Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2016 21:52:50 GMT
When have we ever done consistency?
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Mar 8, 2016 9:33:02 GMT
Michael Vaughan rightly banging his drum again about creating a new competition for English cricket - one presumes he's talking about an EPL. www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03lvds3
|
|
|
Post by invicta1977 on Mar 9, 2016 9:53:06 GMT
Can someone please remind me why it is necessary to have 8 teams in the CC div 1 and 10 teams in div 2? There is no hidden franchise agenda in the CC, surely? It's another incremental adjustment in a process that will ultimately result in the three divisions of 6 teams - a structure that has been coveted by some in power for a while now. Ten CC games per county, one up, one down, a massive sixteen days freed up for an increase in the short stuff rest and practice. An increasing number of traditional Championship devotees will have left the scene and won't have been replaced, so counties will be less inclined to resist. On the face of it, a further reduction of nearly 30% Championship cricket might appear unlikely to push through. However, the salami effect since 1968 has already seen the CC cut by around 45% in terms of overs bowled..I see no reason why continued change by stealth couldn't get it down to 40 days per year within, say, a decade.
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Mar 9, 2016 10:17:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Mar 9, 2016 19:03:23 GMT
Just listened to the Dobell v Butcher stand off on cricinfo and found myself agreeing with most of what Dobell said which must be a first. It was a pretty comprehensive debate on the recent domestic changes and is well worth listening to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2016 19:13:18 GMT
Zac Toumazi: "It's not going to suit everyone but at least we have some clarity. Clearly the immediate reaction for some would be panic, 'we must get promoted', but we are supportive. I can guarantee there are others who won't be so happy. There'll be a lot of people disappointed in the reduction of County Championship games but you have to look at the whole piece, not in isolation. T20 cricket is crucial to us."
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Mar 9, 2016 19:29:39 GMT
Zac Toumazi: "It's not going to suit everyone but at least we have some clarity. Clearly the immediate reaction for some would be panic, 'we must get promoted', but we are supportive. I can guarantee there are others who won't be so happy. There'll be a lot of people disappointed in the reduction of County Championship games but you have to look at the whole piece, not in isolation. T20 cricket is crucial to us." Interesting. Source material?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2016 20:45:59 GMT
BBC website
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Mar 9, 2016 20:51:48 GMT
Thanks. I've found it now, a reaction piece to the changes www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/35754435. I was interested in the context, but it doesn't seem to be anything more than "one the one hand this, on the other hand that"
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Mar 10, 2016 8:48:45 GMT
Two contrasting views from the media are worth looking at and considering. Nobody, of course, has a monopoly of the truth and we "old men gossiping over the fence" to use the phrase of one of our distinguished contributors to refer to message-board postings, tend to argue mostly from the positions that afford us the greatest comfort. Firstly, here is Terry Wright, aka GerryShedd, briefly a participant in this forum and always an interesting writer (come back and chip in some time Terry), writing on the Deep Extra Cover blog deepextracover.com/2016/03/the-restructuring-of-county-cricket-in-2017/Terry breaks the new structure down into the Good, the Bad and the Ugly, and the Good in his view consists of not splitting the T20 into two divisions. Bad is going back to the block for T20 and relegating the 50 over competition to the start of the season. The Ugly is the fear that county cricket as it stands is being betrayed by Graves and that further diminution of the championship is on the horizon. A contrasting, far more upbeat analysis comes from Mike Selvey in the Guardian www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2016/mar/09/county-cricket-restructure-ecb-big-bashSelvey also takes the view that further change is inevitable, but sees only positives in that : "[The decision by the ECB and counties]..has bought them time to thrash out what is really believed to be the best structure for the future of the domestic game." Selvey is pragmatic about the game, recognising that the diversity of views expressed within the 18 counties is massive, to say nothing of the objectives of the ECB directorate's ambitions for the game, and that any compromise must of necessity be unsatisfactory to the majority but probably also the least worst for all. There is some clear thinking here "In the future I believe County Championship cricket... will remain essentially niche, as will Test cricket around the world...cy. This is part of a democratic process in which it is blindingly obvious that the mass of spectators are demonstrating what it is they really want to watch." He concludes by recognising that the city-based competition that will come must show benefits to all the counties affected by it, and that will include sharing out the grounds-based revenue from catering, merchandising etc. That will undoubtedly be fought hard by the chairmen and CEOs of Surrey and Middlesex, and place the Graves Family Trust with a bit of a poser, but it has to be faced up to. Secondly, he offers the thought that the T20 blast could continue on Friday nights , except for the period of the city-based competition, and that the 50 over competition could and should wither away "Personally I am convinced that T20 cricket gives proper preparation for ODIs. It might even enhance it."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2016 9:19:13 GMT
Yes, I read Selvey's piece and thought it was refreshing. I've long said that a televised high profile franchise city league and a lower-key county T20 comp played at Hove, Canterbury,Taunton, Chelmsford etc. are not mutually exclusive.
