Cricket changes poll

[Ernest]

1)
We are going to have a new European constitution,weather we like it or not,new laws will be passed,they do interfere with the small seemingly unimportant things,eg one cant buy a butter pie now,European directive says it has to be called a potato&onion pie,A simle fish cake,is now ,a potato sandwedge containing fish(or words to that effect).If they interfere in such small matters,sport at some time would come on the agenda,Europe make laws for the sake of making laws.

2) The EC dare not interfere with football,this is really different,all Europe have strong football teams,the EU would be knocked back if they interfered there,(but freedom of movement of labour)has interfered to a degree.any interference would be Blocked,Vested inerests and the like.Money is greater than polatics.

3)" EU can only do things according to an existing law, or by drafting a new law."GOATMAN

>Under existing law< this is the key,under a new constitution everthing would change,A united Europe would like to appear united,and do you think for a moment,the French would like us to lead in any sport,they would want us under the European umberella,you devoted much of this part to legal matters in the present tense,Europe is changing,and so are the laws,what is law today,may not be law in 10 years time.

4) The West Indies is a comletely different matter,they dont have a hard and fast political alliance,the Islands are tiny,so they had to come together in sport,in order to play Test cricket,interesting point here,they have moved ever closer ,in trade agreements,with the USA ,this small thing has had an effect on their sport(Baseball is nearly as popular as cricket)

5) I dont like the Idea of extended pairing off,I dont think it will benefit England,and under your plan,the welsh may be obliged to play for a team called Europe,If a radical idea such as you have put forwad,it would be a new ball game,new rules would have to be made,that has to be a concern.

6) They dont need to interfere in golf,What used to be Britain and Ireland,is now Europe in the Ryder cup.

7)For some time is the term you used here,for some time means (That in time) speaks for itself.

Nothing personal Goatman I respect your idea,but I dont like it,I dont think it could work without weakening British cricket,allowing states like Holland to play in our county set up is another matter,I would not mind internationalism there.

Anyone reading this post,I am replying to Goatmans post 10 May 04

[SSA.]

Originally Posted by ernest

Scuse me for saying this SSA,but on the one hand,you are saying we need the revenue,from ODIs,then you are saying we are playing to many one dayers.well you may be right on both counts,but what can be done about it?I for one cant see a different way...

Ernest what I am saying is I dont like to see ODIs at the cost of tests. The cricket boards and ICC need the Odis and the revenue, Ok I accept that, but I dont like to see teams playing less tests and more ODIs. I would have preferred a 5 Test series between India and Australia than the tri series that went on and on.

I dont know what can be done about it, that is why I'd like to see some kind of a rule saying at least 3 / 5 tests should be played in a series. Then they can play as many ODIs as they like, just not at the expense of test match cricket.

But then the ICC is not exactly clever at taking sensible decisions on cricketing matters are they?

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by SSA.

Ernest what I am saying is I dont like to see ODIs at the cost of tests. The cricket boards and ICC need the Odis and the revenue, Ok I accept that, but I dont like to see teams playing less tests and more ODIs. I would have preferred a 5 Test series between India and Australia than the tri series that went on and on.


But then the ICC is not exactly clever at taking sensible decisions on cricketing matters are they?

SSA

I agree,I think they nearly got it right in the West Indies,this spring,four Test,that was great.
There were to many one dayers back to back,was it seven one dayers,cut three of them out,and the players would have been home that much sooner resting.
England have had one heck of a winter and spring,first Bangladesh,then Sri Lanka,Christmas at home then of to the West Indies.
I dont see what they can do about cutting down on the one dayers they let the genie out of the bottle,when they started it.because the crowds love it,there is always a result.
I used to love the five Test series with Australia,if you go one down,you know you have matches in hand to get back in the series.

No the ICC in my opinion are not good at making decisions,they seem to sit back and wait to see what happens,that is until this Zimbabwe mess,they have made things worse,by comeing down on the side of the ZCU,well it looks that way,they wont talk to the so called rebal players.

They will have to get the balance right,or the players will suffer severe burn out.I would like to see two seperate squads,one for Tests,and one for IDIs,that idea doe not seem to go down that well though.

