Sri Lanka vs... well... a bunch of nobodies!

[Rachael]

For the forthcoming game with Sri Lanka Sussex are resting "most of their first-choice men": skipper Chris Adams and plus Mushtaq Ahmed and Rana Naved-ul-Hasan will all be missing, rested in the interests of domestic glory.

A strong case surely exists for a radical re-think of tour matches: counties used to take a pride in fielding strong teams and looking to really compete with touring sides.. but those days appear to be over. This is serious but of lesser significance with the strongest sides.... but if a weaker county side rests 2-3 star players the game becomes something of a waste of space.

I've no idea how packed the Sri Lankan schedule is.. but the really radical solution would be incorporating the touring side into the first division of the county championship: each first division side might play the tourist once (obviously at home) with points counting as if against another county.

The late summer tourists might then do the same, meaning "tourists" would play a full part in the competition.

[Vrock]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I've no idea how packed the Sri Lankan schedule is.. but the really radical solution would be incorporating the touring side into the first division of the county championship: each first division side might play the tourist once (obviously at home) with points counting as if against another county

With the cries of too much cricket at the moment, making a touring side play a load of first class games would just never, ever, happen; there is just no way that it would work IMO.

Touring sides would have to play X tests, X ODI's and something like 8 or 9 extra first class games. Players from the touring side would end up having to stick around for the whole of our season, some players in the world are saying that tours are long enough as they already are.

And the same goes for England going anywhere else. Now with someone like Steve Harmison, he gets homesick, playing tests matches and ODI's away is probably never been his favourite cup of tea. Now would he want to play an extra set of first class games just so we see the respective countries first class sides turn out players of the top level?

I completely understand Sussex's motives in resting their star players, they don't want them to get injured or burned out having to play a game that has little meaning to the side in terms of trophies or awards. It is simply better to rest their main players against a touring side when the game has no meaning. And as far as pride goes, would you take more in winning a domestic first class tournament/league or beating a touring side in a one off game?

[Ninjaman]

I think your suggestion is a non-starter but I'll indulge you.

What happens if the two tourists are one team as good as the 80's West Indians or 90s/2000s Aussies and the other as poor as the Zimbabweans of the last year or so?

Can you not see the problem with allocating teams points based on these games?

Also, how long would it take for all these games to be played?

Why should players visiting England have to stick around longer than they need to?

[admin]

I think Rachael's idea is born out of understandable frustration. Pulling out the main drawcards from the match will ensure nobody turns up except the ground staff and freelance photographers. I think this discussion ought to focus on Rachael's main topic about why this is happening and whether it's acceptable or not. I don't think it's acceptable and I can't think of another alternative except to stage another England A match. If the touring side was Australia would the county side be resting their main players?

Last year, Australia played four 2-3 day tour matches against 2nd Division sides:

Essex: Andy Flower and Grant Flower didn't play. Neither did Gough , Kaneria, Adams, or Steyn.

Northamptonshire: Love and Louw missing.

Worcestershire: All first-choice played.

Leicestershire: Henderson, Nixon and Mongia didn't play.

Most sides play relatively full-strength sides except for Essex who were missing quite a few key players. That match was in early September just before the 5th Test. With three rounds of the Championship left and Essex desparate to finish in the Top 2, they may have decided to rest some key players.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I've no idea how packed the Sri Lankan schedule is.. but the really radical solution would be incorporating the touring side into the first division of the county championship

I am sure that would not work and would never be suggested. However, I do agree that there should be more 'tour' games for international teams, not just in England, but also in other countries.

I remember that when Pakistan toured England in 1992, we played a whole host of County sides - looking through the records for that tour, Pakistan played 15 first class three day games over the whole summer, of which 13 were against County teams. Add to this the five Tests, a few ODIs and 6 limited overs encounters with County sides and you have a very packed summer indeed. But then, that tour lasted almost a full four months - and was enjoyed by all, the Pakistani players were able to parade their talents and get some lucrative sponsorship and other awards; the Pakistanis living in England were able to follow their team all over the country, and the Pakistanis in Pakistan read about the exploits and followed the Tests on TV.

