|
English Domestic Cricket: The Way Forward? |
|
|
|
|
Written by Andy Mellon
|
|
Tuesday, 14 June 2005 |
The English domestic structure has been much maligned for many years. Are there lessons to be learnt from the other domestic structures that could be used to improve the English domestic cricket system?
English Domestic Cricket: The Way Forward?
It has been said for many years and by many commentators of the English game that the structure of domestic cricket in England has been holding the England cricket team back. This viewpoint has gained a significant amount of support over the ‘wilderness years’ of English test cricket of the 1990s. The complaints most often levelled at the County game is that there are too many teams competing which means that it is too easy for sub-standard crickets to end up playing in first class cricket. The question is, have those voicing these criticisms taken any time to look at the alternatives available, and what would the effect on the English game be if the ECB were to implement these changes. The first thing to look at is what the differences are between the various models used throughout the cricketing world.
The Australian Model
The Australian model is often cited as the zenith of domestic cricket. Virtually every player in the first XI of an Australian state side is a household name and decent crowds are assured for important matches. The Australian model succeeds in maintaining supporter loyalty to their favoured team whilst only having a small number of teams which compete. This has been achieved as a result of the happy coincidence that there are only a small number of states in Australia. Effectively, the Australian Model is like that of the English county game, but with each ‘county’ being much more sizeable. As the Australian state is analogous to an English county, this allows the Australian states to retain support from residents of their locality.
In terms of details, in Australia, 2 main domestic competitions are fought for. These are the Pura Cup (first class competition) and the ING Cup (1-day competition). These trophies are contested by the 6 major Australian state sides- namely, Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia. Below this level, a keenly fought 2nd XI championship exists, which is entitled the Cricket Australia Cup. This also includes a team from the Australian Capital Territory which is based in Canberra
Below this level is effectively club competition which is called Grade Cricket. Due to the limited spaces in the first class state sides, Grade Cricket is highly competitive as a result. To many Australian players, grade cricket acts as a shop window for your talents to be seen by a state. Only the most successful grade cricketers will be able to compete with the household names for a place in their local state side. The fact that grade cricket is so well respected is illustrated by the number of English cricketers that come over to Australia to ply their trade at this level during the off season.
Hence, the Australian Model is successful as it maintains the type of support garnered by being named after the local state, but have a much higher level of competition for places than seen in England first class cricket. This means that by the time an Australian reaches the fringes of the test team, he will already have had to face very stiff competition to get into his state side; which prepares him for the toughness required for county cricket. The Australian Model has also been applied in South Africa and Sri Lanka.
So, what would the effect of an Australian Model be on the English game? Thankfully, the answer has already been provided by South Africa. In 2002/03, the South African cricket board took the tough decision to introduce the Australian Model to South Africa. Previously, South African cricket had been contested by the provincial sides in a structure similar to county cricket. The South African cricket hierarchy had noted that this led to a lack of competition places in first class cricket; which prompted their bold move. Hence, 6 regional teams were introduced to sit above the provincial cricket competitions. The problem that hit the game was soon noticeable. Whereas it is fairly easy for local cricket fans to identify with a team associated with their province, meaning that support was relatively strong for teams such as Gauteng or Griqualand West; it is much harder to identify with a team such as ‘The Lions’ or ‘The Titans’ – at least initially. As a result, it has been found that support has been difficult to transfer from the old provinces to the new regional teams. In addition to this, the enhanced competition for places seen as a result of the changes has been somewhat overshadowed by discussion of the Quota system and the loss of good state players to English cricket. This indicates some of the problems that would be associated with bringing the Australian model to England.
Currently, it is easy enough for a cricket fan to identify the county in which they live and were brought up and support their county. Whilst support in county cricket is far from overwhelming, existing counties can rely on a solid foundation of support from which annual membership subscriptions will come. It is quite difficult to see how English county fans would fare if they were forced to support a region. The picture of a Lancastrian and a Yorkshireman sitting down together to discuss how the ‘Northerns’ were going to fare in this week’s fixture against the ‘Westerners’ does not sit easy with many cricket fans. Also, would such an introduction see the death of some of cricket’s less grand stadiums? Would a team competing for the South of England play at Hove, Canterbury or Chelmsford when Lord’s, the Oval and the Rose Bowl are available? Having witnessed the slow and sad demise of festival grounds throughout the counties, how difficult would it be to say goodbye to Canterbury just after the new lime tree has been planted?
