It could be argued, however, that that sentence could potentially have been overused in recent years, as the sport continues to develop.
2013 saw the introduction of an innovative new points format to decide the Ashes. It has since been used in the men’s game from this year.
There was big news in 2014 when the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) confirmed that the England women’s team would become a full-time professional outfit.
In truth, when it comes to what could be the biggest step forward for the development of a sport, then it will forever be hard to compete with the transition of going from amateurs to professionals. Yet, 2016 has still had a few noteworthy occurrences.
First, long-time captain Charlotte Edwards was effectively deposed by the ECB. She had led the team to some historic successes, most notably with victory in the 2009 Women's Cricket World Cup.
She’s been succeeded by Heather Knight, and earlier this year I went to Leicester to see her début as England’s new permanent captain.
England take on Pakistan
England were taking on Pakistan in a One Day International at what is now called the Fischer County Ground. The match actually took place on a reserve day, after it was washed out the day before. That meant no television coverage, a sparse crowd and, most annoyingly for me, there were no programmes on sale, even though they were available the preceding day.
England eased to a win, with a standout performance from Knight. She was deservedly given the Player of the Match award.
Heather Knight is the inevitable Player of the Match
2016 did not just provide a new England captain, but also new teams in a whole new competition.
Domestic cricket was given a shakeup, with the launch of the Women's Cricket Super League. Six teams took part in the Twenty20 format.
It gave the opportunity for Edwards to add a considerable feather under her cap, as she captained the Southern Vipers to victory in the inaugural edition.
Attendances were good, and the tournament was widely regarded as a success.
The feel-good factor was not supposed to end this summer, though. When the competition was first announced, plans were also laid out to include a 50-over event from next year.
However, yesterday it emerged that the 50-over concept has been shelved, and will not go ahead in 2017.
To me, this is disappointing news.
Although, saying that, surely this is disappointing news for everyone?
Well, when I found out about this by reading Stephan Shemilt’s BBC article, that air of disappointment that probably should have been there seemed to be rather lacking. Instead, it just seems that the ECB are trumpeting the success of the 2016 edition.
The article states that the ECB “decided to focus resources on developing the T20 version” of the competition. Rather than just focusing resources, is it not reasonable to expect the ECB to be providing additional resources to help with the growth of the sport?
The widely respected former England captain, Clare Connor, who is now director of women’s cricket, is quoted as saying: “It had been our intention to introduce a 50-over version of the Super League in 2017, but the success of the first edition of the T20 competition has given us a new lens to reassess this.”
Well done if you understood that, because I certainly didn’t. The competition has been such a success, and so it’s not being expanded? Maybe I need a new lens.
I do see that the decision was taken in consultation with the teams and the players, so there can’t be too many complaints. Arguably, though, that showed a lack of ambition, and they should have been more vociferous in trying to get the go-ahead for the original plans.
The biggest disappointment in my opinion is that this decision represents a massive missed opportunity.
Next year England hosts the 2017 Women's Cricket World Cup. That’s all 50-over matches. Would it not have helped build interest and excitement for that tournament if it were to be preceded by a new domestic competition in the 50-over format? Looking at it the other way, surely there would also have been excitement in the domestic competition, as fans would be given the opportunity to familiarise themselves with players who could be about to feature in the grandest competition.
Now, I did take notice of the fact that the World Cup would make it difficult for overseas players to play in English domestic cricket in 2017. However, that can’t be a good enough reason to stop the expansion of the sport. If overseas players aren’t around, then that does not mean that teams go out of existence. I’m sure that there would be plenty of local players who would love to play in a competition which would be seen as more meaningful than what they’re used to.
So, as you can tell, I’m frustrated with the message that this decision sends out, especially with the timing of it.
Maybe, then, I need to start looking at positive ways forward from this situation.
I mentioned that this is a missed opportunity, but what if the decision to delay the expansion is, itself, a new opportunity?
Don’t get me wrong, I still think that the best option would be for there to be 50-over Women's Cricket Super League action in the build up to the 2017 Women's Cricket World Cup. However, if that’s not going to be the case, then maybe there is now a chance to think of new ways of incorporating the 50-over format into the schedule for future seasons.
