Should we allow an Australian team in the Georgie Pie Super Smash?

[Dan]

Jeet Raval is a spud. He isn't even a myth at limited overs cricket, he is a confirmed, scientifically tested starchy potato.

He sits out for the Aces half the time.

He's the best T20 batsman in the world in one of my ICC saves

 

[TheJediBrah]

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.

Unless you're saying that NZ is per capita better at cricket than Aussie. We're good but probably the opposite is true.

Instinct tells me that Aussie has more per capita cricket talent than NZ so I would have thought a 5:1 dilution would favour Aussie, if anything.

nah, the percentage of people in Australia who don't care at all about cricket, and even outright hate it, is huge

not even just talking about Asian/European immigrants either, I'd be surprised if 1/5 Caucasian Australian men had any interest in cricket whatsoever

 

[Flem274*]

nah bugger off you can't get 80,000 people to a domestic final and similar to a boxing day test against a big name team without having a huge fan base.

 

[TheJediBrah]

nah bugger off you can't get 80,000 people to a domestic final and similar to a boxing day test against a big name team without having a huge fan base.

not sure where you're coming from

we're talking relativity here

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Yeah but look at the domestic structures. Funnelling 6 Sheffield Shield teams into 10 BBL teams vs. 6 Plunket Shield teams into 2 BBL teams.

If you're looking for a 10th BBL team, you're drawing players from rookie lists and outside of professional structures to fill up the XIs, compared to NZ who are leaving 44 regular, professionally-contracted Plunket Shield players out of their 2 BBL teams. That's not to say that guys outside of the professional structure in Australia can't be better than some of the shunts who play NZ domestix, but overwhelmingly I'd suggest that the difference would come out in the depth -- professionals with domestic experience in NZ, vs random blokes drawn from grade in the BBL.

That makes perfect sense. But does NZ really have almost as many professionally-contracted cricketers as Aussie? If that's true I fully agree with you, it just sounds incredible that's all.

 

[TheJediBrah]

That makes perfect sense. But does NZ really have almost as many professionally-contracted cricketers as Aussie? If that's true I fully agree with you, it just sounds incredible that's all.

how is that incredible?

If they've got the same number of domestic sides then you'd expect about the same number of contracted players

 

[NZTailender]

A 2 tier competition with relegation and promotion would be pretty neat, a logistical and scheduling nightmare probs but still pretty neat. Plus if those English ****s can get away with it then surely we could.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

I'd be surprised if 1/5 Caucasian Australian men had any interest in cricket whatsoever

1/5 white Aussie males would still be 2,000,000 people, i.e. twice as much as the entire South Island.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

how is that incredible?

If they've got the same number of domestic sides then you'd expect about the same number of contracted players

It's incredible because if NZ has 6 professional sides Aussie should have about 40/50, given the absolute numbers of people actually interested in cricket in either country.

 

[Athlai]

A quick google has approximately one million aussies playing cricket. Which seems super high. 150k kiwis which also seems super high.

 

[Athlai]

2 million kiwis and 4 million aussies watched the final from tv ratings.

 

[Prince EWS]

It's incredible because if NZ has 6 professional sides Aussie should have about 40/50, given the absolute numbers of people actually interested in cricket in either country.

It's because, new money being found in domestic T20 cricket aside, only international cricket is actually profitable. Cricket is professional at the level below that because it's subsidised by profits of international cricket, and therefore the structure of domestic cricket will largely be determined not by the market for it but the best way to develop a successful international team at the smallest cost.

Australia probably would have 30 or so professional domestic teams if they also had five international teams, which could probably be justified financially but that's obviously not the way international cricket works.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

I guess another factor is that New Zealand couldn't realistically have fewer than 6 teams and have it still be an actual competition.

 

[Prince EWS]

I guess another factor is that New Zealand couldn't realistically have fewer than 6 teams and have it still be an actual competition.

Yeah pretty much. I think a consensus has been reached that you need at least five teams to actually select an international team from or you outsource too much important power to domestic selectors, and if you want to encourage the most talented players to stick with a career in cricket you have to make that competition professional. Domestic cricket isn't about what the market can bear; it's all geared towards towards pathways to international cricket.

This is why domestic T20 leagues are starting to have different formations to FC and LA leagues; they can actually be profitable in their own right.

 

[TheJediBrah]

1/5 white Aussie males would still be 2,000,000 people, i.e. twice as much as the entire South Island.

It's incredible because if NZ has 6 professional sides Aussie should have about 40/50, given the absolute numbers of people actually interested in cricket in either country.

I have no idea what you're point is? It's no secret that there are more people in Aus than NZ

why you think the number of professional sides should reflect the population is beyond me

2 million kiwis and 4 million aussies watched the final from tv ratings.

not surprising IMO. given that the population of Aus is about 5x that of NZ, would support that there are more Australians that are not interested in cricket. Relatively speaking.

 

[Athlai]

I have no idea what you're point is? It's no secret that there are more people in Aus than NZ

why you think the number of professional sides should reflect the population is beyond me



not surprising IMO. given that the population of Aus is about 5x that of NZ, would support that there are more Australians that are not interested in cricket. Relatively speaking.

Would say we got significantly more fair weather fans tuning in than Australia, was definitely a romantic underdog story that gripped the nation. Probably a fair representation of the true Australian number of how many give a **** though. NZ is probably similar in proportion with that extra few who know a bit about cricket but don't follow it

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Yeah, even making the CWC final was arguably the highest point in the history of NZ cricket. For Aussie it was just another win, their 5th by then. You couldn't compare the two.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Actually a fantastic suggestion - probably they should merge this pie competition with the big bash?

 

[Athlai]

Yeah, even making the CWC final was arguably the highest point in the history of NZ cricket. For Aussie it was just another win, their 5th by then. You couldn't compare the two.

I think it was the highest rating a cricket match ever got in Australia.

That would also be top 5 NZ TV ratings ever. Significantly more than the rugby final which was at a truly dire hour (I didn't watch it either haha)

 

[kiwiviktor81]

If it got 2 million in New Zealand that's just about everyone who even knows what cricket is. You'd have to look at the RWC final in 2011 or the America's Cup business in 1995 to find a comparison.