another great article in the inbox. english cricket is charming but hopelessly inefficient. your point about the stadia is a really good one - £25 a ticket would get everyone involved - a fantastic day out, and break the class stigma which has no place in the game. why do counties always seem to be in debt/making a loss? because demand for the county game is modest. why are test match ticket prices so high? because demand for test cricket is huge. something needs to be done to redress the balance.

You know, I'd hate to hear how you really feel on the subject!

ROTFL, good satire.

Interesting comments Sam.

Tragically there isn't 18 decent sized towns in Australia (including those under water) - I think we are stuck with the six teams for now.

There is something wrong with our immigration department - Australia is full of ex pat Saffers none of whom have any cricket ability. The rugby lads snare the odd good one but no such luck for the cricket fraternity.

Unlike the UK most institutions in Australia are flush with money including CA. If anything our cricketers are too well paid - little Ricky (with endorsements) is on about $5,000,000 AUD which works out to about $100,000 AUD per Test run. The downside of having too much money is that few of our cricketers will need to travel to UK to supplement their incomes. England will become the new India for most Australian cricketers - a land rarely visited with mysterious pitch conditions.

gr8888 awesome awestruck !!!!!

brilliant article

Very very true and very funny. Sporting empires don't last forever, after all!

What Aust actually needs is a 2nd class cricket competition to bridge the state games and the club games. This could involve more teams then state cricket but way less then clubs (say 1-4 per state). Teams could be (NSW) Northern NSW, Central NSW, Sydney, Southern NSW, (QLD) North QLD, Central & West QLD, South East QLD, (VIC) Melbourne, 2 other teams, (WA) Perth, Rural WA, (SA) Adelaide, Rural SA, (NT) NT, (ACT) ACT, (Tas) Tas, Rural Tas.
This would give roughly 18 teams for Second class cricket competition, allowing 200+ players in a second class level. This would be financially affordable and make things interesting.
The alternative is to create an Aust Club of the Year system: (1) Winning club in each First grade competition play off in their region. (2) Winning regional club plays off against other regional clubs in their state. (3) Winning state club plays off against other 7 state clubs to be Aust Club of the year.
Aust club could play in first class competition following year.

Terry Jone of Australia

You already have 2nd Class cricket, In England. You can send over all your potential future players over who will get a contract at any of the mediocre 18 counties and ply their trade. If tehy are good enough to make the grade you have the added benefit of giving them valuable experience in English conditions

when australia was dominating world cricket,people used to praise its domestic structure,saying only 6 teams makes it very competitive,as a result there is fierce competition for places,and players are mentally prepared to meet the demands of international cricket.now,all of a sudden,they are stumbling,so the domestic structure is bad!!!
about the south africans,well,m sure there were plenty during the waugh-taylor era also.why the obsession regarding south africans?australia had some players of eastern european origin,like,kasprowizc n katich who have done well.
the main problem lies with the administrators.they had become very complacent,thinking the domination would go on.the selectors are a joke.m not sure whether tim nielsen is any good or not,his tactics have backfired spectacularly and he has not been inspirational enough
aus needs to start from scratch after the wc.say bye bye to ponting,get a new captain,new coach/manager and move on.australia will rise from the ashes

trans-tasman competition. tri-nations. six nations.

The trouble with players not good enough for international cricket is they are often still better than 18 y/o players who one day might be. You only have to look at the number of spinners played since the start of 2007 - twelve - and the number of state teams - six - to see a problem when every state plays only one spinner in first class cricket. The entire Australian bowling attack in Sydney could muster just 12 f/c games between them before they turned 24. Is it any surprise they reached their "prime" without some of the basic skills mastered?

Eighteen teams is arguably too many, but when you consider it is becoming the professional grounding for not just England, but Ireland, Scotland and Netherlands cricketers as well, it may not be enough. In Australia there is a case for ten, with more than one team in Sydney and Melbourne. Optimally, the Sheffield and Plunkett Shields would merge into two 8-team divisions, which would improve the cricket both sides of the Tasman.

