ICC's new plan for International Cricket

[monty1104]

Nonsense
International T20 sides (if they took it a bit more seriously) would wipe the floor with any BBL or IPL side.
Big Bash sides still have to fill their teams with grade cricketers (eg Lawford)
Outside of International imports, IPL sides are slightly stronger but still have a number of low level Indian Cricketers

If the West Indies actually put together a T20 side with their best players in it
Gayle, Charles, Samuels, Fletcher (wk) Bravo, Pollard, Russell, Brathwaite, Holder, Narine, Badree

You may be right, I'm looking at it from an Aussie point of view.

If you look at the ideal Australian T20 side, a lot of those players (Smith, Warner, Khawaja, Hazlewood, Starc, Wade (maybe, not ideal but we all know he'd get the nod) at the very least) have limited exposure to the T20 format at all. Yes they are good players, but they'd be playing a very different game to what they're used to.

Australia themselves are one side that your caveat of "if they took it more seriously", relates to. The scheduling this summer is terrible. How can they take the upcoming Sri Lanka series seriously when they've got an Indian test tour to worry about? Something has to give somewhere. If the scheduling is getting in the way of international sides fielding their best XI, then stop scheduling T20 internationals. It's a sure fire way to decrease the crowded international schedule while still keeping money coming in from TV rights deals

 

[The_Reaper]

You may be right, I'm looking at it from an Aussie point of view.

If you look at the ideal Australian T20 side, a lot of those players (Smith, Warner, Khawaja, Hazlewood, Starc, Wade (maybe, not ideal but we all know he'd get the nod) at the very least) have limited exposure to the T20 format at all. Yes they are good players, but they'd be playing a very different game to what they're used to.

Australia themselves are one side that your caveat of "if they took it more seriously", relates to. The scheduling this summer is terrible. How can they take the upcoming Sri Lanka series seriously when they've got an Indian test tour to worry about? Something has to give somewhere. If the scheduling is getting in the way of international sides fielding their best XI, then stop scheduling T20 internationals. It's a sure fire way to decrease the crowded international schedule while still keeping money coming in from TV rights deals

Warner and Smith in particular play a lot of T20 in the IPL.

 

[big_e]

I don't mind a T20I World Cup every four years if that is basically it for T20Is. With regional qualifying tournaments maybe a year out in the same way as they do with soccer. Don't ask for details as I haven't thought it through. Which is probably obvious....

 

[cricketnut14]

I would say go a neautral ground but crowd numbers would suffer.

I guess the top test team gets to host (win) the final.

maybe the top team get to host it in their country and the second ranked team chooses the ground .

aust (1) v wi (2) - lets say it was in the windies hey day - its played in australia and the windies nominate perth then - or the aussies nominate 3 stadiums to which the windies must choose one.

 

[The_Reaper]

It will get hosted at Lord's

 

[strewthcobber]

Depending on when it's scheduled, might be very difficult to find a big Aussie ground that doesn't have footie players running all over it

 

[Marklar_33]

Random T20Is, like the ones coming up, are ridiculous really. But I do want to see a 16-20 team T20I World Cup every 2 years, so as to expose Associates to quality opposition more often

Regional qualifying tournaments I would like to see, but 5 regions seems awful excessive. Probably Asia, Africa/Europe, and Oceania/Americas (incl. PNG) would be plenty

 

[JackOutback]

Will find it difficult to get behind any Test championship that does not feature both home and away series before the final. Given the home ground advantage enjoyed by so many teams, it guarantees it won't be a fair guide to which is the best team over the course of the two years.

 

[TommyD13]

What about you have a four year cycle for Test cricket, play each team once at home and once away. And then for the limited overs, have a world cup for each in alternating calendar years. So you would have ODI world cup in 2017 and the T20 world cup in 2018 and so on.No other limited overs cricket except for maybe warm-ups for the world cups.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Sutherland was involved in the Test Cricket league, means it will be absolutely shit.

 

[Roadto2018]

This is a terrific idea and absolutely necessary to ensure the best form of the game remains relevant and at the forefront of cricket but not only that it means that every series has meaning, right now to me the only series that REALLY matter are against SA, England and India in India. Yes it may be hard to do it in terms of playing everyone home and away but over the course of two seasons it will even itself up. It will also give us even more determination to get better in Asian conditions and better against the swinging ball.

IMO this can only make cricket better.

 

[JackOutback]

The idea that it evens out after two seasons is ridiculous. It just means both seasons were compromised. If, in one season, Australia play England, India and Pakistan away and the Windies, NZ and SL at home, the draw may see them miss the final despite being among the best teams. Reverse the draw and they could coast into the final being bog average. The home ground advantage in some series is just too stark.

 

[Roadto2018]

The idea that it evens out after two seasons is ridiculous. It just means both seasons were compromised. If, in one season, Australia play England, India and Pakistan away and the Windies, NZ and SL at home, the draw may see them miss the final despite being among the best teams. Reverse the draw and they could coast into the final being bog average. The home ground advantage in some series is just too stark.

Yes perhaps but I imagine they'd be smarter than that and work it so that say we'd only play 2 of the top 5 away from home each season and 2 of the bottom 4, so say play India and South Africa away, as well as Sri Lanka and the West Indies, whilst playing England, New Zealand, Pakistan and Bangladesh at home. Each season we'd play 2 series in the subcontinent one of which are winnable, making it relatively fair IMO.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Will find it difficult to get behind any Test championship that does not feature both home and away series before the final. Given the home ground advantage enjoyed by so many teams, it guarantees it won't be a fair guide to which is the best team over the course of the two years.

The points earned over four years could be sued to determine finalsists, evenm if the finals are held every two years.
This also eliminates "dead series", as even if out of contention for the next final points would count to the next final's qualification.
During the final series (must be 5 Tests) no other internationals, or professional T20, should be played on any scheduled day's play (+/- relevant time differences) - the cricket world can then be focussed on one series.

Personally, I have a system (I need to update it) where a win is worth 9 points and 1 point for each match in the winning margin. This gives 1-0 or 2-1 margin ten points. Five points for a drawn series.
That gives incentive for dominating longer series, and encouraging matches against minnows who need the games.
For example, India will be defending 13 points again Australia as a result of it being 4-0 last time around.

 

[Sammo360]

http://www.cricbuzz.com/cricket-new...ion-could-be-stumbling-block-for-icc-overhaul

India, Sri Lanka and now Zimbabwe look likely to oppose the overhaul.