How to fix our cricket schedule

But I also think that this COVID affected season has coloured opinion on that also as there's usually 2 rounds at least after the tests start. So players still have that opportunity until mid-way through the test series. If someone needs to be dropped or replaced because of injury, there has been plenty of Shield cricket to indicate who the form players are that are puttnig themselves next in line for selection.

I generally agree with that. I think the only major problem with the scheduling is just the lack of Shield cricket while the tests are on. It makes selections harder and it means players who miss out on the initial squad have no way to keep pushing for selection later in the series. Everything else is just stuff we should all be able to live with.

Obviously, for the few Shield players who don't play BBL, they will have a gap there. Though, if there are any players not playing BBL they won't have no cricket. There is still club cricket during that time, and there are worse things to do than go back and play club cricket. It can be a good opportunity to work in any areas you want to work on, away from the pressure of first class cricket. Obviously you then have players who are in BBL squads but don't regularly get games. Though you might find they can still play some club games where they are home for the weekend and know they aren't going to be playing in the BBL game. You can't accommodate for everyone perfectly, but I just think that all this talk about major issues with the scheduling is just overblown. The scheduling isn't the reason for the Australian cricket team not being the dominant team it used to be.

It's probably not ideal but I think everyone just accepts that it's happening now. It's the same in England. If I was a Shield player who wasn't regularly playing BBL (e.g. Patterson, Street) then I probably wouldn't love it, especially if I was in good form going into the break.

When a player has played red-ball cricket pretty recently, spending several days with extended net sessions getting back into red-ball mode should usually do the job. But beyond that, it's also the fact that for the most part teams don't change that much during a series. And with concussion protocols now in existence, teams generally have to have the next bowler and next batsman in line with the test squad anyway to make sure they've got someone available to jump straight in if a player gets a concussion. So probably, if a player gets dropped, the player who's going to replace them is likely already in the test squad. Pulling a player out of the BBL and into the test squad for those last two tests happens occasionally, but not that often. So I don't know that it's really worth making major changes to the schedule for the sake of that.

There is no getting around the fact that the BBL has to be played during the long summer holidays for reasons of attracting kids to the great game of cricket. Even though I don’t watch BBL, I have no problem with this, and I don’t even have a problem with it beginning in mid-December. However, while established super stars such as Steve Smith and Pat Cummins can easily switch from one mode to another and back again overnight, it is not only unrealistic to expect rookies, let alone potential test debutants, to do this, it is also totally unfair to both the rookie/debutante as well as the rest of the test team. It could be a matter of someone selected for a test debut for the Melbourne test starting 26 December has just scored a match winning century at that same ground only a week before and the same applies for a rookie/debutante bowler with 5 fors. A month earlier and then three weeks of slog fest batting and/or getting easy wickets via batsmen having to slog constantly doesn’t carry the same significance. Nobody expects a debutante to immediately produce the goods at test level – if they happen to do so, it’s just a huge bonus. A debutante, like a new employee in any organisation, needs support in the early days, and the best form of support here would be to actually have him in complete first-class mode, not coming from T20 mode for the previous three weeks. This becomes a problem when the debutante fails in Melbourne and Sydney with their self-belief for playing test cricket very likely subsequently (and quite understandably) destroyed. It’s one thing to fail in your initial test outings having had a thorough preparation in the immediate lead up, completely different if you had been playing nothing but hit and giggle for the previous three weeks. Some roarers have championed taking a whole two dozen of the most likely test match hopefuls out and having them play 3 or 4 day fixtures amongst themselves in the immediate lead up to as well as during the Melbourne leg of the Melbourne-Sydney test match double header during the last week of December. However, this is not the best option for at least a couple of reasons: 1. Not representing anything in particular, such as a beloved club or state, such games would represent little other than an extended glorified centre-wicket practise session, rather than the genuine cauldron of first-class cricket. Far better to have a squad of just 13-14 play games as Australia A against a touring A team from another country. 2. The BBL would be robbed of too many players if 24 were taken out. If it is restricted to only 13 or 14, then CA can compensate those players for lost earnings in those 2-3 weeks until the end of December and then of course they can re-join the BBL as soon as the Sydney test is underway with more than half the BBL tournament still remaining. If necessary, an extra import could also be added to each and every BBL team to cover the loss of that aforementioned dozen or so test possibles and probables. It is true that the back end of a shield comp played out through February into early March can certainly be useful for picking players for test squads to tour countries like New Zealand, South Africa, West Indies, India and Sri Lanka at this time of year, not to mention Ashes tours a few months later. As for players getting dropped and coming back immediately, or not, in principle, no player dropped from the test side has any inherent right to expect to go straight to the front of the queue for a recall. Certainly, players such as Bradman, Border, Boon, Mark Taylor, and Mark Waugh only ended up spending one match out after being dropped although in Boon and Waugh’s case, this also amounted to breaks of ten and seven months respectively. For a player that gets dropped for the Melbourne and Sydney tests, it’s no problem, for mine, if their next shield match isn’t for another month, as long as they do get the opportunity to play at least a couple of first-class innings prior to the selection of squads for tours to those aforementioned countries at the end of our own international summer. While such a player might not necessarily walk straight back into the test playing XI, it’s not unreasonable to aspire to at least be back around the team set up in the actual touring squad, particularly if it’s one of those young players ear-marked as future stars or even potential once in a generation players, such as Ricky Ponting in years gone by.

