Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2016 9:20:37 GMT
I read in the Guardian that if the two division T20 proposals went through there would be two games on 'finals day'; a game between the first and second placed teams in Div 1, and a 'play off' between the 7th placed team in Div 1 and 3rd placed in Div 2. So it offers something more for Div 2 teams, but looks a poor substitute for the current q/finals and finals day model. This isn't going to fly. Quite anomalous that the side that comes third in division two gets a day in the sun at finals day and the team that comes third in division one (nine places above them) does not. Have a play-off, by all means. But if there are four teams playing on finals day logic says they need to be the top four sides in div one.
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Feb 28, 2016 9:42:29 GMT
I read in the Guardian that if the two division T20 proposals went through there would be two games on 'finals day'; a game between the first and second placed teams in Div 1, and a 'play off' between the 7th placed team in Div 1 and 3rd placed in Div 2. So it offers something more for Div 2 teams, but looks a poor substitute for the current q/finals and finals day model. This isn't going to fly. Quite anomalous that the side that comes third in division two gets a day in the sun at finals day and the team that comes third in division one (nine places above them) does not. Have a play-off, by all means. But if there are four teams playing on finals day logic says they need to be the top four sides in div one. The existing T20 competition consists of a group stage followed by various knock-out stages - hence the need for a Finals Day. With the proposed league structure, you don't need a Finals Day, any more than the Football Premier League needs a Finals Day. If my team wins the new 1st division, I don't want to be told I might lose my title on "Play Offs Day". This would be an artificial contrivance that, I suspect, wouldn't endear itself to the cricketing public. What do other readers think?
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Feb 28, 2016 11:10:50 GMT
Rugby Union already condones this nonsense in that the team winning the Championship have to go into a 4 team play off with teams that have often finished many points behind them. This has resulted in Bristol consistently missing out after winning the league.
|
|
|
Post by deepfineleg on Feb 28, 2016 13:35:18 GMT
Of course, the IPL and Big Bash both feature play-offs.
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Feb 28, 2016 14:47:09 GMT
The Finals Day's another money spinner, it's what they've done all along and it's what they do in other domestic comps, so that won't change, I doubt. What do they do at the World T20? Groups then knockouts ain't it - they should work out a way to do that. I could work out the format and schedule in about three minutes but I can't be arsed.
They won't want three up and three down if they want TMGs dominating the top flight will they, too much switching, too easy to get promoted, too easy to get relegated. I would say something like the winner and runner up of Div 2's own Finals Day replace the bottom two of Div 1, potentially. One automatic place (winner for bottom) and one play off (Runner up v second bottom).
As long as they finally get the schedule right, mid April to mid May 50 over comp complete, mid May to mid July 8 Champ games complete, mid July to mid August T20 comp complete, mid August to late September 16 (or 14) Champ games complete, they can do what they like for all I care. The schedule (blocking of) is the biggest issue for the future of all forms of the game in my book - the Big Book of the Future of all Forms of the Game. Available at jumble sales and thrifty shops.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 29, 2016 9:46:48 GMT
I read in the Guardian that if the two division T20 proposals went through there would be two games on 'finals day'; a game between the first and second placed teams in Div 1, and a 'play off' between the 7th placed team in Div 1 and 3rd placed in Div 2. So it offers something more for Div 2 teams, but looks a poor substitute for the current q/finals and finals day model. I have now managed to get to the bottom of this and it is as follows. The detail of how the revamped two division T20 will operate from 2017 does NOT have to be determined by the ECB Board next week. All that is required next week is agreement on the aspects that will directly impact on the cricket played in 2016 - i.e. that there will be two divisions in 2017 with promotion and relegation and clear rules on how results in 2016 will determine which division counties are in come 2017. The specifics of how the competition is structured in 2017, including the promotion/relegation mechanism, how things proceeds at the end of the divisional stage and what revised format finals day might take do not have to be finalised until October. I must say, there does seem to be considerable logic to this...
|
|
|
Post by theleopard on Feb 29, 2016 9:57:13 GMT
The existing T20 competition consists of a group stage followed by various knock-out stages - hence the need for a Finals Day. With the proposed league structure, you don't need a Finals Day, any more than the Football Premier League needs a Finals Day. If my team wins the new 1st division, I don't want to be told I might lose my title on "Play Offs Day". This would be an artificial contrivance that, I suspect, wouldn't endear itself to the cricketing public. What do other readers think? Well under such a system it isn't what we in England traditionally consider a "league championship" to be. It would be more like ice hockey and many other sports where it is called, I believe, a "regular season" (the 'league' bit) followed by a postseason - the playoffs to determine the ´champions', relegation/promotion and so on. As such, I am unsure as to what the advantages are over the current structure, which is basically played in that way. It means lucrative local derbies could be lost, on and off, and 9 teams would begin knowing they had no chance of winning the title, unlike the current set-up where everyone is "in it to win it".
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Feb 29, 2016 10:06:02 GMT
I read in the Guardian that if the two division T20 proposals went through there would be two games on 'finals day'; a game between the first and second placed teams in Div 1, and a 'play off' between the 7th placed team in Div 1 and 3rd placed in Div 2. So it offers something more for Div 2 teams, but looks a poor substitute for the current q/finals and finals day model. I have now managed to get to the bottom of this and it is as follows. The detail of how the revamped two division T20 will operate from 2017 does NOT have to be determined by the ECB Board next week. All that is required next week is agreement on the aspects that will directly impact on the cricket played in 2016 - i.e. that there will be two divisions in 2017 with promotion and relegation and clear rules on how results in 2016 will determine which division counties are in come 2017. The specifics of how the competition is structured in 2017, including the promotion/relegation mechanism, how things proceeds at the end of the divisional stage and what revised format finals day might take do not have to be finalised until October. I must say, there does seem to be considerable logic to this... Sounds half-baked to me. Why devise and commit to a new competition structure without deciding how it's going to work!! Recipe for confusion and dissent down the line, IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 29, 2016 10:27:18 GMT
More a case of secure agreement to the principle now and instead of rushing the specifics and getting it wrong or railroading it through, spend time between now and October in ensuring we get it right with consensual support.
