[Cricket] It's just not cricket

[hans kraay fan club]

And of course Michael Bevan. Who arrived at sussex as the self proclaimed 'best one day player in the world'. Trouble was, based on his sussex performances, nobody could work out which 'one day' that was.

*cough* Travis Head! *cough*

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

I'd bin off the hundred and expand the CC. But I guess this is a bit fantasy land.

this

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

How can the talent be too diffused in England and not in Australia? We have, as near as dammit, exactly the same number of first-class teams per head of population.

There’s just too many teams with 18 counties. There are only 6 Sheffield Shield teams in Oz. This means not only too much cricket but also the talent is too diffused, making the overall standard not demanding enough.

On current population, the 6 Australian teams between 27,000,000 works out to 4.5million people per team.
The 18 English and Welsh teams share about 59,000,000 people, which works out to 3.3million people per team. Which is notably less but not drastically so.
If New Zealand (for example) were to base their first class system on the Australian teams/people ratio, they'd end up with one team. Who would have to field and bat at the same time while playing a fixture list exclusively consisting of matches against themselves.
On the other hand, if India were to rejig their system to reflect Australia's, they'd have 311 first class teams.

 

[um bongo molongo]

On current population, the 6 Australian teams between 27,000,000 works out to 4.5million people per team.
The 18 English and Welsh teams share about 59,000,000 people, which works out to 3.3million people per team. Which is notably less but not drastically so.
If New Zealand (for example) were to base their first class system on the Australian teams/people ratio, they'd end up with one team. Who would have to field and bat at the same time while playing a fixture list exclusively consisting of matches against themselves.
On the other hand, if India were to rejig their system to reflect Australia's, they'd have 311 first class teams.

It’s Australia’s national sport, whereas a relatively small % of our population play (or have interest in) cricket. The more accurate comparison would be between ‘playing populations’. There’s a reason why, with a few notable exceptions, they’ve generally been better than us (since the 80s anyway), despite a much smaller overall population.

 

[Eeyore]

A lovely thought, but unfortunately The Hundred is here to stay due to it's financial value as it has been created to be sold off to franchises.

Once we accept that The Hundred is here to stay in some form we then have to work out how to incorporate it into the schedule, whilst not clashing with the football season in August. The way this is done unfortunately is eventually binning off the T20 Blast as a major competition and making it a secondary level, minor competition.

Basically the smaller counties are getting shafted. It doesn't matter what ideas we come up with as an alternative schedule.
It will be decided at the corporate level with multi-million bids coming in for each franchise.
The likes of Colin Graves and Rod Bransgrove will be sailing off into the sunset with IPL owners running the show in England.

The IPL now runs the South African T20 competition, The Caribbean competition and the UAE competition.
They are in discussions with Saudi Arabia for a new competition there. There is also a new T20 competition beginning in USA.
The biggest game in this years T20 World Cup between India and Pakistan is being played in New York City.

The shit future we worried about is already here.

All the previous ideas on this thread are very laudable and well meaning but basically we are being swallowed up by a monster that is offering debt-ridden counties too much money to refuse.
We are about to sell our Crown Jewels (if we haven't already).

Any suggestions on how to re-shape future English summers is just like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

We are still in a battle, but India has already won the war.

I want to say bollocks, utter tosh.

But I can't.

Because it's true.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

It’s Australia’s national sport, whereas a relatively small % of our population play (or have interest in) cricket. The more accurate comparison would be between ‘playing populations’. There’s a reason why, with a few notable exceptions, they’ve generally been better than us (since the 80s anyway), despite a much smaller overall population.

Well by that logic, if we take the participation figures at face value (I wouldn't for either country), England should only have 3 teams.

The issue isn't that England have too many teams, that has as many benefits as it does problems, the issue is a smaller playing population (definitely not going to be helped by removing the professional game from most of the country) and conditions that are less conducive to the sport.

Even as it is, I'd suggest that if you replaced Steve Smith with a "typically good Australian test cricketer" over the last 10 years, most if not all of the difference between the teams would disappear. Obviously you could also say that England would be a worse team without Root, but the most he's averaged in an Ashes series is 57 in 2015, while Smith managed 56, 137 and 110 over 2015, 2017/18 and 2019. If he'd "only" averaged 57 in that 2019 series there's a decent chance England would have won every game.

 

[dsr-burnley]

This won’t be a popular opinion, but here it is anyway.

There’s just too many teams with 18 counties. There are only 6 Sheffield Shield teams in Oz. This means not only too much cricket but also the talent is too diffused, making the overall standard not demanding enough. Two (or 3) divisions doesn’t deal with that (our best ever Test batsman is currently playing in Div 2). I think they missed a trick not creating Regional instead of city based Franchise teams, and having them play across formats. South (Sussex/Hampshire), South East (Kent/Essex), South West, East Midlands, West Midlands, North West, North East, Wales and London would give 9 sides. 4 days games would move around the regions. A two week 50 over tournament could be held around the May half term/second bank holiday, adding Scotland, Ireland and Netherlands in 2 groups of 6, with 5 ‘game weeks’ played concurrently over 10 days, followed by semis and a final. Again, using a mixture of grounds across the region. