The international scheduling is baffling anyway. Tours covering both red and white ball games would help for a start.
And why are the series so unevenly spread? It's only 2 years since our last Test series in Pakistan, and 1 year since our last white ball series in the Carribbean.
The ECB cancelled a tour of Pakistan much to their annoyance and there is a need for the likes of West Indies, for them to survive and from a financial perspective, for us to go there if only for the fact that we supply most of the crowd! As for elongating tours as we used to do, there was no franchise cricket cluttering the calendar at that time with players, especially from other countries, being torn between playing for their nation and any of those dozen or so T20 comps.
I believe that there is a consensus within the ICC for a "world" calendar but whether that comes to anything remains to be seen,
65-1 (10). We've been bowling a mixture of half trackers in an attempt to bump them out and what are tantamount to pre-match, warm-up, half volley throw downs.
I've never been one who had much sympathy with the 'cricketers spend a lot of time in hotels away from home' argument. But having had an insane work and social schedule over the last 6 weeks with a holiday, 3 weddings away from home, a stag do and 2 work trips I have a bit more sympathy. In 6 weeks my wife and I have spent only 8 nights at home together. I've been in 10 different hotels. It's exhausting. I've slept so much worse, I feel 10 years older, healthy habits and routines have gone out the window. Eating worse and feel worse for it due to not being able to cook and control my diet. All round horrible experience. Genuinely feel like the point is a valid one now.
I've never been one who had much sympathy with the 'cricketers spend a lot of time in hotels away from home' argument. But having had an insane work and social schedule over the last 6 weeks with a holiday, 3 weddings away from home, a stag do and 2 work trips I have a bit more sympathy. In 6 weeks my wife and I have spent only 8 nights at home together. I've been in 10 different hotels. It's exhausting. I've slept so much worse, I feel 10 years older, healthy habits and routines have gone out the window. Eating worse and feel worse for it due to not being able to cook and control my diet. All round horrible experience. Genuinely feel like the point is a valid one now.
As I say, I do get that - rest is as much benefit as playing on a regular basis. Where I do have an issue is when centrally contracted players say that they are too knackered to play for England and you then find that they've played a shedload of games for various franchises during that period. Or where they opt to do either things instead of playing.
A few examples of that are when Joe Root chose to play in the Abu Dhabi T20 rather than an ODI series in South Africa when we had the World Cup later that year with very few opportunities for 50 over games in the intervening period. Or when the likes of Root and Ollie Pope played in a Pro-Am golf tournament rather than for their counties. Yes I do recognise that they aren't paid by their counties but they still owe a certain amount in goodwill to the clubs that brought them through the system. In the case of Root, in 2023, it was a vital match for Yorkshire that he opted not to play in, following which his county would go down. As for Pope, his last red ball game had been on 8th Sept and between then and the first day of the opening Test against Pakistan, on 7th October, he had just one T20 innings in the Blast with not a single red ball match. That is as much to do with England's piss poor preparation for overseas tours and World Cups as it does to do with Pope playing golf.
I think playing a game of golf rather than a County game can be counted as resting, whether it’s the right thing to do for your County is a different issue.
Agree about players playing in a franchise league instead of for your country. I suspect some of them would say you don’t actually do much work so it’s basically a holiday but they should be smart enough to know that the optics are awful.
I'm wondering how happy the ECB are with Archer wanting to go to the IPL..... If they want him for the English summer surely he should be turning out at some point for Sussex in the championship?
(I also want to see a new ball attack of Jofra and Jayden Seales in English conditions selfishly as a Sussex fan)
I think playing a game of golf rather than a County game can be counted as resting, whether it’s the right thing to do for your County is a different issue.
Agree about players playing in a franchise league instead of for your country. I suspect some of them would say you don’t actually do much work so it’s basically a holiday but they should be smart enough to know that the optics are awful.
Pope needed another red ball innings than golf especially when he knew he hadn't got a single innings for a month prior to the First Pakistan Test match. There was plenty of time to play golf outside the BMW.
Root was being paid over £1m to play for England. The reason he went to the Abu Dhabi T20 instead of going to a 3-match ODI series in South Africa wasn't for a holiday but in preparation for the IPL. He was auctioned for £100k and spent the first ten games of the tournament with a towel draped over his head on the bench and his total contribution for the whole of the IPL was 10 runs off 15 balls. Root did not play a single ODI for the 14 months until the few matches we had leading up to the World Cup where he barely averaged 30.
It's not Root as such but the example someone like Root sets because the finger will be pointed by lesser mortals who will be on a lot less money and argue that they should be free to go to a franchise tournament too. One of those less mortals might be the future Root of the game. Which is why the ECB and ICC sort the schedule out once and for all. Or, as I've advocated for a while, we pay very little as a retainer and reward those that actually would prefer to play for England with much bigger squad and appearance payments. We would then have someone like Liam Dawson playing for us because he could afford to do so. If a player would rather than play for a franchise in those circumstances then he runs the risk of putting himself out of the England picture.
Interesting comments from Tres and Phil Salt but I suspect they'll fall on deaf ears at the ECB.
It's taken time for the players and management to publicly admit what many have been saying for the last couple of years despite all that the ECB and their apologists have been denying how much this mickey mouse competition has impacted our wonderful game of cricket. No Test cricket in August, no 50 over cricket for our best players in August and no county championship games in August to help our spinners progress. All for the ECB's very own vanity project and their executives' bonuses.
Salt's view says it all and explains why we had next to zero chance of winning the 2023 World Cup and why we have achieved just seven wins from our last 20 ODIs:
"That's the reality of it because we've not played a lot of 50-over cricket. I'd love something like a domestic 50-over competition. I'd love the opportunity to play in that so you can get the rhythm and it's not always stop-start.
