How would you run cricket and the perfect aussie summer

[cricketnut14]

cricket has evolved significantly over the last decade with the emergence of 20/20 and the associate nations and i'd be interested in everyone's thoughts of where they would like the game to head.

here are my thoughts:

for the aussie domestic summer:

• sheffield shield format left as is (home & away, including a FINAL).
• not a fan of the current matador cup format and in all honesty, dare I say it, ditch it altogether as crowd attendances are poor etc. This could pose international selection problems and perhaps the beginning of the end of odi's.
• BBL - could cash in and play 14 rounds instead of the current 8 (genuine home & away) - which could include playing 2 games on 1 day and also eat into the now defunct matador cup time (as long as it isn't overkill).

internationally:

• 4 year cycle (9 nations) - i have taken away zimbabwe's test status (alternatively you could do a 5 year cycle and include zimbabwe and say ireland and perhaps some play off promote/relegate for next cycle)
• for all teams to play each other more evenly
• 2 visiting nations per summer and 2 tours per winter (full tour including tests/odi's/20-20)
• all test series to be a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 4 (no more 2 or 5 test series) with no country to play any more than 7 tests per summer.
• odi - 20/20 component not real fussed but lets say a maximum of 5 odi's and 3 20/20's.
• all bilateral series other than world cups (no tri series - crowds are poor anyways)
• a major event every year (odi wc, 20/20 wc, test c'ship grand final, and the vacant year for each major nation to tour 1 or 2 associates for 3 odi's and 1 20/20 giving them exposure)
• would give meaning to world rankings and to a lesser extent some players bloated averages
• a typical home summer would then entail 6-7 tests, 5-8 odis and 4-5 20/20's

eg. year 1 : aussies could play eng (4 tests), bang (3)
year 2: india (4), west indies (3)
year 3: south africa (4) , new zealand (3)
year 4: pakistan (3), sri lanka (3)
the host nation could then determine if & who they want to play in a 4 test series.
that way iconic series can still be kept and ICC could fixture a big gun/rival nation with a lesser like for all nations and there could be a genuine test ladder/rankings, perhaps leading to a final. the fixture could then be shuffled etc for the following cycle etc.

more interested to hear thoughts on how my ashes series don't include the 5 tests and if something like this could work.

 

[The_Reaper]

**** losing an Ashes test

 

[Belnakor]

**** losing an Ashes test

if anything i would look into playing 6-7 ashes tests

 

[Carbine Chaos]

if anything i would look into playing 6-7 ashes tests

A 7 Test series would be way too long. 5 is perfect, why change it?

 

[Van_Dyke]

Domestic Cricket Wise
Bring back the shield and ODD games together.
Keep the BBL as is- if it ain't broke, don't fix it
Put variety into the pitches. The WACA pitch shouldn't play like the Gabba pitch or the MCG pitch.
Ideally if possible
WACA- pace and bounce
Tassie- green tops
SCG- very spin friendly etc
Also, where possible, play games (ODD or shield) in rural areas, if the grounds are up to standard. The likes of Wagga and Newcastle in NSW. Mackay etc in QLD.
Have tests up north in winter time if possible. Play the likes of WI, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh up there.

 

[Kram]

The Shield Final is so pointless.

 

[Marklar_33]

The Shield Final is so pointless.

Great pun too

 

[Marklar_33]

2 Test series do serve a purpose. Australia should be trying to play northern, 2 Test series vs weak opposition every winter. It helps the struggling nations as they get experience, instead of being flogged in long series, or being ignored because no nation wants to take the financial hit of a long series vs a bad opponent

 

[Globular]

Developing the minnow nations would be great. Rather than another five match odi series against India bring out Afghanistan or Ireland for a tri series, even t20 tri series. Increase admin and coaching support and maybe even get rid of associate status so teams like the West Indies, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Ireland, Afghanistan, Scotland can get more test matches under their belt.

 

[western royboy]

Except for Ashes all tours should contest of 3 tests 5 ODI's & 2 T20.

We should utilise Cairns & Darwin in the dry season for emerging nations.

The Matador Cup is scrapped as a tournament and returns along side the Shield games.

No increase to the number of Big Bash franchises or number of games.

Scrap Sheffield Shield Final.

 

[The Passenger]

if anything i would look into playing 6-7 ashes tests

I wouldn't be surprised if ashes became every three summers after this year's debacle....