Perhaps inspiration could be taken from the points format used for the Ashes, which I mentioned earlier on. This sees the combination of the different versions of cricket to form one result. Instead of having winners for each variation, every match is taken into account, and one single nation is crowned the winner at the end.
I believe that some kind of combination of formats could be used successfully in the domestic season.
Before I explain my thought process, I should probably be honest and say that I had hoped for more from the Women's Cricket Super League this year.
For a start, it was not televised. When the tournament was first announced I’ll admit that I did dream a bit about matches being shown on a free-to-air television channel. That’s what happens with domestic Twenty20 matches in Australia, and is something which has been hugely attributed as a reason for that league’s success. For years the ECB has struggled to devise a men’s Twenty20 competition that can match the quality seen in Australia and other countries. I thought that this new competition would be a chance for them to try free-to-air television, and thus start giving the foreign leagues a run for their money. Sadly, however, the Women's Cricket Super League was not televised at all this year.
The other issues that I have with the existing Women's Cricket Super League set-up relate to its competition format.
There are only six teams. This just probably dampens the prestige of the competition somewhat.
Saying that, I do understand that it’s hard to conjure up a whole bunch of new teams out of nowhere.
Following on from this, there is a particular problem with having a league of six teams. As each team is guaranteed five matches, it is unavoidable that some teams will play three home matches, while others will only play twice at home.
With two home matches teams are effectively playing one of those matches in excess of being a permanent touring side.
The bigger problem is that this gives some teams an advantage over the others. This kind of thing always irks me. Actually, the final standings in the table for this year’s competition saw all of the sides with three home games progress to the knockout phase, while all of the sides with two home games fell by the wayside. I don’t know how much you can read into that.
Of course, the situation of competitive integrity is much more of an issue in English men’s domestic cricket.
It really is a statistician’s nightmare. Teams do not play each other home and away an equal number of times in the groups for the t20 Blast. Imagine if that happened in Premier League football! This peculiarity will make its way into first-class cricket from next year, as it is being instituted in the County Championship Division Two.
I hope that the ECB can figure out a solution for men’s cricket without sacrificing the competitive integrity, which is probably the most important thing for me, as a sports fan. I always thought that there was a unique opportunity with Twenty20 for the counties. They could play in two divisions with promotion and relegation. That’s something which hasn’t been seen in the leagues in other countries. As the competition would not be a 'closed shop', there would be the potential for excitement at both ends of the table. Yet, I suppose that the ECB may keep shying away from this idea as it does not guarantee two matches between Lancashire and Yorkshire each year.
Now that I’ve aired my feelings, I’m ready to get back to proposing a solution for the Women's Cricket Super League.
I’ve explained that some teams play more home games than others. What if this was 'rectified' by playing the reverse fixtures as 50-over matches, while still keeping a single league table and crowning a single team as champions for both formats?
Firstly, it ensures that each team hosts the same number of matches, so as to provide a better amount of competitive balance.
Secondly, it provides a continuation of the cross-format approach which I was talking about, and pioneered by women in the Ashes with the points system.
And it also gives the opportunity to provide a more substantial narrative of domestic cricket for fans. By having a winner decided by two formats, it does provide a 'champion of champions' feel to the occasion.
Naturally, the idea will have its detractors. Purists will argue that there needs to be a champion for each format.
Although purists never really liked Twenty20 to begin with. My opinion is that there isn’t a huge amount of difference between Twenty20 and 50-over cricket, so anything that assimilates the two couldn’t be all that bad.
Another difficulty would be deciding how to play a knockout phase, if one was wanted. Should a final be Twenty20 or 50-overs? It may well be that a broadcaster would ask for Twenty20, thus making everybody’s mind up for them.
Plenty of questions remain. Answers may be out there, but there is uncertainty at a time when inspiring future players should be the main focus.
The idea of a mixed format competition that I have put forward has spawned out of the news that there won’t be a new 50-over tournament next year. I guess that I’ve learnt that setbacks can lead to opportunities.
