My belief is that the counties should play only ten or 12 four-day games, as 16 is just too many. The basic aim has to be to allow players more time to work on their skills, writes Michael Vaughan in the Times.
Speaking of which, I would like us to have a look at allowing every county to play two four-day games per year in India around March and April. It would expose every player, not just the elite 15 who get into a national performance squad, a chance to experience those conditions and learn some of the methods required to take wickets there. It would encourage spin and real pace and the kind of skills needed at the highest level. It would be a test of the guys’ characters and I am sure there must be commercial opportunities in it as well.
Andy Bull has a similar point, but about the international schedule in his weekly Spin column on the Guardian. He also writes that while cricket administrators are wary of kowtowing to the press or yielding to player power, it's the fans who will ultimately decide how much cricket is enough.
Contrary to all appearances, the ICC is not entirely incapable of learning from its mistakes. The 2011 world cup, for example, will be shorter than the moribund 2007 edition. By all of two games. Where it once had 51 fixtures it will now have 49, a reduction akin to taking your socks off when you stand on the bathroom scales. You don't cure obesity by trimming toenails.
What hope have we then that they will be able to effectively tackle the single largest problem facing the game, the complete redesign and rationalisation of the international, and domestic, calendars?
RSS Feed