And to be honest - despite my strong support for the lower nations and associates - I'd be quite supportive I think. I feel this summer will mark a strong shift in cricket scheduling in this country

 

[Marklar_33]

The Matador Cup is clearly not run to draw crowds, right? So go ahead and play that mid winter way up north. Invite PNG and HK as well. Gets it out of a congested summer calendar!

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

This is a draft, and will keep getting edited.

Starting on the international scene.

1. A clearer pathway for Associates to gain Test status
   1. Regular FC games against professional opponents. e.g. The Shield winners touring Ireland in our winter. This won't make money, but would provide a bit more of a grounding for the next tier .
   2. Make it clear that a good record (wins, draws, avoiding drubbings) against these teams will lead to playing "A" teams and the low end of the Test heirachy in FC games.
   3. Make it clear that a good record in those, along with a suitable FC structure (even if that means entering another nation's system), will result in Test cricket
2. All Test teams play all other Test teams on a regular basis. Zimbabwe played four Tests in 2014, three against Bangladesh, and zero in 2015. Failure to play every team both home and away (neutral where security makes this necessary) in a period of four years disqualifies teams from playing 50 and 20 over World Cups. (Some leeway in that four years, to cover the fact that sometimes a series might finish a few days or weeks later than it did four years earlier. If the number of Test nations grows beyond about 12, it may need to be extended to a five year period.) Yes, it means we will get summers where both touring teams are low in the rankings. We just have to suck that up for the good of the game globally, or the game will die and die quickly.
3. A Test Championship finals series, during which no other internationals and no professional domestic T20s are to take place on the days of play. Make the global focus the Test finals. Points for qualifying to be equal for the results against each opponent, giving extra incentive for the big nations to play the smaller ones. It also makes the table easier for fans to understand than the weighted system used now in the rankings.
4. Tours which do not include Tests only to be allowed under the following circumstances:
   1. World Cups (50 or 20 over)
   2. An Associate or Affiliate is playing on an equal footing as Full members (e.g. the Zimbabwe v Afghanistan series)
   3. A "Test only" tour was played earlier and the 50 and 20 over games are simply compensating for not having been played then
5. Bi-lateral ODI and T20I series to be played in a "best of" format if over more than three matches. So, if seven ODIs are scheduled, numbers 5,6 and 7 are only played if required. As much as anything, this is anti-corruption measure, to try and remove the dead rubbers.
6. Funding. It is true that India provides a large share of the cash to the ICC. However, only BCCI, CA and ECB are capable of survival without ICC funds. Money won't solve all the problems in the West Indies or Zimbabwe (the two most vulnerable) but would keep the likes of Sri Lanka from withdrawing from test cricket - a very real possibility.
7. Two FC games (proper FC games, not this 14 v 14 or two day rubbish) before a Test series.
8. Bring in the ICC's proposed bat limitations that were rejected. Playing conditions can be added for T20 to allow the brutal bats.

The home season, and this will not meet with everyone's approval (I doubt the above does either)

