Associate Nations - Ideas for Improving Standards

Most ICC one-day tournaments have had Associate Nations such as Holland, Ireland and Kenya - now Afghanistan at this world T20. Whilst it's true that they won't improve unless they face better opposition, its equally true that they're invariably the whipping boys. Now and then, we see a spirited performance, but too often we see real hidings handed out.

What did the Afghan top order learn tonight? Steyn is probably about 10-15mph faster than anything they've ever faced, and when someone of Morkel's height & pace spears it towards your heart / throat - then fending the ball off with your bat will probably get you out. The fact is that the gap between Associate Nations and the top 8 Test teams is just too great right now.

To me, the problem seems to be a lack of opportunity to play competitive cricket at the required level - but what can be done? Here's a couple of thoughts.

1. Could the ICC sponsor Associate Nations to tour a Test Nation playing first class cricket ( 4 day games) ? AM players never get to play anything other than ODIs overseas - but ODI's aren't the place to learn & practice technique.

The format for an English season could be for three Associate members to each play six of our counties and say an England under-25 XI ?Maybe in Australia, the AM could have a game against each of the State teams and an Aus U25 side ? A West Indies tour playing each Island and WI U25s ?

So on with the other test nations ...... host an AM to play the top domestic teams. Playing FC cricket over 4 days will give the AM players time to build innings, learn from some of the "old pros", play against up and coming ( and retired ) international players without the constant barrage of opponents they can't handle, and experience different pitches and conditions. There's no reason for the county / state sides to field poor teams .... they won't want to lose to the likes of Kenya.

2. Instead of qualifying matches for the honour of getting spanked arses in World Cups etc - wouldn't it make more sense to have a proper " Associate Members World Cup" with anything from 16 to 32 teams run like the footy WC ie pool matches then last 8 or last 4 knock out? No more complete mismatches, and something tangible to play for and win.

For things like the ICCCT, world cup etc - if the ICC want 12 nations, then the two finalists from the AM WC could join the 10 Test teams in 2 groups of six format ( round robin top two make simis, winners play for trophy ).

3. An idea thrown around on the telly a couple of nights ago ....... special dispensation for a capped (international ) player who

a. Announces his retirement, or
b. Drops off the radar after playing an odd match or series and not even making the squad for 12-18 months

....... to be allowed to be selected for an AM side, with maybe a six-month maximum qualifying period if it's an announced retirement.


Anyone have any other ideas to improve the standard of cricket in the second tier nations?

Growler wrote:
1. Could the ICC sponsor Associate Nations to tour a Test Nation playing first class cricket ( 4 day games) ?

I'm pretty sure Sri Lanka undertook quite a few first class tours before gaining test status. Zim and the Bangles too.

3. An idea thrown around on the telly a couple of nights ago ....... special dispensation for a capped (international ) player who

a. Announces his retirement, or
b. Drops off the radar after playing an odd match or series and not even making the squad for 12-18 months

Wouldn't surprise me to see England abuse that rule

How about reforming the championship into two divisions of six - plus a division comprising the remaining counties plus Ireland, Scotland, Holland and (maybe) Kenya and/or Afghnanistan.

The four day game attracts precious few paying customers as it is - so I won't hear any arguments about lack of support

New Zealand were part of the Oz Domestic One day comp in the 70's

and Qld still is in our comp

here's a perfect example for point 3 of my original post

Linky - Ed Joyce

It was clear a couple of years ago that - like Owais Shah - he was history so far as England were concerned.

The 4 year qualifying period before playing for a different country should be drastically reduced for Associate countries. Joyce would be a huge asset to the Ireland squad with his experience.

I'll repeat my idea here from the Afghanistan thread. English counties should be allowed to sign an extra 2 overseas players, if they are from one of the identified 'developing' countries (in cricket terms not economic terms). This could include Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Canada, Kenya, (maybe even Pakistan and West Indies considering their current troubles). To qualify for this ruling the player would have to be Under 25.

Maybe not all of the players would make the First XI, but you would imagine the wages would be cheap and maybe this can even by partly subsidised by the ICC. Many of these Associate Nation players would learn a lot playing Second XI cricket. Players such as Eoin Morgan and Niall O'Brien have come on leaps and bounds through exposure to the English Domestic game (Irish and Dutch players count as being domestic EU players under current rules). In the past many of the most talented West Indian players (Greenidge, Richards, etc.) developed their talents in England on the county scene.

