Big Bash selling-out Australian prospects

Russ, Both NZ & SA rugby (& cricket) were able to expand their provincial teams by cleverly sub-portioning existing larger provinces. In South Africa, under the old regime, Western Province, Eastern Province, Border & Griqualand West all came from Cape Province, while Transvaal was sub-divided into Northern, Western & Eastern as well as Transvaal itself. In NZ, Auckland was further sub-divided into North Harbour & Counties-Manakau. Canterbury also has a Mid & South. Let's take NSW. If you want a team in each of Canberra & Newcastle, you can call them ACT or Monaro, & Eastern Australia, as examples. Basically, ACT-Monaro would cover Southern & Inland NSW with Canberra as it's capital; NSW would cover Central & Western NSW with Sydney as its capital; & Eastern Australia would cover Northern & Inland NSW with Newcastle as its capital. Wollongong/Illawarra & Gosford/Central Coast would remain in the Sydney/NSW orbit. Re NZ, it's probably true they would gain more from a combined comp than Australia would. Yes, I agree it would dilute our system. I think in matters rugby union & cricket, the two countries are better off running their own affairs.

Sheek, let's just say I'm attached to the existing names and leave it at that. I think, from an NZ perspective, there is too large a gap between f/c and test cricket. The only time they had significant success at test level most of their players were involved in county cricket. Merging with Australia would lift that standard, a lot. From an Australian viewpoint, expansion and NZ involvement will drop the standard, but I think the expansion of opportunities would be worth it. Certainly for bowling, where there is a lack of f/c experience in every current player involved in the test side. Other sports are less concerned with developing players for the national side, which also makes them hard to compare. There is a lot to be said for administrators merely trying to make the best, most interesting competition they can.

Russ, If it's no longer a state comp, then I see no reason keeping state names. Especially as the transition from NSW to Sydney; Victoria to Melbourne, etc, is seamless anyway. Tasmania can be referred to either as a state (state system) or island (metro-region system). Of course, I would like to see the state system retained, but whether or not that happens, remains to be seen. As for NZ participation, I don't know. One day I'll wake up & say it's a great idea; the next day I'll wake up & say no, they should develop independently. At present NZ seem to have a well evolved comp for both the men & women. I note that apart from netball, which is split 50-50 between Australian & NZ teams, all other comps (NRL, A-League, NBL) only have one NZ team. The super rugby can't be compared as it is unique again.

Sheek, there is no reason (and never was) to remove the state names. You can add the Melbourne Migrants and Sydney Squatters with only one caveat. Victoria/NSW are no longer representative sides, which is partly true now with central contracting, but players in Melbourne district/ Sydney grade cricket will only be allowed to play for one of each state's ides per season, and the team played for in the previous season will need to be given first option to offer a contract. CA made a big thing about not mixing state and city names, but almost every franchise competition has a few state-based team names. In the long run I'd like to see 4 new sides and a merger with the six sides in NZ to create two divisions of eight (retaining the Shield names: Sheffield and Plunkett). But at the very least Australia could use more teams, and play more games. The competition structures were created in an amateur age when players couldn't play weekly. That is no longer the case.

BTW, Of the top 10 draft picks in the AFL, 8 of them came from Victorian clubs. Of all cricket sides, Victoria seems to have struggled most in unearthing new talent. Does this give us a clue to the obstacles faced by cricket generally in recruiting outstanding young talent? However, I'm not sure the giggle & hit Big Bash is the way to attract new players & fans. It will be a short-term money spinner, most likely, but is it in the best future interests of Australian cricket.....?

Actually, I think this is the way the Sheffield shield must go - create more teams. Perhaps the days of state/provincial teams are numbered. I would be sad to see state/provincial teams consigned to the dustbin of history, but I have to be realistic. Anyway, NSW would become Sydney Blues; Victoria the Melbourne Bushrangers; Queensland the Brisbane Bulls; SA the Adelaide Redbacks; WA the Perth Warriors; while Tasmania Tigers would remain unchanged (because of the north/south rivalry). So that tradition remains anyway. To this you could add the Canberra Comets & Newcastle Miners (my suggestion). Down the track other possible additions might be West Sydney, East Melbourne, Gold Coast & Geelong, among others. One of the criticisms directed at cricket was the lack of opportunity for young players. With only 6 professional teams in Sheffield Shield & one-dayers, that provided about 150 openings, roughly the same as for Australian rugby, but way behind the A-League (200 plus), NRL (circa 400) & AFL (750 plus) in ascending order.

Ditto.....

It's also worth noting that there are 8 teams in the Big Bash compared to 6 in the Shield. That's an extra 22 places - and although we've got marquee signings and imports, there's less than 22 of them; so additional places are created for young up-and-comers.

More big names = more money through the gates = higher pay for players. Don't underestimate the impact of money being a major draw for sportspeople. The great weakness of cricket has been that it has struggled to attract elite sportsmen that have excelled at other sports - mostly football - because they can draw a decent wage almost immediately. That's why cricket needs to find a way to attract these guys without asking them to cop 5+ years of terrible wages playing in front of nobody. It's fine to say 'they're better off playing shield cricket', but it might be a case of losing them to cricket, which does no-one any good. Not to say this abortion of a 'league' will do that in the longer term.

*shrug* When I start to care about 20/20, please shoot me.

"Obviously, the financial benefits of Warne are undeniable, yet you would think Australia’s desperation for a quality spin bowler far exceeds the financial needs of our national sport"..... Totally disagree - Without the Warnes, McGills ect... the Big Bash would have very little interest and the tournament would be a failure. Also the last thing we need is our future test cricket spinners being belted into submission by what is a form of cricket in strong favour of the batsmen. Best keeping these guys in Shield cricket where they can grow their confidence and experiment without being hit for 20 an over.