1. Play the Tests in the peak summer period. i.e. Almost swapping the ODI and start of Test seasons. This may not be possible v New Zealand and South Africa due to their home summers. (Calendar not fleshed out yet, and I get the horrible feeling the gap required to fit in FC games might make it unworkable). Boxing Day and New Years Tests remain as is but would be closer to the start of the Tests rather than the end.
2. Seven Tests a summer. Five v England and 2 v someone else. Four and three most other summers, the case could be made for 5 v South Africa in the short term if not for their home season. The 6th and 7th Test to be shared between Hobart, Canberra, Gold Coast and if the oval is made up to standard, Newcastle.
3. Each state to host two Shield games a year outside the capital city. CA might need to relax their rules on FC grounds a little for this to happen. As we saw, even Victoria doesn't have a second FC capable ground under the current rules. Ideally, these games would be played when no international cricket is on TV to maximise the impact of games in areas that don't get international cricket and enhance the chances of big name players being seen live in regional centres.
4. The Shield final to be retained, and stay over five days, but played in neutral territory. Canberra seems the obvious choice, but perhaps Alice Springs would be suitable as well. Hopefully roads would be less common in neutral territory.
5. BBL to be played in October (Feb-March when Tests are played early in the summer). I know this means a hit to finances, but it means it is not competing with home internationals or breaking up vital Shield games in the middle of a Test series. All mainstream sport is largely a television event anyway, and the BBL is on at night. It might need to be a 6:30 start Sunday to Thursday for kids to watch. No new teams or extra matches at this point. Playing it outside the home internationals also means extra time where cricket is prominent.
6. The return of top end Tests in our winter. Darwin, Cairns, Townsville to host the tours. (is there somewhere in northern WA that would be suitable? The likes of Broome and Port Headland are not big enough, though maybe could host a tour game - but the cost of getting a ground up to scratch means it probably wouldn't be worth it)
7. The two FC games for visitors before a Test series to include Australia A, played in a cities not getting a Test that summer.
8. If the ListA competition is to maintain a "tournament format", the games need to spread around to more cities. In a lot of ways the format is fine, it means players are not switching between forms of the game all the time and it more closely resembles multi-lateral ODI series. However, it means playing surfaces that are simply too small for the modern game get used a lot. North Sydney may be picturesque and a nice place to play, but other than Eden Park its not really preparation for international cricket. In other ways, playing ListA Saturday, Shield Sunday to Wednesday, is better as it means all teams play home and away.
9. Given the number players that NSW produce and export, consider splitting Sydney away from NSW. The Sydney team would then play two games in outer Sydney rather than regional areas. I'm not advocating the idea, it goes against my conservatism regarding the true form of the game but it should be considered. NSW minus Sydney has a population around that of SA (and Newcastle alone isn't far behind Tasmania) so should still be able to compete, and would pick up a lot of surplus Sydney players.

 

[saint_]

Pitches shouldn't be made to have declarations. Design them to last four days but have the 5th day if there is bad weather.

 

[Van_Dyke]

This is a draft, and will keep getting edited.

Starting on the international scene.

1. A clearer pathway for Associates to gain Test status
   1. Regular FC games against professional opponents. e.g. The Shield winners touring Ireland in our winter. This won't make money, but would provide a bit more of a grounding for the next tier .
   2. Make it clear that a good record (wins, draws, avoiding drubbings) against these teams will lead to playing "A" teams and the low end of the Test heirachy in FC games.
   3. Make it clear that a good record in those, along with a suitable FC structure (even if that means entering another nation's system), will result in Test cricket
2. All Test teams play all other Test teams on a regular basis. Zimbabwe played four Tests in 2014, three against Bangladesh, and zero in 2015. Failure to play every team both home and away (neutral where security makes this necessary) in a period of four years disqualifies teams from playing 50 and 20 over World Cups. (Some leeway in that four years, to cover the fact that sometimes a series might finish a few days or weeks later than it did four years earlier. If the number of Test nations grows beyond about 12, it may need to be extended to a five year period.) Yes, it means we will get summers where both touring teams are low in the rankings. We just have to suck that up for the good of the game globally, or the game will die and die quickly.
3. A Test Championship finals series, during which no other internationals and no professional domestic T20s are to take place on the days of play. Make the global focus the Test finals. Points for qualifying to be equal for the results against each opponent, giving extra incentive for the big nations to play the smaller ones. It also makes the table easier for fans to understand than the weighted system used now in the rankings.
4. Tours which do not include Tests only to be allowed under the following circumstances:
   1. World Cups (50 or 20 over)
   2. An Associate or Affiliate is playing on an equal footing as Full members (e.g. the Zimbabwe v Afghanistan series)
   3. A "Test only" tour was played earlier and the 50 and 20 over games are simply compensating for not having been played then
5. Bi-lateral ODI and T20I series to be played in a "best of" format if over more than three matches. So, if seven ODIs are scheduled, numbers 5,6 and 7 are only played if required. As much as anything, this is anti-corruption measure, to try and remove the dead rubbers.
6. Funding. It is true that India provides a large share of the cash to the ICC. However, only BCCI, CA and ECB are capable of survival without ICC funds. Money won't solve all the problems in the West Indies or Zimbabwe (the two most vulnerable) but would keep the likes of Sri Lanka from withdrawing from test cricket - a very real possibility.
7. Two FC games (proper FC games, not this 14 v 14 or two day rubbish) before a Test series.
8. Bring in the ICC's proposed bat limitations that were rejected. Playing conditions can be added for T20 to allow the brutal bats.