As a result of these perceived problems, the ECB would find it difficult to garner support from many county fans for any plans to introduce an Australian Model of domestic cricket. Even more difficult than this would be the need to obtain approval for any such change from the First Class Forum – a committee containing key members of the first class county management. For this reason, an Australian Model is unlikely to succeed. Pseudo-Australian Model
The pseudo-Australian Model is one that is practised in several countries of the cricketing world and is generally imposed on them by virtue of the country in which they live. The countries in question are Zimbabwe, New Zealand, Bangladesh and the West Indies. From the outside, all three of these countries appear to be using the Australian model. Each of the countries mentioned has 6 state teams (except Zimbabwe which has 4) which play in a first-class and one day tournament. The difference is, however, that due to the comparative sizes of these countries, there is no real alternative. None of these countries could support an English style system due to the lack of population or the absence of enough regions containing enough people to gain any kind of support for their team. The other major difference between these countries and the Australian model is that the supporting club structure underneath the first class game does not provide the same level of competition as seen in Australian grade cricket or South African provincial cricket. Hence, there is not the same competition for berths in the first class teams as there is in those countries which use the Australian model.
The failure of this structure can be seen in the form of innovations seen or discussed in these countries in recent years. For example, in the current domestic season, the ZCU in Zimbabwe took the decision to allow the Namibian national team to compete in the domestic championship in order to increase competition for the Zimbabwean state sides. Similarly, a couple of years ago the WICB in the West Indies allowed the Kenyan national team to compete in their national championship for a year. Their counterparts in New Zealand have also discussed the possibility of entering a ‘North Island’ and ‘South Island’ team into the Australian Pura Cup to enhance the competition in their domestic game.
It can be seen from this that none of the countries that are forced into using this system are 100% happy with it. On top of this, if this were introduced into the English game the effect would be a watered down and less effective version of the Australian Model. As a result, there is very little chance that a system modelled on this would be tried in England.
Subcontinental Structure
So, you think that England has problems with making domestic cricket appealing and yet competitive? The same problem can be said to be shared with our counterparts in the sub continent. India and Pakistan enjoy the largest fanbase of any countries in the cricketing world, yet the attendances for their domestic games are poor at best. Coupled with this is the fact that the workings of their domestic competitions are complex at best and altered with alarming regularity. The Pakistani structure, for example, has the Quaid-e-Azam trophy, which compares to the regional structure seen throughout the world, but along side this there is the PCB Patrons’ Trophy which is contested by departmental teams such as Pakistan Customs, Habib Bank and the Karachi Port Trust.No other country has organisations, public institutions and banks playing in the main domestic competitions. The result of this is that attendances are very low for these games as it has been found to be difficult to generate much public interest in games for which cricket fans do not feel any allegiance for the teams playing.
These two competitions are played alongside each other, so that all players turn out for a regional team (e.g. Karachi Whites) in the Quaid-e-Azam Trophy for the three months of the season, and then for a departmental team in the next tournament (Patrons' Trophy) for the other 3-4 months. This does not encourage team spirit to form when everyone plays for two different teams and thus have two different sets of team-mates each season.
The Indian cricket structure has shown similar organisational disasters. Once again, the system undergoes regular upheaval – the latest being completed in 2002/3. The Ranji Trophy is the main competition. This is contested by Indian states. This was split into two divisions in 2002/03 in a move akin to the changes seen in English cricket 5 years ago. The main public relations own goal that was scored in the 2002/3 changes was in the Duleep Trophy. This is effectively the Indian equivalent of the Australian Model. Prior to 2002/3 this was contested by zonal teams for which players in the regional teams had to fight for places. In the changes in 2002/3, the zonal teams were swept away to be replaced with ‘Elite Teams’. These were teams made up of the best players seen in the two divisions of the Ranji Trophy, but fans stayed away from these games due to the fact that teams were titled “Elite Group A” for example.
As a result, the structures seen in Pakistan and India give little assistance to providing ideas for reforming of the English game.
Conclusion:
None of the alternatives seen throughout the cricketing world really provide a model for guaranteed success of the English game. Whilst reform is necessary to maintain or even enhance the competitive nature of English cricket, none of the main alternatives provide the answer. If this is the case, then what is the way forward? Is CountyCricket a failure? Will the existing competition allow England to nurture the players to beat the best the rest of the world has to offer? Well, I have to admit that I’m not in a position to give you a definitive answer. Whoever can devise a way to increase competition for places in county cricket whilst maintaining supporter loyalty will have found the perfect way for county cricket to thrive. Recently, it has been argued that the influx of Kolpak players will provide this extra competitive edge. With more high-class foreign players in the county game then less ‘free spots’ will be available in the team sheet for poor quality English players. The English youth players may have to wait a couple of years longer to oust someone from the 1st XI, but by the time they do, they may well be a leaner, meaner cricketer for it. So, without knowing it, the EU may have solved the problem. The only way to be sure is to wait, listen and watch this space.
With many thanks to Maranello, Beny and bdmoderator |
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 29 March 2006 )
|
|
