ICC launch 6 year schedule of international matches

---

Apologies I haven't blogged in a few days - a combination of hectic times and not terribly much going on in the cricketing world. I would however like to comment on the recent news of the ICC unveiling their six year schedule of international cricket. It seems the schedule pleases noone. Australia, India and England get too much cricket. New Zealand, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe don't get enough. I'd just like to weigh in on the debate from an Australian point of view where the raging issue is whether our national team plays too much or not. It's even been debated here (although I'm not sure why seeing it was on a post about Troy Cooley).

Basically, the players are saying they're playing too much international cricket and getting tired. Everyone else is calling them whingers and telling them to get on with it. Paul Marsh, chief executive of the Australian Cricketers' Association, has threatened possible strike action. James Sutherland has made comments like if the players are too tired, they're welcome to make room for more willing players. This argument is plain wrong-headed. In Australia's case, we're talking about core players like Ricky Ponting, Brett Lee and Adam Gilchrist - world class champions whose only crime is to be good enough to be shoe-in selections for the Test and one day side. These players should be taken care of, not treated with disdain by the officials who have their jobs thanks in large part to the players.

Some ex-players say current players should quit complaining - they would love to have played more cricket. That argument is self-defeating as they are in no position to judge the current workload based on their own experiences of lighter schedules. I've heard the argument that the players get well paid so they should shut up and get on with it. Or that it's a privilege to play with your country. Or that cricket is their job - we all have our own jobs that we do without complaining (although I've yet to meet someone who doesn't complain about their job). These points have nothing to do with the heart of the issue.

The key is what is best for cricket and that is a playing schedule that generates the highest quality of cricket. If players are being worn to a stub and producing tired, insipid performances due to gruelling schedules, that is detrimental to the game of cricket. A perfect (and extreme) example is Australia's recent performance in the 1st Test against Bangaladesh. That was a case of poor player management, going from one hard, grueling Test series in South Africa to a new Test match in another continent 2 days later. What's more, unrelenting schedules will result in players not given enough time to recover from injuries (or exacerbate niggles into the real thing). This will particularly take its toll on the bowlers - it's hard enough finding a good bowler these days.

How you work out this schedule, I wouldn't have a clue. Under-scheduling can be detrimental to performance as much as over-scheduling. Australia took a 3 month break before the Ashes and they were still brushing off the cobwebs at the Oval - they didn't hit their straps again until the Super Series. I shudder to think what a 5 month rest will do to them considering their first Test after the break is the 1st Ashes Test in Brisbane. I assume there is data and research done on timing an optimal performance (I hear swimmers talking about tapering their performances all the time - surely there's similar sensibilities in cricket). Maybe the current proposal by the ICC, which supposedly is the result of 2 years of indepth research, is optimal. However, I suspect the research was into how to maximise TV revenue, not player performance.

Lastly, I think there is too much one day cricket - but that's just a personal view. Any one day cricket is too much one day cricket - I wouldn't mind if the shorter form of the game was scrapped altogether to make more room for Test cricket. But that's never gonna happen - one day cricket (and Twenty20 to a growing extent) is too much of a cash cow. I'd take an Ashes series or a 5 Test series in India over the World Cup any day.

---

Posted by JC on Sun 14 May

5 comments

Some good ideas in here but I'm afraid I don't agree with a lot of it. I'm not interested in watching cricket games that are all of the highest standard. It is precisely those moments when the Aussies choke, when Hayden looks like a stuffed chook and Warney and Lee rise to the occasion that makes cricket great and really watchable. The popularity of the Ashes series points to the fact that it is imperfection as much as perfection that makes cricket popular.

---

Posted by TA on 2006-05-14 16:21:47

Ah yes, the old 'tiredness' chestnut. I'm still of the belief that it's 'what they get paid for' because I, for one, work at least 8 hrs a days, five days a week, 48 weeks a year and will do for about 45yrs total.... whereas the average over-worked international cricketer might 'work' a fraction of that for a lot more than I could earn doing 3 jobs. To turn a hobby into a well-paid job is surely a bonus in its own right - so why are they still whinging to the hand that feeds them? For starters, half a test or an innings is spent in the pavilion. During this time they're seen sprawling around, making up names for each other, texting women and gesticulating to the tv cameras inbetween having expert physio, energy drinks and (in the case of the English team) sucking on lollies in preparation to bowl. Then we have a spot of training in the week, more money deposited into their bank accounts, a bit of diary writing and a couple of interviews - PAH! These blokes need to wake up to themselves and stop making excuses for crap performances. Whatever happened to 'the best side won'? I know the bowlers have it hard and the wicket-keeper's role can be a bit rough but things can't be that bad if key team members go trolleying off to Pomland for their season and still have enough energy left for a menage a tois. This is the problem: these blokes want it both ways - the Baggy Green, the big bucks, the adulation, the awards, those oversized cheques and to be thought of as nice family guys. BUT...... they also desire the trappings of being modern-day sports stars which the previous tenants rarely bothered about. There's the family breaks, the annual leave, the tv interviews, the Alpha mag photo shoots, the mobile phone endorsement deals, the Weetbix ads, guest appearences with Mel and Koshie - I mean, they even call a sickie in when their wife gets ill nowadays! In summary, I'd reckon these so-called hard working cricketers have got a great company to work for and a very laid back boss. Now get me that application form...

---

Posted by virtualgaz on 2006-05-16 11:10:37

Hey Gaz, great post and your thoughts are always an entertaining read but I'm afraid I don't subscribe to the "I work a full week so why don't they?" argument. You can't compare ordinary jobs that shmoes like us have to elite sport. When a player is out there with a reverse swinging ball hurtling towards them at 160km/hr, the batsman has to not only be at his absolute best, intensely focused and in the moment, he has to be the best in the world. A bowler is straining with every sinew of his body (and I'm not just talking about Warnie off the field), pushing himself to the absolute limit. They're not clocking in and clicking a mouse around for 8 hours. And when two elite sports teams come together, it can be just the little things like a mental edge that can tip the difference. So while I won't deny sportsmen have it pretty cushy and there are good points for players playing more cricket, I don't think comparing international cricket to an ordinary job is one of them.

---

Posted by JC on 2006-05-16 18:05:18

I am Zafar Raheem the my comment is west indies team why win some matches other teams, andmy openion iswest indies begin the county cricket

---

Posted by Zafar Raheem on 2006-06-06 23:31:26

Post New Comment

You need to be logged in to post a comment. If you're new, register here. Existing users, login via the right margin.