Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Or would it lower the standard too much? Discuss.
Last edited:
The 3rd best team in NZ beat the Australian champions. Just saying.I dont actually have a problem with this so we have a second division and punishes the last placed big bash team by having to play in front of smaller crowds. The move will give them more confidence when they begin to win again.
Who knows in 10 years a NZ team might make a big bash semi.
not saying that anyone is wrong or right, or better than the other, but that is hardly an actual Sydney Thunder teamThe 3rd best team in NZ beat the Australian champions. Just saying.
CANTERBURY KINGS vs SYDNEY THUNDER
Hira made 29* (9). Your argument is invalid; cricket broke.The 3rd best team in NZ beat the Australian champions. Just saying.
CANTERBURY KINGS vs SYDNEY THUNDER
I follow your reasoning but I'm hung up on one point. 10 Aussie teams and 2 Kiwi teams means a 5:1 ratio. The population of Aussie is 23 million and NZ 4.5 million, also a 5:1 ratio. That tells me that talent ought to be pretty evenly split.If you dilute the Australian player pool to 10 teams, the 2 NZ ones will dominate. You'd end up with something looking roughly like this (using the Island of Origin T20 teams as a base, so excluding Test players and doing a bit of shuffling for balance reasons):
North: 1. Worker, 2. Devcich, 3. Munro, 4. Bruce, 5. Young, 6. Ronchi +, 7. de Grandhomme, 8. Grobbelaar, 9. Sodhi, 10. Milne, 11. McCleneghan.
South: 1. Broom, 2. Papps +, 3. Rutherford, 4. Bracewell, 5. Neesham, 6. Ellis, 7. NcCullum, 8. Wheeler, 9. Nuttall, 10. Duffy, 11. McMillan
If you're trying to bring in two more teams of Australians, diluting it down even more (I mean, weigh up on one hand the number of contracted players you thought were **** in BBL|05, compared to the number of uncontracted players you thought were harsh to miss out), then those two NZ teams are gonna be pretty bloody competitive. Even more so if you slot a couple of internationals into them.