|
Post by invicta1977 on Feb 26, 2015 14:40:06 GMT
You mean that simply by being Loamshire CCC, without attracting members or gates, possibly without actually offering any cricket, they are entitled to claim Loamshire's £1 million a year? Sounds a good idea - I'm off to register HHSussex CCC and get my money. After all, I've earned it. No, Loamshire haven't, as they don't have any academies/facilities for player development. Where did James Taylor, Stuart Broad, Graeme Swann, Monty Panesar all come from? Oh, I know, the "bottom feeders". Bottom feeders that have also managed to win the T20 competition in recent years...unlike those big city giants Lancs, Yorks, Notts and Surrey.
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Feb 26, 2015 15:20:06 GMT
As ever hh a well balanced view of the situation. Whilst being uncomfortable with a great deal of what is proposed I think the most laughable is the idea that a change of name of the organising body will make a blind bit of difference to anyone. I envisage focus groups and marketing men wasting fortunes dreaming up a new brand and logo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2015 15:27:28 GMT
No, Loamshire haven't, as they don't have any academies/facilities for player development. Where did James Taylor, Stuart Broad, Graeme Swann, Monty Panesar all come from? Oh, I know, the "bottom feeders". Bottom feeders that have also managed to win the T20 competition in recent years...unlike those big city giants Lancs, Yorks, Notts and Surrey. I saw a remark by Dobell that he "fears" for Worcs, not a bottom-feeder at all but freshly promoted to div one and with an apparently successful £7.5 million redevelopment with en-suite hotel. So if they are in trouble, who knows who might be next and which will be the first county to go under? May be it's just typical Doballs and all he wants is for Worcs to become part of the Birmingham Bears. Or may be they are genuinely on the brink. I don't know. What is surely undeniable is that if we were starting the championship afresh with a blank sheet of paper, we wouldn't be writing 18 names upon it. When Leicestershire - who last won a game in 2012 - has four rival county grounds little more than half an hour away, it would be hard to make out a case for it to be a f/c county rather than a minor one, for example. I know Durham only joined the championship in 1992, but that was at least bringing f/c cricket to a region that didn't have any (it must be 75-80 miles to Headingley and 100 miles to Old Trafford from Chester-le-Street?)
|
|
Rob
2nd XI player
Posts: 83
|
Post by Rob on Feb 26, 2015 15:41:53 GMT
IMHO the proposed ideas make good sense:
40 over cricket - yes please, 50 overs is dying. Cut out the mostly predictable middle fifteen overs. Play it on Sunday afternoon. 20/20 - play it in one single block with all international players (England included) available. Keep all existing 18 counties. Test cricket - reduce to four day matches, but up overs to min 96 per day. More result pitches. County Championship - reduce to max 10 matches a season. 3 divisions of 6 makes sense. International Cricket - reduce the incessant matches and unstructured format. Every tour should be the same format - 3 tests, 3 ODIs, 3 20/20 etc.
More practice and recovery time for players is crucial. More cricket must be on free to air TV otherwise kids will not want to play the game.
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Feb 26, 2015 17:43:48 GMT
So far we have seen numerous leaks by the Artful Dodger from the document which, by its title, presumable summarises a number of options for consideration gathered by talking to various people within the ECB and "cricket" as it is known to Paul Downton. We haven't seen the document itself, nor anything that resembles a firm proposal for consideration by the county chairmen, or for gathering market research - thank god. What has been released covers the desirability and spread franchises, the ways and means of managing the calendar, the inevitability of accepting that the IPL is real and won't go away, the acceptance that we live in a global marketplace and highly-paid star cricketers will go where there is the highest reward. None of these things seem to me to be extraordinary, nor should they be regarded as spelling out the end of the world in 2016, even if they all happened simultaneously. And yet these leaks of what is clearly stated to be a discussion document, designed to provoke everyone who cares about the game into serious thought and consideration, has been greeted immediately with fatuous soundbites ( " Another senior figure at a non-Test hosting county remarked: " If that happens, our county ground will be a car park within five years." ) and deeply sad and blinkered comments on other discussion boards ( "I guess as someone in my mid fifties and living in Hove, I've been looking forward to a retirement in a few years watching plenty of county cricket. I suspect I might have to go a fair distance to watch any as Hove will probably be a supermarket or gigantic car park by then"). The other negative reaction has been deep suspicion, with the mooted three-day county match option and the various potential reductions to county championship sides being regarded as analogous to McLaurin's three division proposal back in the nineties: an option designed to ensure that people go for a less immediately objectional preference. The problem with that view is that there isn't any detailed proposal on the table, and all the options are up for grabs, which is exactly what Graves said he wanted to see. This forum has seen strong and well-argued debate on both sides of the franchise T20 question, and we have never been afraid to challenge accepted thinking about any of the issues challenging the game. There is, I think, a sense of realism here that, unlike other committees and restructuring reports, this time there is a battle on to maintain the relevance of cricket as a major