As we are talking about a competition that will not begin until July 2017 and the fixtures will not be announced for another nine or ten months, what is the hurry to cast every last detail in stone now?
Perhaps they will thrash out every last dot and comma on March 7. All I said was that I have been told they do not have to work to that deadline; the only urgent matter for next week is to determine those aspects which will directly impact on the cricket that is played in 2016.
on edit: for example, the rules regarding the toss in Div Two of the CC this season have been fundamentally changed, a far more significant decision than how T20 finals days will be structured in August 2017. It was announced in December, four months before the season is due to start, not a year and a half in advance...
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Feb 29, 2016 11:19:35 GMT
More a case of secure agreement to the principle now and instead of rushing the specifics and getting it wrong or railroading it through, spend time between now and October in ensuring we get it right with consensual support. As we are talking about a competition that will not begin until July 2017 and the fixtures will not be announced for another nine or ten months, what is the hurry to cast every last detail in stone now? Perhaps they will thrash out every last dot and comma on March 7. All I said was that I have been told they do not have to work to that deadline; the only urgent matter for next week is to determine those aspects which will directly impact on the cricket that is played in 2016. on edit: for example, the rules regarding the toss in Div Two of the CC this season have been fundamentally changed, a far more significant decision than how T20 finals days will be structured in August 2017. It was announced in December, four months before the season is due to start, not a year and a half in advance... I agree that not every detail needs nailing down. But certain fundamentals need to be agreed, ie the promotion/relegation system in the new structure. Why should counties agree to a 2 division system in 2017, with no guarantee that there will be a two up/two down promotion and relegation system? If the ECB really wants to create a Div 1 of TMGs, then promotion/relegation will upset this. If they're trying to create a TMG franchise league by stealth, they're not being very stealthy about it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 29, 2016 11:32:12 GMT
I think we're pretty much in agreement then, actually, fb.
I'm fairly sure that a minumum of two up and two down is widely accepted to be part of the 'principle'. The extent to which play-offs are used may not be, nor whether there will be semi-finals involving the top four in div one, or merely a final involving the top two. Those are the sort of details that may end up getting deferred next week.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 29, 2016 11:50:35 GMT
With this 2 divisions lark, what if Northants, Derbyshire, Worcestershire, etc. end up in Division 1 with the likes of Middlesex and Yorkshire in Division 2? Unlikely? Not so much; look at the history of the competition so far. It is much easier for the smaller clubs to compete over 20/20 overs, for a multitude of reasons. You can't buy a winning team. Middlesex and Yorkshire have been among the constant also-rans - possibly partly because they knew that they could get in the crowds regardless. On the other hand, Leicestershire, Northants and most recently Worcestershire have made a big effort to be successful. While it would be almost pure fantasy to think of Northants or Worcestershire challenging for the County Championship, they could readily win the t20 and could even prove a top side for several years in succession. I agree white ball can produce more upsets than red ball cricket - which is why Bangladesh beat Sri Lanka yesterday and England lost to Holland not so long ago. And one of the joys of the old Gillette Cup used to be the occasional minor county giant-killing. But over the course of the first couple of seasons of the new set-up, it's a fairly safe bet that the big money TMG counties will have bought up all the best overseas T20 specialists and become semi-permanent fixtures in Div One, with only the odd promotion and relegation to disturb the status quo.
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Feb 29, 2016 14:55:40 GMT
Statistically Yorkshire have been one of the worst performing 20/20 teams with only one finals day appearance. They have tried to import success (Finch/Maxwell) and failed consistently. They have a lot to do to qualify as a top tier team.
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Feb 29, 2016 15:15:34 GMT
Not sure what Lizzie Ammon is suggesting but 'Specsavers' have been sponsoring First Class cricket umpires, rugby league’s First Utility Super League referees, and Rugby Union’s Guinness PRO12 match officials for quite some time. And a few weeks back they have extended their sponsorship to include officials in New Zealand’s Investec Super Rugby competition. My point being, they are not sponsoring the CC, just first class umpires like they always have done... or have I misinterpreted Ammon's comments?Yes www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/feb/29/specsavers-cricket-county-championship
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 29, 2016 16:32:16 GMT
Not sure what Lizzie Ammon is suggesting but 'Specsavers' have been sponsoring First Class cricket umpires, rugby league’s First Utility Super League referees, and Rugby Union’s Guinness PRO12 match officials for quite some time. And a few weeks back they have extended their sponsorship to include officials in New Zealand’s Investec Super Rugby competition. My point being, they are not sponsoring the CC, just first class umpires like they always have done... or have I misinterpreted Ammon's comments?Yes www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/feb/29/specsavers-cricket-county-championshipIs that the cue for a ruminative thread about first-class cricketers who played in glasses? The last one I can remember in county cricket, I think, was Neil Smith, who I seem to recall wearing them v early in his career before switching to contact lenses. And his father MJK before him, of course. Last In Test cricket for England ...Derek Pringle? Not counting the high-vis sunglasses they all seem to wear nowdays, of course...or the 'beer goggles' that Botham, Flintoff, Andrew Symonds etc were still wearing from the night before during many a pre-lunch session...allegedly...lol. on edit: And Hamilton-Brown, of course...
|
|