(19-07-2022 16:40 )lovebabes56 Wrote: [ -> ]If it doesn't take Ben Stokes retiring citing the scheduling as a reason to make the ICC take notice of what scheduling is doing to players, then I have to say the only way the ICC Will even take notice if the players went on strike en masse.
Even KP tweeted something sbout it today. Did seem like what he said in his was showing support for Stokes' decision and he showed concern about the scheduling during his career.
I would agree too that their is just too much 'chasing the money' cricket with little other purpose, however the solution seems to be in the minds of some (I listened to the discussion between Knighty Athers Morgs Butch and Ravi on the subject) Ravi seemed to think that nations such as Ireland Afghanistan have no right to have any ambition to play test cricket, and the entire world game should centre around the top 6 nations. It would be interesting to see - in circumstances where India fell out of that top six - whether his principles would hold true then wouldn't it., just as now with England outside the top 6 - they were #1 a while ago, albeit before the WTC.
The consensus seemed to be (interesting btw that Morgs had nothing to say about the prospect of Ireland being 'thrown out' of the club as advocated by Rav) that it would be the 50 over game (the only form of proper cricket left after test cricket) that should make way! No don't touch the IPL Big Bash or the Blast much less the hundred - utter folly!! The only other suggestion (in fairness, Athers tried to come up with ideas) was to scrap Bi - Lateral series which I would agree with, except the finances - as we have seen with the likelihood of Tours by England to the WI being reduced to 'once in a blue moon' - would be an issue for some nations more than others.
It is easy to say what is wrong and then stand back without offering up any alternatives that would see the amount of cricket reduced overall, but still ensure everybody got a fair slice of the cake, without reducing opportunities for those further down the list of cricketing nations.
So as a brief blueprint! The ICC take over all International cricket matters with no nation more powerful than the other( or a newly constituted body preferably). All test series of 3 tests only (Inc ashes) with 5 test series consigned to the history books and Bi Laterals scrapped - everything determined - after consultation - from the centre. ODI series three match series also (maybe 40 overs as the ecb perhaps had the foresight to see), with T20 the same. A longer calendar between Test World Championship finals (or accept the WTC will not work other than in a league format with the nation at No 1 after all matches have been completed being declared champions) with official recognition as such!
Financially, the ICC (or whichever construct replaces it) have to pay the nations an equal sum each for playing their product - which must still include IRE etc like it or lump it, with tours to these nations guaranteed (and no unilateral 4 day matches ALL 5 day in test). Tidy the schedule, and maybe more broadcast (including streaming) options will open up
Domestically, The ECB should be replaced with a body that sees cricket in the round, and not just as a cash cow (counties should know that they will not lose out financially should there be a reduction in cricket) with first principles being that the historic formats be protected - and above all, the CC. It may mean that the hundred has a short life (we can but hope) and that maybe - if the international nations can be 'persuaded to do the same' One Day cricket can revert back to 40 overs on contest tracks, as the English authorities perhaps had the foresight to see some seasons ago, and could yet be proved to have been right all along.
I haven't worked out what this would mean in terms of reduced playing days at both levels of the game, but maybe a suggested itinerary worth considering?? Just my tuppence worth!!
As a footnote: I know everybody apparently wants everything for free these days, but maybe the counties should charge a one off 'entrance fee' to watch their stream, thus allowing for a self sustaining funding model?? I looked up on the net the amount of streaming 'spectators' the county games in the championship got - taken from 2011 to last championship season before the pandemic. The numbers were considerable so imagine say £2 for the day or £5 if you knew you would watch every day online - for 16 match season £80?? wouldn't break the personal bank I don't think, but would swell the counties coffers considerably. I know the argument might be based on the words I used to open this last topic, but I reckon there may just be enough committed fans to make a difference?? Imagine if that meant the counties didn't have to avail of the 'shareholders return' they get from the centre each term?