national sport. To shy away in horror from change because we might have a competition involving fewer than 18 counties, or even accepting that not everyone nowadays actually understands the concept of a county, let alone has innate sporting loyalty to it, is to pretend that the outside world does not exist and that all will somehow come out all right. One can be a traditionalist without being a Luddite. I would dearly love to see 28 3-day championship matches each year, with a rousing game against the Touring side and no overseas distractions allowed from 1 May to early September. I'd also like it to be 1965 again (not the dismal cricket season) with amazing new bands appearing in the charts each week and every song a classic. Then again, I know that top-heavy structure of cricket was uneconomic even in those days, barely propped up by industrial sponsors and was soon to disappear, even though Test players could not hope to earn more than the equivlent of about £30, 000 a year by today's standards. And that music scene was the result of an unrepeatable syndrome of social change, rising affluence, better education and wider travel, all riding on the post war birthrate and against the context of the white discovery of American black music. Not everything that may happen to cricket in the next few years will be to my personal liking, but if the process of change is open and honest, and if everone commits themself to viewing and responding to it with clarity and imagination, then there is a good chance that cricket, evolving as always, in 15 years time will still capture the interest and commitment as players and spectators and as enthusiasts of those in infancy now. As to the music, that will carry on evolving too. Great post, HHS. I have highlighted what, for me are the key phrases. I cannot see how anyone who cares about the future of cricket can think that the status quo is sustainable. Some county cricket addicts appear to be in denial about the game's problems, many reactions being driven purely by personal preferences.
|
|
|
Post by invicta1977 on Feb 26, 2015 18:37:32 GMT
So far we have seen numerous leaks by the Artful Dodger from the document which, by its title, presumable summarises a number of options for consideration gathered by talking to various people within the ECB and "cricket" as it is known to Paul Downton. We haven't seen the document itself, nor anything that resembles a firm proposal for consideration by the county chairmen, or for gathering market research - thank god. What has been released covers the desirability and spread franchises, the ways and means of managing the calendar, the inevitability of accepting that the IPL is real and won't go away, the acceptance that we live in a global marketplace and highly-paid star cricketers will go where there is the highest reward. None of these things seem to me to be extraordinary, nor should they be regarded as spelling out the end of the world in 2016, even if they all happened simultaneously. And yet these leaks of what is clearly stated to be a discussion document, designed to provoke everyone who cares about the game into serious thought and consideration, has been greeted immediately with fatuous soundbites ( " Another senior figure at a non-Test hosting county remarked: " If that happens, our county ground will be a car park within five years." ) and deeply sad and blinkered comments on other discussion boards ( "I guess as someone in my mid fifties and living in Hove, I've been looking forward to a retirement in a few years watching plenty of county cricket. I suspect I might have to go a fair distance to watch any as Hove will probably be a supermarket or gigantic car park by then"). The other negative reaction has been deep suspicion, with the mooted three-day county match option and the various potential reductions to county championship sides being regarded as analogous to McLaurin's three division proposal back in the nineties: an option designed to ensure that people go for a less immediately objectional preference. The problem with that view is that there isn't any detailed proposal on the table, and all the options are up for grabs, which is exactly what Graves said he wanted to see. This forum has seen strong and well-argued debate on both sides of the franchise T20 question, and we have never been afraid to challenge accepted thinking about any of the issues challenging the game. There is, I think, a sense of realism here that, unlike other committees and restructuring reports, this time there is a battle on to maintain the relevance of cricket as a major national sport. To shy away in horror from change because we might have a competition involving fewer than 18 counties, or even accepting that not everyone nowadays actually understands the concept of a county, let alone has innate sporting loyalty to it, is to pretend that the outside world does not exist and that all will somehow come out all right. One can be a traditionalist without being a Luddite. I would dearly love to see 28 3-day championship matches each year, with a rousing game against the Touring side and no overseas distractions allowed from 1 May to early September. I'd also like it to be 1965 again (not the dismal cricket season) with amazing new bands appearing in the charts each week and every song a classic. Then again, I know that top-heavy structure of cricket was uneconomic even in those days, barely propped up by industrial sponsors and was soon to disappear, even though Test players could not hope to earn more than the equivlent of about £30, 000 a year by today's standards. And that music scene was the result of an unrepeatable syndrome of social change, rising affluence, better education and wider travel, all riding on the post war birthrate and against the context of the white discovery of American black music. Not everything that may happen to cricket in the next few years will be to my personal liking, but if the process of change