It is very confusing to see all the negative comments and remarks that are being made about the current australian cricket team especially after losing the recent Ashes series at home. Whats even more disturbing, is this is a nation and a team that has won almost every single tournament that the international cricket council has had to offer for the past two decades. And even with all that success at home and away they still struggle to draw sold out crowds to most of their home series. It often leads one to wonder who are the people that are really making these comments are they full blooded cricket loving AUSTRALIAN people or are they just people that love to blog. In the one day series against Sri Lankan that preceeded the Ashes the crowd turn out was as appaling as could be with the one game played at the MCG having a crowd of more Sri Lankans than Australian fans. SRI LANKAN fans people, need I say more.

Regards to those leaping to the defence of the Australian structure - did you read the article? It quite clearly is in favour of the Australian system. Would being efficient, producing your own players and not ingloriously money-hunting for Murdoch's phone number really be portrayed as bad points? The article is attempting to remind people that English cricket has structural flaws, ones that tend to be panned against Australia's strengths when we return to perpetual defeat.

@Russ, whilst I agree with you about the 18 year olds, you have to consider that with less teams there would be less room for filler-players, this would mean young players playing in a tier below professional cricket where their skills can be honed. Also, I don't feel our system has particular responsibility to other countries, whilst Affiliate players are in county cricket and improving, would boards such as Ireland's really see it as beneficial to lose Joyce and Morgan?

Thanks for the positive feedback though

Interesting idea from Terry Jones. But there is an existing 2nd tier, 6 team format called 'Futures', which is under-23.

A mix of Terry's idea with Futures, set-up in Eastern/Western conferences structure would ensure travel costs are kept relatively low. A minimum of u-23 players per side and a maximum over 30 (to ensure it doesn't turn into a retirement program for former pros in their 40s) with players sourced from State contracts and district cricket. Would make a smaller rise between cricketing levels than currently experienced.

Also - looking at other codes and other cricketing countries, should Australia have more specific squads named at the start of each summer for test, ODI & 20/20? Maybe limit the number of squads a player can qualify for to be no more than two? Each squad has a specific coaching team, with regular training sessions etc, ensuring not only a 'team' culture but high quality training and analysis of opposition and strategy?

Yes, the English system is so gloriously inefficient it's just produced a side that utterly walloped australia at home in their recent encounters, I believe it's some small series called the embers, or the charcoals, or something...

I think the Aussies need to get rid of Peter Roebuck. He would do us all a big favour if he went back to England for good and knocked the stuffing out of his fellow Englishmen when they showed the slightest bit of aggression with the success they have had recently. His comments over the years have been over the top to say the least. He needs to get himself back to the old country and let us colonials be.

There is nothing significantly wrong with Australian cricket - we are just in the 'lull' of the cycle (which all sporting teams/countries go through). We may have also suffered a bit from an apparent predisposition to select players from NSW for international duties who were either in the obvious 'mediocre' or 'far too raw' categories (or both)!

he has a point that i've believed for a while with the 1st 1. the problem's that young crickets are being kept out of the side by has beens in state cricket. the likes of Phil Jacques are still good state players but the ship has sailed for australian representaion & now Nic Maddinson couldn't get a game having averaged 50 for the 1st 1/2 of the year. When australian cricket was at its peak it was a huge asset however as when a player dropped out of the side they were still playing a very high standard of cricket but it really creates an osilation in the standard of the test team. Victoria has been good this year in overlooking Rogers & McGain for younger blood in Hill & Holland, but it shouldn't come down to them. 18 is a bit far but if they added maybe 4 more, 1 in each of NSW, Vic, Qld & SA we'd see a lot larger talent pool.

You said:

This has a number of wholly positive effects. Firstly, it allows for a rise in ticket prices that keeps English cricket where it rightfully belongs: in the hands of the upper-middle class.

Seriously? You don't get our economy, our cashed up mining bogans would earn a heap more than your upper-middle class. And probably hit the ball further with a can of VB in one hand and a bat in the other.

Don't forget putting South Africans in your team.....