The home season, and this will not meet with everyone's approval (I doubt the above does either)

1. Play the Tests in the peak summer period. i.e. Almost swapping the ODI and start of Test seasons. This may not be possible v New Zealand and South Africa due to their home summers. (Calendar not fleshed out yet, and I get the horrible feeling the gap required to fit in FC games might make it unworkable). Boxing Day and New Years Tests remain as is but would be closer to the start of the Tests rather than the end.
2. Seven Tests a summer. Five v England and 2 v someone else. Four and three most other summers, the case could be made for 5 v South Africa in the short term if not for their home season. The 6th and 7th Test to be shared between Hobart, Canberra, Gold Coast and if the oval is made up to standard, Newcastle.
3. Each state to host two Shield games a year outside the capital city. CA might need to relax their rules on FC grounds a little for this to happen. As we saw, even Victoria doesn't have a second FC capable ground under the current rules. Ideally, these games would be played when no international cricket is on TV to maximise the impact of games in areas that don't get international cricket and enhance the chances of big name players being seen live in regional centres.
4. The Shield final to be retained, and stay over five days, but played in neutral territory. Canberra seems the obvious choice, but perhaps Alice Springs would be suitable as well. Hopefully roads would be less common in neutral territory.
5. BBL to be played in October (Feb-March when Tests are played early in the summer). I know this means a hit to finances, but it means it is not competing with home internationals or breaking up vital Shield games in the middle of a Test series. All mainstream sport is largely a television event anyway, and the BBL is on at night. It might need to be a 6:30 start Sunday to Thursday for kids to watch. No new teams or extra matches at this point. Playing it outside the home internationals also means extra time where cricket is prominent.
6. The return of top end Tests in our winter. Darwin, Cairns, Townsville to host the tours. (is there somewhere in northern WA that would be suitable? The likes of Broome and Port Headland are not big enough, though maybe could host a tour game - but the cost of getting a ground up to scratch means it probably wouldn't be worth it)
7. The two FC games for visitors before a Test series to include Australia A, played in a cities not getting a Test that summer.
8. If the ListA competition is to maintain a "tournament format", the games need to spread around to more cities. In a lot of ways the format is fine, it means players are not switching between forms of the game all the time and it more closely resembles multi-lateral ODI series. However, it means playing surfaces that are simply too small for the modern game get used a lot. North Sydney may be picturesque and a nice place to play, but other than Eden Park its not really preparation for international cricket. In other ways, playing ListA Saturday, Shield Sunday to Wednesday, is better as it means all teams play home and away.
9. Given the number players that NSW produce and export, consider splitting Sydney away from NSW. The Sydney team would then play two games in outer Sydney rather than regional areas. I'm not advocating the idea, it goes against my conservatism regarding the true form of the game but it should be considered. NSW minus Sydney has a population around that of SA (and Newcastle alone isn't far behind Tasmania) so should still be able to compete, and would pick up a lot of surplus Sydney players.

On Northern WA, I can not think of a ground that would be up to standard. I'd be completely shocked if Port Hedland had one and I'm pretty sure Broome doesn't. Even Karratha, last time I was there, I can't even recall a turf wicket anywhere around.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

On Northern WA, I can not think of a ground that would be up to standard. I'd be completely shocked if Port Hedland had one and I'm pretty sure Broome doesn't. Even Karratha, last time I was there, I can't even recall a turf wicket anywhere around.

I thought that might be the case, but considered it worth asking.

 

[Stevi_Tigers]

try to have one decent test nation tour here every summer England/south Africa/india/Pakistan/new zealand for 5/4/4/3 test series I would then have lesser nations tour earlier so the windies/Bangladesh/Ireland/Zimbabwe play 2 tests in Darwin and canberra

 

[imadodgyumpire]

Reduced Sheffield Shield calendar. Start after the footy, finish prior to the boxing day or bbl. After the bbl, then have the one day tournament as they have it now.

I don't know if it's allowed. But even have one Test series. To allow smaller Test countries to come here, which then may include new countries. But have them turn up more often. Every year, second year?

I'm a fan of a reduced Ashes series.

 

[cricketnut14]

This is a draft, and will keep getting edited.

Starting on the international scene.