We've only recently managed to limit the number of overseas players in the championship to one - raising it to three would hinder the development of our own players.

But as Gary said - 2nd XI cricket would be just as good for development

Gary's plan doesn't expand on how players like Greenidge, Richards, and Lloyd all came on so well through exposure to the 70's County scene, whilst home grown English players at the same time were largely unable to reap the same benefit.

I would contend that some of the County teams back then (eg Lancashire, Kent) were far stronger than any County team now, precisely because of the extra international players, and their even spread across a single division. That system worked well as a nursery for international cricketers; but it didn't work well as a nursery for English cricketers.

A bit like the iPL, Lardy . . . quite a few international players seem to be benefiting from the T20 practice they get, but not the subis themselves . . .

Although T20 is and always will be a lottery; anyone could win on any given day. Any format of the game where players like Tait, Warner, Yuvraj, Pollard etc are the stars is clearly rubbish.

Nice exclusion of Watto from that list . . .

Watson still can't and shouldn't bowl.

lardbucket wrote:Gary's plan doesn't expand on how players like Greenidge, Richards, and Lloyd all came on so well through exposure to the 70's County scene, whilst home grown English players at the same time were largely unable to reap the same benefit.

I would contend that some of the County teams back then (eg Lancashire, Kent) were far stronger than any County team now, precisely because of the extra international players, and their even spread across a single division. That system worked well as a nursery for international cricketers; but it didn't work well as a nursery for English cricketers.

I'm not sure that's strictly true though lardy ........ whilst those three fine West indians indeed honed their skills within our system, we did produce a few gems of our own. Botham, Willis, Gooch and Gower ( off the top of my head without looking up stats) have records up there in the top echelons of test players.

of course, it's agreed that some still reached the top, including those you mentioned ... but how many compared to the myriad overseas players who putatively achieved or cemented their greatness through competition in the County arena?

In the early to mid 70's you had Boyce, Julien, Asif Iqbal, Jon Shepherd, Procter, Zaheer Abbas, Kallicharran, Andy Roberts, Malcolm Marshall, Sadiq, Mushtaq, Bedi, Sobers, Lloyd, Gordon Greenidge, Geoff Greenidge, Barry Richards, Majid Khan, Imran Khan ... amongst others, in fact there seemed to be 2-3 at every County Club (except Yorkshire). If all these players reached international greatness through playing on the County Circuit, where was the great rtuck of English players achieving equally? Were those potential great English players not stuck playing second XI cricket for an extra 2-3 years, being held back, whilst only the absolutely irrepressible (eg Botham) got through at the rate of one every 3-5 years?

I'm not sure ...... but even with 3 o/seas pros, that still left 8 places for English players. The "potential greats" would surely not have been stuck in the seconds an extra couple of years - if they were that promising I'd imagine they would have displaced an old journeyman from the first XI.

Thinking about it - we probably produced as many as anyone else bar West Indies. Bear in mind that we also had South Africans, Indians, Pakistanis and Snoozers too - so four from each of them you've almost got two complete combined XIs.

One other factor ....... the overseas players were the cream - signed by counties from the leagues where they had attracted attention - and already earmarked for Test cricket (if not already capped). As internationals, they then had experience of English conditions - whereas our players didn't tend to play overseas in our off season.

lardbucket wrote:Gary's plan doesn't expand on how players like Greenidge, Richards, and Lloyd all came on so well through exposure to the 70's County scene, whilst home grown English players at the same time were largely unable to reap the same benefit.

I would contend that some of the County teams back then (eg Lancashire, Kent) were far stronger than any County team now, precisely because of the extra international players, and their even spread across a single division. That system worked well as a nursery for international cricketers; but it didn't work well as a nursery for English cricketers.

I haven't explained it, but if you would like me to I can:

A massive problem in West Indies cricket (from the 1920s right the way through to the present day) has always been a lack of discipline and organisation. This has only been overcome by the few times they have managed to find an inspirational leader who can overcome these structural flaws - Frank Worrall, Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards and impose a professional ethic in the team. The West Indies quickly regressed under less acccomplished leadership, e.g. Gary Sobers, Richie Richardson or Brian Lara. You might argue this would happen in any team, but I would contend that in more organised countries with less chaotic ruling boards the captain is merely the icing on the cake, rather than the majority of the cake itself. E.g. see Australia's 67% win ratio under Ponting or England regaining the Ashes and winning in India under Gower.

