|
|
Post by hhsussex on Apr 17, 2016 16:11:01 GMT
An interesting suggestion here www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-sri-lanka-2016/content/story/999599.html that ECB has asked the Sri Lankan Board to consider some kind of scoring system unifying the three Tests, 5 50-overs games, and a solitary T20 international so that the whole tour can be treated as a win/lose/tie entity, following the format that has helped the women's game to prosper. Of course the stakes are different: the women's game was in sharp decline, with no real interest in Tests and no proper shape or structure to the international calendar...or is that the men's game? As the cricinfo article mentions, there will be conflict from the different sponsors signed up for the various formats - and what is cricket in May in England for, if it is not to allow sponsors to strut and preen, rather like most of the corporate hospitality goons who attend the matches? - but it might be seen as a way of trying to associate the prestige of a winning brand (the T20 format) with a couple of other ,rather ailing products. Personally I think it is a big mistake in marketing terms because it mixes up the different messages that the ECB is trying to send , and what is the point of having a "winning team" if it involves anything up to 30 individuals bringing different types of skills to the varying formats? Yes, soccer does this, but cricket should not try to ape soccer because it will always end up, not just second best, but a long way behind and looking very foolish in the attempt. What do others think? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2016 16:17:34 GMT
An interesting suggestion here www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-sri-lanka-2016/content/story/999599.html that ECB has asked the Sri Lankan Board to consider some kind of scoring system unifying the three Tests, 5 50-overs games, and a solitary T20 international so that the whole tour can be treated as a win/lose/tie entity, following the format that has helped the women's game to prosper. Of course the stakes are different: the women's game was in sharp decline, with no real interest in Tests and no proper shape or structure to the international calendar...or is that the men's game? As the cricinfo article mentions, there will be conflict from the different sponsors signed up for the various formats - and what is cricket in May in England for, if it is not to allow sponsors to strut and preen, rather like most of the corporate hospitality goons who attend the matches? - but it might be seen as a way of trying to associate the prestige of a winning brand (the T20 format) with a couple of other ,rather ailing products. Personally I think it is a big mistake in marketing terms because it mixes up the different messages that the ECB is trying to send , and what is the point of having a "winning team" if it involves anything up to 30 individuals bringing different types of skills to the varying formats? Yes, soccer does this, but cricket should not try to ape soccer because it will always end up, not just second best, but a long way behind and looking very foolish in the attempt. What do others think? waloob |
|
|
|
Post by philh on Apr 18, 2016 21:38:27 GMT
I think Duckworth and Lewis should come up with a complex formula that no one understands so that within a day or so after the final game the most powerful computer on the planet can tell us which team won.
|
|
|
|
Post by theleopard on Apr 20, 2016 8:23:42 GMT
It's actually not such a bad idea in itself.
The problem is the reality of cricket-watching habits. Those who enjoy Tests aren't going to be glued to ODIs afterwards just because they could "decide" an overall result. Just think of the Ashes as a huge example, but one could say any Test series.
Likewise, most people who go to an ODI want to see lots of runs, preferably mostly from England, ideally an England win, but for most it is a day out at the cricket. They are not deeply concerned about the results before or after.
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Apr 30, 2016 6:27:06 GMT
Now "agreed in principle", according to Andrew Miller of cricinfo www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-pakistan-2016/content/story/1005339.html and extended to Pakistan. A very muddled message for the sponsors of the individual tournaments, though undoubtedly a gift to Sky who like to keep things simple and can roll their Test, 50 over and T20 coverage into one continuous, not to say endless, narrative. Sky can then pitch the continuity to their advertisers as a means of unlocking new markets for them. Will it have any effect on attendances in England? Probably none in the short term, because those who go to International matches do so either because it is a traditional once or twice a year treat regardless of the opposition and the relative strengths of the teams competing, or because it is a corporate day out paid for by somebody you do business with, and from that perspective it doesn't much matter whether it is Pakistan on for a points victory or a day on a Japanese-owned golfcourse. The real effect is aimed at the television audience overseas, to build up the market value of the contest as a product. Longer term there may be diminution of value as the old-stagers who prefer the Test match format gradually get browned off or die off, and the focus shifts more to the short format, with the occcasional Test mingled with endless dreary rounds of one-day matches pretending to an importance they don't naturally possess. In all of this the interesting relic is the 50 overs competition, which now offers the least interest to a genuine cricket-watcher, compromised as it is between the whizz-bang urgency of the T20 format and the mounting series of thrust and counterthrust that the 5 days and changing weather influences of a Test provide. How long before the predicatbility of the 50 over innings starts to pall on the audiences, and even the advertising appeal of 7 hours of wallpaper is finally exhausted? |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on May 9, 2016 8:10:42 GMT
Not the most encouraging build-up to the Test series by Sri Lanka yesterday, bowled out for 254 by an under-strength Essex, who are 81-2 at the close. Well done 18 year old Aaron Beard, 4-62 on first class debut.
