Home > Cricket Development > Opinion: ICC should introduce a development factor for associates…..

Opinion: ICC should introduce a development factor for associates…..

At least this would give them something else to work towards except for standard……. and would also discourage countries to pay people to come and play cricket in them just to qualify and represent that country in 4 years………

The development factor (a factor representing the cricketing system of the country) can be done in the following way……. for every player, give 100 points if the player has been living in the country from before he turned 9. Give 50 points if the player has been living in the country before the age 15. Anyone else gets 0 points. Sum up the numbers for all the players and divide by 11. That would be the development factor for the team playing in the match. If the team wins a tournament, one can see the development factor and easily figure out if the team is winning because of better infrastructure, or because of just getting in more and more expats.

Also, ICC can perhaps rank the countries seperately based on whether their development factor is over 60, or under. Money can then be distributed accordingly. I cannot understand, from a stricly development perspective, what the point is of giving money to Hong Kong over Nepal/Afghanistan or for that matter Norway over Jersey.

Advertisements
Categories: Cricket Development
  1. rego
    August 29, 2006 at 11:21 pm

    I think this is a good idea however….

    1. You cannot just separate facilities, domestic leagues, and cricket centers from expats and say that its either expats causing them to win or they have a very high development factor ranking.

    Expats still use the facilities in the country. They still play the domestic tournaments. They still receive coaching from the country’s coaches. If being an expat is the only thing thats causing UAE or Canada to win tournaments then why doesn’t Zeeshan Khan who has played for Pakistan “A” and has been in the Pakistan Squad for a test series, and plays for Thailand, score 100s everytime he faces UAE or Nepal. (I’m not running down Thailand’s its facilities or anything here (it has arguably the best ground in Asia apart from Sharjah or Sheik Zayed), but if he were playing for UAE, he would certainly have been one of the top players of the ACC Trophy. Why? because UAE has better allround facilities, better domestic competitions, and more money, and this counts!

  2. August 30, 2006 at 1:32 am

    So someone like John Davison, who was born in Canada, is a full Canadian Citizen, not a naturalised one gets zero, and the ICC should consider him to essentially not be properly Canadian? What a load of crap.

    You still seem to be under the impression that ex-pats can turn up off the boat and walk straight into the national team. They can’t. They have to fulfil some quite strict criteria. Even being born in the country can not garuntee a spot in the national side. A player has to show some sort of comitment to the game in that country.

  3. August 30, 2006 at 2:40 am

    Yeah very strict ‘commitment requirement’ of working for 40 or 100 days in ‘some capacity’ at the board……….. David Hemp just finished his strict regulations earlier this year by having a desk job working as a cricket advisor in Bermuda …..

    John Davison does NOT represent cricket in Canada ……. please explain to me how he does?? I did not mention whether the ICC should or should not consider someone a Canadian or not….. I am talking about Canadian cricket system, and John Davison IS NOT from that system………….. neither are BilCliff, Heany or Barnett ………….. they may be more patriotic Candians than everyone else in that country…. that is still not the point, because thats not even under discussion…… the Canadian cricket system did nothing except for browsing the web in their making. Rego mentioned maintaining the skills, but it seems that all these guys have to go back to play domestic cricket in their native countries to hone their skills further, as they cannot to that playing in Canada. The ICC needs to take that into account if they beat say Nepal or Uganda ….

    btw….. none of Barnett, Heany, Bilcliff or Davison had to fulfil anything more than the 3 months of work before they became eligable to play for Canada….. by no strech of the imagination is that a strict regulation……… a non Canadian citizen, going from Pakistan to Canada for bachelors, can play in the Canadian national team as soon as he graduates, because he has fulfilled the deemed national 4 year requirement………

  4. August 30, 2006 at 5:34 am

    Rego, I get your point…… but the development factor would still help in cases like comparing teams much better that belong to a particular rating….. you can probably compare all teams with 0-20 rating to figure out which expat based team has better facilities etc.

    btw…. I have never heard of a Zeeshan Khan being selected for Pakistan test probables……. are you sure you have the right name?

  5. Azam Khan
    August 30, 2006 at 8:17 am

    Dear Nasir Khan,

    Fortunately Afghanistan has qualified for WCL Division 5.
    You can see it on ACC website (The way to World Cup 2011).

    Azam Khan

  6. Ray
    September 1, 2006 at 10:14 am

    I have to agree with you Nasir. Although as a Canadian I am happy to see my team on the world stage, we have to commit to developing more of our national team players. Your development factor and its use to determine ICC funding could push teams like Canada and USA in the right direction. It can certainly be argued that using foreign-trained players like Davison and Billcliff and now Heany and Barnett have helped bring ICC resources to Canada with which it can start to develop. However, it is time to start showing that we are using this advantage to better train dometic players.

    Andrew, as much as I admire Davo’s commitment he is not a product of the Canadian cricket system. That system really needs to be kickstarted so we don’t rely so heavily on immigrants to stock our cricket leagues and national teams.

  7. September 11, 2006 at 2:21 pm

    Lets just improve upon this development factor business a little more……

    For every player in the playing 11, give:

    a) 100 points if the player has been living in the country before he turned 10……
    b) 65 points if the player has been living in the country before he turned 15……
    c) 35 points if the player has been living in the country before he turned 21……
    d) 15 points if the player has been living in the country before he turned 25……

    everyone else gets 0………..

    ‘living’ is defined according to ICC’s rules, i.e., 183 days of residence within a year.

    Total up the numbers for the 11 players and divide by 11. Thats the development factor.

    For the ICC, they should fund the development of the top 6 associates IRRESPECTIVE of development factor, just like they are doing now. But they should ALSO fund the development of the top 6 associates that have a development factor of 70 or higher from the world rankings. From the ICC rankings of 2005, these would have been Namibia, Denmark, PNG, Uganda, Fiji and Nepal.

  8. Cuen Lucas
    September 12, 2006 at 5:04 pm

    And what a difference that would have made, certainly Namibia, Uganda and Nepal could do a considerable amount with the extra money, particularly with Namibia now embarking on it’s mainstreaming program.

  9. September 19, 2006 at 4:22 am

    How would you use the devlopment factor for someone who met the following description:

    1. Born and raised in Canada.
    2. At age 18, attends Oxford University for a four year course.
    3. Whilst at University, he takes up cricket, plays for the University team and gets noticed by a county side.
    4. After leaving University, he has a contract with a county club, and hardly spends any time in his home country, but always says that internationally he only wants to play for Canada, and not England.

    Such an individual was born and bred in Canada, but where would they fit in your devlopment factor?

  10. September 19, 2006 at 10:27 am

    What are the chances that someone who takes up cricket at the age of 18 is going to end up being in the Canadian national team? Give Canada some credit, they are not that weak 🙂

    But I think such a person would not be able to qualify on the “has been living” criteria, because he has NOT been living in Canada ……

    This formula is basically to seperate between imports/expats vs indegenous players. For situations like this, which are extremely rare if I may add, one can also modify the formula. Though, I dont think it is necessary, because that is not really the problem.

    But there arent many situations like this, I think there are only 6-7 players like that in the top 20 associates, while 120 of the top 20 associates are expats or imports.

    Cross the bridge when you get to it.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: