Buchanan's awful plan

[BoyBrumby]

I still think Buchanan's taking the piss at everyone else's ability to produce quality cricketers

Well if Buchanan was fishing, he's landed Ray Mali. From cricinfo: ICC president "receptive" to Johnny's ramblings.

 

[chris.hinton]

New zealand should abolish their domestic comps, and form 2 super teams and join the Pura cup give it a better feel

 

[Craig]

New zealand should abolish their domestic comps, and form 2 super teams and join the Pura cup give it a better feel

About as likely as Ricky Ponting quiting Australia and moving to England tomorrow.

 

[Scmods]

I haven't read the entire thread so forgive me if I'm rehashing old comments.

But it's possibly the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Why are we the problem? Why should we suffer to boost other incompetent countries? The ICC should tell the other nations to get their damn act together like we did long ago if they want to compete with us. The difference between us and everyone else is that we don't have our government interfereing and we don't have 17 million teams in the domestic comp diluting the talent pool.

If the ICC even consider this idea for half a second, Cricket Australia can and will tell them exactly where they can stick it.

 

[silentstriker]

The idea is dumb, but replacing Test cricket with clubs has potential - even though it will never happen for a million reasons.

 

[silentstriker]

Fair call. Just saying it would lose something for me if it wasn't the best one country could marshall against another's. I'd personally prefer to see a torrid, attritional World Cup Final instead of a technically perfect exhibition with nothing on the line, not even pride.

But each to his own.

What do you mean nothing on the line? How many people watch domestic sports finals? Can you seriously say there is nothing on the line? Are players that play for the Sydney Swans always born in Sydney? Are they all even all born in Australia? Does it mean any less to people who watch it?

Strongly disagree. International sport (especially cricket, one of the few sports left where international level still retains any level of significance) is a wonderful outlet for patriotism. As long as it doesn't extend to bigotry or racism, I've got no qualm with it.

Can you tell me, with a straight face, that Team 1 vs. Team 2 would be just as enjoyable as Australia vs. India, 'quality of cricket'* notwithstanding?

Yes, for me it would be equally enjoyable as well. And that is regardless of quality - the fact that it would be undoubtedly higher than the massacre that's going on in Australia right now is all the better.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

What do you mean nothing on the line? How many people watch domestic sports finals? Can you seriously say there is nothing on the line? Are players that play for the Sydney Swans always born in Sydney? Are they all even all born in Australia? Does it mean any less to people who watch it?

No, it doesn't. And yes, there's a hell of a lot on the line. But does it matter whether trading is involved? No. Why? It's domestic. It's internal. As far as I care, it's in thrall to the international scene (though you cunningly cited AFL as an example, which is a glaring anomaly in this regard). But the core concept of international sport is that it is a country's best against another country's best, and with that arrives a deep sense of parochialism. Buchanan's proposals pervert this on an international scene - which has never been seen before, in ANY sport. To me, the result of a match IS significant and is equally important, if not more, than the aesthetic appeal of the match taking place. To me, the emotional investment that goes into thisfrom all present - which is exacerbated by the patriotic element - constitutes a good deal of the enjoyment that cricket gives to me. It serves as the prime discriminator between watching domestic and international sport, as far as I can see. It serves as a harmless and viable outlet for one to exercise pride in what their country has produced, rather than what their province has bought.

Why are Ashes contests so keenly followed? Why is India/Pakistan so avidly watched? Because there's a nationalistic slant to them - whether one likes it or not. The players know this all too well, and they lift as a result. The cricket lifts. The interest in the game is unprecedented. Often the gap between sides is reduced. Needless to say, the crowd benefits.

Moreover, beyond funding facilities et cetera, it keeps money and buying power out of the game as much as possible. And to introduce it would be far worse a crime than any short-term mismatches happening at the moment.

This 'trading' scheme I would heartily advocate on any scale in any domestic competition in the world. Just leave international sport alone, otherwise it becomes a misnomer of the worst possible kind.

Yes, for me it would be equally enjoyable as well. And that is regardless of quality - the fact that it would be undoubtedly higher than the massacre that's going on in Australia right now is all the better.

You can't deny the quality of cricket being displayed - at least by one side. Do you mean the uncertainty of the match result? Becasue that can be brought about from 'low-quality' cricket, too - dropped catches, run-outs and terrible balls being spooned to fielders. Which was my original point.

Do you not derive enjoyment from the emotions, acknowledged and unacknowledged, on the field? We've seen matches - The 'Superfarce' ()- where the very best players are cobbled together without any commonality to unite them, and the 'quality of cricket' (by your definition, and mine) demonstrated was poor to say the least.

 

[silentstriker]

But the core concept of international sport is that it is a country's best against another country's best, and with that arrives a deep sense of parochialism.

