England Cricket 2026

Addick Addict · March 8

52-3 (6)

World Cup over

blackpool72 · March 8

Addick Addict said:

52-3 (6)

World Cup over

Yep.
Think I'll switch channels in a minute and hopefully see Middlesbrough pick up a couple of injuries and a Red card or 2.

Addick Addict · March 8

India win by 96 runs

North Lower Neil · March 8

Boo

Addick Addict · March 16

I've been banging on about how central contracts mean less and less these days from the perspective of acting as "handcuffs".

The uncapped James Coles was bought for £390,000 in The Hundred auction. So many centrally contracted players were sold for half that. So where's the financial incentive for Coles to play for England in the knowledge that someone like Bashir will have an underpin of hundreds of thousands of pounds but might never play a game for the duration of the year?

Addick Addict · March 16

Liam Livingstone will probably never play for England and certainly not under the current regime given his interview on Cricinfo. There is no doubt he lost his form but so have some others but who have never been dropped. For a while there's been a feeling that once established in the squad it is more difficult for some to be left out but once you are out it's even harder to get back in.

This is the full article:

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/liam-livingstone-interview-i-asked-england-for-help-i-was-told-i-care-too-much-1528115

MarcusH26 · March 16

Addick Addict said:

I've been banging on about how central contracts mean less and less these days from the perspective of acting as "handcuffs".

The uncapped James Coles was bought for £390,000 in The Hundred auction. So many centrally contracted players were sold for half that. So where's the financial incentive for Coles to play for England in the knowledge that someone like Bashir will have an underpin of hundreds of thousands of pounds but might never play a game for the duration of the year?

Can't see Coles staying uncapped for long. Would expect he's in the squad for the India T20 series replacing Dawson and then at least goes incremental or whatever the lower tier of central contracts is.

Just a bit gutted with all the financial issues at Sussex that despite him being under contract through 2027 this might be the last we see of him, could see one of the big guns snapping him up even if he only plays a couple of games a year at domestic level.

Apparently Sussex have to trim £400k off the wage bill for the 2027 season so it'll be back to the youth sides we were fielding during the pandemic seasons

DubaiCAFC · March 16

Addick Addict said:

Liam Livingstone will probably never play for England and certainly not under the current regime given his interview on Cricinfo. There is no doubt he lost his form but so have some others but who have never been dropped. For a while there's been a feeling that once established in the squad it is more difficult for some to be left out but once you are out it's even harder to get back in.

This is the full article:

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/liam-livingstone-interview-i-asked-england-for-help-i-was-told-i-care-too-much-1528115

With Liam, he doesn’t really love cricket, he just happens to be able to whack the ball, and make a living out it. He more passionate about golf and going out!

And spends most of his time in Dubai

North Lower Neil · March 16

Addick Addict said:

Liam Livingstone will probably never play for England and certainly not under the current regime given his interview on Cricinfo. There is no doubt he lost his form but so have some others but who have never been dropped. For a while there's been a feeling that once established in the squad it is more difficult for some to be left out but once you are out it's even harder to get back in.

This is the full article:

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/liam-livingstone-interview-i-asked-england-for-help-i-was-told-i-care-too-much-1528115

Feels a bit "three sides to every story".

killerandflash · March 16

There feels something wrong with the finances of cricket, where a county can pay money to bring a player through, but not only get no money when that player moves county, but also get no share of the benefit when that player earns a fortune from franchise cricket.

But then cricket contracts make no sense now. Imagine if footballers played franchise football alongside playing for their regular clubs.

MarcusH26 · March 16

killerandflash said:

There feels something wrong with the finances of cricket, where a county can pay money to bring a player through, but not only get no money when that player moves county, but also get no share of the benefit when that player earns a fortune from franchise cricket.

But then cricket contracts make no sense now. Imagine if footballers played franchise football alongside playing for their regular clubs.