1. A clearer pathway for Associates to gain Test status
   1. Regular FC games against professional opponents. e.g. The Shield winners touring Ireland in our winter. This won't make money, but would provide a bit more of a grounding for the next tier .
   2. Make it clear that a good record (wins, draws, avoiding drubbings) against these teams will lead to playing "A" teams and the low end of the Test heirachy in FC games.
   3. Make it clear that a good record in those, along with a suitable FC structure (even if that means entering another nation's system), will result in Test cricket
2. All Test teams play all other Test teams on a regular basis. Zimbabwe played four Tests in 2014, three against Bangladesh, and zero in 2015. Failure to play every team both home and away (neutral where security makes this necessary) in a period of four years disqualifies teams from playing 50 and 20 over World Cups. (Some leeway in that four years, to cover the fact that sometimes a series might finish a few days or weeks later than it did four years earlier. If the number of Test nations grows beyond about 12, it may need to be extended to a five year period.) Yes, it means we will get summers where both touring teams are low in the rankings. We just have to suck that up for the good of the game globally, or the game will die and die quickly.
3. A Test Championship finals series, during which no other internationals and no professional domestic T20s are to take place on the days of play. Make the global focus the Test finals. Points for qualifying to be equal for the results against each opponent, giving extra incentive for the big nations to play the smaller ones. It also makes the table easier for fans to understand than the weighted system used now in the rankings.
4. Tours which do not include Tests only to be allowed under the following circumstances:
   1. World Cups (50 or 20 over)
   2. An Associate or Affiliate is playing on an equal footing as Full members (e.g. the Zimbabwe v Afghanistan series)
   3. A "Test only" tour was played earlier and the 50 and 20 over games are simply compensating for not having been played then
5. Bi-lateral ODI and T20I series to be played in a "best of" format if over more than three matches. So, if seven ODIs are scheduled, numbers 5,6 and 7 are only played if required. As much as anything, this is anti-corruption measure, to try and remove the dead rubbers.
6. Funding. It is true that India provides a large share of the cash to the ICC. However, only BCCI, CA and ECB are capable of survival without ICC funds. Money won't solve all the problems in the West Indies or Zimbabwe (the two most vulnerable) but would keep the likes of Sri Lanka from withdrawing from test cricket - a very real possibility.
7. Two FC games (proper FC games, not this 14 v 14 or two day rubbish) before a Test series.
8. Bring in the ICC's proposed bat limitations that were rejected. Playing conditions can be added for T20 to allow the brutal bats.

The home season, and this will not meet with everyone's approval (I doubt the above does either)

1. Play the Tests in the peak summer period. i.e. Almost swapping the ODI and start of Test seasons. This may not be possible v New Zealand and South Africa due to their home summers. (Calendar not fleshed out yet, and I get the horrible feeling the gap required to fit in FC games might make it unworkable). Boxing Day and New Years Tests remain as is but would be closer to the start of the Tests rather than the end.
2. Seven Tests a summer. Five v England and 2 v someone else. Four and three most other summers, the case could be made for 5 v South Africa in the short term if not for their home season. The 6th and 7th Test to be shared between Hobart, Canberra, Gold Coast and if the oval is made up to standard, Newcastle.
3. Each state to host two Shield games a year outside the capital city. CA might need to relax their rules on FC grounds a little for this to happen. As we saw, even Victoria doesn't have a second FC capable ground under the current rules. Ideally, these games would be played when no international cricket is on TV to maximise the impact of games in areas that don't get international cricket and enhance the chances of big name players being seen live in regional centres.
4. The Shield final to be retained, and stay over five days, but played in neutral territory. Canberra seems the obvious choice, but perhaps Alice Springs would be suitable as well. Hopefully roads would be less common in neutral territory.
5. BBL to be played in October (Feb-March when Tests are played early in the summer). I know this means a hit to finances, but it means it is not competing with home internationals or breaking up vital Shield games in the middle of a Test series. All mainstream sport is largely a television event anyway, and the BBL is on at night. It might need to be a 6:30 start Sunday to Thursday for kids to watch. No new teams or extra matches at this point. Playing it outside the home internationals also means extra time where cricket is prominent.
6. The return of top end Tests in our winter. Darwin, Cairns, Townsville to host the tours. (is there somewhere in northern WA that would be suitable? The likes of Broome and Port Headland are not big enough, though maybe could host a tour game - but the cost of getting a ground up to scratch means it probably wouldn't be worth it)
7. The two FC games for visitors before a Test series to include Australia A, played in a cities not getting a Test that summer.
8. If the ListA competition is to maintain a "tournament format", the games need to spread around to more cities. In a lot of ways the format is fine, it means players are not switching between forms of the game all the time and it more closely resembles multi-lateral ODI series. However, it means playing surfaces that are simply too small for the modern game get used a lot. North Sydney may be picturesque and a nice place to play, but other than Eden Park its not really preparation for international cricket. In other ways, playing ListA Saturday, Shield Sunday to Wednesday, is better as it means all teams play home and away.
9. Given the number players that NSW produce and export, consider splitting Sydney away from NSW. The Sydney team would then play two games in outer Sydney rather than regional areas. I'm not advocating the idea, it goes against my conservatism regarding the true form of the game but it should be considered. NSW minus Sydney has a population around that of SA (and Newcastle alone isn't far behind Tasmania) so should still be able to compete, and would pick up a lot of surplus Sydney players.

