"Transfer system" for Test cricket?

[MisterMarcus]

So this was interesting. A proposal from the ACA, to basically turn Test cricket into a bunch of T20-style franchises instead of being purely nation-based.

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cric...-cricket-transfer-system-20151231-glxduo.html

Each "country" could select 3 international players, unwanted by their home nation, to represent them.

The positives are obvious: that it gives a greater chance to players who otherwise wouldn't have made it, and it may go some way towards equalising the Test teams. Long-term, this may prevent the loss of youngsters to other sports, as they have more options open to them instead of competing for "only eleven spots" in their home country.

The possible negatives are the same for any team that "tops up" with older/recycled players instead of developing their own youngsters. Countries which have poor development and structures have little incentive to fix their problems if they can just import fill-ins from overseas. Also, would having a bunch of guns-for-hire really instill the team unity and public support that these weaker nations need?

 

[Super Hans]

Awful idea.

 

[JC Hawks]

What even is this crap?

 

[rdhopkins2]

The person responsible for suggesting this idea should be banished from cricket administration or journalism in perpetuity.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Just when you think you'll never her a worse idea that the Super Sub...this happens.

 

[Andrew Mc]

No, just no.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

No, for mine, in the form presented.

What might be worth looking at though (and I don't think its the first time I've raised it) is allowing Test nations to play 1-2 players from Affiliate and Associate nations. This would be in Tests only. The players would be tied to their real nation for other cricket, but would have a pathway to Tests.

For example, Boyd Rankin and Ed Joyce could have played Tests for England while still being Irish for ODI and T20 cricket. That sort of thing may give some players from Associates, especially those nearing Test status, a chance to play Tests. Someone like Porterfield could boost Zimbabwe or West Indies, and be allowed to play Tests while his nation would not otherwise allow for it.


The downside - and it is potentially a big one - the teams using those players would be less likely to grant their nations Test status as they would lose the players. In the Joyce/Rankin example, England would probably not vote for Ireland to gain Test status.

And if their Test nation has a series while their real nation has an ODI/T20I/Intercontinental Cup/WCL appearance at the same time, which would take priority?

 

[krisholio14]

So Sri Lanka and Bangladesh could pick overflow Indian and Pakistani players? Could NZ pick someone like Michael Klinger to play for them? How the hell would that make any sense at all?

 

[Carbine Chaos]

No, for mine, in the form presented.

What might be worth looking at though (and I don't think its the first time I've raised it) is allowing Test nations to play 1-2 players from Affiliate and Associate nations. This would be in Tests only. The players would be tied to their real nation for other cricket, but would have a pathway to Tests.

For example, Boyd Rankin and Ed Joyce could have played Tests for England while still being Irish for ODI and T20 cricket. That sort of thing may give some players from Associates, especially those nearing Test status, a chance to play Tests. Someone like Porterfield could boost Zimbabwe or West Indies, and be allowed to play Tests while his nation would not otherwise allow for it.


The downside - and it is potentially a big one - the teams using those players would be less likely to grant their nations Test status as they would lose the players. In the Joyce/Rankin example, England would probably not vote for Ireland to gain Test status.

And if their Test nation has a series while their real nation has an ODI/T20I/Intercontinental Cup/WCL appearance at the same time, which would take priority?

The big downside is it absolutely spits on the face of representing your own country. I hate how England have stolen Irish talent recently and this would just encourage more of that crap.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

The big downside is it absolutely spits on the face of representing your own country. I hate how England have stolen Irish talent recently and this would just encourage more of that crap.

Conversely, good Irish, Afghani, Scottish, etc players have no chance of playing the ultimate form of cricket for the time being. And the player would only be moved for Tests, unlike now where they move and are unavailable for their true nation for many years afterwards as a result.