This is something I have always struggled with with county cricket especially. There's very little incentive to develop your own talents and bring them through because they'll have 1-2 good seasons and then get snapped up. At least in football you get a transfer fee

Addick Addict · March 16

MarcusH26 said:

killerandflash said:

There feels something wrong with the finances of cricket, where a county can pay money to bring a player through, but not only get no money when that player moves county, but also get no share of the benefit when that player earns a fortune from franchise cricket.

But then cricket contracts make no sense now. Imagine if footballers played franchise football alongside playing for their regular clubs.

This is something I have always struggled with with county cricket especially. There's very little incentive to develop your own talents and bring them through because they'll have 1-2 good seasons and then get snapped up. At least in football you get a transfer fee

Ultimately the ECB will want the eight Hundred franchises to also be the hosts of the only eight counties offering first class cricket and Test cricket. Surrey have half a dozen of their players in the MI London side and any number of others spread amongst the other seven teams. The "minor" counties like Kent have three or four in total. The extension of that will be that those other ten counties will be the feeders for Surrey/MI London, even more so than they are now. The ECB will offer subsidence level financial support for those second tier counties because, from a geographic perspective, they need them to survive in order to provide the pathway the franchises cannot fully meet. "Survive" rather than "thrive".

killerandflash · March 16

Addick Addict said:

MarcusH26 said:

killerandflash said:

There feels something wrong with the finances of cricket, where a county can pay money to bring a player through, but not only get no money when that player moves county, but also get no share of the benefit when that player earns a fortune from franchise cricket.

But then cricket contracts make no sense now. Imagine if footballers played franchise football alongside playing for their regular clubs.

This is something I have always struggled with with county cricket especially. There's very little incentive to develop your own talents and bring them through because they'll have 1-2 good seasons and then get snapped up. At least in football you get a transfer fee

Ultimately the ECB will want the eight Hundred franchises to also be the hosts of the only eight counties offering first class cricket and Test cricket. Surrey have half a dozen of their players in the MI London side and any number of others spread amongst the other seven teams. The "minor" counties like Kent have three or four in total. The extension of that will be that those other ten counties will be the feeders for Surrey/MI London, even more so than they are now. The ECB will offer subsidence level financial support for those second tier counties because, from a geographic perspective, they need them to survive in order to provide the pathway the franchises cannot fully meet. "Survive" rather than "thrive".

But now the franchises have much looser connections with the counties than before. Yorkshire don't have any financial interest in the Leeds 100 team, while Lancs only own 30% of the Manchester one. London Spirit is 51% owned by the MCC, so not a county at all. So just 5 where the counties own 50 or 51%.

Addick Addict · March 17

killerandflash said:

Addick Addict said:

MarcusH26 said:

killerandflash said:

There feels something wrong with the finances of cricket, where a county can pay money to bring a player through, but not only get no money when that player moves county, but also get no share of the benefit when that player earns a fortune from franchise cricket.

But then cricket contracts make no sense now. Imagine if footballers played franchise football alongside playing for their regular clubs.

This is something I have always struggled with with county cricket especially. There's very little incentive to develop your own talents and bring them through because they'll have 1-2 good seasons and then get snapped up. At least in football you get a transfer fee

Ultimately the ECB will want the eight Hundred franchises to also be the hosts of the only eight counties offering first class cricket and Test cricket. Surrey have half a dozen of their players in the MI London side and any number of others spread amongst the other seven teams. The "minor" counties like Kent have three or four in total. The extension of that will be that those other ten counties will be the feeders for Surrey/MI London, even more so than they are now. The ECB will offer subsidence level financial support for those second tier counties because, from a geographic perspective, they need them to survive in order to provide the pathway the franchises cannot fully meet. "Survive" rather than "thrive".

But now the franchises have much looser connections with the counties than before. Yorkshire don't have any financial interest in the Leeds 100 team, while Lancs only own 30% of the Manchester one. London Spirit is 51% owned by the MCC, so not a county at all. So just 5 where the counties own 50 or 51%.