is open and honest, and if everone commits themself to viewing and responding to it with clarity and imagination, then there is a good chance that cricket, evolving as always, in 15 years time will still capture the interest and commitment as players and spectators and as enthusiasts of those in infancy now. As to the music, that will carry on evolving too. Great post, HHS. I have highlighted what, for me are the key phrases. I cannot see how anyone who cares about the future of cricket can think that the status quo is sustainable. Some county cricket addicts appear to be in denial about the game's problems, many reactions being driven purely by personal preferences. I'd say county addicts have in the past 30 or so years accepted copious changes to the English game designed to improve its standing and health (as detailed in leopard's list yesterday). Sure, we might have a rant about them in the pub and on message boards but that's the English for you, we love a good moan. It's not like anyone in cricketing power is paying the slightest bit of attention. The acid test is: do we still continue to turn up to support whatever is left of our county season after each new change? I believe the overwhelming majority of us do, and thus we bestow our consent, however grudging.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2015 19:28:45 GMT
The acid test is: do we still continue to turn up to support whatever is left of our county season after each new change? With respect, invicta1977, the acid test isn't "we" at all. It is "them". As in can we find and inspire a new generation of cricket enthusiasts to replace our generation as we wither and fade away? Growing old is a strange thing; being a grandfather does even weirder things to one's psyche. For the first time, I am less interested in the kind iof cricket I would like to watch over the next few years, sitting in the Narnia sunhine, enjoying a glass of Harvey's best Aslan ale in the ripe company of Compo, Clegg, and Foggy your good self, hh and s&f, and far more interested in whatever is going to be left for my two grandchildren to enjoy when we are gone. If that means franchises, a reduced championship, four or five counties going out of business, more white ball dominance over red ball, drop in pitches in football stadia and whatever else, then I'm in. Or rather, I hope my grandchildren are ...
|
|
|
Post by invicta1977 on Feb 26, 2015 19:41:04 GMT
Bottom feeders that have also managed to win the T20 competition in recent years...unlike those big city giants Lancs, Yorks, Notts and Surrey. What is surely undeniable is that if we were starting the championship afresh with a blank sheet of paper, we wouldn't be writing 18 names upon it. When Leicestershire - who last won a game in 2012 - has four rival county grounds little more than half an hour away, it would be hard to make out a case for it to be a f/c county rather than a minor one, for example. Conversely, it could be argued that Leicestershire are proving pretty good at fulfilling one of the main reasons behind the introduction of Two Divisions - the creation of a structure in which the cream rises up to the bigger, wealthier counties. Leics, of course, won two of the last four 'Single' Championships. Since then, the talent nurtured at Grace Road before moving on to 'better' things elsewhere has been admirable: Maddy, Sutcliffe, Stevens, Smith, Ormond, Dakin, Nixon, Wright, Maunders, Allenby, Broad, Gurney, Taylor. In the close season, Buck and Cobb have moved to clubs that were in Div One last year, while Eckersley will surely be lured away within the year. Leics also helped turn a down and out David Masters into one of the leading bowlers in the land. They're doing exactly what was hoped of the smaller clubs in 1999/2000 - and still managing to win the 'People's Competition' more times than any other county! In the context of the modern county scene, perhaps being rubbish at winning CC games isn't quite so important as it once was?
|
|
|
Post by invicta1977 on Feb 26, 2015 19:53:49 GMT
The acid test is: do we still continue to turn up to support whatever is left of our county season after each new change? With respect, invicta1977, the acid test isn't "we" at all. It is "them". As in can we find and inspire a new generation of cricket enthusiasts to replace our generation as we wither and fade away? Growing old is a strange thing; being a grandfather does even weirder things to one's psyche. For the first time, I am less interested in the kind iof cricket I would like to watch over the next few years, sitting in the Narnia sunhine, enjoying a glass of Harvey's best Aslan ale in the ripe company of Compo, Clegg, and Foggy your good self, hh and s&f, and far more interested in whatever is going to be left for my two grandchildren to enjoy when we are gone. If that means franchises, a reduced championship, four or five counties going out of business, more white ball dominance over red ball, drop in pitches in football stadia and whatever else, then I'm in. Or rather, I hope my grandchildren are ... I was responding directly to the comment about 'county cricket addicts' being resistant to change...my point being that, if those same addicts continue to support the game post changes, they're actually accepting them. For my part, my arguments on this board are borne out of a need to question everything rather than cricketing self interest. I'd personally be delighted just to be around watching whatever circus Graves is bringing to town circa 2017.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2015 19:55:47 GMT
Yes, but the point about Leics is that none of the players they produced would have been lost to the game, with Trent Bridge and Derby only 25 mins away and Edgbaston 45 mins by train. There is total saturation of clubs in the midlands and it is not a coincidence that four of the five clubs at the bottom of the attendance league are near-neighbours (Leics/Derbys/Northants/Worcs).