[honestbharani]

Well, after reading the posts of Goatman and Ernest, I get the feeling that perhaps a European team might not work. I mean, if the EU interferes in everything as Ernest said it does, then it might be a good idea for it to not happen. But if they won't interfere in cricketing things, then it might be a good idea. Because, atleast that way, the game will get more popular in these countries......

[Goatman]

Nothing personal Goatman I respect your idea,but I dont like it,I dont think it could work without weakening British cricket,allowing states like Holland to play in our county set up is another matter,I would not mind internationalism there.

Anyone reading this post,I am replying to Goatmans post 10 May 04[/quote]

I accept that you don't like the idea, and I certainly wouldn't try and force it down someone throat, but I think what you say above is tinged with more than a bit of paranoia. Your arguments are basically that EU is changing, and it is not the same as football which EU would never dare change. Dispite your seeming disbelief, EU CAN only act through the law or by changing the law. Our problems are caused by poor drafting in the laws they do pass and, to be honest, over-zealous adherance to thier letter by successive GB governments, which is not reflected in other EU member states. In NL a popular snack is called the vissnack ("fish-snack"), which is in essence a fishcake. Are they considering changing the name? You must be kidding! The real big ones are where a law is passed and its full implication is not thought through. A law is passed to deal with situation X, and it is later realised that it dissallows situation Y which is frustrating or in some cases extremely difficult. The case of the fishcake is a good one - in this situation, a law is drafted attempting to prevent manufacutrers mis-leadingly describing thier product, but because of poor drafting it makes it impossible to call a product by a name that is accepted by everyone and understood by all. Take the situation with the Czech handball player - a ruling on one tiny sport will effect all sport in Europe, potentially to the detriment of cricket (though I strongly differ in this belief. A few second rate SA players are more than welcome if they are better than the dross displayed in most county games). You overlook two things in this aspect of the problem. The other side of the very coin described above is the reason I beleive they couldn't affect the cirkcte situation. By disbarring ENG from playing separately in Cricket they would necessarily disbarr it from playing separately in football and rugby etc. As you say, this will never happen. The second thing you overlook, is that there is no beaurocrat in Brussels going "Haw, he, haw ah vill get zeese smellie eengleesh and zer seelee feesh-caykes!". The problem is caused by a lawyer in London not thinking the draft legislation through enough to realise that this quite reasonalbe ruling will effect daily life in unforseen ways. It is not interefertence which is the problem with the EU so much as incompetance, and I see no grounds for worry that they will accedientally pass legislation thta will effect cricket. I am damn sure they won't bother to do it deliberately. All these governments have much bigger fish to fry.

You argue that the constitution will change everything. Well, one thing that is set in stone in the constitution is that the EU will NOT be sovereign - this is the one issue on which every member state is fully agreed on. While Europe wishes to appear united, EU will not have any grounds to claim equal status to the member states until it is sovereign, and so simply cannot insist on its claim being paramount. As I said before, there is no ruling in law to allow EU to interfere at present and there is no way that this can happen in the forseeable future, and the constitution actually entrenches this further. ENG have to become part of a sovereign Europe before EU can force the issue you are concerned about through, and that in itself is, at least for me, of paramount concern even over cricket! Basically, the situation is unalterable unless GB is forced to play as one in football/rugby or until Europe becomes a federal state. Can you see either of those things happening? As I say, nothing will happen for the time being and I would add that I can see no circumstance in which they could.

As for the pairing off, I can't remotely think what you are worried about? Is the thought of losing a testmatch to Scotland really that bad? UNder the new regime, ENG may well be required to change thier name to England and Wales or something that expresses the same, but frankly this is long overdue. As for the rules changes, the rules of cricket are set by the MCC on behalf of the ICC, and the EU simply have no jurisdiction.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Goatman

I reckon Europe should play like WI. With SCO, IRE and NL together, I reckon they'd put together a team at least as good as BAN and maybe as good as KEN and now ZIM as well. Add in a few Danes, Germans and Portuguese and so on, and they would surely be worth considering for test status after a few years.

Goatman

I've been following this discussion and found it most interesting, so I thought I'd chuck in my h'appeny's worth.