I think as a young cricketing superstar in the West Indies there is a tendency to be given everything too young and become spoilt, in recent years there have been a multitude of players, e.g. - Marlon Samuels, Dwayne Smith, Runako Morton, Darren Powell, Tino Best who thought they were superstars before they had actually achieved anything. This is an anethma to the Australian or English system where young players are seen as having to earn their stripes, and are often harshly dealt with. See Damien Martyn's international exile as a young player, or the English habit of not awarding a County Cap until 3 or 4 seasons into a players career.

In the case of Greenidge and Richards, they were both extremely talented cricketers (much more talented than their English counterparts). But the fact that at a young age they moved abroad, had to live without that support bubble of family and hangers-on and fend for themselves in a foreign environment was hugely beneficial. They had to deal with the pressure of having to perform, often as the star player they were expected to be twice as good as some of their teammates. And if they didn't pull their weight they would be criticised. The influence of a hardened pro, e.g. Brian Close, on a young Viv Richards (and Ian Botham for that matter) at Somerset was vast. The chance to train and play regularly in a more competitive and demanding environment, and finally to experience new playing conditions and expand your range of skills all contributed to a player's development. Virtually all of Lloyd's team played country cricket, just like most of Worrall's had played club cricket in Northern club leagues.

You ask why English players didn't benefit to the same extent - well partly these factors are unique to foreigners. English players don't have to move away from home and establish themselves. There aren't special expectations placed upon them or new conditions to adapt to. Certain English cricketers who have excelled as Australian Club Pros - Alec Stewart and Paul Collingwood spring to mind, have benefitted from similar apprenticeships. Also, for what it's worth in that time period (the early 70s) England were the best side in the world. They went 27 Tests unbeaten and had world class players such as Boycott, Edrich, D'Oliveria, Knott, Illingworth, Snow and Underwood. The likes of Gooch, Gower, Gatting, Botham and Willis would emerge during this period in addition.

I would argue that the strength of the league itself wasn't as important a factor as you make out. And also it is arguable that the flabby 17 county system in place in the 1970s that the standard of cricket is any more intense than Division One in England now where there are very few meaningless end of season matches, or poorly prepared wickets.

So similarly, like the West Indies, Associate Nations struggle from a lack of top class facilities and coaches, and poorly organised domestic leagues. In very poor countries such as Afghanistan, Zimbabwe or Bangladesh you would hardly expect it to be any different. So, if England, or India, Australia for that matter, could integrate a few of the most talented players into their domestic leagues for a few months they would be helping the progress greatly. (Note - as long as they don't try to poach these players!). I would maybe have one or two of these players per squad (possibly with the caveat that only 1 is allowed to play in addition with a regular overseas player for the first team). Maybe it could even be further up the pipeline, and that most of the players who move are 18 or 19 and play junior or Second Team cricket.

This, in additon to hosting Associate tours and diverting funds to these nations (except Zimbabwe) would help their development greatly.

Growler wrote:2. Instead of qualifying matches for the honour of getting spanked arses in World Cups etc - wouldn't it make more sense to have a proper " Associate Members World Cup" with anything from 16 to 32 teams run like the footy WC ie pool matches then last 8 or last 4 knock out? No more complete mismatches, and something tangible to play for and win.

For things like the ICCCT, world cup etc - if the ICC want 12 nations, then the two finalists from the AM WC could join the 10 Test teams in 2 groups of six format ( round robin top two make simis, winners play for trophy )

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/315003.html

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/240107.html

From one of the links TO posted above:

1979
Venue England
Winner Sri Lanka
Runner-up Canada
As widely expected, Sri Lanka, pushing hard for Test status, won the competition, [snip to] The only blemish was their refusal to play Israel on political grounds,

Now is this the same Sri Lanka that got all shirty when Australia and the West Indies refused to play there during the 1996 WC for fear of being blown up by terrorists?

I would suspect that fear of beiung blown to bits in a country where terrorists were seriously active and not being caught or hindered at any great rate is a slightly more valid reason to avoid a match.