That's now. How long before more money is waved in front of those Hundred counties not currently affiliated to an IPL franchise? How long before those franchises that do have a stake, offer more money to become major shareholders?

The biggest source of revenue will be a central distribution from the ECB, with the eight Hundred teams set to split 80% of domestic and international TV rights between them. So the other ten counties will receive 20% between them. Those eight franchise counties will also benefit massively from the matchday revenue meaning they collect all of the income from stadium hospitality, food, and beverage sales.

We've seen in the Women's domestic game how the ECB have dictated where the best players go. Kent has produced more England Women's internationals but were not given top tier status. As a result they lost a whole side to those counties that were awarded that status. The same will happen with the men.

We are already seeing evidence of the influence of the BCCI on the competition with the ECB having to send "shot across the bow" emails to the owners saying that there cannot be any discrimination in the bidding for overseas players. As a result, two Pakistan players were signed up out of 14 put up for auction. What we are seeing now is just the start.

MarcusH26 · March 17

Addick Addict said:

MarcusH26 said:

killerandflash said:

There feels something wrong with the finances of cricket, where a county can pay money to bring a player through, but not only get no money when that player moves county, but also get no share of the benefit when that player earns a fortune from franchise cricket.

But then cricket contracts make no sense now. Imagine if footballers played franchise football alongside playing for their regular clubs.

This is something I have always struggled with with county cricket especially. There's very little incentive to develop your own talents and bring them through because they'll have 1-2 good seasons and then get snapped up. At least in football you get a transfer fee

Ultimately the ECB will want the eight Hundred franchises to also be the hosts of the only eight counties offering first class cricket and Test cricket. Surrey have half a dozen of their players in the MI London side and any number of others spread amongst the other seven teams. The "minor" counties like Kent have three or four in total. The extension of that will be that those other ten counties will be the feeders for Surrey/MI London, even more so than they are now. The ECB will offer subsidence level financial support for those second tier counties because, from a geographic perspective, they need them to survive in order to provide the pathway the franchises cannot fully meet. "Survive" rather than "thrive".

So the Southern Brave squad that in previous years under Hampshire and Sussex's stake had James Vince as skipper , Tymal Mills, James Coles ,Jofra Archer , Henry Crocombe and Toby Albert now just has Archer and their big signing instead of being James Coles was Jamie Smith???? So if you're a Hampshire or Sussex member there's absolutely no connection now, Jofra barely plays for Sussex anyway.

I doubt Sussex will be the last non test hosting county to fall foul of the ECBs financial rules because unless you've got a multi millionaire backer in the background and move away from being member owned I just don't see how the non test counties really survive.

Addick Addict · March 17

MarcusH26 said:

Addick Addict said:

MarcusH26 said:

killerandflash said:

There feels something wrong with the finances of cricket, where a county can pay money to bring a player through, but not only get no money when that player moves county, but also get no share of the benefit when that player earns a fortune from franchise cricket.

But then cricket contracts make no sense now. Imagine if footballers played franchise football alongside playing for their regular clubs.

This is something I have always struggled with with county cricket especially. There's very little incentive to develop your own talents and bring them through because they'll have 1-2 good seasons and then get snapped up. At least in football you get a transfer fee

Ultimately the ECB will want the eight Hundred franchises to also be the hosts of the only eight counties offering first class cricket and Test cricket. Surrey have half a dozen of their players in the MI London side and any number of others spread amongst the other seven teams. The "minor" counties like Kent have three or four in total. The extension of that will be that those other ten counties will be the feeders for Surrey/MI London, even more so than they are now. The ECB will offer subsidence level financial support for those second tier counties because, from a geographic perspective, they need them to survive in order to provide the pathway the franchises cannot fully meet. "Survive" rather than "thrive".

So the Southern Brave squad that in previous years under Hampshire and Sussex's stake had James Vince as skipper , Tymal Mills, James Coles ,Jofra Archer , Henry Crocombe and Toby Albert now just has Archer and their big signing instead of being James Coles was Jamie Smith???? So if you're a Hampshire or Sussex member there's absolutely no connection now, Jofra barely plays for Sussex anyway.