"I don't think there's many people that can just walk in and do it after not playing for a while. I know that I've not had the most successful time in 50-over cricket and not really been doing myself justice, butthe more opportunities I get to play it, the better I will be at it. That's the bottom line."
I used to like the 50 over cup group games at the start of the season. It made for a more balanced season between red and white ball cricket, without the deserts of one form we now get.
I used to like the 50 over cup group games at the start of the season. It made for a more balanced season between red and white ball cricket, without the deserts of one form we now get.
And the John Player League on the TV on a Sunday was one of the staple diet of cricket in England. Imagine seeing the modern day equivalent equivalent of Joel Garner and Ian Botham bowling at Gordon Greenidge and Barry Richards. We could have had the 50 over comp at the start of the season, as you say and post that, the CC from Tuesday to Friday and a re-vamped Vitality Blast on a Sunday utilising the same money and free-to-air coverage and financial support that the Hundred was afforded.
But that wouldn't have given the ECB what they wanted for themselves. We are now witnessing the start of the ultimate reduction to 8/10 First Class counties and owned by foreign entities too. This has already started with counties being given second tier status in the Women's game even though they have a better infrastructure and have produced more players than their Test/Hundred hosting counterparts.
Some might argue that the John Player Sunday League 40 over competition was at odds with the 60 over One Day International played at that time. And that it was a poor "quality" of cricket, with players pausing a first class game part-way through, in order to play a rushed, afternoon-only game, where bowlers were prevented from bowling off their proper run-ups. I dread to think of the opprobrium that would be launched at the ECB if it were to reintroduce a tournament that was so far at odds with "producing England cricketers".
It was brilliant to see players like Joel Garner, Gordon Greenidge, Desmond Haynes, Michael Holding, Colin Croft and many other West Indies players making mincemeat of oppositions up and down England. It certainly helped them acclimatise to playing limited overs cricket in England. Because they kept doing very well in it, by contrast to England.
The John Player League did nothing to aid the England one day team. It coincided with three ODI World Cups being held in England - the only time the Cricket World Cup has ever been held in the same country, successively.
White-clothed, red-ball 40 over games finally fizzled out, unsponsored in 1992. Thankfully.
repeat .. too many tours means that the English talent has been too thinly spread .. or perhaps too many 'development tours' instead of 'looking to win tours'
Some might argue that the John Player Sunday League 40 over competition was at odds with the 60 over One Day International played at that time. And that it was a poor "quality" of cricket, with players pausing a first class game part-way through, in order to play a rushed, afternoon-only game, where bowlers were prevented from bowling off their proper run-ups. I dread to think of the opprobrium that would be launched at the ECB if it were to reintroduce a tournament that was so far at odds with "producing England cricketers".
It was brilliant to see players like Joel Garner, Gordon Greenidge, Desmond Haynes, Michael Holding, Colin Croft and many other West Indies players making mincemeat of oppositions up and down England. It certainly helped them acclimatise to playing limited overs cricket in England. Because they kept doing very well in it, by contrast to England.
The John Player League did nothing to aid the England one day team. It coincided with three ODI World Cups being held in England - the only time the Cricket World Cup has ever been held in the same country, successively.
White-clothed, red-ball 40 over games finally fizzled out, unsponsored in 1992. Thankfully.
Making "mincemeat of oppositions up and down England". Those players highlighted above did not play for any of the counties in bold below at the time they won the John Player League :
The West Indies dominated world cricket because they had a conveyor belt of world class bowlers. It had nothing to do with those players taking part in the John Player League. Playing against world class opposition in domestic competitions improves our players because it gives them the preparation needed for when they step up. Who will the likes of Shoaib Bashir playing against in Somerset's 2nd XI? How much will they learn hitting two balls for six and then getting out in the Hundred against bowlers not fit to lace the boots of Garner, Marshall, Holding, Croft, Roberts etc etc?
We won the Ashes five out of seven series during the course of the John Player League. We've won 2/10 Ashes games during the course of the Hundred and been shown up for our weaknesses in India and Pakistan in Tests and in both ODI and T20 World Cups. We lost in the ODI final in 1979 to the West Indies who dominated cricket because they were the best in the world. No shame in that. We were absolutely humiliated in the last ODI WC in coming 7th out of 10 in the group stages (finishing above Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Netherlands) and losing to New Zealand, Afghanistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Australia, and India.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level.
Some might argue that the John Player Sunday League 40 over competition was at odds with the 60 over One Day International played at that time. And that it was a poor "quality" of cricket, with players pausing a first class game part-way through, in order to play a rushed, afternoon-only game, where bowlers were prevented from bowling off their proper run-ups. I dread to think of the opprobrium that would be launched at the ECB if it were to reintroduce a tournament that was so far at odds with "producing England cricketers".
It was brilliant to see players like Joel Garner, Gordon Greenidge, Desmond Haynes, Michael Holding, Colin Croft and many other West Indies players making mincemeat of oppositions up and down England. It certainly helped them acclimatise to playing limited overs cricket in England. Because they kept doing very well in it, by contrast to England.
The John Player League did nothing to aid the England one day team. It coincided with three ODI World Cups being held in England - the only time the Cricket World Cup has ever been held in the same country, successively.
White-clothed, red-ball 40 over games finally fizzled out, unsponsored in 1992. Thankfully.
Making "mincemeat of oppositions up and down England". Those players highlighted above did not play for any of the counties in bold below at the time they won the John Player League :
The West Indies dominated world cricket because they had a conveyor belt of world class bowlers. It had nothing to do with those players taking part in the John Player League. Playing against world class opposition in domestic competitions improves our players because it gives them the preparation needed for when they step up. Who will the likes of Shoaib Bashir playing against in Somerset's 2nd XI? How much will they learn hitting two balls for six and then getting out in the Hundred against bowlers not fit to lace the boots of Garner, Marshall, Holding, Croft, Roberts etc etc?