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on May 9, 2016 15:11:13 GMT
Probably some assurances here about part of the England batting line-up for the first Test, from Yorkshire at teatime on the second day against Surrey |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on May 10, 2016 19:20:21 GMT
Even by those standards that the dodgy one has made his own, this is an absolute classic from the headline onwards:
Bell injury may not end England recall chance
Now from that statement one would imagine that there was a solid case for an England recall ,though not one I've heard anyone outside Warwickshire advance seriously. Most of us have accepted that Bell has played many innings blessed with sublime shots, but very few sublime innings, and that the time has come to draw a close upon a career that probably peaked under Strauss' captaincy. Not so the fearless GD, for he adduces evidence for his contention in the immortal opening line:
Ian Bell's hamstring strain should not keep him out of contention for England's first Investec Test squad, according to his director of cricket at Warwickshire, Dougie Brown.
And that is all there is to the story. Just Brown's opinion, and that based on the fact that Bell has "...a "slight strain" in Brown's words." No reference to the host of younger players who have taken their opportunity on the unusually firm and batsman-friendly pitches of the early spring, and not too much about Bell apart from making runs against Hampshire and "...looked set for another against Middlesex until bowled by one that kept low", That was when he had scored 14, which is always a sign that a century is in store, until you get those pesky ones that keep low....
|
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on May 10, 2016 19:47:30 GMT
What story? Sounds like a few comments to me. You and BM really do have it in for Dobell HH. Every time I read one of your countless slatings of the man I'm left wondering what the hell am I missing. people are talking about Bell and frankly he should not have been dropped, is what I think. I also think Brown was probably asked a question and he stood up for his man - without reading the story, presuming there is one.
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on May 10, 2016 20:11:30 GMT
What story? Sounds like a few comments to me. You and BM really do have it in for Dobell HH. Every time I read one of your countless slatings of the man I'm left wondering what the hell am I missing. people are talking about Bell and frankly he should not have been dropped, is what I think. I also think Brown was probably asked a question and he stood up for his man - without reading the story, presuming there is one. Here's the reference fraudster, and may you be enlightened www.espncricinfo.com/county-cricket-2016/content/story/1011687.html |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on May 11, 2016 13:40:43 GMT
According to Tweets the England selection meeting has concluded and "12 namnes decided". The squad will be revealed tomorrow at 7am.
So that's
Cook
Robson
Hales
Root
Bairstow
Stokes
Moeen Ali
Broad
Woakes
Anderson
Finn
Ball
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on May 12, 2016 6:13:44 GMT
Team announced, and they're sticking with Compton
Alastair Cook (Essex, Captain)
Moeen Ali (Worcestershire)
James Anderson (Lancashire)
Jonny Bairstow (Yorkshire)
Jake Ball (Nottinghamshire)
Stuart Broad (Nottinghamshire)
Nick Compton (Middlesex)
Steven Finn (Middlesex)
Alex Hales (Nottinghamshire)
Joe Root (Yorkshire)
Ben Stokes (Durham)
James Vince (Hampshire)
So is this Compton at 3, Vince at 5 and Ball/Finn to contest one place?
|
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on May 12, 2016 20:15:54 GMT
Yeah thanks HH, I remain enlightened. What did he do, run your cat over? I say cat cos I love dogs too much to even contemplate the thought.
Anywho, I don't like to disagree with something, as is well known, but I think England have got it wrong. Bell and Rashid for Compton and Ali, minimum.
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on May 13, 2016 10:52:22 GMT
Leicestershire have got many things right in the last few months, from the initiatives of Wasim Khan to reach out and include the Asian population, and to get more people into watching championship cricket, to the impressive way that McDonald and Cosgrove have respectively recruited and led a team mixing experienced journeymen with young hopefuls, and played winning cricket for the first time in years. It is therefore doubly disappointing to see that, given the opportunity of a first class game against an Asian side www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/913611.html they seem to be treating it as an opportunity to rest all their senior players and instead fill the side with second team and youth players. Only the captain, Robson, would be certain of a place throughout the championship this season, though Naik and Eckersely have played fairly regularly in recent years. It looks bad and sends out a poor message to the fans Khan is trying to encourage: "Cosgrove, Dexter, Mackay, horton and others don't consider it important enough to play, they would rather have a rest before getting back to the serious business of the championship and then the T20". And its not very helpful to Sri Lanka, and can hardly make them feel that the programme is designed to help them get in some serious practice for Tests. |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on May 19, 2016 9:57:37 GMT
Unsurprisingly Ball misses out and will be 12th man with Hales opening with Cook, Compton at 3 and Vince slotting in at 5 in the 1st Test. Sri Lanka to bowl first, because they won the toss, not because they are the visiting side, and we'll see if the groundsman has produced the sort of wicket that has done so much for competitiveness in the championship this season.
|
|
