Frobishero
Cricket Spectator
Thinking about why the current Australian cricket team is far superior to England, I could think of three (kind of interlinked) main reasons;
1.Australia spends more per capita on spotting and developing young sporting talent and spends that money more efficiently.
2.In the population as a whole, there is quite a lot more interest in cricket in Australia than there is in England and Wales. As a result there is a higher proportion of children playing cricket from a young age (in a climate which is more suitable for playing a game involving a lot of standing around outside).
3.The first-class domestic competition in Australia is a lot more competitive than England and Wales'.
I don't want to talk directly about the first two reasons. The answer to the first would be simple in an ideal world, allocate more money to developing young cricketing talent and spend it more efficiently. The second could be addressed through a long term campaign to promote cricket in schools, etc.
The third reason is the most interesting and would require a bitter pill to correct it. I also think it's the most important. Australia has six first class teams, Queensland, NSW, Victoria, Tasmania, SA and WA. England and Wales have 18. The population of Australia is about 21 million, while the (cricket playing parts of the) UK is about 50 million or so. If England and Wales were to have the same ratio of population to first-class teams as Australia does, we would already need to cut three county teams. Of course this would not guarantee a big improvement of the competitiveness of county cricket. If England spent the same per capita on developing cricket and people had the same level of interest in cricket as they do in Australia, then we might expect this to impove the county game to roughly the same standard as the domestic game is Australia. However, these two conditions are highly unlikely to be ever met.
So what are we stuck with at the moment? Basically an overinflated, barely competitive championship at least half populated by players who would have absolutely no chance of getting a look in Australian domestic cricket.
Here's a solution I favour. Have nine teams, merging them geographically, perhaps along the following lines
Yorkshire and Durham
Lancashire and Derbyshire
Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire
Warwickshire and Northamptonshire
Worcestershire and Gloucestershire
Somerset and Glamorgan
Hampshire and Surrey
Middlesex and Essex
Kent and Sussex.
Play 16 games a season, 4 at each 'home' ground, i.e for Yorks/Dur 4 at Headingley 4 at Chester-le-street. As a Yorkshireman, this would be hard for me to accept at first, but I think I could get used to it. Let me know what you think.
Finally, consider these;
The NSW cricket team currently has amongst it's squad, Nathan Bracken, Stuart Clark, Michael Clarke, Brad Haddin, Phil Jaques, Simon Katich, Brett Lee and Stuart MacGill.
Western Australia have Adam Gilchrist, Brad Hogg, Michael Hussey, Justin Langer and Chris Rogers.
Queensland have Andy Bichel, Matthew Hayden, Mitchell Johnson, Michael Kasprowicz, Andrew Symonds and Shane Watson.
Those are just the players who have played fairly recently for Australia or are on the fringes of the squad.
Phil Jaques - Pura Cup average 47.53
CC average 59.3
Chris Rogers - Pura Cup 46.75
CC average 67.53
Darren Lehmann - Pura Cup 54.31
CC average 68.76
Andrew Symonds - Pura Cup 38.38
CC average 46.74
Why is it that players who have grown up playing in Australian conditions can come to England and dominate County Championship bowling attacks?
Off the top of my head, I think that most English counties have fewer than three players who have recently represented England at test level (i.e. Hick doesn't count) or who are on the fringes of the team (Stuart Broad counts).
1.Australia spends more per capita on spotting and developing young sporting talent and spends that money more efficiently.
2.In the population as a whole, there is quite a lot more interest in cricket in Australia than there is in England and Wales. As a result there is a higher proportion of children playing cricket from a young age (in a climate which is more suitable for playing a game involving a lot of standing around outside).
3.The first-class domestic competition in Australia is a lot more competitive than England and Wales'.
I don't want to talk directly about the first two reasons. The answer to the first would be simple in an ideal world, allocate more money to developing young cricketing talent and spend it more efficiently. The second could be addressed through a long term campaign to promote cricket in schools, etc.
The third reason is the most interesting and would require a bitter pill to correct it. I also think it's the most important. Australia has six first class teams, Queensland, NSW, Victoria, Tasmania, SA and WA. England and Wales have 18. The population of Australia is about 21 million, while the (cricket playing parts of the) UK is about 50 million or so. If England and Wales were to have the same ratio of population to first-class teams as Australia does, we would already need to cut three county teams. Of course this would not guarantee a big improvement of the competitiveness of county cricket. If England spent the same per capita on developing cricket and people had the same level of interest in cricket as they do in Australia, then we might expect this to impove the county game to roughly the same standard as the domestic game is Australia. However, these two conditions are highly unlikely to be ever met.
So what are we stuck with at the moment? Basically an overinflated, barely competitive championship at least half populated by players who would have absolutely no chance of getting a look in Australian domestic cricket.
Here's a solution I favour. Have nine teams, merging them geographically, perhaps along the following lines
Yorkshire and Durham
Lancashire and Derbyshire
Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire
Warwickshire and Northamptonshire
Worcestershire and Gloucestershire
Somerset and Glamorgan
Hampshire and Surrey
Middlesex and Essex
Kent and Sussex.
Play 16 games a season, 4 at each 'home' ground, i.e for Yorks/Dur 4 at Headingley 4 at Chester-le-street. As a Yorkshireman, this would be hard for me to accept at first, but I think I could get used to it. Let me know what you think.
Finally, consider these;
The NSW cricket team currently has amongst it's squad, Nathan Bracken, Stuart Clark, Michael Clarke, Brad Haddin, Phil Jaques, Simon Katich, Brett Lee and Stuart MacGill.
Western Australia have Adam Gilchrist, Brad Hogg, Michael Hussey, Justin Langer and Chris Rogers.
Queensland have Andy Bichel, Matthew Hayden, Mitchell Johnson, Michael Kasprowicz, Andrew Symonds and Shane Watson.
Those are just the players who have played fairly recently for Australia or are on the fringes of the squad.
Phil Jaques - Pura Cup average 47.53
CC average 59.3
Chris Rogers - Pura Cup 46.75
CC average 67.53
Darren Lehmann - Pura Cup 54.31
CC average 68.76
Andrew Symonds - Pura Cup 38.38
CC average 46.74
Why is it that players who have grown up playing in Australian conditions can come to England and dominate County Championship bowling attacks?
Off the top of my head, I think that most English counties have fewer than three players who have recently represented England at test level (i.e. Hick doesn't count) or who are on the fringes of the team (Stuart Broad counts).
Last edited:
