Everything I’ve read indicates CNSW think it’s a smart move and have discussed it at board level. It’s really not that weird or abnormal that id call it “dire”, even if CA requested it.Considering the amount of prominent people in and around Australian cricket who have been loudly advocating Cummins the captain for a good 12-18 months now, I don't see how you can possibly say it's all CNSW
There is no doubt whatsoever the idea is being "encouraged" from higher up
It's definitely possible the level of influence from CA here is less than I tend to think, it certainly isn't zero, but I could be overstating things.Everything I’ve read indicates CNSW think it’s a smart move and have discussed it at board level. It’s really not that weird or abnormal that id call it “dire”, even if CA requested it.
I actually agree with this, but how do you square this with your IMO much less agreeable opinion that no-one should be considered for Test captaincy unless they have experience as a Shield captain?It's definitely possible the level of influence from CA here is less than I tend to think, it certainly isn't zero, but I could be overstating things.
My broader point however is that those at Jolimont St shouldn't have any influence of state team selection and planning whatsoever, not in any way, shape or form
It is a complex question, one without any clear cut answer. The problem I have in a lot of cases is the players who get into the international team young are those so called "prodigious talents" who have been the youngest member of their team all up through juniors and beyond. It seems like it would be difficult to have much of a sense of perspecive on the highs and the lows of the game when you have been fasttracked through the system at each level. If there was a case where nobody in the starting XI had any sort of noteworthy captaincy credentials then that is worrying, but in such a case looking towards a established senior is preferable to whoever the bright young thing of the time is
I'd never given it too much thought but that's actually a really good idea. It might even be a way for cricket to snatch some juicy winter headlines when Australia isn't touring.I'm starting to really think that Sheffield Shield needs to run almost the entire year, with a cluster of top end games and a lot more games in regional areas spread throughout the year. Making it a year long comp makes a lot of sense, and allows it to work around the BBL and the other big money tournaments like IPL.
It'd be worth investigating how far long form domestic cricket could move away from being a summer game without the weather becoming a huge factor in play.
This is a top idea. Also a chance for top end fans to see some quality cricket in the winter months.I'd never given it too much thought but that's actually a really good idea. It might even be a way for cricket to snatch some juicy winter headlines when Australia isn't touring.
I'd run it in groups of 3 or 4 shield matches at a time. Run 3 in May, 3 in September and 4 after the BBL. The point being that the clustered matches give players the endurance testing that a test series would give. The overlap would be minimal with overseas tours as well, though might hit the tail end of the IPL.
As it is the Australian summer feels very cramped for space.