A proposal to ease the cricketing calendar

[honestbharani]

Okay, I haven't thought this through fully yet...


But first things first, we need to accept that Twenty20 and ODIs are the ones which will generate the money that cricket needs. Having said that, without tests, the game is headless. So, we need to respect and find a way for all 3 formats to co-exist. This will mean some compromises with all 3 formats of the game... Each format is crucial for the existence of the other.



The reality is that we also need to find a window for the IPL and the Champions League. They are here to stay. Also, I think we need to give credence to Richard's theory about the gap between the world cups being too long and therefore we need to have Champions Trophy too, to fill the gaps between the World Cup. ICC also want at least one ICC event every year, be it the ODI or T20 WC or the Champions Trophy.


Considering all this, I feel that the ODI WC, The Champions Trophy and the T20 WC should all be played in 3 year intervals. Say, for example, we have the T20 WC in 2009, we should have the Champions Trophy in 2010 and the ODI WC in 2011 and again a T20WC in 2012, CT in 2013 and WC in 2014 and so on... All these tournaments should not be greater than 1 month in duration.


Also, the need to find a window for the IPL and Champions League means the whole of April needs to be free and a couple of weeks in Novemeber, perhaps.. Ideally, I would have the Champions League take place in September because it is generally a cricket free month...


The next thing I would do is instigate the top 8 teams in the world to play each other (either home or away) at least once every 3 years.. Right now, it is every two years, I guess and it would be better if it were 3. Give more space for the IPL and ICC events. Also, taking Bangladesh and Zim out of this would mean the top 8 teams are free to send out teams based on some rotation policy and rest main players for tests against these teams. Ideally, I would strip them both off test status (while letting them be permanent members of the ICC, coz for many, their vote is invaluable) until they start stringing together consistent performances in ODIs and in A team series.


Also make sure each tour runs for 7 weeks minimum.. A 3 T20 series (in the first week), followed by a 3 match ODI series (finish it in the second week), a warm up game (4 days of the 3rd week) and then the first test (in the 4th week) followed by another warm up game (5th week) and the next two tests back to back in the 6th and 7th weeks. For series with great spectator interest, the teams can always go up to 4,5 or even 6 tests. But I would make this a minimum so that there won't be too much of any form of the game. And of course, the IPL and Champions League in between every year will ensure the revenue generation for the game. And with an all team series guaranteed every year, there will always be something to look forward in the cricket calendar. And with each team needing to play only 7 test series over the course of 3 years (both home and away), this will enable more tests (hopefully) and better contested series as teams will always have time to acclimitize themselves to the conditions...


Obviously, almost all of these thoughts are off the top of my head.. So please feel free to throw in your suggestions. As unlikely as it is, someone may just notice this and try and implement at least one..

 

[archie mac]

Some good points, in Aust. April and October would be better with the 20/20 comps, but not Nov.

I can't see them changing the Ashes set up, with a series in each country every four years. And I would like to see more 5 Test series, but that is just me

 

[Somerset]

Considering all this, I feel that the ODI WC, The Champions Trophy and the T20 WC should all be played in 3 year intervals. Say, for example, we have the T20 WC in 2009, we should have the Champions Trophy in 2010 and the ODI WC in 2011 and again a T20WC in 2012, CT in 2013 and WC in 2014 and so on... All these tournaments should not be greater than 1 month in duration.

Interesting suggestion. I don't necessarily agree with it - my initial reaction was that it would become too uniform with one per year in such an order for the next however many seasons - on the other hand, it does allow for a global competition, of some sort, at the highest calibre every year.

The next thing I would do is instigate the top 8 teams in the world to play each other (either home or away) at least once every 3 years.. Right now, it is every two years, I guess and it would be better if it were 3. Give more space for the IPL and ICC events. Also, taking Bangladesh and Zim out of this would mean the top 8 teams are free to send out teams based on some rotation policy and rest main players for tests against these teams. Ideally, I would strip them both off test status (while letting them be permanent members of the ICC, coz for many, their vote is invaluable) until they start stringing together consistent performances in ODIs and in A team series.

Unless you're India and haven't had a series against New Zealand either home OR away for four years now. As for taking out Bangladesh, after yesterday's effort I'd imagine some people will need more convincing. Agreed about tossing Zimbabwe out of the rotation completely.

Also make sure each tour runs for 7 weeks minimum.. A 3 T20 series (in the first week), followed by a 3 match ODI series (finish it in the second week), a warm up game (4 days of the 3rd week) and then the first test (in the 4th week) followed by another warm up game (5th week) and the next two tests back to back in the 6th and 7th weeks. For series with great spectator interest, the teams can always go up to 4,5 or even 6 tests. But I would make this a minimum so that there won't be too much of any form of the game. And of course, the IPL and Champions League in between every year will ensure the revenue generation for the game. And with an all team series guaranteed every year, there will always be something to look forward in the cricket calendar. And with each team needing to play only 7 test series over the course of 3 years (both home and away), this will enable more tests (hopefully) and better contested series as teams will always have time to acclimitize themselves to the conditions...