I doubt Sussex will be the last non test hosting county to fall foul of the ECBs financial rules because unless you've got a multi millionaire backer in the background and move away from being member owned I just don't see how the non test counties really survive.

That's the point about The Hundred though. Once those franchises have their established three or four superstars that those fans may see year in year out and create an affinity with, the rest of the squad will, for want of a better phrase, become "economic migrants". A Surrey supporter, who actually enjoys The Hundred, will still be a Surrey supporter and an MI London fan regardless of who is playing for them.

I could see the eight franchise/Test hosting counties breaking away and becoming the only counties granted first class status by the ECB and they might also be the only ones involved in 50 over cricket (as in the case of Australia with their six State system) with the Blast disappearing or becoming something purely for the other ten counties and the existing minor counties to be involved in.

Karim_myBagheri · March 17

It is mad that we were the pioneers of T20 cricket introducing it to the world. Then because of poor management and investment made our counties tournament be left as a poor version of the game and franchise T20 cricket took over in other countries.

Now we have tried to do the same for a game which has only 20 balls less. Completely unnecessary and no other country has bothered to replicate because why would they when there is all ready a limited over version of the game.

Now some on here are saying they could end up making our T20 national tournament becoming even more less invested in.
Seems such a shot in the foot. First off how we couldn't keep up with the franchise game in the first place, especially as during our summer not many other countries have cricket going on.
Then a second shot by even creating this unnecessary hundred game and a third shot by undermining the blast tournament and the one day cup even more. Two versions of the game that is played internationally.
ECB have really let the game down in this country.

killerandflash · March 17

The franchise approach has broken up what were fairly settled 100 sides. I'm really not sure that approach will work here, as cricket fans are attached to their counties and Test cricket, and having such random 100 sides makes it even less consequential.

Plus while playing in the August school holidays will attract some newbies, it also coincides with the start of the football season. No other cricket nation has that sort of competition

Zulu · March 17

If you go to a 100 game at the Oval, the crowd constitutes over 50 per cent who have no idea/interest in the game - just boys from the city come out on the lash, and dont even watch the cricket- its a horrible vibe.
TBH Cricket is just going the same way as Football did some years ago with the split to the Premier League, which has created the 'super clubs' who control the finances of the game - that will be the same for the 100 teams, and sadly most of the revenue will be lost overseas to Indian investors- that embodies the short term nature of this country unfortunately - a lot of things are created/invented here but taken on and built and developed by others.

blackpool72 · March 17

Of all the changes made regarding cricket I think the 100 has to be the worst of all.
Ive never been to the Oval to watch it and I won't even watch it on Sky.
Hate the poxy competition and all it stands for.

LenGlover · March 17

blackpool72 said:

Of all the changes made regarding cricket I think the 100 has to be the worst of all.
Ive never been to the Oval to watch it and I won't even watch it on Sky.
Hate the poxy competition and all it stands for.

Agree.

I‘ve not watched a ball of that thing since it started live or on TV

Addick Addict · March 17

killerandflash said:

The franchise approach has broken up what were fairly settled 100 sides. I'm really not sure that approach will work here, as cricket fans are attached to their counties and Test cricket, and having such random 100 sides makes it even less consequential.

Plus while playing in the August school holidays will attract some newbies, it also coincides with the start of the football season. No other cricket nation has that sort of competition

If that happens then don't rule out The Hundred starting in the last week of June when all exams are over and parents aren't concerned about their kids staying up late and running for six weeks to finish in the first week of August. No conflict with football and then they can play a Test series in August/September for those that appreciate the more subtle nuances of that form of the game.

fenaddick · March 17

killerandflash said:

The franchise approach has broken up what were fairly settled 100 sides. I'm really not sure that approach will work here, as cricket fans are attached to their counties and Test cricket, and having such random 100 sides makes it even less consequential.

