|
|
Post by coolbox on Sept 7, 2019 22:01:54 GMT
Please do excuse me if somebody has previously posted about this. Also, rest assured that whilst I am posting this after Sussex's loss to Worcestershire (disappointing as it is), it is not due to that result I am posting, but as a view which developed in the light of the 50 over structure.
In this year's T20, Sussex and Lancs have been the most impressive sides by far. However, due to a bizarre system where the only reward for winning the group of 9 is a home tie in the quarter finals, neither team will feature in finals day. This is scarcely a fair reflection of 14 group matches and detracts from the competition. Surely the refreshing and just approach employed in the 50 over competition where the group winners proceed direct to the semi-finals and the 2nd and 3rd in each group play off for the remaining semi-final positions is much fairer, more logical and reflects the overall outcome of the group matches much better than a competition which after 14 matches per team (the same number of matches played in a full championship season) rewards 8 out of 18 teams. This is after all the cutting edge of professional sport. Results should count.
Clearly I do appreciate that the group winners would need to be financially rewarded to compensate for the loss of revenue from the 1/4 final, but would not see this as an issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by philh on Sept 8, 2019 2:46:42 GMT
It could taken as sour grapes, coolbox, but it does seem that quite a small reward for coming top, particularly as things can go wrong on one night in T20, but they are the rules. The semis and final itself are based on the result of one match, so it's hard to complain. I think we all know that T20, to some extent, relies on a bit of luck or a lack of expensive mistakes as shown by dropping Moeen Ali on 5. I guess an advantage could be added to let the higher-placed team choose whether they wanted to bat or field first, perhaps. This would have possibly favoured Sussex, particularly as Sussex have performed so well batting second (see facts & figures page - from-the-sea-end.co.uk/facts-figures/). However, I'm a bit against fiddling with the rules and don't like away teams choosing whether to field or go to a toss in CC games, to be honest. Although I was away and missed the Worcestershire game, it seems that we were fair and square on the night by a team that have been strengthened by Ali's return while Sussex have been weakened as the season has progressed. |
|
|
|
Post by coolbox on Sept 8, 2019 11:58:44 GMT
It could taken as sour grapes, coolbox , but it does seem that quite a small reward for coming top, particularly as things can go wrong on one night in T20, but they are the rules. The semis and final itself are based on the result of one match, so it's hard to complain. I think we all know that T20, to some extent, relies on a bit of luck or a lack of expensive mistakes as shown by dropping Moeen Ali on 5. I guess an advantage could be added to let the higher-placed team choose whether they wanted to bat or field first, perhaps. This would have possibly favoured Sussex, particularly as Sussex have performed so well batting second (see facts & figures page - from-the-sea-end.co.uk/facts-figures/). However, I'm a bit against fiddling with the rules and don't like away teams choosing whether to field or go to a toss in CC games, to be honest. Although I was away and missed the Worcestershire game, it seems that we were fair and square on the night by a team that have been strengthened by Ali's return while Sussex have been weakened as the season has progressed. Sussex were very clearly outplayed by Worcs, who desreved to win on the night. Magic partnership! That's now history, but it would be possible to change the format and reward for winning the group prior to the start of 2020. Who knows....it could cost Sussex a T20 finals day place, but I do think it would then put both the 50 over and T20 on the same footing. Given that this amendment to the 50 overs was introduced fairly recently, it was clearly deemed a better option for that competition. Why not take a consistent approach?
As an aside, I'm dismayed (as I know many others are) that two competitions which have been so popular up and down the country are to be worked around an untested, illogigal extension of the game. England are world champions in the 50 over game, so this is relegated to a minor competition despite its popularity. The T20 with sell out crowds is moved from prime position. Can you imagine any shop which was consistently selling out of a certain item, moving it from the front of the shop to the back or upstairs? Of course they wouldn't because it would show a complete lack of business sense and understanding the customer.
|
|
|
|
Post by inkyfingers on Sept 8, 2019 16:30:58 GMT
I suspect the answer may be an economic one.
By coming in the top two of the South group Sussex earned themselves a money-spinning sell-out match at Hove.
Attendances in the 50-over competition are much smaller. I went to a 50-over knock-out match at Lord's (admittedly not a typical ground) this season and the crowd was roughly the same as for a County Championship match.
Of course, this doesn't explain why the counties played only 14 games in the Blast this year. Why not play all your opponents twice? That would be fairer, and more lucrative.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Sept 9, 2019 7:24:00 GMT
I suspect the answer may be an economic one.
By coming in the top two of the South group Sussex earned themselves a money-spinning sell-out match at Hove. Attendances in the 50-over competition are much smaller. I went to a 50-over knock-out match at Lord's (admittedly not a typical ground) this season and the crowd was roughly the same as for a County Championship match. Of course, this doesn't explain why the counties played only 14 games in the Blast this year. Why not play all your opponents twice? That would be fairer, and more lucrative. That may be right. The acid (hypothetical) test would be to have offered Sussex a choice: Would you rather go straight from the group to Finals Day, or would you rather take your chance with a lucrative home quarter final? Readers, what would you have done? |
|
|
|
Post by coolbox on Sept 9, 2019 8:58:47 GMT
I suspect the answer may be an economic one.
By coming in the top two of the South group Sussex earned themselves a money-spinning sell-out match at Hove. Attendances in the 50-over competition are much smaller. I went to a 50-over knock-out match at Lord's (admittedly not a typical ground) this season and the crowd was roughly the same as for a County Championship match. Of course, this doesn't explain why the counties played only 14 games in the Blast this year. Why not play all your opponents twice? That would be fairer, and more lucrative. That may be right. The acid (hypothetical) test would be to have offered Sussex a choice: Would you rather go straight from the group to Finals Day, or would you rather take your chance with a lucrative home quarter final? Readers, what would you have done? Very good question. The key would be the financial reward for topping the group. There would need to be a substantial appreciation for lost revenue. I suppose turning this on its head, the answer is if this proposal was in force, would counties prefer to finish 1st or 2nd? Clearly there would need to be a rebalance of funding to balance the decision. Every team has fluctuations in form. It doesn't seem right that the top teams after 14 matches can have a blip on one night and miss the biggest day of the whole competition. I am of course not dwelling on the past, but making a suggestion for the future. |
|
