This is everything wrong with modern cricket

The solution is to treat T20s as meaningless, which in my opinion and for many others they are compared to test matches. Thankfully CA think so too as the Test tour of India will not be compromised by the T20Is vs Sri Lanka.

I think you mis-understand. I am not saying that pitching is harder on the body that fast bowling. But they both require rest due to the heavy season work load. The discussion really is what is the right amount, or should there be a different schedule to stop the need for so much rest. As for fielding see my above comments, which are basically paraphrasing what Mike Young has said.

Quality cricket is 'good for the planet' Not complete dross that is played adnaseum....

Guys I can see you see things a little differently from how I do. I think baseball at the professional level is obviously very tough and just as with cricket only the best reach that level. But the nature of the game I feel requires more of a cricketer than a baseball player for a number of reasons some of which I've already mentioned. But firstly a baseball game is focused more or less in one general direction because the boundaries form a 90 degree angle. The distance to the fence line is about 90 metres. In cricket the game is focused a full 360 degrees and that means though they have two extra players compared to baseball, they are covering four times the area. A typical cricket ground can be as much as 180 metres fence line to fence line. So firstly the fielder has a much greater area to cover and still has to throw the same distance, and without a glove to catch with.. A fast bowler usually runs up at least 20-30 metres flat out to bowl each ball. There's the pressure on the legs as well as on the arms, and maintaining balance to aim the ball at a specific target twenty metres away, without over stepping, running onto the pitch etc. A baseball pitcher only has to throw the ball the 18.5 metres to the batter. No running required. I mentioned he could throw as few as 9 times in an innings because that's the minimum number to out the opposition team. Of course its closer to 15-10 on average, but once he's got the other team out, he's got an innings break to recuperate. A fast bowler may bowl 4-8 overs in a stretch with only the six balls bowled at the other end as a break. He also is then required to field, something a baseball pitcher never has to do. As for batting I think it speaks for itself. The commitment over a long period is far greater for a cricket batsman than a baseball hitter. And yes I have played both games though not at a high level so I know something of the characteristics. Cricket is a tougher game to play than baseball.

140 games a year is a stretch, I guess the odd reliever gets there, but I would doubt it without looking it up. Starting pitches get around 30 odd starts a season over a 5 month regular season. On the fielding, throwing in MLB is a level above international cricket. They just need it more as a tool than a cricketer does. They also use it a lot more. Your average cricketer rarely pings it a full force with a chance of a run out. Most live hits in baseball need to fielder to throw flat out. There ground coverage and optimal path to the ball are better as they generally are better athletes and they specialize in one position for a whole season. Cricketers need to be flexible and fill in a number of positions where the ball can come from a range of different angels and trajectories on the ball. Cricket fielders need to get better at not only finding the best path to the ball but picking it up cleaner and getting into throwing position faster. The recent One Day Cup had some decent fielding but not many clean takes(could be down to average surfaces). Catching - cricket is a level above, MLB players cannot catch like top level cricketers.

That's the real point with scheduling - not that there might be clashes like this, but that there are just too many games that the best players are asked to play. Inevitably, that must mean either that the best players pick and choose which series/games/formats to play - downgrading the ones they don't play - OR that they pace themselves to get through a greater number of games.

International T20, outside the world cup (or whatever it's called for T20), is a sideshow.

I thought a MLB team had three or four starting pitchers? If they do and it's a 162 game season, how does a starting pitcher throw 140 times a year? Are you including those Spring Leagues? There are so many differences though. For example a fast bowler would never deliver 15 overs straight anymore. Spells are more like four or five overs. Even if they spent an entire day in the field, I doubt you'd see an Aussie fast bowler deliver more than 20 overs. Think of the difference that must exist between resting the arm throughout the day, versus doing those throws straight (as a pitcher). I've also wondered how much these pitches throw n practice/training once the season starts. Yet fast bowlers are in the nets throughout the year, even between tests during a season. So many differences.