We won the Ashes five out of seven series during the course of the John Player League. We've won 2/10 Ashes games during the course of the Hundred and been shown up for our weaknesses in India and Pakistan in Tests and in both ODI and T20 World Cups. We lost in the ODI final in 1979 to the West Indies who dominated cricket because they were the best in the world. No shame in that. We were absolutely humiliated in the last ODI WC in coming 7th out of 10 in the group stages (finishing above Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Netherlands) and losing to New Zealand, Afghanistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Australia, and India.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level.
This is the first time I think I have seen anyone argue that the John Player League was a success because it resulted in Ashes wins!
It's true that the West Indies produced all of the world's best fast bowlers during that time. But it would also be fair to suggest Desmond Haynes, Gordon Greenidge, Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards and others also benefited from playing in England.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level. Is that what the West Indies did in 75 and 79? India in 83? Australia in 87? Pakistan in 92? In fact, you could probably argue that the only country to "play the best in home competitions" and go on to win the World Cup would be India in 2011, the first World Cup after they launched their their white-ball franchise cricket, played by non first class teams.
It's perfectly fair to compare The Hundred with the John Player League, as you have decided to do. My belief is that the former is a significantly better, more intense competition, played to a far higher standard than the JPL. If someone were to throw criticisms at The Hundred, it would be interesting to see which of those criticisms also apply to the JPL. The energy of bowling twenty balls, after lengthy and intense warm ups at the biggest and best stadiums in the country, in full glare of live cameras and the scrutiny of analysts is incomparable to the lollopping, short run up Tommy trundlers who huffed and puffed their way through eight overs of soporific post-prandial Sunday afternoons up and down variously-populated grounds in the heyday of fag-endorsed sabbath mediocrity.
Does the JPL compare with The Hundred. Yes, in a couple of ways: the ball is the same weight and the stumps are the same size.
It was a fun, entertaining and drew flocks of people, many of whom stayed awake for substantial periods of the game. Should it be revived? No, of course not. And therein lies the issue. It just wasn't... good enough.
As a live spectator, I preferred the JPL as a Sunday competition to the Blast, as T20 to me is a bit short for a Sunday. JPL games lasted from 1:30 to 6:30?, so gave a good afternoon of sport, without a late finish or early start, whereas T20s feel a bit short, even with the modern faffing around that stretches play out.
Pakistan hammer Australia to win the second ODI in Australia to level the series. From a neutral pov, it's good to see the less rich countries improving, and some more competitive series.
Ian Botham has survived a fall into crocodile-infested waters on a fishing trip in Australia’s Northern Territory after he was rescued by his close friend and Ashes rival, Merv Hughes.
Ian Botham has survived a fall into crocodile-infested waters on a fishing trip in Australia’s Northern Territory after he was rescued by his close friend and Ashes rival, Merv Hughes.
The John Player League was an early experiment for a shorter version of the game.
In the more modern game we have 20 /20.
That should have been good enough as we could then continue to have the 50 over competition where counties could play their 1st eleven.
Unfortunately the abomination that is the Hundred has meant that 50 overs cricket is little more than a competition for reserves.
Just look at the current England side that have played in the Windies, hardly any of them have played any meaningful 50 overs cricket and it shows in their performance.
Ian Botham has survived a fall into crocodile-infested waters on a fishing trip in Australia’s Northern Territory after he was rescued by his close friend and Ashes rival, Merv Hughes.
Ian Botham has survived a fall into crocodile-infested waters on a fishing trip in Australia’s Northern Territory after he was rescued by his close friend and Ashes rival, Merv Hughes.
Some might argue that the John Player Sunday League 40 over competition was at odds with the 60 over One Day International played at that time. And that it was a poor "quality" of cricket, with players pausing a first class game part-way through, in order to play a rushed, afternoon-only game, where bowlers were prevented from bowling off their proper run-ups. I dread to think of the opprobrium that would be launched at the ECB if it were to reintroduce a tournament that was so far at odds with "producing England cricketers".
It was brilliant to see players like Joel Garner, Gordon Greenidge, Desmond Haynes, Michael Holding, Colin Croft and many other West Indies players making mincemeat of oppositions up and down England. It certainly helped them acclimatise to playing limited overs cricket in England. Because they kept doing very well in it, by contrast to England.
The John Player League did nothing to aid the England one day team. It coincided with three ODI World Cups being held in England - the only time the Cricket World Cup has ever been held in the same country, successively.
White-clothed, red-ball 40 over games finally fizzled out, unsponsored in 1992. Thankfully.
Making "mincemeat of oppositions up and down England". Those players highlighted above did not play for any of the counties in bold below at the time they won the John Player League :
The West Indies dominated world cricket because they had a conveyor belt of world class bowlers. It had nothing to do with those players taking part in the John Player League. Playing against world class opposition in domestic competitions improves our players because it gives them the preparation needed for when they step up. Who will the likes of Shoaib Bashir playing against in Somerset's 2nd XI? How much will they learn hitting two balls for six and then getting out in the Hundred against bowlers not fit to lace the boots of Garner, Marshall, Holding, Croft, Roberts etc etc?
We won the Ashes five out of seven series during the course of the John Player League. We've won 2/10 Ashes games during the course of the Hundred and been shown up for our weaknesses in India and Pakistan in Tests and in both ODI and T20 World Cups. We lost in the ODI final in 1979 to the West Indies who dominated cricket because they were the best in the world. No shame in that. We were absolutely humiliated in the last ODI WC in coming 7th out of 10 in the group stages (finishing above Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Netherlands) and losing to New Zealand, Afghanistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Australia, and India.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level.