The full first-class schedule and results for that tour were something like:

1. Kent v Pakistanis - Pakistanis won by 40 runs
2. Worcestershire v Pakistanis - Worcestershire won by 5 wickets
3. Glamorgan v Pakistanis - Pakistanis won by 206 runs
4. Somerset v Pakistanis - Pakistanis won by 5 wickets
5. Leicestershire v Pakistanis - Pakistanis won by 8 wickets
6. Nottinghamshire v Pakistanis - Pakistanis won by 8 wickets
7. Middlesex v Pakistanis - Match drawn
8. Northamptonshire v Pakistanis - Pakistanis won by 7 wickets
9. Combined Universities v Pakistanis - Pakistanis won by 9 wickets
10. Hampshire v Pakistanis - Pakistanis won by an innings and 14 runs
11. Durham v Pakistanis - Pakistanis won by 107 runs
12. Derbyshire v Pakistanis - Match drawn
13. Essex v Pakistanis - Pakistanis won by 7 wickets
14. Gloucestershire v Pakistanis - Pakistanis won by 292 runs
15. World XI v Pakistanis - Match drawn

My recollection is that in addition to the usual prize money, one of the English corporate sponsors had offered an unusually large incentive for the visitors if they managed to win 10 or 11 of their County games, and the Pakistani players had a lot of fun through the summer working towards that.

Not sure why anyone would think the current arrangement, of truncated 3 or 4 Test series, with very few 'side' games, is better in any way.

[darksideofthemoon]

I don't think it is a good idea for counties to put our their 2nd X1s against a touring team. It gives their players a chance to get into form. Look at England in Australia who put out their strongest teams. We were battered before the the 1st Test. The advantage for counties would be that selectors would be able to see any emerging talent.

Counties should have a rotation system for their bowlers so there would be less injuries and more freshness. Bowling over 600 overs during the season (in all forms of the game) for one bowler will cause injuries, if not this season then in the future. Counties usually play three fast bowlers and if they had a pool of 5 to rotate they would benefit.

Many players say they don't have time to work on their game with all the county cricket. Surely 6 months off during the year would be enough time as well as rain breaks.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by darksideofthemoon

The advantage for counties would be that selectors would be able to see any emerging talent.

I am not sure if losing its best players to central contracts is an advantage for an individual county - an advantage for the ECB, yes, but for the County team struggling to avoid relegation?

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Maranello

I remember that when Pakistan toured England in 1992, we played a whole host of County sides - looking through the records for that tour, Pakistan played 15 first class three day games over the whole summer, of which 13 were against County teams.

Now I can see that it might be a big deal with playing (say) four day games against all the current first division sides... but who says it HAS to be like that? Why not go to three divisions of six teams plus one tourist - that's just six domestic fixtures per major touring side... which ain't a big deal!

In an ideal world the principle touring side would play in division 1, the other summer tourist would then be invited to participate in division 2 and an overseas 'A' side would participate in division 3: tourists would get serious cricket... and domestic players would get a meaningful workout against visiting Test sides allowing far greater opportunities for fringe players to state their case.

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Why not go to three divisions of six teams plus one tourist - that's just six domestic fixtures per major touring side... which ain't a big deal!

I actually really like the idea. But 'just' six games is still way too much for a team that could be playing 4-5 test matches. Most touring teams now only play 2 first class warm ups, plus the one-dayers. Six first class matches couldn't fit into a tour - it would have to last 5-6 months!

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Why not go to three divisions of six teams plus one tourist - that's just six domestic fixtures per major touring side... which ain't a big deal!

I think that would not be right, it's like allowing the opposition to play themselves in, a vital matter that England did not get on this winters tours.