Neil Pickup said:
.
And ROFLMAO @ Salisbury.
I have as much fun as anyone taking the pee out of Twohundredawicket. But the fact is that he has been a pretty successful first-class bowler, and on Sydney pitches which are conducive to leggies, it shouldn't be too surprising that he does pretty well at that standard of competition.
The original question is a bit difficult to answer because of the widely differing structures in place. With a full-time professional structure in place in England, it is pretty rare for someone to make it out of amateur cricket; although quite a lot of teenagers will play club cricket before being snapped up by a county, it would be pretty ludicrous to claim that as a measure of the strnegth of the club competitions.
With less than half the number of games to play in Australian f-c and List A, or in the NZ orWest Indian system, the f-c and off-duty Test players (if any) have that much more opportunity to turn out in club games. And since the higher the standard of player you play against, the better you get, it stands to reason that the Australian and West Indian systems will have a higher standard of club cricket (probably "used to have" in the WI): the barriers between club and f-c are much more porous than England's is, or practically can be. I'd guess that NZ club cricket would be rather lower in standard, despite the presence of the f-c players.
The Indian and Pakistani systems have a large number of first-class teams and a lot of first-class and List A games, so club cricket (ie sub-first-class) again doesn't really come into it.
What the South Africa system now is wiyth the reduced number of franchises, I haven't a clue.
Cheers,
Mike