Your point about David Masters is fair, though. Perhaps the value of Leics is not so much in bringing on young talent that would have made it at one of their close neighbours, but as a rehabilitation home for fading but still worthy careers. They've been doing it since the days of Lock and Illingworth and have continued to do so in more recent times with Hoggard, Shreck, Niall O'Brien etc.
|
|
|
Post by invicta1977 on Feb 26, 2015 20:46:14 GMT
Yes, but the point about Leics is that none of the players they produced would have been lost to the game, with Trent Bridge and Derby only 25 mins away and Edgbaston 45 mins by train. Indeed, without Two Divisions, most would have probably stayed at Leicestershire and helped them challenge for more titles.
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Feb 27, 2015 11:33:01 GMT
www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/feb/26/colin-graves-proposals-not-cast-in-stone-ecb“There’s no timescale, we want to do it openly and properly. We’re trying to do the right thing for what spectators want and the right thing for cricket. I’m prepared to put my head on the chopping block. We’ve got a massive opportunity to make a difference.”
So, how many County Chairmen, CEOs and Members actually want change? Is it possible to find a compromise when some people’s views are so intransigent and steeped in the past? How can you persuade such people the importance of change and how this change will form the survival of future county cricket? That to me is key. Perhaps, a group of respected forward-thinking speakers, from former county players to Chairmen and CEOs brought together by Graves and Harrison, should go to each county this season, offering opportunities for discussion and debate for Members and supporters to participate in. Major change as politicians know so well, is about selling the concept to the sceptical whilst offering hope and optimism to the converted. This must be done face to face rather than filling in some online deeply flawed form.
|
|
|
Post by theleopard on Feb 27, 2015 12:17:39 GMT
www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/feb/26/colin-graves-proposals-not-cast-in-stone-ecb“There’s no timescale, we want to do it openly and properly. We’re trying to do the right thing for what spectators want and the right thing for cricket. I’m prepared to put my head on the chopping block. We’ve got a massive opportunity to make a difference.”
So, how many County Chairmen, CEOs and Members actually want change? Is it possible to find a compromise when some people’s views are so intransigent and steeped in the past? How can you persuade such people the importance of change and how this change will form the survival of future county cricket? That to me is key. Perhaps, a group of respected forward-thinking speakers, from former county players to Chairmen and CEOs brought together by Graves and Harrison, should go to each county this season, offering opportunities for discussion and debate for Members and supporters to participate in. Major change as politicians know so well, is about selling the concept to the sceptical whilst offering hope and optimism to the converted. This must be done face to face rather than filling in some online deeply flawed form. People are creatures of habit - and there's a subtle difference between that and resistance to change, although the two are closely related. I realise this recent "document" is really nothing more than a brainstorming session, but the question is - why is this happening at all? It was very clearly communicated that the current domestic structure was supposed to be the foundation for a period of stability. So now are they admitting that they got it all wrong? So, there is a big difference between change for progress and the constant chopping, changing and tinkering that goes on in the English domestic game. How are clubs supposed to promote their matches when they don't know what's happening from one season to the next? The Royal London Cup is one season old - ONE - and now it's already labelled a failure. Could anyone then blame clubs if they said: "Well, this competition's doomed, apparently. There's no point wasting time on it, on or off the field, trying to build up a fanbase to watch it in the summer holidays when it's going to be scrapped sooner or later. Let's just use it as opportunity to rest players and give some youngsters a go." In fact, that's exactly what Yorkshire did with the Pro40 in its final season. By comparison, there have been big changes in English domestic football - yet its core competitions and structure remain surprisingly unaltered - four major divisions, FA Cup, League Cup, and an "appointment to view" still largely centered around 3pm on a Saturday and Tuesday and Wednesday evenngs. Imagine if instead they kept tearing it up every few years, which is what English domestic cricket has been doing for the last 20 or so.
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Feb 27, 2015 12:22:59 GMT
"People are creatures of habit - and there's a subtle difference between that and resistance to change, although the two are closely related. "
I like that - a subtle point well made.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2015 12:34:37 GMT
So, there is a big difference between change for progress and the constant chopping, changing and tinkering that goes on in the English domestic game. If you mean that tinkering is the worst of all worlds and that this time it has to be a radical, root and branch upheaval, I completely agree.
|
|