Sounds great but how practical are minimum seven week tours? With such a tight shedule - IPL, your suggestion to run a tournament every year, and teams having to consistently play each team every three years - I think enforcing tours of that length will burn some players out. I can see the warm up matches losing value.

 

[honestbharani]

Interesting suggestion. I don't necessarily agree with it - my initial reaction was that it would become too uniform with one per year in such an order for the next however many seasons - on the other hand, it does allow for a global competition, of some sort, at the highest calibre every year.


Unless you're India and haven't had a series against New Zealand either home OR away for four years now. As for taking out Bangladesh, after yesterday's effort I'd imagine some people will need more convincing. Agreed about tossing Zimbabwe out of the rotation completely.


Sounds great but how practical are minimum seven week tours? With such a tight shedule - IPL, your suggestion to run a tournament every year, and teams having to consistently play each team every three years - I think enforcing tours of that length will burn some players out. I can see the warm up matches losing value.

well... abt the last bit, it really isn't that much impractical. You only have to play 7 series over 3 years.. Assume 4 are home and 3 away.. I am not asking each team to play each other home AND away in 3 years. So just 7 series of 7 weeks length each over 3 years. Even allowing space of 3 months a year for the IPL, Champions League and the ICC event and 1 month period of rest, you still get enough to time to string in 7 7 week tours, I would think...

 

[Goughy]

An already congested calander now has to cope with a 3rd format.

There just isnt enough space for 3 International formats and tha associatied tournaments.

Tests are the key so they are safe.
T20 isnt going anywhere but its role can be debated

I dont think 3 full calenders of different formats is remotely possible.

IMO there are 2 options

1) Keep T20 as domestic with IPL and EPL being the biggest. Maybe have a Champs League (or not) and a T20 WC every couple of years where the T20 stars all come together. No other T20 internationals apart from WC.

Keep ODIs roughly similar and linked to Test tours

2) Buy into T20 and play lots of T20Is and dump ODIs.

Both have merit.

I personally dont think there is a place for 3 different types of cricket. I think it is too confusing and hurts the credibility of the sport.

 

[Richard]

Have long been in favour of the first. I don't see any point in Twenty20 Internationals with the IPL and Cham Lg.

 

[duffer]

In favour dumping T20 Internationals but as long as it's a money spinner domestically no hope in hell of the ICC missing out on the cash cow.

 

[andruid]

The next thing I would do is instigate the top 8 teams in the world to play each other (either home or away) at least once every 3 years.. Right now, it is every two years, I guess and it would be better if it were 3. Give more space for the IPL and ICC events. Also, taking Bangladesh and Zim out of this would mean the top 8 teams are free to send out teams based on some rotation policy and rest main players for tests against these teams. Ideally, I would strip them both off test status (while letting them be permanent members of the ICC, coz for many, their vote is invaluable) until they start stringing together consistent performances in ODIs and in A team series.

I have always argued that Test status and full membership in the ICC should be separated That way Full membership of the ICC is more likely to be regulated on the basis of the cricketing board's competence, Test status can be restricted to the best 8 or 10 or 12 (depending on hwta is most reasonable) teams on the ground. This leading hopefully, towards a situation where the ICC's admin and management is in the hands of proffessionals and maybe even encouraging more countries to tighten up their act with the reward of a place on the high table of the ICC. On the playing side it would probaly make sure that teams playing test cricket genuinely were the best playing sides in the world rather than the teams pof players born in the right country.

 

[Richard]

In favour dumping T20 Internationals but as long as it's a money spinner domestically no hope in hell of the ICC missing out on the cash cow.

Thing is, though, they only gain from multi-team tournaments. And it's pretty obvious the Twenty20 World thingy is here to stay. If that's the only international Twenty20, that's for the best IMO.

 

[duffer]

Thing is, though, they only gain from multi-team tournaments. And it's pretty obvious the Twenty20 World thingy is here to stay. If that's the only international Twenty20, that's for the best IMO.

At the moment we're yet to see an overkill of Nation v Nation T20's though. As it is it's only a one or two off before or after an ODI series, which I guess is tolerable for me. If we start getting 5 or 7 game T20 International series then I'd be worried big time.

 

[Furball]

Would be happy with dumping T20Is, with the exception of a World Championship every 4 years.

As far as I'm concerned, Twenty20 has its place as a cash cow for the domestic game, but there's simply no appeal in watching say England v Australia in a 3 match series.

 

[Richard]

At the moment we're yet to see an overkill of Nation v Nation T20's though. As it is it's only a one or two off before or after an ODI series, which I guess is tolerable for me. If we start getting 5 or 7 game T20 International series then I'd be worried big time.