I think the general idea and 'principle' of an EU Cricket Team is an excellent one although I do see plenty of problems in the 'mechanics' of seeing it actually happen, but accept this probably isn't the forum to put up obstacles to what is a very good idea.

It's actually one of those ideas thats so simplistic one wonders why it hasn't been thought of before! Perhaps it was, who knows. Of the existing EU Member states the following are Associate members of the ICC - Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands and Scotland. Associate membership is one step down before full membership and represents countries that play Cricket according to ICC rules and which is well run and organised - so plenty of countries there to choose players from.

Scott

[Goatman]

Hi Scott,

I do think it is an excellent idea, and I'm sure I'm not the only one to have mooted it. There are mechanical problems, but I don't think they are as large as Ernest was making out above. The crux of the matter for me is that I simply can't see NL - KEN aside, the most impressive of the minnows at the last WC - ever becoming a test nation to challenge the best. They don't have enough playing population. They only have three grass pitches. And so on. That is no criticism of the Dutch, but the changes needed are far to big for them to manage. They need a proffessional class of player to form for one thing, and thats just not going to happen soon. It woudl happen almost immeditely with the change of scale involved in forming a communal European team. With the addition of those 6 other nations you highlight the situation is different, and in addition the team and competition would be something NEW! A side made up of players used to playing first class quality cricket in Scotland, Denmark and Ireland AND in Italy and Portugal would be able to avoid becoming a clone of ENG, and cricket has always thrived on variety. It would be great for the game.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Goatman

I do think it is an excellent idea, and I'm sure I'm not the only one to have mooted it. There are mechanical problems, but I don't think they are as large as Ernest was making out above.

Goatman

Yes, I see your concerns and agree with them. It does take quite a lot to achieve Test Status for an individual country and as you rightly say, it would be almost impossible for any of those individual countries to acheive it on their own. I'm not just talking about a high enough 'standard' but all of the other criteria the ICC uses to assess the standard required for Test Status. The convenience of having the EU as a collective team rather than individual country teams means you don't duplicate all those areas required for Test Status to be awarded - eg a National Coach and Coaching Academy - you would only need one.

Sadly at the end of the day a lot of this comes down to money - finance - and individually none of those countries could possibly raise the kind of money needed to set up the infrastructure for Test Cricket - but collectively they could, and have a reasonable pool of quality players to choose from.

I think the first step for these countries would be to set up a proper league system where the top teams from each country start to play each other in a Divisional League system and take it on from there.

* * * * * *

I share some of Ernests concerns regrding the EU and 'their legal-law-passing-nuttyness' but really can't see how any of this would impact on the game of Cricket as you rightly say. Sadly the very mention of the words EU, Member States, Soveriegnty, Laws, Constitution, ERM sends the majority of 'sensible' Brits into apoplexy and hate the very thought of European 'meddlers' interfering in anything in this Country.

I don't want to get into a big debate about Europe, I can see postives from having a European Union of Members States, I can also see many disadvantages and sadly for this Country so far I've only really seen (as does the average man in the street) all the many disadvantages, my opinion on the EU is still very much undecided. I have very very big concerns about the type and kind of 'poorer' countries they are now allowing to join the EU, there's nothing wrong with that in itself except it leaves this country open to a massive influx of 'poor' people this country can well do without.

Scott

[Goatman]

Your suggestion is already happening in a small way, and its being driven by NL amongst others. Top clubs from England, Scotland, Ireland and Denmark and over here between 18 and 24 July in a cup competition, Italy and "buitenlands " ("foreign countries") are also competing in a "B" competition in Belgium, according to the KNCB website. Bloody Dutch - "Foreign Countries", please...... Anyway, I only know about this because my club is one of the venues (it is one of the 3 grass pitches). Not exactly being publicised is it........

[Goatman]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

I have very very big concerns about the type and kind of 'poorer' countries they are now allowing to join the EU, there's nothing wrong with that in itself except it leaves this country open to a massive influx of 'poor' people this country can well do without.

Scott

I also dont' want to get into an EU debate, and think its innappropriate here outside of its impact on cricket. One interesting thing I heard through NL news however (they are very worried about the influx problem here, as it is a very small and tremenoudsly overpacked country already) was that GB was 7th on the list of countries those that said they were considering leaving the new accession countries to work in. After Belgium.