This is the first time I think I have seen anyone argue that the John Player League was a success because it resulted in Ashes wins!
It's true that the West Indies produced all of the world's best fast bowlers during that time. But it would also be fair to suggest Desmond Haynes, Gordon Greenidge, Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards and others also benefited from playing in England.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level. Is that what the West Indies did in 75 and 79? India in 83? Australia in 87? Pakistan in 92? In fact, you could probably argue that the only country to "play the best in home competitions" and go on to win the World Cup would be India in 2011, the first World Cup after they launched their their white-ball franchise cricket, played by non first class teams.
It's perfectly fair to compare The Hundred with the John Player League, as you have decided to do. My belief is that the former is a significantly better, more intense competition, played to a far higher standard than the JPL. If someone were to throw criticisms at The Hundred, it would be interesting to see which of those criticisms also apply to the JPL. The energy of bowling twenty balls, after lengthy and intense warm ups at the biggest and best stadiums in the country, in full glare of live cameras and the scrutiny of analysts is incomparable to the lollopping, short run up Tommy trundlers who huffed and puffed their way through eight overs of soporific post-prandial Sunday afternoons up and down variously-populated grounds in the heyday of fag-endorsed sabbath mediocrity.
Does the JPL compare with The Hundred. Yes, in a couple of ways: the ball is the same weight and the stumps are the same size.
It was a fun, entertaining and drew flocks of people, many of whom stayed awake for substantial periods of the game. Should it be revived? No, of course not. And therein lies the issue. It just wasn't... good enough.
You are having an absolute laugh if you are attempting to compare the depth and wealth of talent of world cricket in the JPL to The Hundred. You've already named umpteen players that are infinitely better than those appearing in that Mickey Mouse so called competition! And batters had to face 48 balls from a Joel Garner, someone who you suggest bowled "Tommy Trundlers". Seriously??? Do you really not understand that Garner could bowl 85mph from the shoulder off just six yards at the throat of a batsman??? That's not 20 balls from a "has been" who has retired from international cricket and who would struggle to get anywhere near that.
Play the best in all competitions against the best and you will get the best internationals. That is what happened during the course of the JPL but they also took part in the 50, 55, 60 over competitions as well as the county Championship. And all the England internationals played in all of those too. Do you get that this might have contributed to us winning the Ashes. In Australia they have their internationals not just competing in the 4 day and 50 over competitions but also in club matches.
We've already heard from the likes of Salt and Trescothick speaking out and risking the wrath of the ECB in doing so. Here's someone else who has seen it all and doesn't need to worry about the ECB. Martin Bicknell:
November 1st:
"This might be an early assessment but chucking in batters who have only played 4 50 over matches into internationals maybe a step too far?"
4 hours ago:
"Who knew not playing any 50 over cricket, makes you not very good at 50 over cricket"
By all means, carry on with your love of The Hundred. But please don't insult those that might know a bit more than you in suggesting that holding that competition for the duration of August hasn't had an adverse affect on our Test and 50 over sides. Because ALL the evidence from experts that do not have a financial interest (so excluding former cricketers who work for Sky) have suggested that it has been detrimental.
Some might argue that the John Player Sunday League 40 over competition was at odds with the 60 over One Day International played at that time. And that it was a poor "quality" of cricket, with players pausing a first class game part-way through, in order to play a rushed, afternoon-only game, where bowlers were prevented from bowling off their proper run-ups. I dread to think of the opprobrium that would be launched at the ECB if it were to reintroduce a tournament that was so far at odds with "producing England cricketers".
It was brilliant to see players like Joel Garner, Gordon Greenidge, Desmond Haynes, Michael Holding, Colin Croft and many other West Indies players making mincemeat of oppositions up and down England. It certainly helped them acclimatise to playing limited overs cricket in England. Because they kept doing very well in it, by contrast to England.
The John Player League did nothing to aid the England one day team. It coincided with three ODI World Cups being held in England - the only time the Cricket World Cup has ever been held in the same country, successively.
White-clothed, red-ball 40 over games finally fizzled out, unsponsored in 1992. Thankfully.
Making "mincemeat of oppositions up and down England". Those players highlighted above did not play for any of the counties in bold below at the time they won the John Player League :
The West Indies dominated world cricket because they had a conveyor belt of world class bowlers. It had nothing to do with those players taking part in the John Player League. Playing against world class opposition in domestic competitions improves our players because it gives them the preparation needed for when they step up. Who will the likes of Shoaib Bashir playing against in Somerset's 2nd XI? How much will they learn hitting two balls for six and then getting out in the Hundred against bowlers not fit to lace the boots of Garner, Marshall, Holding, Croft, Roberts etc etc?
We won the Ashes five out of seven series during the course of the John Player League. We've won 2/10 Ashes games during the course of the Hundred and been shown up for our weaknesses in India and Pakistan in Tests and in both ODI and T20 World Cups. We lost in the ODI final in 1979 to the West Indies who dominated cricket because they were the best in the world. No shame in that. We were absolutely humiliated in the last ODI WC in coming 7th out of 10 in the group stages (finishing above Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Netherlands) and losing to New Zealand, Afghanistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Australia, and India.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level.
This is the first time I think I have seen anyone argue that the John Player League was a success because it resulted in Ashes wins!
It's true that the West Indies produced all of the world's best fast bowlers during that time. But it would also be fair to suggest Desmond Haynes, Gordon Greenidge, Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards and others also benefited from playing in England.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level. Is that what the West Indies did in 75 and 79? India in 83? Australia in 87? Pakistan in 92? In fact, you could probably argue that the only country to "play the best in home competitions" and go on to win the World Cup would be India in 2011, the first World Cup after they launched their their white-ball franchise cricket, played by non first class teams.
