The Lost New Zealand team under Stephen Fleming

[aussie]

Pretty sure it was set years in advance tbf, before NZ started their upswing.

I'm very much aware of this which is why I brought up the the topic. Its one of the reasons why ICC's failure to implement the test championship where teams plays each other in coherent and structured home away basis - instead of the current FTP structure where essentially teams are playing based on the strange commercial dynamics of world cricket.

IND is not exactly a fantastic test team - but yet because a tour or hosting IND carries the most money everyone seeks to get as much series with them.

West Indies are in perennial decline, but carry more commercial value to hosts for NZ who could be on the verge of great things.

 

[aussie]

The New Zealand team under Stephen Fleming wasn't lost. They did really well. Played out of their skins and did their country proud.

Seems like you missed the point that the NZ fans actually got.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I'm very much aware of this which is why I brought up the the topic. Its one of the reasons why ICC's failure to implement the test championship where teams plays each other in coherent and structured home away basis - instead of the current FTP structure where essentially teams are playing based on the strange commercial dynamics of world cricket.

IND is not exactly a fantastic test team - but yet because a tour or hosting IND carries the most money everyone seeks to get as much series with them.

West Indies are in perennial decline, but carry more commercial value to hosts for NZ who could be on the verge of great things.

Fair points. Not sure if WI today brings any commercial value..is there even any money coming from WI sponsors?

Just look at the number of test matches South Africa gets in a year, despite being the best team in the world.

 

[straw man]

Just look at the number of test matches South Africa gets in a year, despite being the best team in the world.

Exactly this - even if NZ (or SL or WI or Bang) became very good the most they can hope for is the level of engagement that SA currently get - maybe a handul more test series (and LO series) than otherwise and they're three tests rather than two, but still unlikely to be seen as a big drawcard unless they can simultaneously become fashionable/marketable.

For all that I cringe when I hear McCullum et al talk about NZ's 'brand' of cricket, there's an undoubted benefit to it.

 

[aussie]

Fair points. Not sure if WI today brings any commercial value..is there even any money coming from WI sponsors?

Just look at the number of test matches South Africa gets in a year, despite being the best team in the world.

Its like this if WI/NZ/SRI/BANG/PAK have to host each other it brings them no commercial value as we are seeing currently with the Windies in Sri Lanka series.

However if the big three nations have to hosts any one of the bottom 7 - they are more likely to get more commercial value from hosting WI than others, hence why for the current AUS home summer West Indies got the Boxing day & New Years tests instead of NZ.

I'm not sure how much tests SA get in a year - but I would say since in their run as the consistent # 1 test team since 2007, they get very regular test series vs the BIG 3.

The only criticism is that AUS/ENG/IND at times should have hosted them in more 4/5 test series over the years instead of the many 3 tests they had in those countries.

This is best highlighted by fact that India despite their poor overseas record in recent times got a 5 & 4 tests series in England & Australia 2014 - while S Africa only 3 tests in their most recent AUS/ENG tours.

 

[hendrix]

Exactly this - even if NZ (or SL or WI or Bang) became very good the most they can hope for is the level of engagement that SA currently get - maybe a handul more test series (and LO series) than otherwise and they're three tests rather than two, but still unlikely to be seen as a big drawcard unless they can simultaneously become fashionable/marketable.

For all that I cringe when I hear McCullum et al talk about NZ's 'brand' of cricket, there's an undoubted benefit to it.

I feel like AB and Steyn are very marketable in India.

Corianderson should pull a Brett Lee tbh.

 

[Howsie]

However if the big three nations have to hosts any one of the bottom 7 - they are more likely to get more commercial value from hosting WI than others, hence why for the current AUS home summer West Indies got the Boxing day & New Years tests instead of NZ.

But why though? You think of the rivalry NZ and Australia have when it comes to sport, the amount of Kiwi's that live over there, the fact this is probably the best NZ team ever, and the Windies are just dog**** bad. How do they bring more value?

 

[aussie]

Exactly this - even if NZ (or SL or WI or Bang) became very good the most they can hope for is the level of engagement that SA currently get - maybe a handul more test series (and LO series) than otherwise and they're three tests rather than two, but still unlikely to be seen as a big drawcard unless they can simultaneously become fashionable/marketable.

For all that I cringe when I hear McCullum et al talk about NZ's 'brand' of cricket, there's an undoubted benefit to it.

And that's the thing branding should be irrelevant - teams shouldn't need to do that in professional sport - regardless of strength everyone needs to play everyone in a fair home/away basis via the test championship as we see in football leagues.

This also plays into another bigger issue the big 3 takeover caused towards the teams like NZ and the other bottom 7 financial countries.

Cricket major broadcasters long realized that the ICC was a dysfunctional governing body & they simply gravitate to IND/AUS/ENG markets because its a quicker easier financial deal. This is arguably the main reason why they forced the ICC to give up the test championship idea & brought back the champions trophy.

The economies of certain cricket nation aren't financial strong enough to grow the game in their territories without ICC funding. Realistically cricket should have a similar broadcast sharing deal to the English premier league.