"A pitcher in an innings may throw no more than 9 throws." The average innings is 16.4. Essentially just short a 3 over spell. A starting pitcher will more often than not get to innings 6 before replacement. They'll have thrown 90 pitches per game, or 15 overs. They do that at least 140 times a year. I can't recall any Australian fast bowler with a comparable workload. Baseball pitchers have an exhausting schedule, don't undersell it. They only advantage they have is that they don't need to have a run up. Agree entirely on the batting. Baseball batsman are manifestly lazy people. Hence why most have beer guts. Indifferent on the fielding. Baseball fielding is awesome. Yes they have the glove, but they also have the most wickedly accurate and powerful throws. Watching a double play is fantastic. Australia's fielders were best when they had that ex baseball fielding coach on the payroll. That was genius.

No its not "rocket science" but your suggestion is a real complication. Let's have lots of cricket in lots of formats involving stacks of cricketers. It is THAT simple. Cricket is good for the planet.

Get rid of ODI Cricket or vastly reduce the endless amount of cynical meaningless games and the schedule is cleared. The meaningless games not only have all the appeal of a dead toenail but they also facilitate corruption The only issue with Test cricket is the pitches, set a moratorium on what a test pitch should be and have heavy sanctions to outlaw road pitches and the game will be vibrant not rocket science!

Johnno...surely not! Test cricket in Oz is perhaps only better attended by AFL finals. It is totally sustainable.

The Chappell's played it because they liked playing baseball. If you think a pitcher puts in so little effort that it requires no rest then, to be honest you have no idea. I think your love of cricket blinds you to what each sport requires of their players. A fast bowler to massive stress on there body. A pitcher puts massive stress on their upper body, especially their arm and shoulder. Both can't do it constantly without injury. The question is how much rest is appropriate.

ps. The Chappell brothers used to play competition baseball just to stay fit for cricket. They used it no more than as training.

Come on Rellum. A baseball game lasts on average about 2 hours. There are nine innings. A pitcher in an innings may throw no more than 9 throws. Most innings are scoreless so it suggests he throws, including a couple of balls and fouls per batsman no more than about twenty throws an innings on average. And to make those throws he doesnt have to run at express pace and risk foot damage. He just slings the ball. More often than not he'll face about three or four balls in batting per innings. A batsman at most has to run four bases an innings and generally wont have to run at all. on many innings. Add to that fielders have to cover much less territory and have a glove for catching. T20 games alone would be much tougher than a top line baseball game. As for endurance baseball has nothing on cricket.

Come on Bear, time of game is an overtly simplistic way to compare to wear and tear of both sports. In a three - 4 hour MLB game a pitcher, if he is doing well, will get up to a hundred pitches before they are generally hauled off. They do that every 3-4 days over a period of 6 months. That equates to 17-18 overs. of stress on their arms every 4 days, and they do put a lot more stress on their arms than a fast bowler. How many overs per day does an international fast bowler actually bowl in a game situation. It would be a very interesting comparison to see how much the work loads of Starc and Clayton Kershaw compare over the last 12 months and how the rest periods compare. Fast bowlers do put a massive amount of stress on their body, but that amount of stress has not magically increased in the last 15 years so I do not know how you think guys Like McGrath or his ilk managed to get through a season if the modern players work loads are to be compared. The real difference is the travel load. PS I was supporting your comment that other sports rest their players.

Test-cricket I'm giving up on. It's simply an unsustainable sport. There series in sri lanka was awesome, but the crowds were low. Pink ball might save it, but it just lacks wider audience appeal(5-days for a result), younger test cricket fans born 1975-85 have lost patience with it slowly. Thos born after 1990-,have grown up in world where T-20 is a big part of cricket calendar rather than tests dominating.

T20 and Test match are two very different ball games, hence what is the harm if there is two different teams representing a Nation at the same time? It could happen in future with other countries as well.

So where is the opportunity for the best West Oz 20/20 players to learn to play test cricket if they are only included in the short format and where is the incentive? They can make big bucks without ever learning the patience and skills required for test cricket. It might also help guys who are viewed as test match only cricketers as they will be required to play 20/20.Having that experience could come in handy on the last day when chasing a big total with limited overs. The 'best' cricketers should be able to play all formats or perhaps we should just make them all separate sports and not call them all cricket.

I'm ordinary...but Australia's best 40 or 50 players are always interesting to follow. None of this has anything to do with money. It is to do with obligation and fairness. The money bit goes without saying. Of course games have to be played in professional sport. If not, it would revert to amateur sport.