Meh, for me a single Twenty20 International (barring perhaps one as a pipe-opener for a really big tour, eg Ashes 2005) is overkill. Certainly anything staged after a Test series is for me completely pointless (eg, Ashes 2006/07).

I don't, BTW, say the same about domestic Twenty20, though it's something I take no interest in. Only recently has the ECB started to overdo that, and with this EPL lark being played in addition to the Twenty20 Cup, it's reaching higher proportions than ever now.

 

[honestbharani]

To GingerFurball:


yeah.. but for the guy who comes in to watch Lancashire take on Yorkshire in a T20 game, it will be an even greater experience to watch England take on Australia in a T20 game.. The more intense rivalry will only make the experience that much better for those fans and it is them that the ICC is going to be concentrating on, unfortunately or fortunately depending on your PoV...



As I said, the most pragmatic approach one can take at this point is to assume that all 3 formats are here to stay and to try and fit them all in without taking away the respective selling points of these 3 formats... You want to limit the T20s and ODIs to 3 per tour and then the international tournaments and the leagues like IPL and Champions League... Coz if we do them too much the overkill would saturate the market very very quickly and the very basis of these LOIs are players being athletic, fit and fresh so that they can bowl fast, hit long and hard and run like crazy and field like demons.. Obviously, I am painting the picture out a lot prettier than it actually is but that is what these limited overs games are all about, no matter what people say about enjoying even contests......


But ultimately, test cricket needs to retain its place coz.

A. It is the easiest way for the numerous sports channels to fill up its programming.
B. The historical value
C. As a result of B, a player can attain cult status very quickly with good performances in
this format..
D. The traditional rivalries are still brought out best in this format.
E. The value the players attach to doing well in this format..

 

[duffer]

Meh, for me a single Twenty20 International (barring perhaps one as a pipe-opener for a really big tour, eg Ashes 2005) is overkill. Certainly anything staged after a Test series is for me completely pointless (eg, Ashes 2006/07).

I don't, BTW, say the same about domestic Twenty20, though it's something I take no interest in. Only recently has the ECB started to overdo that, and with this EPL lark being played in addition to the Twenty20 Cup, it's reaching higher proportions than ever now.

For you maybe. But for me and most people I know, they don't seem to mind it. I do however, agree with your basic premise that T20 should be limited to a limited domestic structure.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Meh, for me a single Twenty20 International (barring perhaps one as a pipe-opener for a really big tour, eg Ashes 2005) is overkill. Certainly anything staged after a Test series is for me completely pointless (eg, Ashes 2006/07).

I don't, BTW, say the same about domestic Twenty20, though it's something I take no interest in. Only recently has the ECB started to overdo that, and with this EPL lark being played in addition to the Twenty20 Cup, it's reaching higher proportions than ever now.

Mate, you know those insecure guys who go to such lengths to prove themselves heterosexual that they feel the need to keep reiterating their abhorrence for homosexuality in any and every given social situation?

Please don't keep subjecting us to the cricketing equivalent of that.

 

[Richard]

Mate, you know those insecure guys who go to such lengths to prove themselves heterosexual that they feel the need to keep reiterating their abhorrence for homosexuality in any and every given social situation?

I don't go in for that, nor the homophobic equivalent.

Please don't keep subjecting us to the cricketing equivalent of that.

Too late TBH.

 

[aussie]

An already congested calander now has to cope with a 3rd format.

There just isnt enough space for 3 International formats and tha associatied tournaments.

Tests are the key so they are safe.
T20 isnt going anywhere but its role can be debated

I dont think 3 full calenders of different formats is remotely possible.

IMO there are 2 options

1) Keep T20 as domestic with IPL and EPL being the biggest. Maybe have a Champs League (or not) and a T20 WC every couple of years where the T20 stars all come together. No other T20 internationals apart from WC.

Keep ODIs roughly similar and linked to Test tours

2) Buy into T20 and play lots of T20Is and dump ODIs.

Both have merit.

I personally dont think there is a place for 3 different types of cricket. I think it is too confusing and hurts the credibility of the sport.

Probably for a person new to the game it would. But i'd take the view that having these 3 different formats makes the sport unique.

 

[Jamee999]

I don't go in for that, nor the homophobic equivalent.

Too late TBH.

A brilliant rebuttall.

"Please stop punching me!"

"But I've already started!"

 

[Richard]

Punching =| making a point on a public forum, ITBT.

(Much as punching could of times be making a point)

 

[andruid]

Back on topic then. I would vouch for a max-min cap on number of Test, ODI and T20 matches (yes they do have a place in global cricket like it or not) per tour. Something in the way of 3-5 tests, 3-5 ODIs (or a triangular series), 3 T20 (matches or a triangular series) per tour.