I still don't get this complaint about "no Shield during the tests". Not sure what people think is going to be accomplished there. The big change to make sure there were generally a good 3 rounds of Sheffield Shield prior to tests starting was a very positive move made a few years back, allowing test players to play some Shield games, and aspiring test players to put a case forward for selection. In a non-COVID year, the Shield generally keeps running until at least 2 tests into the season. That's plenty. And having a second half of the Shield season at the end, thus allowing players to potentially push for touring teams during the Australian winter when they are on (which is more often than not in normal times) is also a positive.

Hi Zac, I would have to agree with everything. Well done on an insightful piece on work.

Going back to tagging the List A games onto the Shield games like they've done this season would probably be a good idea going forward. Especially if they can work out how to do it without it having to spread the Shield games out much more. But I don't see what the split Shield season is even an issue. In fact, I think it works quite well having Shield matches leading into the home tests and then more shield matches leading into the off-season, and possible setting players up for overseas tours.

I'm part way through a similar idea, with quite a different calendar. In mine, the Tests would run when most people have day time off - Christmas through January. BBL would start the summer, more or less when WBBL is now, to keep it out of the Test series. The problem is, no matter what else, CA won't move the BBL or the Melbourne and Sydney Tests. The problem of having no Shield during Tests is inevitable, so long as broadcast money takes priority over the actual sport.

If CA made offers to players with contracts preventing them from playing 20/20, a young player may take the certain $100-200k rather than taking a punt and nominating for the IPL. Cricket boards around the world should be doing this now for all their players under say 25 or 27.

You cannot fix the schedule whist there are two groups of teams they players play for in one season. One version of the game will always get priority under the current State/Franchise setup.

If all the money is in playing 20/20 then why would any player not choose this? Especially when, unfortunately, it has become the main draw card for attracting contemporary kids to the game, in competition with other sports for their attention.

Would they? This would mean giving up their chance to play for their country. At some time in the future, I expect there will be 2 pathways from about under 16's. Firstly, shield and test cricket with the option to play 50 over cricket. Secondly, 20/20 cricket with the option to play 50 over cricket. Good test cricketers do not necessarily make good 20/20 players and vice versa. Most experts believe 20/20 has detrimentally affected the batting and bowling techniques of many cricketers. It is almost time to treat 20/20 as a different sport.

But why would Green or J Richardson agree to that contract? They would simply tell CA no thanks and go play IPL and other T20 leagues. CA have a lot more money then the WICB but ultimately the same principles apply.

I think we need to go back to Shield and List A matches happening together, as we're currently seeing in this odd season. Carving out a window for List A stuff creates a scheduling headache. This solves the first issue you raised. The second can only really be solved if the boxing Day test is the final test of the summer (i.e. the test schedule happens a bit earlier), which would put SCG noses out of joint. It also means we'd still need to have a split Shield season. To me, this is now unavoidable. The third issue is the toughest to deal with.

I think the scheduling problems will slowly solve themselves over the next 10 years or so. It is going to be increasingly difficult for players to excel in 3 formats so they will need to choose a career path - some will be suited to 20/20 (Maxwell, Phillipe, Finch etc) whilst others will be more suited to test cricket (Smith, Labu, Green etc). At the moment, there is still some overlap at international level but if a player like Smith was told he had to give up the IPL to play test cricket he would do it until maybe late in his career. Players like Labu, Green, J Richardson, Cummins should not be allowed to play any T20 cricket whilst under CA contracts. This will cause howls of dissent from players and maybe IPL fans but what benefit is there to CA (and the Australian cricketing public) in these guys picking up $1-2 mill for 6 weeks? I think T20 is ruining cricket in more ways than we realise.