Yes, but if its a league format, you'd think less of it as international sport - just a sport with clubs that are sometimes based in different countries, and sometimes not.

Buchanan's proposals pervert this on an international scene - which has never been seen before, in ANY sport. To me, the result of a match IS significant and is equally important, if not more, than the aesthetic appeal of the match taking place. To me, the emotional investment that goes into thisfrom all present - which is exacerbated by the patriotic element - constitutes a good deal of the enjoyment that cricket gives to me. It serves as the prime discriminator between watching domestic and international sport, as far as I can see. It serves as a harmless and viable outlet for one to exercise pride in what their country has produced, rather than what their province has bought.

Even if the setup harms the long term future of the game?

Why are Ashes contests so keenly followed? Why is India/Pakistan so avidly watched?

Lots of games in domestic leagues are as closely followed - except the effigy burning part. And several exciting series do not make up for a severely lop sided system where there is one team way ahead and another way behind, and the rest play exciting cricket with each other knowing that they are just fighting for the bits left behind by the big dogs.

Moreover, beyond funding facilities et cetera, it keeps money and buying power out of the game as much as possible. And to introduce it would be far worse a crime than any short-term mismatches happening at the moment.

It's not short term. For more than three decades it has been one of of two teams clearly at the top and everyone else clearly playing catch up.

You can't deny the quality of cricket being displayed - at least by one side.

Quality does not mean anything. If you play a Test side vs. my middle school XI, one side will be playing high quality cricket, but the cricket itself will be deadly boring. Most people would rather see the middle school XI play another middle school to have an exciting game. Ideally, you'd have both high quality cricket and be exciting and closely fought...and the best way to ensure that is through a club system.

Do you not derive enjoyment from the emotions, acknowledged and unacknowledged, on the field? We've seen matches - The 'Superfarce' ()- where the very best players are cobbled together without any commonality to unite them, and the 'quality of cricket' (by your definition, and mine) demonstrated was poor to say the least.

To say players would not give their all for their clubs is plain misinformed. Aside from pride in ones performance, it would be their lively-hood thats at stake. As Goughy said earlier, the 'playing for ones country' aspect is highly overrated.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Let the record state that it wasn't me who started the 'Richard-TEC' format of debate.

Even if the setup harms the long term future of the game?

How? It's survived since 1877, as far as I can tell.

It's not short term. For more than three decades it has been one of of two teams clearly at the top and everyone else clearly playing catch up.

The game's more homogenised these days, and qualities once seen as unique are nowadays universally accessible - such as reverse swing, fielding and fitness. The only separator I can see is the quality of facilities that allow countries to mass-produce talent - which would be simple enough to implement over a decade or so.

Quality does not mean anything. If you play a Test side vs. my middle school XI, one side will be playing high quality cricket, but the cricket itself will be deadly boring. Most people would rather see the middle school XI play another middle school to have an exciting game. Ideally, you'd have both high quality cricket and be exciting and closely fought...and the best way to ensure that is through a club system.

Doubtful. The quintessential club system is the English Premier League. As a rule, Man U, Arsenal, and Chelsea are a cut above the rest, and occupy the top three spots as a general rule. The only difference between this and the current Test table is that the disparity between the top dogs and the hoi-palloi is not determined by a national sporting culture (as dictates the success of the Brazilian soccer team) but by financial buying power. And the dramatically increased element of money in the game will only make the much-maligned ICC all the more likely to make financially sustainable decisions (as done in the World Cup, to much howling on this board).

In the end, it comes down to money vs. pride. International sport is all about representing one's country and having the national pride of others resting on you. If money is introduced, then we run the terrible risk of it replacing pride as the sole motive to keep international sport alive. In short, it's compromising cricket to an international domestic comp. And many people would switch off the TV at that point - injuring the game terribly.

To say players would not give their all for their clubs is plain misinformed. Aside from pride in ones performance, it would be their lively-hood thats at stake. As Goughy said earlier, the 'playing for ones country' aspect is highly overrated.

This I don't believe personally. Since 'club' and 'livelihood' are indissoluble, it's fair to say that playing for one's club degenerates into a job, though admittedly more fun than wage slavery. Selection for the national team, however, consititutes more of an honour than a livelihood and the expectations that one will uphold national pride naturally accompanies it. Of course, long-term players see internationals as a full time job, but the national expectation plus the personal pride of competing on the international plane is what keeps their performance up.

 

[SJS]

Inspite of the initial Oh-my-God reaction, this really isnt such an awful idea.

More to follow later.

 

[Richard]

Let the record state that it wasn't me who started the 'Richard-TEC' format of debate.

You love it really Timothy, regardless of what you may claim about it.