Most fans want to see the United, Chelsea, Arsenals of the league - but not because their viewing fans contribute to the Premier League getting all this money more than a Stoke City/West Brom/Southampton - doesn't mean they should get more funds. That deal has helped the premiership be competitive & all clubs become financially strong - even the big 6 clubs still have individual financial deals.

This is why India/ENG/AUS getting more money was atrocious. Cricket won't grow now.

One or two countries dominating the broadcast money as we see in La Liga with Real/Barca, has led to La Liga being a boring two horse reals for almost two decades now - except the odd year.

 

[aussie]

But why though? You think of the rivalry NZ and Australia have when it comes to sport, the amount of Kiwi's that live over there, the fact this is probably the best NZ team ever, and the Windies are just dog**** bad. How do they bring more value?

Ha beats me man, which I why brought up the point. I have a strong suspicion it has to do with West Indies history and CA & their main broadcast partners deducing that the AUS cricket public gravitating towards a boxing day/new year vs the "West Indies" name (not performances) more than NZ.


Obviously given NZ current form you would think right now that would be illogical & even if they made that schedule before NZ started to rise why they couldn't negotiate a change with the NZCB/WICB? Because I'm wondering now if CA is not seriously worried that given how crap WI has been playing of late, that they will make the boxing & new years tests - two of the shortest in recent history and mess up the revenue they would usually get from those games.

 

[Dan]

I'm very much aware of this which is why I brought up the the topic. Its one of the reasons why ICC's failure to implement the test championship where teams plays each other in coherent and structured home away basis - instead of the current FTP structure where essentially teams are playing based on the strange commercial dynamics of world cricket.

IND is not exactly a fantastic test team - but yet because a tour or hosting IND carries the most money everyone seeks to get as much series with them.

West Indies are in perennial decline, but carry more commercial value to hosts for NZ who could be on the verge of great things.

How is this at all relevant to which team plays their 3-test series first and which team plays their 3-test series second in the Australian summer?

Sure, your point is fine. It just simply isn't relevant to the case at hand; the ICC having a strong Test Championship which says "Thou shalt play 3 Tests vs. WI and 3 Tests vs. NZ this summer" doesn't tell CA that they must play the WI first because they're a worse team while NZ becomes the main event. And that strong Test Championship fixture list would, by necessity, also be set years in advance anyway (if not more so!)

 

[straw man]

I feel like AB and Steyn are very marketable in India.

Corianderson should pull a Brett Lee tbh.

Yeah they would be - imagine though that SA were just as good but ruthlessly efficient and lacking in any flair - tend to think they'd play less against Aus and India in particular if that were so.

 

[Dan]

But why though? You think of the rivalry NZ and Australia have when it comes to sport, the amount of Kiwi's that live over there, the fact this is probably the best NZ team ever, and the Windies are just dog**** bad. How do they bring more value?

The West Indies don't bring more value. CA just set the structure of the summer years in advance when NZC brought less value than they do now. NZ definitely brings more value now (which is probably why they've been given the D/N Test -- trying to paper over the poor assumptions underpinning scheduling).

Or we can be all conspiratorial and suggest that Australians couldn't deal with being beaten at the MCG and SCG while everyone's on holidays and watching

Ha beats me man, which I why brought up the point. I have a strong suspicion it has to do with West Indies history and CA & their main broadcast partners deducing that the AUS cricket public gravitating towards a boxing day/new year vs the "West Indies" name (not performances) more than NZ.


Obviously given NZ current form you would think right now that would be illogical & even if they made that schedule before NZ started to rise why they couldn't negotiate a change with the NZCB/WICB? Because I'm wondering now if CA is not seriously worried that given how crap WI has been playing of late, that they will make the boxing & new years tests - two of the shortest in recent history and mess up the revenue they would usually get from those games.

Not re-negotiating it might have something to do with SL being scheduled to tour NZ in December, so it wouldn't just be as simple as flipping the series and being done with it. Plus with Australia touring NZ straight after their home summer, some separation between series would be nice (back-to-back can either go really well -- e.g. RSA vs AUS in 2002/03 -- or create massive amounts of fatigue -- e.g. the back-to-back Ashes in 2013 and 2013/14)

Oh and to allay your fears of lost revenue, dem pitches gonna be roads. Or if they're not Smitteh will just bat for 3.5 days anyway.

 

[aussie]

The West Indies don't bring more value. CA just set the structure of the summer years in advance when NZC brought less value than they do now. NZ definitely brings more value now (which is probably why they've been given the D/N Test -- trying to paper over the poor assumptions underpinning scheduling).

Or we can be all conspiratorial and suggest that Australians couldn't deal with being beaten at the MCG and SCG while everyone's on holidays and watching



Not re-negotiating it might have something to do with SL being scheduled to tour NZ in December, so it wouldn't just be as simple as flipping the series and being done with it. Plus with Australia touring NZ straight after their home summer, some separation between series would be nice (back-to-back can either go really well -- e.g. RSA vs AUS in 2002/03 -- or create massive amounts of fatigue -- e.g. the back-to-back Ashes in 2013 and 2013/14)

Oh and to allay your fears of lost revenue, dem pitches gonna be roads. Or if they're not Smitteh will just bat for 3.5 days anyway.