It's perfectly fair to compare The Hundred with the John Player League, as you have decided to do. My belief is that the former is a significantly better, more intense competition, played to a far higher standard than the JPL. If someone were to throw criticisms at The Hundred, it would be interesting to see which of those criticisms also apply to the JPL. The energy of bowling twenty balls, after lengthy and intense warm ups at the biggest and best stadiums in the country, in full glare of live cameras and the scrutiny of analysts is incomparable to the lollopping, short run up Tommy trundlers who huffed and puffed their way through eight overs of soporific post-prandial Sunday afternoons up and down variously-populated grounds in the heyday of fag-endorsed sabbath mediocrity.
Does the JPL compare with The Hundred. Yes, in a couple of ways: the ball is the same weight and the stumps are the same size.
It was a fun, entertaining and drew flocks of people, many of whom stayed awake for substantial periods of the game. Should it be revived? No, of course not. And therein lies the issue. It just wasn't... good enough.
You are having an absolute laugh if you are attempting to compare the depth and wealth of talent of world cricket in the JPL to The Hundred. You've already named umpteen players that are infinitely better than those appearing in that Mickey Mouse so called competition! And batters had to face 48 balls from a Joel Garner, someone who you suggest bowled "Tommy Trundlers". Seriously??? Do you really not understand that Garner could bowl 85mph from the shoulder off just six yards at the throat of a batsman??? That's not 20 balls from a "has been" who has retired from international cricket and who would struggle to get anywhere near that.
Play the best in all competitions against the best and you will get the best internationals. That is what happened during the course of the JPL but they also took part in the 50, 55, 60 over competitions as well as the county Championship. And all the England internationals played in all of those too. Do you get that this might have contributed to us winning the Ashes. In Australia they have their internationals not just competing in the 4 day and 50 over competitions but also in club matches.
We've already heard from the likes of Salt and Trescothick speaking out and risking the wrath of the ECB in doing so. Here's someone else who has seen it all and doesn't need to worry about the ECB. Martin Bicknell:
November 1st:
"This might be an early assessment but chucking in batters who have only played 4 50 over matches into internationals maybe a step too far?"
4 hours ago:
"Who knew not playing any 50 over cricket, makes you not very good at 50 over cricket"
By all means, carry on with your love of The Hundred. But please don't insult those that might know a bit more than you in suggesting that holding that competition for the duration of August hasn't had an adverse affect on our Test and 50 over sides. Because ALL the evidence from experts that do not have a financial interest (so excluding former cricketers who work for Sky) have suggested that it has been detrimental.
Thanks for your comments.
I am still unconvinced that a 40-over Sunday afternoon competition with bowlers jogging in off a shortened run up - as fun as it was - is a recipe for success in international cricket. We never won a world cup in any format while playing that format domestically. Neither did anyone else.
Some might argue that the John Player Sunday League 40 over competition was at odds with the 60 over One Day International played at that time. And that it was a poor "quality" of cricket, with players pausing a first class game part-way through, in order to play a rushed, afternoon-only game, where bowlers were prevented from bowling off their proper run-ups. I dread to think of the opprobrium that would be launched at the ECB if it were to reintroduce a tournament that was so far at odds with "producing England cricketers".
It was brilliant to see players like Joel Garner, Gordon Greenidge, Desmond Haynes, Michael Holding, Colin Croft and many other West Indies players making mincemeat of oppositions up and down England. It certainly helped them acclimatise to playing limited overs cricket in England. Because they kept doing very well in it, by contrast to England.
The John Player League did nothing to aid the England one day team. It coincided with three ODI World Cups being held in England - the only time the Cricket World Cup has ever been held in the same country, successively.
White-clothed, red-ball 40 over games finally fizzled out, unsponsored in 1992. Thankfully.
Making "mincemeat of oppositions up and down England". Those players highlighted above did not play for any of the counties in bold below at the time they won the John Player League :
The West Indies dominated world cricket because they had a conveyor belt of world class bowlers. It had nothing to do with those players taking part in the John Player League. Playing against world class opposition in domestic competitions improves our players because it gives them the preparation needed for when they step up. Who will the likes of Shoaib Bashir playing against in Somerset's 2nd XI? How much will they learn hitting two balls for six and then getting out in the Hundred against bowlers not fit to lace the boots of Garner, Marshall, Holding, Croft, Roberts etc etc?
We won the Ashes five out of seven series during the course of the John Player League. We've won 2/10 Ashes games during the course of the Hundred and been shown up for our weaknesses in India and Pakistan in Tests and in both ODI and T20 World Cups. We lost in the ODI final in 1979 to the West Indies who dominated cricket because they were the best in the world. No shame in that. We were absolutely humiliated in the last ODI WC in coming 7th out of 10 in the group stages (finishing above Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Netherlands) and losing to New Zealand, Afghanistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Australia, and India.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level.
This is the first time I think I have seen anyone argue that the John Player League was a success because it resulted in Ashes wins!
It's true that the West Indies produced all of the world's best fast bowlers during that time. But it would also be fair to suggest Desmond Haynes, Gordon Greenidge, Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards and others also benefited from playing in England.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level. Is that what the West Indies did in 75 and 79? India in 83? Australia in 87? Pakistan in 92? In fact, you could probably argue that the only country to "play the best in home competitions" and go on to win the World Cup would be India in 2011, the first World Cup after they launched their their white-ball franchise cricket, played by non first class teams.
It's perfectly fair to compare The Hundred with the John Player League, as you have decided to do. My belief is that the former is a significantly better, more intense competition, played to a far higher standard than the JPL. If someone were to throw criticisms at The Hundred, it would be interesting to see which of those criticisms also apply to the JPL. The energy of bowling twenty balls, after lengthy and intense warm ups at the biggest and best stadiums in the country, in full glare of live cameras and the scrutiny of analysts is incomparable to the lollopping, short run up Tommy trundlers who huffed and puffed their way through eight overs of soporific post-prandial Sunday afternoons up and down variously-populated grounds in the heyday of fag-endorsed sabbath mediocrity.
