Buchanan says opposition countries should poach Aussies!

[Dogwatcher]

WTF?

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 88,00.html

[rogernumber10]

I bet Brad Haddin would be just thrilled to be drafted by the West Indies to play 97 Test matches for them for six victories.

Andrew Symonds, eight or nine years ago, had the opportunity to qualify immediately for England and said he would rather try and fail to play any Tests for the country he was proud of, rather than 100 Tests for a country he happened to be able to qualify for.

If Symonds didn't want cheap tests when he could actually get them, what a ridiculous idea to take blokes who have absolutely no link at all.

[Dogwatcher]

Rugby league.

[smac]

It appears Buchanan is trying to raise the overall standard of world cricket, which is a good thing for the game.

He seems to have forgotten that Australians would really only like to play for Australia. I recall Stuart MacGill was touted as one who could look elsewhere a number of years ago as well.

[Dogwatcher]

The Poms have resorted to kidnapping in the past to get our players to play for them....might be time to try that tack again.

[Dogwatcher]

Here's a sidebar to this thread -

Who are the six Australian test cricketers to have played for another country....should be pretty easy.

[BJ Ernest]

Kepler Wessels.

[Rik E Boy]

Billy Midwinter

[Dogwatcher]

Kepler Wessels.

Correct.

[rogernumber10]

Albert Trott

[Dogwatcher]

Billy Midwinter

Correct.

Who was kidnapped by WG Grace to play for Gloucestershire during an Australia tour.

[Dogwatcher]

Albert Trott

Correct. The brother of the tragic Harry Trott.
Both had tragic lives actually.

[rogernumber10]

I was convinced David Ogilvie was actively playing for the opposition in his brief unspectacular Test career. He had a much more worthy sporting career once his changed his name to Ron Hateley and spend the remainder of his life running up and down the wing for South Adelaide.

[NFC]

Keep it shut Buchanan.

I wish all former coaches and players would just shut up.

[sasquatch]

jj ferris.

[Dogwatcher]

jj ferris.

Correct.
Two to go.

[Rik E Boy]

Buchanan's heart might be in the right place but the idea should be to raise the standard of other countries rather than weakening the strongest link in world cricket. England for one took note of our system and refined county cricket and introduced a cricket academy, the end result is an improved English performance (at least at Test level) in this decade.

It's hard to see where improvements in world cricket are going to come from if we are going to be forced into playing dud nations like the Zimbabwe, West Indies and Bangladesh twice every five years in what is a truly bogus test cricket 'championship'.

What is required here is a two tiered test set up with only the top nations given the PRIVELIGE of playing test match cricket. You could have the top six nations playing test cricket and the next six nations qualifying for the right to play test matches. The second division would still be considered first class cricket but not test matches - sort of like a 'World Group' system like they have for Davis Cup tennis.

After a four year cycle of everyone playing at least THREE tests at home and away against the test nations, the bottom side gets relagated and the top team from the world group gets promoted.

So how would this system help raise the standard of the other countries.

1. If you are teams 2-6 you don't play bullshit series against dud 'test' teams, then fly down to Australia and get smacked. A more consistent standard overall produces better cricketers. As an example of how this has been proven over the decades is the standard of cricket in the Sheffield Shield vs. County Cricket or even worse, Red Stripe or provincal Kiwi cricket. Make the test cricket championship a GENUINE series of tests, not an open invitation to anyone who bribes the ICC.

2. No two test 'series'. Two test series that count for points in the ICC Test championship are bullshit. What do they prove exactly? It is difficult for teams to adjust to foriegn conditions. Let's make the series a little less one sided by giving the away teams that additional test to acclimatise. It has to result in better cricket. For example, I'm tipping an improved performance by Sri Lanka in the Hobart test. Their lead up to this match was clearly inadequete preparation.

3. If you are teams 7-9 then you aren't getting smashed by Australia, India or England while you try and develop your team. Your nation will win more matches and the unit can grow as a group and develop a bit of confidence. At the moment some of these nations' confidence is being built by improved performance in one day cricket (West Indies, Bangladesh) but when these younger teams front up against the big guns they get smashed and a lot of players get shown the door and it's back to the drawing board. Whoever wins the second tier championship will have earned the right to play tests again and would not want to relinquish this status in a hurry.

4. A four year cycle gives some nations time to set up academies and training programs.

5. If you are teams 10-12 you play five day cricket against reasonable teams without getting smashed back to square one by the best teams in the world. It has been argued in the past that minnow nations will not improve unless they are exposed to more cricket but the value is diluted if they are getting belted by the top sides. Ireland vs. Bangladesh provides more value than Ireland vs. South Africa or Bangaldesh vs. India in the test area. Forget the World Cup, it is test cricket that will raise the standard of cricket world wide.


Just one more thing..how does having Brad Haddin in the West Indies team help the best West Indian wicket keeper's cricket? If Magoffin gets selected for the West Indies there goes another young cricketer to Basketball or Soccer. Sorry JB, this time you got it wrong.

regards,

REB

[rod_rooster]

Hate to say it but......

great post REB

[Rik E Boy]

LOL. Why do you hate to say it?

regards,

REB

[sasquatch]

WL "Billy" Murdoch.