I definitely understand the dislike of poaching. I share it. I just wonder if something like this could provide individuals a pathway to both play Test cricket, and also represent their nation in the forms that allow for it. As things stand players who move are lost to their home nation for years afterwards.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Conversely, good Irish, Afghani, Scottish, etc players have no chance of playing the ultimate form of cricket for the time being.

Unfortunate, but that's the way it is at the moment. I want a tiered system brought in, where lower nations can fight to gain entry into the Top 8/10 and are allowed to play official Test cricket. Would also see the relegation of lesser sides and challenge them to either improve their systems (with assistance if required) or fade away and allow the more enthusiastic minnows (Ireland, Afghanistan) a chance to play elite cricket.

And the player would only be moved for Tests, unlike now where they move and are unavailable for their true nation for many years afterwards as a result.

No. It cheapens both Test cricket and international cricket.

 

[big_e]

I guess he's doing his job by coming up with a plan that could add to cricketers' wage levels and employment prospects. But yeah, I'm not a fan.

 

[Cleavy]

 

[Marklar_33]

The big downside is it absolutely spits on the face of representing your own country. I hate how England have stolen Irish talent recently and this would just encourage more of that crap.

I hate the English drain on Irish cricket also

An idea I've had for a while is allowing an Associate XI to play Test cricket. Once that side becomes predominantly one nation (and competitive), maybe it's time they were accepted on their own!

A very quick XI here

Paul Stirling
Kyle Coetzer
Ed Joyce
Ryan ten Doeschate
Matt Machan
Shaiman Anwar
Niall O'Brien
Timmy van der Gugten
George Dockrell
Shapoor Zadran
Boyd Rankin

And I'm missing a whole ton of others here!

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

I thought the ECB were already using this strategy?

 

[Van_Dyke]

That is the worst idea for cricket I have ever heard. That goes against the whole principle of international cricket.

 

[t_94]

Probably the single shittest cricket related idea I've ever heard

 

[Bradesmaen]

I thought the ECB were already using this strategy?

So are NZ

 

[Natho]

International cricket. Key word international!

 

[JackOutback]

Worst idea this year.

 

[Hellgood]

I hate the English drain on Irish cricket also

An idea I've had for a while is allowing an Associate XI to play Test cricket. Once that side becomes predominantly one nation (and competitive), maybe it's time they were accepted on their own!

A very quick XI here

Paul Stirling
Kyle Coetzer
Ed Joyce
Ryan ten Doeschate
Matt Machan
Shaiman Anwar
Niall O'Brien
Timmy van der Gugten
George Dockrell
Shapoor Zadran
Boyd Rankin

And I'm missing a whole ton of others here!

Nah, composite sides are great theory but horrific in practice at the top level.

How much will the players be paid - can it be guaranteed that they will get more than their current county or domestic deals? Where will the team be based? How are you going to foster teamwork? How can/often can they train together? What shitfights will arise when player availability inevitably impinges on national sides trying to qualify for test status/world cups? Why will the associate boards support the concept when it is in direct opposition of everything they have been fighting for?

Only thing it could potentially do is raise the profile of individuals. But that doesn't align with growing the game of cricket.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Must have another crap idea they're trying to get through shortly

Put forward this stinker first and the other one won't seem as bad by comparison

 

[Borderline]

Obviously written by some bleeding heart loser who thinks playing for your country is a relic of nationalistic colonialism and offensive to *insert "oppressed" group here*

 

[Underarm]

Would never work. If these players wanted to they could just move, wait for the right amount of time and play like Luke Ronchi.



One thing I thought would be cool is if SS/BBL could use Associate players, but not have them count to the International limits. Would love to see them get a better crack.

 

[big_e]

Obviously written by some bleeding heart loser who thinks playing for your country is a relic of nationalistic colonialism and offensive to *insert "oppressed" group here*

Greg Dyer never struck me as the sort of bloke to think much about anything, to be honest.
EDIT: Actually I've just discovered he is an accountant, and is therefore a fine upstanding member of society with much to offer in many facets of life. Ahem...