Actually, have to pretty much completely disagree with just about everything you've said. I've heard all these arguments too many times, and I don't think any of them hold any water. A few quick points: 1. People need to stop basing complaints about the scheduling on this summer. The schedule was stuffed up by having to make things work in a pandemic. In truth, CA have done a pretty amazing job to get the cricket that we've been able to have, working around constantly changing border closures amid different outbreaks. 2. None of the arguments for the Shield during the tests make any sense: a. In a normal summer we have 5-6 Shield rounds to start the season, usually 3, sometimes 4 before the first test. It was changed to this because previously Shield matches were mostly played at the same time as tests meaning test players rarely played Shield matches at all. Now they get a good lead-in to the tests, and then there are usually at least 2 Shield rounds coinciding with the first couple of tests. Any Shield form is still pretty recent even by the last test being played. b. The idea of needing Shield coinciding with tests so an out of form player can find form and get back into the test team is frankly ridiculous. Really, a player gets picked for the test side, dropped after 2-3 tests because they aren't playing well, play one Shield game and do well, so they should automatically be picked again? No chance. If they get dropped for poor form, they need more than one Shield game before coming back to the test side. c. Having a second half of the Shield season at the end actually makes a lot of sense in a normal season. The first half of the Shield season leads into the home tests, and the second half into overseas tours. So that second part of the Shield season can be a great opportunity for players to push for a spot in a touring squad. 3. BBL has to be during summer school holidays. Like it or not, the BBL is the only time domestic cricket in Australia has attracted significant crowds since international cricket was live on TV. Sure, in The Don's day, maybe people packed the SCG for Shield games. But these days you'd be lucky to get a few hundred to a Shield game or domestic 50-over game. Meanwhile, thousands come to BBL games and more watch on TV. And moving that later in the season so that it's second half is after school holidays ends will be very bad for it. Already, the finals being in the week after school return is pushing it. 4. BBL haters need to understand that the BBL and T20 is actually good for cricket in Australia. Prior to BBL state cricket was 100% an expense for CA, they paid state cricketers entirely from money made out of international cricket, and it was never very much. BBL bringing money into state cricket actually makes cricket a much more viable career option. Players can make a good living out of cricket without having to be among the top 11 cricketers in the country. Overall, many of your arguments are self-defeating. Like this one: "How much better is it when the selectors can pick the Australian side when they can see the players playing at the state level. The selectors can choose whether they will pick the players on reputation or form." Playing more Shield matches prior to the first test gives the selectors much better chance to assess players form. The results in these Shield matches prior to the first test is what pushed Green and Pucovski to test debut's this year, based on performance in the Shield. So the current schedule allows that. If Shield matches basically started at the same time as the tests, then that opportunity would be lost. It would create the opposite situation than you claim it would. Based on your last sentence you seem to think these are absolutely slam dunk arguments that are clear and obvious and should convince anyone. But in reality, they are arguments that are full of holes, and don't actually stand up to much scrutiny.

CA aren't in a vacuum for example this year the T20 World Cup is in India in November. and next year its in Australia in November. The other constraint is many Australians will watch cricket over the summer holidays but not otherwise, so maximising those holidays is a must. Playing SS during the holidays won't happen. Given all the balls being juggled in the air you can't have the same summer every year but broadly speaking I would have Late Aug-Mid Dec Full Sheffield Season first 2 rounds played in Northern Australia inlcuding some decks that spin. Mid Dec-Lat Jan BBL Feb-Mar domestic one dayers Whether the best players should play BBL is then tricky. If you are going to throw everything into the BBL then have Sydney as the last Test and have everyone available thereafter. Personally I would prefer what we had this year white ball internationals in early December and then a good Tests series over Dec/Jan. Of course personally I only watched Australia v India so didn't see the BBL which is not want CA want repeated on a larger scale.

Good on you for throwing your hat into the writing ring Zac. You've chosen a pretty contentious topic for your first piece and much of what you've written appears to make sense on the surface. Unlike others, I don't think CA has completely screwed the season.... well, not on their own anyway. They've had plenty of help from broadcasters (insisting on quite ridiculous numbers of T20 games that people aren't watching), the ICC and other cricketing nations ( who insist on some very strange scheduling of tournaments) and the general public, who don't really have a concensus on what we want. England has exactly the same issues as Australia. As I've posted elsewhere, their County season is even more disrupted than our Shield season, with 8 four-day games before the end of May, then another 6 in September. Guess what cricket they play from June to August - white ball and Tests. The big problem I think we face in Australia is assuming one size fits all in terms of scheduling. In your example, the cricket season starts in September and is done by the end of February but why dob't we extend that to the end of March? Why aren't we looking to see what we have up coming on our international schedule and planning our domestic summer around that? Why isn't CA making more use of A team tours, both bringing sides to Australia in December/January and having our guys go to England in June/July to play some red ball games? There's no doubt the elephant in the room is the BBL, just as the ODI internationals were a few decades ago. I'm sure CA would love to scale the numbers back, perhaps have a few more double headers, shorten that part of the season, but still get a lot from the broadcaster. As it stands, that won't happen any time soon, so now we have to hope CA can become more creative than it's been in recent summers with it's planning. On that count, I'm not holding my breath.