Does the JPL compare with The Hundred. Yes, in a couple of ways: the ball is the same weight and the stumps are the same size.
It was a fun, entertaining and drew flocks of people, many of whom stayed awake for substantial periods of the game. Should it be revived? No, of course not. And therein lies the issue. It just wasn't... good enough.
You are having an absolute laugh if you are attempting to compare the depth and wealth of talent of world cricket in the JPL to The Hundred. You've already named umpteen players that are infinitely better than those appearing in that Mickey Mouse so called competition! And batters had to face 48 balls from a Joel Garner, someone who you suggest bowled "Tommy Trundlers". Seriously??? Do you really not understand that Garner could bowl 85mph from the shoulder off just six yards at the throat of a batsman??? That's not 20 balls from a "has been" who has retired from international cricket and who would struggle to get anywhere near that.
Play the best in all competitions against the best and you will get the best internationals. That is what happened during the course of the JPL but they also took part in the 50, 55, 60 over competitions as well as the county Championship. And all the England internationals played in all of those too. Do you get that this might have contributed to us winning the Ashes. In Australia they have their internationals not just competing in the 4 day and 50 over competitions but also in club matches.
We've already heard from the likes of Salt and Trescothick speaking out and risking the wrath of the ECB in doing so. Here's someone else who has seen it all and doesn't need to worry about the ECB. Martin Bicknell:
November 1st:
"This might be an early assessment but chucking in batters who have only played 4 50 over matches into internationals maybe a step too far?"
4 hours ago:
"Who knew not playing any 50 over cricket, makes you not very good at 50 over cricket"
By all means, carry on with your love of The Hundred. But please don't insult those that might know a bit more than you in suggesting that holding that competition for the duration of August hasn't had an adverse affect on our Test and 50 over sides. Because ALL the evidence from experts that do not have a financial interest (so excluding former cricketers who work for Sky) have suggested that it has been detrimental.
Thanks for your comments.
I am still unconvinced that a 40-over Sunday afternoon competition with bowlers jogging in off a shortened run up - as fun as it was - is a recipe for success in international cricket. We never won a world cup in any format while playing that format domestically. Neither did anyone else.
How many world cups were there for the duration of the JPL? Unless I'm incorrect, there were just three:
1975 - West Indies beat Australia (by 17 runs) 1979 - West Indies beat England (by 92 runs) 1983 - India beat West Indies (by 43 runs)
So, a grand sample of three competitions and another team did win the world cup despite what you say. We also reached the final in one of those. We didn't finish 7th of 10 and lose 6 games as we did in the last 50 over WC.
Some might argue that the John Player Sunday League 40 over competition was at odds with the 60 over One Day International played at that time. And that it was a poor "quality" of cricket, with players pausing a first class game part-way through, in order to play a rushed, afternoon-only game, where bowlers were prevented from bowling off their proper run-ups. I dread to think of the opprobrium that would be launched at the ECB if it were to reintroduce a tournament that was so far at odds with "producing England cricketers".
It was brilliant to see players like Joel Garner, Gordon Greenidge, Desmond Haynes, Michael Holding, Colin Croft and many other West Indies players making mincemeat of oppositions up and down England. It certainly helped them acclimatise to playing limited overs cricket in England. Because they kept doing very well in it, by contrast to England.
The John Player League did nothing to aid the England one day team. It coincided with three ODI World Cups being held in England - the only time the Cricket World Cup has ever been held in the same country, successively.
White-clothed, red-ball 40 over games finally fizzled out, unsponsored in 1992. Thankfully.
Making "mincemeat of oppositions up and down England". Those players highlighted above did not play for any of the counties in bold below at the time they won the John Player League :
The West Indies dominated world cricket because they had a conveyor belt of world class bowlers. It had nothing to do with those players taking part in the John Player League. Playing against world class opposition in domestic competitions improves our players because it gives them the preparation needed for when they step up. Who will the likes of Shoaib Bashir playing against in Somerset's 2nd XI? How much will they learn hitting two balls for six and then getting out in the Hundred against bowlers not fit to lace the boots of Garner, Marshall, Holding, Croft, Roberts etc etc?
We won the Ashes five out of seven series during the course of the John Player League. We've won 2/10 Ashes games during the course of the Hundred and been shown up for our weaknesses in India and Pakistan in Tests and in both ODI and T20 World Cups. We lost in the ODI final in 1979 to the West Indies who dominated cricket because they were the best in the world. No shame in that. We were absolutely humiliated in the last ODI WC in coming 7th out of 10 in the group stages (finishing above Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Netherlands) and losing to New Zealand, Afghanistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Australia, and India.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level.
This is the first time I think I have seen anyone argue that the John Player League was a success because it resulted in Ashes wins!
It's true that the West Indies produced all of the world's best fast bowlers during that time. But it would also be fair to suggest Desmond Haynes, Gordon Greenidge, Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards and others also benefited from playing in England.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level. Is that what the West Indies did in 75 and 79? India in 83? Australia in 87? Pakistan in 92? In fact, you could probably argue that the only country to "play the best in home competitions" and go on to win the World Cup would be India in 2011, the first World Cup after they launched their their white-ball franchise cricket, played by non first class teams.
