And you know who.

    I'm not so sure about the distribution of funds and tend to agree with Lefty that the teams should be rewarded for their efforts. Shield prize money could be supplemented by CA out of the earnings from IPL subsidies to raise the incentive for investment into the long form of the game.

    Test players should be omitted from T20 internationals. Full stop.

  4. The funds issue is very interesting as it has shit loads of aspects to it. There's the individual player element - especially re 20/20 where the IPL brings great riches to some. Daniel Christian went for $900m - this for a bloke who couldn't hold his redback spot for the last 2 years.
    There's the collective team issue - again prevalent in 20/20 via the Champions League where a team can make $2m for hitting more sixes than other teams.
    There's the board or administration issue. The Big Bash is drawing so many people that would not otherwise watch state cricket and therefore the format has generated revenue grounds and boards would not have otherwise got at all.

    Like with pokies where a percentage of profits goes to grants that clubs like mine can apply for, I can see what Sledgie means with distribution for a greater good. I think profits from something like the big bash could be distributed in different ways but how to ensure it is used to promote proper technique development and funnel kids into longer form cricket is the key for mine.

    For as long as countries compete in 20/20 unfortunately some players will do both. I agree, Nos, that test players shouldn't be playing 20/20 but Aus was lambasted for not taking it seriously so I think they're hand is forced a bit. With bowlers in particular your best test bowlers will often be your best 20/20 bowlers. Your hitters like Haddin will also be perfect for 20/20 and don't forget how Hussey was able to adapt.

    I just keep hoping 20/20 is a faze that will die - especially due to over-saturation. It's one thing to have a format that non-cricket lovers like - which I can accept and would not want to prevent people from getting something they enjoy - but it's another to sustain 2 limited over formats as well as reduce the amount of test cricket. If you can't supplement then bad luck! Since the world test ranking came in South Africa, England, Aus and India have all played about 45 test matches. Sri Lanka (4th position) had played 26! Not good enough!

  5. I notice you dropped yourself down the batting order this week Lefty. Is that cos it's the 2nd dig or did you wimp out?

    Just kidding matey...

  6. Re: Contracts, I agree, but wanted to provoke some thought on the issue.
    I do think we need to expose our most talented youth to the best level of domestic cricket possible.
    I think that 3 players over 31 in a team IS enough to pass on experience, remembering that people can pass experiences down from around the team as coaches as well as the playing group.

    The amount of money available to teams that can win the big bash and consequently the Champions league is enough to shift the focus of States towards the shorter form of the game, this is why I put forward the idea of sharing the winnings....the players could get their bonuses still but the focus of the states CANNOT be allowed to be any form of limited overs cricket.

    Communist China Lefty? I know you support the AFL...maybe I could send an email on your behalf to Mr Demetriou letting him know that the EGALITARIAN way that he is running the competition is a bit too far LEFT for you and that there should be no annual distribution and as a consequence you would be happy to see that the teams with smaller amounts of liquidity SHOULD be allowed to die....while we are at it I think I should pass on the thought that the salary cap is a little bit communistic as well and you would prefer to see Collingwood, Essendon, Adelaide, Richmond or Hawthorn win EVERY Grand Final from now to eternity.

    Commit to T20 in India and revoke your right to play Test cricket......don't like it people of Australia??? I don't care.

  7. Nospmas and Stoph, no need to comment on how good it would be to see Collingwood win the cup each year, it's a fantasy that can't happen. And anyway in regard to Stoph's allegiance....well lets just say I expect him to follow whoever wins the premiership in that year! :)

  8. i'll spot you a slab of your preferred Sledgey if my Pies aren't there this September... i'll take a slab of yours if they win the GF (in 2 or more tries!).

  9. Don't know what happened to the post I wrote! Oh well.

    The game you're referring to Nos was chasing junk runs in the 2nd dig trying to get as many points as possible. I'm not a hitter so........

    I am thinking about dropping down to 4 though. I haven't got us off to a good start at the top so I figure something has to change.

  10. Yeh I saw that Lefty. I have to admit to checking up on your exploits.

    I noticed you get bowled a lot (always) which for an opener screams of poor early footwork. I suffered from that a while ago and had to keep reminding myself to get moving early.

    I even tried short steps as the bowler got into his delivery stride which I found helped as it got my feet moving and made me want to get back into the right position.

    Watch the ball. I like to see if I can read the gold writing on it early on. Or you could try batting out of your crease to shorten the bowling up so there is more chance of a missed one going over the stumps.

    This has been Nos' Nonsense.

  11. All good advice mate. Considering I rarely used to get bowled and have opened for the previous 2 seasons it's a bit of a mystery to me. So far I've yorked myself twice (poor footwork as you say), played the wrong line once, got bowled through the gate twice, had a bizarre scenario where the ball hit my back foot while it was in the air and somehow came back to hit the stumps, had a brain freeze where I let a ball go that smashed into off stump and got done by a couple of good balls as well.

    I thought about moving the back foot up to off stump (currently batting both feet on middle) and my front foot slightly forward but it's taking so much concentration to develop an unnatural movement! On Tues night I just batted from instinct and didn't get out once in 45 minutes. It's really seeing off that difficult early period til your feet get moving and then you're away. I just haven't spent enough time at the crease to get going. Last year I was good for an hour so I was doing my job as an opener.

    I have started batting just on the crease with part of my back foot behind it and it felt good Tues night. I think I want to just remain still as the bowler comes in and then have one movement - forward or back. I'm trying to really simplify the way I operate at the crease and I don't want to make big changes with 3 games left. Really, I can't do any worse than I have so far so hopefully keeping things really simple will help. A mate made a good point about how Hussey bats; very clear on what he does to any given ball. If it's short he pulls/cuts, if it's full he drives. Sounds obvious but it's so easy to complicate batting without realising it I reckon.

  12. Obviously remaining still is the ideal situation but if you are moving too late ot not enough a bit of early subtle movement can help.

    Being shorter I found I wasn't getting anywhere near a long enough stride in and was meeting the ball at the wrong place. My eye isn't what it used to be and I was thick edging a lot. I was caught at gully a few times.

    I just found slight movements made me want to stay balanced rather than leaning on my bat or back leg so my first real movemement was more deliberate and effective.

    I certainly have never been accused of leaving too may balls.

  13. Yeah, as long as your head is still when the ball is bowled you're fine. I agree with what you're saying. When I've shadow batted the movements come easily and feel good but as soon as I'm in the nets it doesn't come naturally. Clearly it's not instinctive. I realise that it's all repetition - just like any work you do with your batting - but it's too late to try to get it right for the middle this season.

    One of the fellas at the club is keen to do some ball machine work over winter down his way in indoor nets so I'm looking to the off season as an opportunity to really refine my technique. In the mean time I guess I'll just have to keep telling myself to move my feet!