On cricket in the boondocks, there is an interesting comment in the Kent annual report from the treasurer which says that for Kent success in selling T20 "is predicated on taking several games away from Canterbury, as it seems that claiming £300,000 out of the local economy is simply not possible in a two month window". So good news for those in the more populous and metropolitan parts of the county for whom Tunbridge Wells and Beckenham are more accessible than the St Lawrence ground. As Kent take more cricket to their outgrounds, Sussex, of course, are moving in the opposite direction by dropping Horsham - and one can see Arundel going soon, too. But then obviously Brighton as an HQ is more populous and affluent than Canterbury/East Kent.
As for old men gossiping over the fence (or at the allotment!), I'm sure most of us hanker after 32 three day matches in a single division played on uncovered wickets and Gillette Cup matches that finish in the near dark live on the 9 o'clock news. But some of us accept that the cricketing clock cannot be turned back and the game has to progress.
Personally, I think cricket was better in the past but I'm also optimistic that cricket can be made better in the future, which is why I am in favour of change. What we have at present is unsatisfactory and based on so many awkward compromises that it is not fit for purpose on almost any level.
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Mar 10, 2016 12:18:45 GMT
Yes, I read Selvey's piece and thought it was refreshing. I've long said that a televised high profile franchise city league and a lower-key county T20 comp played at Hove, Canterbury,Taunton, Chelmsford etc. are not mutually exclusive. On cricket in the boondocks, there is an interesting comment in the Kent annual report from the treasurer which says that for Kent success in selling T20 "is predicated on taking several games away from Canterbury, as it seems that claiming £300,000 out of the local economy is simply not possible in a two month window". So good news for those in the more populous and metropolitan parts of the county for whom Tunbridge Wells and Beckenham are more accessible than the St Lawrence ground. As Kent take more cricket to their outgrounds, Sussex, of course, are moving in the opposite direction by dropping Horsham - and one can see Arundel going soon, too. But then obviously Brighton as an HQ is more populous and affluent than Canterbury/East Kent. As for old men gossiping over the fence (or at the allotment!), I'm sure most of us hanker after 32 three day matches in a single division played on uncovered wickets and Gillette Cup matches that finish in the near dark live on the 9 o'clock news. But some of us accept that the cricketing clock cannot be turned back and the game has to progress. Personally, I think cricket was better in the past but I'm also optimistic that cricket can be made better in the future, which is why I am in favour of change. What we have at present is unsatisfactory and based on so many awkward compromises that it is not fit for purpose on almost any level.Yes, that is exactly my position. Things have to change in order to stay the same. You've also brought out another paradox in that Sussex and a number of other counties strongly opposed to city franchises are effectively running city-only operations for the professional game and masquerading as county-representative sides. To be sure Sussex are working very hard on recreating that inclusivity by folding in the county-wide amateur set-up to synthesise with the administration of the Brighton-based game, but it's another awkward compromise to try to keep alive the idea that the game has both rural and pluralistic roots. Kent escape from this only because the transport infrastructure, especially connecting Canterbury to the rest of the county, is so diabolical.
|
|
jimbon
2nd XI player
Posts: 128
|
Post by jimbon on Mar 10, 2016 12:47:38 GMT
Is there any indication anywhere that even when there is a city based T20 that a "B competition" for the "other" counties may still take place. Surely even if there are city franchises, Sussex will still have a team playing in some form of T20 competition.
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Mar 10, 2016 12:57:58 GMT
Is there any indication anywhere that even when there is a city based T20 that a "B competition" for the "other" counties may still take place. Surely even if there are city franchises, Sussex will still have a team playing in some form of T20 competition. That is what Selvey and some other commentators are suggesting as a likely outcome, perhaps for those games to be played on Friday nights outside of the July/August BigBash-esque block.
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Mar 10, 2016 13:43:10 GMT
County cricket = compromise: and this will remain when there are 18 counties - where a majority are kept alive by the ECB financial defibrillator.
For in the real dog-eat-dog commercial world there would be
: No-more than 12 counties. A good enough number to nurture the best future England cricketers. : A maximum of 10 Championship matches if the 12 were placed in two 6-a-side divisions.
: A six week long EPL tournament played during the summer school holidays that creates the financial backbone for English cricket.
: An FA style 40 or 50 over knock-out cricket competition that would include minor counties and the best of the grassroots cricket clubs around Britain played throughout the season.
Yet, the ECB are so determined to keep 18 counties, every change, every minor nuance becomes a fudge. And just like medical science who are determined to keep a patient alive for as long as possible, so the ECB stubbornly takes a similar view with their counties. For who accepts the mantle of God and decides which counties fall and which remain? Should it be based purely on commercial reasons, past success or even how many cricketers each club have nurtured for England?
Why bother with change if it's doing little but nudge the status quo an inch to the left or right? What's the point? Just like Europe where every alteration made is simply kicking the can down the road to the inevitable economic and political collapse.
Somebody at the ECB must find the courage to make "real changes" - not these "feeble fudges". It may be unfair on some counties - it may be painful and cause short-term acrimony but someone must stand up and be counted. All Graves and Harrison are doing is playing the political long game - a psychological banter - but 5 years down the road little will have altered and the inevitable cycle begins all over again.
There are too many cricket counties. Period. Reduce them to 12 and finally real change - long-term positive change - can occur.
|
|