Under the new FTP cycle which started in 2014 and which is not under ICC control, its now bilateral so technically there is room for flexibility of changing on series dates . We just saw PAK do that with their ODI series with ZIM.

Or straight up if AUS wanted to flex their financial muscle arrogantly as a BIG 3 boss - they could have done to WI what India did to S Africa in 2013, by inviting WI for the Tendulkar farewell series that was outside of FTP & shorten their FTP set tour to S Africa (although this was horribly disgusting for well documented reasons)

So yea while some other series were drawn up & it would have close to impossible to get it all rescheduled - I'm sure all parties would be regretting it now - 5 back to back NZ/AUS tests across both countries similar to AUS/SA 2001/02 & 2008/09 would have preferable to both parties no doubt.

And WI in current form without their major players could loose inside 3 days even on a road - cause WI are on a verge of messing up the two biggest revenue earning tests of the AUS summer.

 

[Dan]

Under the new FTP cycle which started in 2014 and which is not under ICC control, its now bilateral so technically there is room for flexibility of changing on series dates . We just saw PAK do that with their ODI series with ZIM.

Technically yes, but practically no. If Australia wanted to flip the NZ and WI series then they would have to:

-- Switch the NZ and WI series
-- Ensure that NZ could still host SL for Tests, which would either have to occur in November or late January
-- Which requires a re-shuffle (or cancellation) of NZ's ODIs vs Pakistan
-- Because NZ vs Pakistan JAMODIs would likely need to occur *now*, which conflicts with England vs. Pakistan in the UAE
-- Or SL has to play very-early-season Tests in NZ, which conflicts with their current series vs the West Indies, while Pakistan play JAMODIs in NZ during the NZ peak Test period.
-- Sri Lanka then loses their ability to host Tests in this period, because they're off playing in early-season NZ in front of three men and a dog on undercooked pitches, while WI plays in Australia, all because CA wanted to change their mind.
-- And then, assuming they can get a working tour model, CA has to deal with all of the logistical changes.

Almost every team is involved in a series at the moment. Let's not pretend that flipping the NZ and WI series can occur in a vacuum; this impacts on a whole stack of other teams playing other series and makes things difficult for everyone.

 

[Dan]

Will have to shoot CA an email about using their crystal balls better before setting Test dates, I suppose.

 

[aussie]

Technically yes, but practically no. If Australia wanted to flip the NZ and WI series then they would have to:

-- Switch the NZ and WI series
-- Ensure that NZ could still host SL for Tests, which would either have to occur in November or late January
-- Which requires a re-shuffle (or cancellation) of NZ's ODIs vs Pakistan
-- Because NZ vs Pakistan JAMODIs would likely need to occur *now*, which conflicts with England vs. Pakistan in the UAE
-- Or SL has to play very-early-season Tests in NZ, which conflicts with their current series vs the West Indies, while Pakistan play JAMODIs in NZ during the NZ peak Test period.
-- Sri Lanka then loses their ability to host Tests in this period, because they're off playing in early-season NZ in front of three men and a dog on undercooked pitches, while WI plays in Australia, all because CA wanted to change their mind.
-- And then, assuming they can get a working tour model, CA has to deal with all of the logistical changes.

Almost every team is involved in a series at the moment. Let's not pretend that flipping the NZ and WI series can occur in a vacuum; this impacts on a whole stack of other teams playing other series and makes things difficult for everyone.

Yes my friend, I'm well aware of all of this - that is why i mentioned at the top of the point with this article - Large gaps in New Zealand's FTP schedule | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo how when the new FTPs was drawn up during the Big 3 formation in mid 2014, why CA ended up putting themselves in a position where WI in their current rut was chosen in boxing day/new years tests.

Since 2000 they stopped playing WI there on previous tours in 2005 & 2009 due to that - so even in the unfortunate commercial reality of NZ at the time in 2014 (which probably isn't totally different now unless changes happen for remainder of 2015-2023 FTP) - it was still a bad financial decision by CA.

 

[aussie]

The batting lineup just screams B+ players. Astle, Fleming, McMillian, Twose, they were all just biting at the heels of the truly great batsmen floating around at the time

Twose was never a test player to be fair & yes that's one area the current NZ middle-order trio of Williamson/Taylor/McCullum has over Fleming/Astle/McMillan.

Although Astle at his best was on par with all 3 of them.

 

[Howsie]

He wasn't, not even close tbh. Especially Williamson.

 

[aussie]

He wasn't, not even close tbh. Especially Williamson.

Yea I meant more regarding when he produced specific innings at his peak, instead of overall career performances.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Yea I meant more regarding when he produced specific innings at his peak, instead of overall career performances.

Do what?