I think the problem for developing players isn't just not playing enough red ball cricket, they don't play enough of any type of cricket. Bar the internationals, they are playing 15 interpro games if a player was to play all of them. How do they develop? Like unless fast tracked from 19s there is nothing
there's a big gap between 19s and the senior team. Cutting Munster didn't help that. There are a few players in the UK, Riley and Le Roux at Uni, Armstrong and Ogilby playing school/club/rep cricket there (and here in the latter). Not enough, but more than in recent years which is a sign that some are looking abroad for opportunities
Sarah comes from a sport where there is only one Test held every four years - the Olympics. That is all she needs to now about what Test cricket means & why it must remain the pinnacle. On its own, the Olympics looks like an incredibly expensive exercise but the "value" it generates - from aspiring youngsters wanting to compete one day & participate in sport to the viewer who wants to see the best of the best perform on the elite stage. Money should not be the basis of any discussion when it comes to Test cricket. Find it separately. Or get the right people who can find it. The fat trimming is not cutting out Test cricket nor the Emerald Challenge - its the fat within CI HQ that have become comfortable over the years. What is the cost of not hosting a Test nor Emerald Challenge? I hate the ETPL but you watch them promote the upcoming tournament compared to what CI will do the Indian matches with a 15yo demigod as the best promotion ETPL could only dream of!
Fascinating comparison. Look at NZ, they see red ball as a loss leader, play it at smaller grounds but more people come as regular viewers and the wider media interest means the sport gets greater visibility. They play white ball in their rugby grounds to shift tickets and make money instead. FWIW - plenty of fat has been trimmed in the office and more will be. We saw last year's restructuring payments, an educated guess would be more will be in the books for this year's accounts when they're released in early 2027
Every first class competition throughout the world makes a loss
But they are seen as an investment in finding the next cab off the rank for the test team, who the selectors can be confident that any players chosen can succeed at that higher level
If IP matches do cost €50K, then that investment of the 3 teams playing each other home and away comes at a cost of €300K, 2% of their annual budget which could lead to a better prepared test side, that a victory, or at least competitive loss, will put numbers on the gate, and might even get a mention on IndoSports, which the NZ test has gone unmentioned by them
In a nutshell, that's the argument. CI have never actually sat down and come up with a long term investment strategy around red ball that leads to improvement over a 10 year period, which is probably how long it will take to avoid innings defeats against this type of opposition. To a point, that's because they have to be short term given the nature of the finances, it's a constant battle of just putting out fire after fire, but at some point that cycle has to stop
I think the problem for developing players isn't just not playing enough red ball cricket, they don't play enough of any type of cricket. Bar the internationals, they are playing 15 interpro games if a player was to play all of them. How do they develop? Like unless fast tracked from 19s there is nothing
there's a big gap between 19s and the senior team. Cutting Munster didn't help that. There are a few players in the UK, Riley and Le Roux at Uni, Armstrong and Ogilby playing school/club/rep cricket there (and here in the latter). Not enough, but more than in recent years which is a sign that some are looking abroad for opportunities
Sarah comes from a sport where there is only one Test held every four years - the Olympics. That is all she needs to now about what Test cricket means & why it must remain the pinnacle. On its own, the Olympics looks like an incredibly expensive exercise but the "value" it generates - from aspiring youngsters wanting to compete one day & participate in sport to the viewer who wants to see the best of the best perform on the elite stage. Money should not be the basis of any discussion when it comes to Test cricket. Find it separately. Or get the right people who can find it. The fat trimming is not cutting out Test cricket nor the Emerald Challenge - its the fat within CI HQ that have become comfortable over the years. What is the cost of not hosting a Test nor Emerald Challenge? I hate the ETPL but you watch them promote the upcoming tournament compared to what CI will do the Indian matches with a 15yo demigod as the best promotion ETPL could only dream of!
Fascinating comparison. Look at NZ, they see red ball as a loss leader, play it at smaller grounds but more people come as regular viewers and the wider media interest means the sport gets greater visibility. They play white ball in their rugby grounds to shift tickets and make money instead. FWIW - plenty of fat has been trimmed in the office and more will be. We saw last year's restructuring payments, an educated guess would be more will be in the books for this year's accounts when they're released in early 2027
Every first class competition throughout the world makes a loss
But they are seen as an investment in finding the next cab off the rank for the test team, who the selectors can be confident that any players chosen can succeed at that higher level
If IP matches do cost €50K, then that investment of the 3 teams playing each other home and away comes at a cost of €300K, 2% of their annual budget which could lead to a better prepared test side, that a victory, or at least competitive loss, will put numbers on the gate, and might even get a mention on IndoSports, which the NZ test has gone unmentioned by them
In a nutshell, that's the argument. CI have never actually sat down and come up with a long term investment strategy around red ball that leads to improvement over a 10 year period, which is probably how long it will take to avoid innings defeats against this type of opposition. To a point, that's because they have to be short term given the nature of the finances, it's a constant battle of just putting out fire after fire, but at some point that cycle has to stop