AS others have said, the obvious problem is that cricket is a representative game, you start by representing your school, then your distrcit in club cricket, then its first class cricket for your state and ultimately national.

I dont think franchise type leagues would work with the exception of twenty20. Four day matches, and even 50 over matches are just too long. Any more teams would dilute the talent that there is (just look at the country cricket system in England). My prefernce would be to form a chapions league style tournament for the longer forms of the game, where say the top domestic teams from the test nations play a year long round robin tournament. Logistically would be difficult but would be far more attractive to see, say the Warriors playing against Surrey or North-west province

Add a note on why the comment is inappropriate, and click the button below to confirm

Enter the text shown:

Thanks for clearing that up (I was stirring).

Obviously I have to do some more research, being away from Australia, I don’t keep up on all the chatter. Still, I would rather see exciting young players like Phil Hughes get selected at 24, than instead of 28 or even 31. If there are going to be champions, they need time to grow.

Add a note on why the comment is inappropriate, and click the button below to confirm

Enter the text shown:

Exactly well put Joe, Twenty 20 can be capable of pushing test cricket in the future, instead of test cricket dragging first class cricket.

The problem DT is that traditionally first class cricket has been a breeding ground for the national team. The national team for a long time has in our psyche been the elite level of cricket. People have not gone out to see the other games so much, because the Australian team has been marketed as the thing to see. The IPL changes all of this. Australia is capable of running something similar to the IPL but on a lesser scale financially.

If more players are paid professionally to play cricket they will spend more time on their game and the standard will improve. So it will not be a matter of spreading the same players further. The pool will become bigger and stronger.

As far as the young players in the state sides are concerned, that’s good to hear. But really, the selectors should have a little more faith in a few of them who show real talent and promote them earlier. Players like Ponting and Clarke become greats, because they were selected for the test team in their early 20s. To wait until someone is in their late 20s or even 30s, means that they will never reach their full potential.

Add a note on why the comment is inappropriate, and click the button below to confirm

Enter the text shown:

We have a bunch of good guys in their mid to late 20s like Shane Watson, Andrew McDonald, Adam Voges, George Bailey, Luke Ronchi, Doug Bollinger and Mark Cameron, to name a handful. Some of them are ready now, some need another season or 2, some may not go any further, but there’s talent there.

A good number of these blokes who come late to test cricket (or get dropped and come back in their 30s) have gone on to give us years of top quality service. I think David Hussey will be the same. Chris Rogers might be another.

Regarding baseball, if the Aussie sporting public aren’t interested in watching high quality first class cricket now, what makes you think they’d watch it if you spread the good players over 20 teams?

Test quality spinners don’t just fall out of trees, not even in Australia. One will show up eventually, and in the meantime, our club/grade and Shield system will keep us strong enough that we’ll still have one of the top test teams, if not the best.

Add a note on why the comment is inappropriate, and click the button below to confirm

Enter the text shown:

Absolutely I agree with you. Personally, I enjoy cricket far more than other sports. The problem is that as cricket is an ancient game the administration has always been very traditional. There is no reason that Australia could not have a cricket competition as popular ration wise in Australia as baseball is in America. The biggest reason why this has never happened is because cricket at a representative level instead of a league level. Baseball is played on a league structure. There are only up to 77 elite cricketers in Australia (6 states, 1 national team) even less, if you realise that only 25 players are guaranteed a decent income. The football codes have much more (I know AFL better and know that there are currently 640 senior players 16 x 40). Imagine if cricket had even half that. Imagine if there were 16 cricket super league teams in Australia, which would need about 240 players to sustain.
People may argue that these would not all be good players. But if a player can play full time professionally they will improve their game. The entire standard of cricket would improve. It is just going to take someone with the nous to get the league off the ground. There would be a whole world of players to recruit from, and I don’t see a real problem. The biggest problem is the the traditional approach. These are all the same problems that Rugby Union has faced.

Phil Coorey,

Hmmm. Phi Hughes? He’s a baseball player? Are you trying to tempt me to defect? I would have to live in the USA to do so, as the ABL has folded.

Add a note on why the comment is inappropriate, and click the button below to confirm

Enter the text shown: