It will only work for test cricket if other bigger nations play smaller nations regularly in test like Afghanistan, Ireland, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, West Indies and Sri Lanka playing against Australia, England, South Africa
That's true, Aditya, the onus is really on the 'Big Three', but especially England and Australia because their home summers are built around Test content - and they need strong opposition. They might enjoy winning but they lose a lot of money beating teams in two and a half or three days!
It most certainly is, David, but the amounts being mentioned at the moment are pifflingly small. They might help the countries with the weakest currencies and lowest wages, but they won't make any difference to the West Indies, for example, whose best players are collecting $300k for a month in a Franchise League as opposed to $15k for a five day Test match. (Not that many of them last five days...)
Indeed. 300k dollars a month! Ouch. To think I could walk down the road as a kid to watch one the greatest of all time Barry R playing for DHS Old Boys without paying a cent. I think he may have earned 1 rand a run or something like that for Natal. And maybe a few free ice-creams from Clover.... If the 'test fund' is capitalized appropriately it can help. Of course, if England, Australia & India are content to only have test matches between themselves, then it won't work.
That comment about "taking the bullet" is probably still one of the best cricket quotes ever... that's definitely a strong endorsement by Gambhir :)!
I have to admit to being a bit prejudiced against Shah due to his links with the Indian Nationalist ruling party but hopefully you are correct. Cricket could use a benevolent dictatorship getting things done, hehe:)
Hi Boris, I'm not at all 'convinced' that Jay Shah's motives are 'noble' - it was an entirely clinical (cynical?) assumption of the ICC chair. Greg Barclay was told to move aside (not run for another term) and the other two aspirant hopefuls were also told to withdraw their candidacy. Not exactly democratic. But Shah has insisted that India's best players are available to play first-class cricket in the Ranji Trophy and appears to be a supporter of Test cricket... so, let's hope that's authentic!
It will only work for test cricket if other bigger nations play smaller nations regularly in test like Afghanistan, Ireland, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, West Indies and Sri Lanka playing against Australia, England, South Africa
That's true, Aditya, the onus is really on the 'Big Three', but especially England and Australia because their home summers are built around Test content - and they need strong opposition. They might enjoy winning but they lose a lot of money beating teams in two and a half or three days!
The 'test fund' is a good idea.
It most certainly is, David, but the amounts being mentioned at the moment are pifflingly small. They might help the countries with the weakest currencies and lowest wages, but they won't make any difference to the West Indies, for example, whose best players are collecting $300k for a month in a Franchise League as opposed to $15k for a five day Test match. (Not that many of them last five days...)
Indeed. 300k dollars a month! Ouch. To think I could walk down the road as a kid to watch one the greatest of all time Barry R playing for DHS Old Boys without paying a cent. I think he may have earned 1 rand a run or something like that for Natal. And maybe a few free ice-creams from Clover.... If the 'test fund' is capitalized appropriately it can help. Of course, if England, Australia & India are content to only have test matches between themselves, then it won't work.
That comment about "taking the bullet" is probably still one of the best cricket quotes ever... that's definitely a strong endorsement by Gambhir :)!
I have to admit to being a bit prejudiced against Shah due to his links with the Indian Nationalist ruling party but hopefully you are correct. Cricket could use a benevolent dictatorship getting things done, hehe:)
Hi Boris, I'm not at all 'convinced' that Jay Shah's motives are 'noble' - it was an entirely clinical (cynical?) assumption of the ICC chair. Greg Barclay was told to move aside (not run for another term) and the other two aspirant hopefuls were also told to withdraw their candidacy. Not exactly democratic. But Shah has insisted that India's best players are available to play first-class cricket in the Ranji Trophy and appears to be a supporter of Test cricket... so, let's hope that's authentic!