interesting read, alot to like .

not sure about the "best of" bi-lateral odi series though.

so if its say for example the upcoming aust v india series and the scoreline is 3-0 after the 3rd odi - no games?
it's not as if the cricketers will be doing anything else
what about the host city who has the 4th and 5th odi's?
what about the fans who have bought tickets etc ?
it's also not as if other fixtured games will be bought forward.

 

[strewthcobber]

If ODIs are deemed worthy of keeping...

I would work closely with NZ to reinstate tri-series ODI tournament every year.

Round robin hosted between both countries, with both countries travelling across the ditch + who ever the third country playing in both. Top two teams play finals in the highest placed home country.

Share revenue? Could even see if a regular 4 team tourny could work

 

[Natho]

Need more emphasis on shield cricket. Don't know how but anyway.

 

[Parquet Court]

tours to consist of tests and t20s only. send the ODIs to the glue factory.

 

[The Passenger]

1. All Test teams play all other Test teams on a regular basis.

I think what might happen is the opposite and there are only a few bi lateral series. Test cricket might become more of a "tournament" style fixture.

I was reading today about turning test cricket into a yearly Davis cup style tournament. It made sense, because if Australia plays - say - Sri Lanka in a 3-test series then interest is pretty low. But if that were the semi finals of a "test tournament" then interest would surely be quite high...

Bi lateral series could still be arranged outside of the tournament, but really Australia is only going to play England, India, south Africa and occasionally new Zealand. England's interest in test cricket centres almost entirely on only Australia and India.

The idea of each nation playing more evenly against other nations is great until you see the crowd and lack of interest in some of these series. People just don't care about some of these series and the lack of context they have.

I don't have the exact idea structured in my head, but you'd be looking at something like 8 teams playing in knockout 3 test series, so the finalists would play 9 tests. Scheduling is tricky as the seasons don't align for Northern and Southern Hemisphere teams, but I'm sure it could be worked on. Then you have a handful of bilateral series scheduled around the test tournament.

The bilateral series need to be ones of genuine interest. The ones I've mentioned above. Rivals like Pakistan and Sri Lanka would still be scheduled. Series like Australia v Pakistan or Sri Lanka, or New Zealand v West Indies would go the way of the dinosaur, and the only times those teams would play would be when drawn against each other in the tournament. People just don't care for those sorts of series any more, and I think the only way they will care is if it's a series where the winners advances to the next stage of a tournament.

Bigger nations like India, England and Australia - who typically like to play about 10 tests in a calendar year - could "pencil" in a second bilateral series against another team just in case they were knocked out at the QF stage (thus only playing 3 tests in the tournament).

A test tournament has been proposed many many times and thrown out, but I think it's the only way forward to rekindle some interest in test cricket because really, how much interest is there in seeing Pakistan and New Zealand play in a test series with no context? People have voted - those types of series are basically run at a financial loss.

But the $$$ and how they are spread around is crucial, because at the moment many boards are basically insolvent. It needs to be ensured that lower test nations income is not reduced from the current levels, so there needs to be some form of profit-sharing, rather than the home teams board just taking in all the profits.

 

[Hellgood]

The Shield Final is so pointless.

As a spectacle maybe, but I see no harm whatsoever in it as a development tool for individual cricketers playing in a tense environment.

I think we need to keep it.

 

[JackFlash]

The future fixturing will all revolve around the BBL. With over a million people attending matches this season it is certain some sort of expansion will occur (NZ teams) and a sacrifice will be made (the end of ODI's?) Where the Tests fit into tall of this is anyone's guess. Business works around money and if the money is T20 then we will see a whole lot more of it. As cricket fans we are going to see an almighty upheaval and not everyone will like it, but the public have spoken with bums on seats and that as they say will be that!