Here's my suggestion to improve the quality of cricket of associate member teams

[TNAmarkFrmIndia]

A lot of people here complain about the quality of the associate member nations' cricket teams and how they don't stack up to the standards of international cricket and that the World Cup should only be contested among the top teams since the associate teams are just not good enough. But with most test-playing nations not willing to play a lot of matches against them and the first-class structure within their own countries not being very competitive, how do you suggest they improve? Here's my solution: the ICC must make it mandatory for domestic teams of all test-playing nations to play at least one associate nation player in their playing XI in every game, unless he's injured. Sure, these players may not be good enough for international cricket, but you can't complain about playing just one of them in the domestic teams? These players could learn a lot by playing a standard of cricket that is higher than they're used to. You can have a system similar to football where these players can be signed by the teams and a player can play in Australia after playing a couple of seasons in India, because teams will want the best associate nation players so that they're a strength for the team rather than a liability. Hence, these players would also get to play in different conditions around the world. Eventually, if it works out, maybe you could increase the number of mandatory associate nation players in the playing XI from 1 to 2.

[TNAmarkFrmIndia]

Y U No Reply?

[sourab10forever]

Agree Nederlands did well in the WT20 .they could have even had a chance of qualifying if they would have held on to their nerves in one more match.T20 is such a format where they can really show some quality performance. But would not agree on having a large number of associate teams in the other two formats.They would be completely dominated their 9.5 out 10 times.

ICC must make it mandatory for domestic teams of all test-playing nations to play at least one associate nation player in their playing XI in every game, unless he's injured.

A.ICC cannot control domestic teams. B.getting kota into cricket will only harm it.they need to improve on their own. See football...no such thing.As soon as cricket is dominated by domestic leagues(Just like football,and it has already started)talent will be required in all the new teams and then we will have quality cricketers from around the globe.

[moniker]

This can be done if there's a dearth of domestic cricketers in the country. Given the jostle for a berth in the domestic setup, and how in spite of excelling in domestics some players are unfortunate to never get a chance to represent the country, it's not viable to accommodate outsiders. There's too much competition already. You can't have a situation where an associate player keeps out a promising local cricketer.

[TNAmarkFrmIndia]

Agree Nederlands did well in the WT20 .they could have even had a chance of qualifying if they would have held on to their nerves in one more match.T20 is such a format where they can really show some quality performance. But would not agree on having a large number of associate teams in the other two formats.They would be completely dominated their 9.5 out 10 times.

Netherlands beating England in the World T20 is just an example. The 50-over World Cup has seen upsets like Kenya beating West Indies in '96, Bangladesh beating Pakistan in '99, Bangladesh beating India and Ireland beating Pakistan in '07 and Ireland beating England in '11. Unfortunately, it is seen as just that - an upset. These teams haven't been allowed to graduate to a higher level of cricket because they don't get to play international teams often and are not exposed to a stronger domestic cricket structure. If Afghanistan players for instance get to play first-class cricket in India, Australia or England, they would learn a lot about how to play in that format and that would make them competitive at the international level so that they wouldn't be dominated 9.5 times out of 10.

A.ICC cannot control domestic teams. B.getting kota into cricket will only harm it.they need to improve on their own. See football...no such thing.As soon as cricket is dominated by domestic leagues(Just like football,and it has already started)talent will be required in all the new teams and then we will have quality cricketers from around the globe.

A. They don't have to control domestic teams. They have to form new guidelines which every member nation would have to follow. B. How do you suggest they improve on their own when they continue to play the same level of cricket with the same level of teams? Cricket, unlike football, is dominated by international cricket. The T20 leagues cannot be compared to football leagues because in football, a player can only play for one team at a time. That's quite unlike cricket where a Chris Gayle or Lasith Malinga may play in the IPL, BBL, BPL, CPL and any other T20 league he chooses in one season. Hence, football clubs need to look far and wide for new talent.

[TNAmarkFrmIndia]

This can be done if there's a dearth of domestic cricketers in the country. Given the jostle for a berth in the domestic setup, and how in spite of excelling in domestics some players are unfortunate to never get a chance to represent the country, it's not viable to accommodate outsiders. There's too much competition already. You can't have a situation where an associate player keeps out a promising local cricketer.

We're not talking about an associate nation player replacing one of the team's best players. There are very few, if any, domestic teams that have all 11 players that are good enough to play for the national team. Also, creating such a system would mean that teams would be signing associate players in the department that they're not strong in. Some teams may be average in their batting, some might be light in their bowling. Picking one player in the XI really shouldn't be an issue, unless the person he's replacing was going to set the world on fire with his performances. At the end of the day, it's for the good of the game to have more competitive international teams.

[Precambrian]

Y U No Reply?

Still laughing at Broad's expression in that photo.

