henryr
2nd XI player
Posts: 33
|
Post by henryr on Jul 10, 2016 17:30:42 GMT
I know we keep getting told that T20 attendance is increasing and grounds are sold out, but a lot of the televised games would appear to be sparsely attended at times - are the attendance figures based on sales/membership rather than actual bodies in the ground? I just wonder how much appetite there is as yet untapped out there, given that cities/franchises will lose some county followers. Any TV deal would want to be showing full grounds with an atmosphere, which may help balance out the perceived imbalance of funding/income between the Test grounds and the have-nots, but even then I remain sceptical sadly.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jul 11, 2016 7:21:39 GMT
I don't see why not. After all, many players and teams now make the transit from 20 overs directly to Tests and back again without problem and with enhancement to both disciplines. I would suggest you looked at it another way: how long do you think the 50 over international has left in it as a major entertainment vehicle? What does it offer, with its boring middle overs and desperate quest for innovations to keep the interest going, that is not fulfilled much more excitingly by T20? Are crowds who have come to the game because of the speed and glitter of the T20, an evening's worth of satisfaction, going to transfer their loyalties to 7 hours of stage management? I don't know what will happen. It's going to be interesting. Obviously things are now something of a mess, with the rise of T20. Traditional limited overs cricket was for many years the main attraction domestically, but obviously interest has plunged, while ODIs, in England at least, remain very popular among the public, and I'm not sure there are so many boring middle overs any more. With an absolute overload of ODIs still scheduled in the Future Tours Programme, and the World Cup still billed as a huge event, it's not going to disappear any time soon. Two things that ODIs do offer is the public spending much longer at the venue, which presumably equals spending more money, and an easy way to fill 8 hours on the TV sports channels.I fear those are the main reasons why the authorities persist with 50 overs cricket. IMO, the 'non cricketing public' want to see T20 but don't want to spend a whole day watching 50 overs a side - it's T20 on valium. There still seems to be a market for ODIs in this country, but 50 over county matches are poorly attended, because only the diehard cricket watcher attends. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2016 9:17:17 GMT
the 'non cricketing public' want to see T20 but don't want to spend a whole day watching 50 overs a side - it's T20 on valium. There still seems to be a market for ODIs in this country, but 50 over county matches are poorly attended, because only the diehard cricket watcher attends. Phrase of the week, fb - and it's only Monday morning! It doesn't have to be valium-doped, of course, as McCullum and AB De Villiers showed in the world cup, when they treated it as T20 on steroids x 2.5. But you are right in general. 50 over cricket ought to work and have sufficient appeal for purists and biff-bang lovers alike by the two forms 'meeting in the middle'. But the opposite is true and it seems to satisfy nobody. |
|
nemmo
Captain 2nd XI
Posts: 285
|
Post by nemmo on Jul 11, 2016 13:48:28 GMT
The problem is it takes a certain pitch and batting line up to make 50 overs palatable to those who prefer the T20s. Sure its fine when England bat on a nice batting deck with a lineup that goes down to 10 or 11 packed full of power hitters. What about all the domestic games which only bat to 7 so wickets are more valuable and the pitch is a lot less conducive to free scoring? In those situations the T20 tends to result in a more watchable contest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jul 27, 2016 16:13:58 GMT
Michael Vaughan continues to bang the EPL drum. If you bang it loud enough and long enough, perhaps, one day it will be heard? But, presently, interest has waned as the T20 Blast grows in popularity. Meanwhile, interesting stats about the attendance capacities of the county grounds. What is the true figure when we know at Sussex, for example, the 7,000 figure given is incorrect. www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2016/07/27/t20-revolution-provides-radical-change-needed-to-get-everyone-ta/This Vaughan feature supports the Nick Hoult piece in the same newspaper stating that an EPL may be in existence as early as 2018. Wow! www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2016/07/26/ecb-plan-english-crickets-most-radical-ever-overhaul-with-t20-co/The first challenge for the ECB board will be to get the backing of 12 of the 18 counties and 26 of the 39 recreational cricket boards that
make up membership of the ECB. Proposals will be sent to counties next month and further presentation and details will be revealed at a
meeting of county chairmen on Sept 14 with a decision to be taken by the end of the year.