It's perfectly fair to compare The Hundred with the John Player League, as you have decided to do. My belief is that the former is a significantly better, more intense competition, played to a far higher standard than the JPL. If someone were to throw criticisms at The Hundred, it would be interesting to see which of those criticisms also apply to the JPL. The energy of bowling twenty balls, after lengthy and intense warm ups at the biggest and best stadiums in the country, in full glare of live cameras and the scrutiny of analysts is incomparable to the lollopping, short run up Tommy trundlers who huffed and puffed their way through eight overs of soporific post-prandial Sunday afternoons up and down variously-populated grounds in the heyday of fag-endorsed sabbath mediocrity.
Does the JPL compare with The Hundred. Yes, in a couple of ways: the ball is the same weight and the stumps are the same size.
It was a fun, entertaining and drew flocks of people, many of whom stayed awake for substantial periods of the game. Should it be revived? No, of course not. And therein lies the issue. It just wasn't... good enough.
You are having an absolute laugh if you are attempting to compare the depth and wealth of talent of world cricket in the JPL to The Hundred. You've already named umpteen players that are infinitely better than those appearing in that Mickey Mouse so called competition! And batters had to face 48 balls from a Joel Garner, someone who you suggest bowled "Tommy Trundlers". Seriously??? Do you really not understand that Garner could bowl 85mph from the shoulder off just six yards at the throat of a batsman??? That's not 20 balls from a "has been" who has retired from international cricket and who would struggle to get anywhere near that.
Play the best in all competitions against the best and you will get the best internationals. That is what happened during the course of the JPL but they also took part in the 50, 55, 60 over competitions as well as the county Championship. And all the England internationals played in all of those too. Do you get that this might have contributed to us winning the Ashes. In Australia they have their internationals not just competing in the 4 day and 50 over competitions but also in club matches.
We've already heard from the likes of Salt and Trescothick speaking out and risking the wrath of the ECB in doing so. Here's someone else who has seen it all and doesn't need to worry about the ECB. Martin Bicknell:
November 1st:
"This might be an early assessment but chucking in batters who have only played 4 50 over matches into internationals maybe a step too far?"
4 hours ago:
"Who knew not playing any 50 over cricket, makes you not very good at 50 over cricket"
By all means, carry on with your love of The Hundred. But please don't insult those that might know a bit more than you in suggesting that holding that competition for the duration of August hasn't had an adverse affect on our Test and 50 over sides. Because ALL the evidence from experts that do not have a financial interest (so excluding former cricketers who work for Sky) have suggested that it has been detrimental.
Thanks for your comments.
I am still unconvinced that a 40-over Sunday afternoon competition with bowlers jogging in off a shortened run up - as fun as it was - is a recipe for success in international cricket. We never won a world cup in any format while playing that format domestically. Neither did anyone else.
How many world cups were there for the duration of the JPL? Unless I'm incorrect, there were just three:
1975 - West Indies beat Australia (by 17 runs) 1979 - West Indies beat England (by 92 runs) 1983 - India beat West Indies (by 43 runs)
So, a grand sample of three competitions and another team did win the world cup despite what you say.
In that case, I stand very much corrected. I didn't think any other country won the world cup while domestically running a 40-over, Sunday afternoon tournament, with bowlers having their run ups restricted.
Ian Botham has survived a fall into crocodile-infested waters on a fishing trip in Australia’s Northern Territory after he was rescued by his close friend and Ashes rival, Merv Hughes.
Comments
I believe that there is a consensus within the ICC for a "world" calendar but whether that comes to anything remains to be seen,
A few examples of that are when Joe Root chose to play in the Abu Dhabi T20 rather than an ODI series in South Africa when we had the World Cup later that year with very few opportunities for 50 over games in the intervening period. Or when the likes of Root and Ollie Pope played in a Pro-Am golf tournament rather than for their counties. Yes I do recognise that they aren't paid by their counties but they still owe a certain amount in goodwill to the clubs that brought them through the system. In the case of Root, in 2023, it was a vital match for Yorkshire that he opted not to play in, following which his county would go down. As for Pope, his last red ball game had been on 8th Sept and between then and the first day of the opening Test against Pakistan, on 7th October, he had just one T20 innings in the Blast with not a single red ball match. That is as much to do with England's piss poor preparation for overseas tours and World Cups as it does to do with Pope playing golf.
Agree about players playing in a franchise league instead of for your country. I suspect some of them would say you don’t actually do much work so it’s basically a holiday but they should be smart enough to know that the optics are awful.
(I also want to see a new ball attack of Jofra and Jayden Seales in English conditions selfishly as a Sussex fan)
Root was being paid over £1m to play for England. The reason he went to the Abu Dhabi T20 instead of going to a 3-match ODI series in South Africa wasn't for a holiday but in preparation for the IPL. He was auctioned for £100k and spent the first ten games of the tournament with a towel draped over his head on the bench and his total contribution for the whole of the IPL was 10 runs off 15 balls. Root did not play a single ODI for the 14 months until the few matches we had leading up to the World Cup where he barely averaged 30.
It's not Root as such but the example someone like Root sets because the finger will be pointed by lesser mortals who will be on a lot less money and argue that they should be free to go to a franchise tournament too. One of those less mortals might be the future Root of the game. Which is why the ECB and ICC sort the schedule out once and for all. Or, as I've advocated for a while, we pay very little as a retainer and reward those that actually would prefer to play for England with much bigger squad and appearance payments. We would then have someone like Liam Dawson playing for us because he could afford to do so. If a player would rather than play for a franchise in those circumstances then he runs the risk of putting himself out of the England picture.
Interesting comments from Tres and Phil Salt but I suspect they'll fall on deaf ears at the ECB.
Salt's view says it all and explains why we had next to zero chance of winning the 2023 World Cup and why we have achieved just seven wins from our last 20 ODIs:
But that wouldn't have given the ECB what they wanted for themselves. We are now witnessing the start of the ultimate reduction to 8/10 First Class counties and owned by foreign entities too. This has already started with counties being given second tier status in the Women's game even though they have a better infrastructure and have produced more players than their Test/Hundred hosting counterparts.