Plus while playing in the August school holidays will attract some newbies, it also coincides with the start of the football season. No other cricket nation has that sort of competition

Not to be too pedantic but the end of the Australian domestic season now clashes with the beginning of the AFL season which is a pretty big deal for a big chunk of Aus

killerandflash · March 17

fenaddick said:

killerandflash said:

The franchise approach has broken up what were fairly settled 100 sides. I'm really not sure that approach will work here, as cricket fans are attached to their counties and Test cricket, and having such random 100 sides makes it even less consequential.

Plus while playing in the August school holidays will attract some newbies, it also coincides with the start of the football season. No other cricket nation has that sort of competition

Not to be too pedantic but the end of the Australian domestic season now clashes with the beginning of the AFL season which is a pretty big deal for a big chunk of Aus

Australia is a multisport country, whereas England is a football country, that also likes lots of other sports. Australia is quite regional too, some parts prefer AFL, some Rugby Union and some League.

Even the England cricket team warm up by playing football

The Indians have paid a fortune for the 100 franchises, and I'm sure it'll get a reasonable audience back in India, but I think they'll be disappointed if they're expecting their 100 teams to be massive in the UK. And until Indian men are allowed to play the 100, it'll feel second class to the IPL.

Addick Addict · March 17

fenaddick said:

killerandflash said:

The franchise approach has broken up what were fairly settled 100 sides. I'm really not sure that approach will work here, as cricket fans are attached to their counties and Test cricket, and having such random 100 sides makes it even less consequential.

Plus while playing in the August school holidays will attract some newbies, it also coincides with the start of the football season. No other cricket nation has that sort of competition

Not to be too pedantic but the end of the Australian domestic season now clashes with the beginning of the AFL season which is a pretty big deal for a big chunk of Aus

The difference is that there is usually only one man and his dog watching the Sheffield Shield. Even less than there are that watch the county game. You're lucky to get a couple of hundred for some games and it's only really the latter stages that might attract a few thousand.

By way of an example, despite the quality of players involved, most of the ground is empty on three sides with the noise coming from the pavilion containing the players:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1MXKPAYT6g

fenaddick · March 17

killerandflash said:

fenaddick said:

killerandflash said:

The franchise approach has broken up what were fairly settled 100 sides. I'm really not sure that approach will work here, as cricket fans are attached to their counties and Test cricket, and having such random 100 sides makes it even less consequential.

Plus while playing in the August school holidays will attract some newbies, it also coincides with the start of the football season. No other cricket nation has that sort of competition

Not to be too pedantic but the end of the Australian domestic season now clashes with the beginning of the AFL season which is a pretty big deal for a big chunk of Aus

Australia is a multisport country, whereas England is a football country, that also likes lots of other sports. Australia is quite regional too, some parts prefer AFL, some Rugby Union and some League.

Even the England cricket team warm up by playing football

The Indians have paid a fortune for the 100 franchises, and I'm sure it'll get a reasonable audience back in India, but I think they'll be disappointed if they're expecting their 100 teams to be massive in the UK. And until Indian men are allowed to play the 100, it'll feel second class to the IPL.

Oh yeah they’ve massively misunderstood the market no arguments there. I assume they’re banking on 12 year olds becoming die hard Sunrisers Leeds fans but that fundamentally misunderstands the appeal of cricket in England specifically. The red ball game is stronger here than other places because we have the short form entertainment from high quality football etc. You don’t get that in SA or on the subcontinent so franchise stuff can thrive

Addick Addict · March 17

Addick Addict said:

killerandflash said:

Addick Addict said:

MarcusH26 said:

killerandflash said:

There feels something wrong with the finances of cricket, where a county can pay money to bring a player through, but not only get no money when that player moves county, but also get no share of the benefit when that player earns a fortune from franchise cricket.

But then cricket contracts make no sense now. Imagine if footballers played franchise football alongside playing for their regular clubs.