As I keep saying an EPL is for the greater good of county cricket - without it the 18 counties will be reduced. The latest casualty is Durham who is staring into the financial abyss and experiencing a painful player drain. |
|
|
|
Post by theleopard on Jul 28, 2016 12:18:34 GMT
As I keep saying an EPL is for the greater good of county cricket - without it the 18 counties will be reduced. The latest casualty is Durham who is staring into the financial abyss and experiencing a painful player drain. It's really not that long ago that there was no T20 Cup to provide counties with income, no lucrative Sky deal, and in turn, nothing like the amount of money that the counties get now from the ECB. They survived then, so why on earth should they be facing oblivion now? |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jul 28, 2016 12:24:18 GMT
As I keep saying an EPL is for the greater good of county cricket - without it the 18 counties will be reduced. The latest casualty is Durham who is staring into the financial abyss and experiencing a painful player drain. It's really not that long ago that there was no T20 Cup to provide counties with income, no lucrative Sky deal, and in turn, nothing like the amount of money that the counties get now from the ECB. They survived then, so why on earth should they be facing oblivion now? Because they've borrowed heavily to tart up their grounds, and the players' salary bill has sky-rocketed? As in most walks of life, expenditure (whether necessary or not) usually rises in line with income. When and if income subsequently drops, one is often still saddled with the expenditure. |
|
|
|
Post by theleopard on Jul 28, 2016 14:50:49 GMT
One minor stumbling block. Who would be interested in watching this new tournament? Practically no-one.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jul 28, 2016 15:12:13 GMT
One minor stumbling block. Who would be interested in watching this new tournament? Practically no-one. How do you know? The aim of a high profile T20 franchise tournament is to attract new customers to cricket - otherwise it's a waste of time. It isn't aimed at existing diehard county members - it's trying to enlarge the T20 market. |
|
|
|
Post by theleopard on Jul 28, 2016 16:10:22 GMT
One minor stumbling block. Who would be interested in watching this new tournament? Practically no-one. How do you know? The aim of a high profile T20 franchise tournament is to attract new customers to cricket - otherwise it's a waste of time. It isn't aimed at existing diehard county members - it's trying to enlarge the T20 market. Absolutely right, I don't know. But I think this may well be the case. I don't see any more reason why more people will come to see a franchise at, say, Trent Bridge, then to see Notts. What would be so brilliant about the new tournament that would make it so much more attractive? Those with an attachment to Notts would just stick with them anyway, so they would have to build up from a base of zero. If it's about 'high profile' and more customers are wanted, then just make the existing tournament more 'high profile'. Also, warning about 'new customers'. If this is based on the Big Bash experience, almost everyone in Australia is interested in cricket already. Men, women, old, young. They may not have gone to matches before Big Bash, but they would be aware of the game and almost certainly have some interest, even if no more than sitting down to watch the odd hour on TV now and again. They were not 'new to cricket'. |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jul 28, 2016 16:58:24 GMT
How do you know? The aim of a high profile T20 franchise tournament is to attract new customers to cricket - otherwise it's a waste of time. It isn't aimed at existing diehard county members - it's trying to enlarge the T20 market. Absolutely right, I don't know. But I think this may well be the case. I don't see any more reason why more people will come to see a franchise at, say, Trent Bridge, then to see Notts. What would be so brilliant about the new tournament that would make it so much more attractive? Those with an attachment to Notts would just stick with them anyway, so they would have to build up from a base of zero. If it's about 'high profile' and more customers are wanted, then just make the existing tournament more 'high profile'. Also, warning about 'new customers'. If this is based on the Big Bash experience, almost everyone in Australia is interested in cricket already. Men, women, old, young. They may not have gone to matches before Big Bash, but they would be aware of the game and almost certainly have some interest, even if no more than sitting down to watch the odd hour on TV now and again. They were not 'new to cricket'. You're obviously dead against this project, even before it's got off the ground. It's uncharted territory - why don't you wait and see what happens before you express an opinion? Then you'll be able to take a reasoned view. |
|
|
|
Post by theleopard on Jul 29, 2016 8:33:46 GMT
Ever since this idea was floated, I've heard the same phrases - "New audience", "High profile", "Summer block tournament", "City-based"...
Aren't all these things what the T20 Blast is supposed to be? Or at least will be next year when it goes to a summer block?
You can play Essex v Middlesex or Surrey at the Olympic Stadium if you want to see how many come. There's no need to build a new tournment for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jul 29, 2016 8:43:24 GMT
Ever since this idea was floated, I've heard the same phrases - "New audience", "High profile", "Summer block tournament", "City-based"... Aren't all these things what the T20 Blast is supposed to be? Or at least will be next year when it goes to a summer block? You can play Essex v Middlesex or Surrey at the Olympic Stadium if you want to see how many come. There's no need to build a new tournment for it. You may be right or you may be wrong - but there's only one way to find out. We'll just have to wait and see. |
|
|
|
Post by theleopard on Jul 29, 2016 9:16:10 GMT
One final matter.
Next year the County Championship will be reduced from 16 to 14 matches per side as the existing schedule was deemed to be too unwieldy.
Yet now they are proposing an EXTRA domestic competition.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jul 29, 2016 9:18:14 GMT
One final matter. Next year the County Championship will be reduced from 16 to 14 matches per side as the existing schedule was deemed to be too unwieldy. Yet now they are proposing an EXTRA domestic competition. Gives them an excuse to kill off the 50 over competition!  |
|