It was brilliant to see players like Joel Garner, Gordon Greenidge, Desmond Haynes, Michael Holding, Colin Croft and many other West Indies players making mincemeat of oppositions up and down England. It certainly helped them acclimatise to playing limited overs cricket in England. Because they kept doing very well in it, by contrast to England.
The John Player League did nothing to aid the England one day team. It coincided with three ODI World Cups being held in England - the only time the Cricket World Cup has ever been held in the same country, successively.
White-clothed, red-ball 40 over games finally fizzled out, unsponsored in 1992. Thankfully.
The West Indies dominated world cricket because they had a conveyor belt of world class bowlers. It had nothing to do with those players taking part in the John Player League. Playing against world class opposition in domestic competitions improves our players because it gives them the preparation needed for when they step up. Who will the likes of Shoaib Bashir playing against in Somerset's 2nd XI? How much will they learn hitting two balls for six and then getting out in the Hundred against bowlers not fit to lace the boots of Garner, Marshall, Holding, Croft, Roberts etc etc?
We won the Ashes five out of seven series during the course of the John Player League. We've won 2/10 Ashes games during the course of the Hundred and been shown up for our weaknesses in India and Pakistan in Tests and in both ODI and T20 World Cups. We lost in the ODI final in 1979 to the West Indies who dominated cricket because they were the best in the world. No shame in that. We were absolutely humiliated in the last ODI WC in coming 7th out of 10 in the group stages (finishing above Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Netherlands) and losing to New Zealand, Afghanistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Australia, and India.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level.
It's true that the West Indies produced all of the world's best fast bowlers during that time. But it would also be fair to suggest Desmond Haynes, Gordon Greenidge, Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards and others also benefited from playing in England.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level. Is that what the West Indies did in 75 and 79? India in 83? Australia in 87? Pakistan in 92? In fact, you could probably argue that the only country to "play the best in home competitions" and go on to win the World Cup would be India in 2011, the first World Cup after they launched their their white-ball franchise cricket, played by non first class teams.
It's perfectly fair to compare The Hundred with the John Player League, as you have decided to do. My belief is that the former is a significantly better, more intense competition, played to a far higher standard than the JPL. If someone were to throw criticisms at The Hundred, it would be interesting to see which of those criticisms also apply to the JPL. The energy of bowling twenty balls, after lengthy and intense warm ups at the biggest and best stadiums in the country, in full glare of live cameras and the scrutiny of analysts is incomparable to the lollopping, short run up Tommy trundlers who huffed and puffed their way through eight overs of soporific post-prandial Sunday afternoons up and down variously-populated grounds in the heyday of fag-endorsed sabbath mediocrity.
Does the JPL compare with The Hundred. Yes, in a couple of ways: the ball is the same weight and the stumps are the same size.
It was a fun, entertaining and drew flocks of people, many of whom stayed awake for substantial periods of the game. Should it be revived? No, of course not. And therein lies the issue. It just wasn't... good enough.
T20s are perfect for evenings of course.
That was a very strong Aussie side too.
Ian Botham has survived a fall into crocodile-infested waters on a fishing trip in Australia’s Northern Territory after he was rescued by his close friend and Ashes rival, Merv Hughes.
Article
Side of Beef
In the more modern game we have 20 /20.
That should have been good enough as we could then continue to have the 50 over competition where counties could play their 1st eleven.
Unfortunately the abomination that is the Hundred has meant that 50 overs cricket is little more than a competition for reserves.
Just look at the current England side that have played in the Windies, hardly any of them have played any meaningful 50 overs cricket and it shows in their performance.
No by a crocodile
You are having an absolute laugh if you are attempting to compare the depth and wealth of talent of world cricket in the JPL to The Hundred. You've already named umpteen players that are infinitely better than those appearing in that Mickey Mouse so called competition! And batters had to face 48 balls from a Joel Garner, someone who you suggest bowled "Tommy Trundlers". Seriously??? Do you really not understand that Garner could bowl 85mph from the shoulder off just six yards at the throat of a batsman??? That's not 20 balls from a "has been" who has retired from international cricket and who would struggle to get anywhere near that.
Play the best in all competitions against the best and you will get the best internationals. That is what happened during the course of the JPL but they also took part in the 50, 55, 60 over competitions as well as the county Championship. And all the England internationals played in all of those too. Do you get that this might have contributed to us winning the Ashes. In Australia they have their internationals not just competing in the 4 day and 50 over competitions but also in club matches.
We've already heard from the likes of Salt and Trescothick speaking out and risking the wrath of the ECB in doing so. Here's someone else who has seen it all and doesn't need to worry about the ECB. Martin Bicknell:
November 1st:
4 hours ago:
"Who knew not playing any 50 over cricket, makes you not very good at 50 over cricket"
By all means, carry on with your love of The Hundred. But please don't insult those that might know a bit more than you in suggesting that holding that competition for the duration of August hasn't had an adverse affect on our Test and 50 over sides. Because ALL the evidence from experts that do not have a financial interest (so excluding former cricketers who work for Sky) have suggested that it has been detrimental.
I am still unconvinced that a 40-over Sunday afternoon competition with bowlers jogging in off a shortened run up - as fun as it was - is a recipe for success in international cricket. We never won a world cup in any format while playing that format domestically. Neither did anyone else.
1975 - West Indies beat Australia (by 17 runs)
1979 - West Indies beat England (by 92 runs)
1983 - India beat West Indies (by 43 runs)
So, a grand sample of three competitions and another team did win the world cup despite what you say. We also reached the final in one of those. We didn't finish 7th of 10 and lose 6 games as we did in the last 50 over WC.