This is something I have always struggled with with county cricket especially. There's very little incentive to develop your own talents and bring them through because they'll have 1-2 good seasons and then get snapped up. At least in football you get a transfer fee

Ultimately the ECB will want the eight Hundred franchises to also be the hosts of the only eight counties offering first class cricket and Test cricket. Surrey have half a dozen of their players in the MI London side and any number of others spread amongst the other seven teams. The "minor" counties like Kent have three or four in total. The extension of that will be that those other ten counties will be the feeders for Surrey/MI London, even more so than they are now. The ECB will offer subsidence level financial support for those second tier counties because, from a geographic perspective, they need them to survive in order to provide the pathway the franchises cannot fully meet. "Survive" rather than "thrive".

But now the franchises have much looser connections with the counties than before. Yorkshire don't have any financial interest in the Leeds 100 team, while Lancs only own 30% of the Manchester one. London Spirit is 51% owned by the MCC, so not a county at all. So just 5 where the counties own 50 or 51%.

That's now. How long before more money is waved in front of those Hundred counties not currently affiliated to an IPL franchise? How long before those franchises that do have a stake, offer more money to become major shareholders?

The biggest source of revenue will be a central distribution from the ECB, with the eight Hundred teams set to split 80% of domestic and international TV rights between them. So the other ten counties will receive 20% between them. Those eight franchise counties will also benefit massively from the matchday revenue meaning they collect all of the income from stadium hospitality, food, and beverage sales.

We've seen in the Women's domestic game how the ECB have dictated where the best players go. Kent has produced more England Women's internationals but were not given top tier status. As a result they lost a whole side to those counties that were awarded that status. The same will happen with the men.

We are already seeing evidence of the influence of the BCCI on the competition with the ECB having to send "shot across the bow" emails to the owners saying that there cannot be any discrimination in the bidding for overseas players. As a result, two Pakistan players were signed up out of 14 put up for auction. What we are seeing now is just the start.

And here's the backlash

Addick Addict · March 20

The ECB review has come out with some stunning revelations (well not really - everyone bar Key and McCullum could see what they were doing wasn't working):

There is acknowledgment from all sides that mistakes were made in the lead-up to the Ashes and that, in future, there will need to be more adequate preparation for England players that will involve them playing more county cricket where that fits the schedule and their workload. There will also need to be better and more intense warm-up matches before away series where this can be arranged with the host board. There has already been an agreement between the ECB and Cricket Australia to allow for higher quality warm-up matches before each Ashes series, both here and in Australia.

McCullum and the Test captain, Ben Stokes, will need to realign on what they believe should be the style of play and tactics after the two appeared to diverge during the Ashes. McCullum seemed to stick with his belief that aggressive, attacking cricket was the best approach while Stokes moved more towards a traditional style of defensive play, hinting he wanted a team that showed grit and determination, perhaps more than style or flair, as that is what is required to win in Australia.

The review has also recognised that a great deal of goodwill towards the team was lost over the winter, both because of the nature of the meek surrender of the series, in only 11 days, but also because of the perception that they were unprofessional and unbothered. There was a sense too that the team’s management had allowed the culture to become overly relaxed and consequence-free and that is why some players felt it was acceptable to take part in excessive drinking and late nights out, even on the evening before a match, as was the case with Harry Brook before the ODI in Wellington in November.

Since the Ashes, a midnight curfew has been introduced and the ECB is understood to have made clear that, without veering too far the other way, the culture of the team must be more professional and focus on high performance, rather than one that sees golfing and nights out as an avenue to success. McCullum had already put in place some cultural changes to the dressing room during the T20 World Cup with more intense and longer practice and net sessions.

Karim_myBagheri · March 20

I can't believe a bunch of people get paid to produce that review which leads to nothing

fenaddick · March 20

Karim_myBagheri said:

I can't believe a bunch of people get paid to produce that review which leads to nothing

Didn't you read it? There's a curfew now, it's going to fix everything

England Cricket 2026

Comments

Categories