Richard the Third
BigCricket Administrator
The Ashes was great (helped by an England win) but the one day series which has followed is dire. 7 games is at least two too many and it serves little purpose. Isn't it time that the ICC stepped in and regulated the fixtures so that all teams get a similar amount of game and to stop the likes of India, England, Australia playing limited over series which seem to go on forever.
As I see it there are 9 (10 if you include Zimbabwe who are surely soon to given test status again) countries who play tests and therefore need accommodating. With teams playing home and away that means each test country needs to play 16 series over the period set out by the ICC. Breaking that down further it equates to 4 series per year with tests and limited over games. Even with Zimbabwe back in the fold it only means adding in another 2 series which isn't a massive hassle.
England already play 4 series a year (2 in their summer and 2 elsewhere), however the balance is wrong. It's made even worse by the mind numbing one day series which stretch out over 4-6 weeks. Get them down to 5 game series at the most and played out within 15 days. That gives a day to play, day to travel, day to train. Hell, go to 20 days and they can have a day to play, day to travel, day to rest and day to train. Better still keep games at the same venue or at venues nearby to reduce travel.
For me, the logical breakdown in all of this would be all test series to be 3 tests minimum with marquee series given 5. T20 games given 2 fixtures to be played on same day, one early afternoon, one evening (or on consecutive days with a female or associate fixture taking the early slot). Then a one day series of 3 games to a maximum of 5. This would therefore mean a minimum of 20 days cricket up to a maximum of 32 days for the marquee series. Giving the players extra rest between the tests would be more beneficial than extended time between limited over games.
Overall, I reckon that even in a year packed with marquee series (which is unlikely to occur as there are few that would need 5) at most there would need to be 200 days given over to international cricket, including rest periods. This leaves around 160 days to fit in ICL, world cups (which also needs to be compacted) and domestic games. The 200 is a worst case figure which in reality would be closer to 160 thus making series compacted enough to retain interest, allowing rest for players and giving time for other events.
Thoughts?
As I see it there are 9 (10 if you include Zimbabwe who are surely soon to given test status again) countries who play tests and therefore need accommodating. With teams playing home and away that means each test country needs to play 16 series over the period set out by the ICC. Breaking that down further it equates to 4 series per year with tests and limited over games. Even with Zimbabwe back in the fold it only means adding in another 2 series which isn't a massive hassle.
England already play 4 series a year (2 in their summer and 2 elsewhere), however the balance is wrong. It's made even worse by the mind numbing one day series which stretch out over 4-6 weeks. Get them down to 5 game series at the most and played out within 15 days. That gives a day to play, day to travel, day to train. Hell, go to 20 days and they can have a day to play, day to travel, day to rest and day to train. Better still keep games at the same venue or at venues nearby to reduce travel.
For me, the logical breakdown in all of this would be all test series to be 3 tests minimum with marquee series given 5. T20 games given 2 fixtures to be played on same day, one early afternoon, one evening (or on consecutive days with a female or associate fixture taking the early slot). Then a one day series of 3 games to a maximum of 5. This would therefore mean a minimum of 20 days cricket up to a maximum of 32 days for the marquee series. Giving the players extra rest between the tests would be more beneficial than extended time between limited over games.
Overall, I reckon that even in a year packed with marquee series (which is unlikely to occur as there are few that would need 5) at most there would need to be 200 days given over to international cricket, including rest periods. This leaves around 160 days to fit in ICL, world cups (which also needs to be compacted) and domestic games. The 200 is a worst case figure which in reality would be closer to 160 thus making series compacted enough to retain interest, allowing rest for players and giving time for other events.
Thoughts?