[rising]

For the associate nations to improve they need to play more crciket against quality and need to get more exposure which is not happening in cricket that much In Football if you look at specially in Europe and South America club football being so dominate people pick players from others countries young help them provide training this has helped develop international football and in football even international teams get compete even likes of spain and England have qualify for the world cup they have play teams like Honderous and Bulgaria there is no free spot for anyone other than the host and Champions while in circket all test playing nations get a free spot

[Aaravnegi]

good & nice thinking (y)

[kubrickian]

Cricket is a very complex game, much more than Soccer and it will take years to build the necessary domestic system and produce a good team which can do well at the international level. It took decades for Sri Lanka to become a decent team and Bangladesh is still struggling to win a single game against the big teams. Netherlands, Ireland have potential but most people won't back them to beat a big team on a given day. If test cricket or ODIs were to become popular across the globe, it would have already happened. Best thing is to improve quality of cricket in major countries and spread T20 cricket in other countries as its shorter and more appealing to people and demands less complex skills. Most people in non-cricket countries consider watching a game for 5 days which could possibly end in a draw as a big joke.

[TNAmarkFrmIndia]

Cricket is a very complex game, much more than Soccer and it will take years to build the necessary domestic system and produce a good team which can do well at the international level. It took decades for Sri Lanka to become a decent team and Bangladesh is still struggling to win a single game against the big teams. Netherlands, Ireland have potential but most people won't back them to beat a big team on a given day. If test cricket or ODIs were to become popular across the globe, it would have already happened. Best thing is to improve quality of cricket in major countries and spread T20 cricket in other countries as its shorter and more appealing to people and demands less complex skills. Most people in non-cricket countries consider watching a game for 5 days which could possibly end in a draw as a big joke.

What I'm suggesting is not that the associate nations produce players from their own domestic system. Of course, their own domestic system needs to develop but it's unlikely that you'll find many quality players in countries like Netherlands or Ireland and that would stunt the growth of a player. What I'm suggesting is that they play in the domestic set-up of test-playing nations. It would be a tremendous learning opportunity for players from associate nations to play first-class and List-A cricket in England, Australia, South Africa or India. We need these teams to not just be competitive in T20 cricket, but also one-day and Test cricket, because at the end of the day, the 50-over World Cup is still recognized as the greatest prize in international cricket and Test cricket is still recognized as the most challenging format in all of cricket. Teams will only be appreciated if they perform well in the two longer formats.

[kumar713]

Still laughing at Broad's expression in that photo.

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[kubrickian]

What I'm suggesting is not that the associate nations produce players from their own domestic system. Of course' date=' their own domestic system needs to develop but it's unlikely that you'll find many quality players in countries like Netherlands or Ireland and that would stunt the growth of a player. What I'm suggesting is that they play in the domestic set-up of test-playing nations. It would be a tremendous learning opportunity for players from associate nations to play first-class and List-A cricket in England, Australia, South Africa or India. We need these teams to not just be competitive in T20 cricket, but also one-day and Test cricket, because at the end of the day, the 50-over World Cup is still recognized as the greatest prize in international cricket and Test cricket is still recognized as the most challenging format in all of cricket. Teams will only be appreciated if they perform well in the two longer formats.[/quote'] Netherlands and Ireland players do play county cricket and have been playing for quite a while.

[sticky wicket]

There is nothing much the Test nations can do if the associates don't have a proper first class structure in place or even a semi professional One day structure and/or fan awareness and following of cricket. I mean do even likes of Netherlands, Ireland, Canada have domestic setup?, many of these teams are filled up by ringers and immigrants from Test playing nations. Kenya was next big thing after Bangla, because Kenya actually has vibrant domestic cricket structure and decent grounds and more importantly indigenous fans but corruption within their cricket board stalled their progress. Focus should be in nurturing likes Kenya, Afghanistan, Nepal, and Zimbabwe where there is either a decent domestic structure or significant fan following. I really doubt people of Netherlands or Ireland even know their countries play cricket.

[TNAmarkFrmIndia]

Netherlands and Ireland players do play county cricket and have been playing for quite a while.

I'm aware of that. It needs to happen in every test playing nation so that more associate players will be exposed to quality domestic cricket and different conditions.

[TNAmarkFrmIndia]

There is nothing much the Test nations can do if the associates don't have a proper first class structure in place or even a semi professional One day structure and/or fan awareness and following of cricket. I mean do even likes of Netherlands, Ireland, Canada have domestic setup?, many of these teams are filled up by ringers and immigrants from Test playing nations. Kenya was next big thing after Bangla, because Kenya actually has vibrant domestic cricket structure and decent grounds and more importantly indigenous fans but corruption within their cricket board stalled their progress. Focus should be in nurturing likes Kenya, Afghanistan, Nepal, and Zimbabwe where there is either a decent domestic structure or significant fan following. I really doubt people of Netherlands or Ireland even know their countries play cricket.

I think the Test nations need to take up responsibility themselves for spreading the game. If the associate nations don't have a strong first-class structure, they should be made to play first-class cricket in test-playing nations. Over time, if the players of each associate nation improve and they put up better performances at the international level, then maybe the interest in those countries will grow, more people will take up the sport and you can build a stronger domestic structure in the country.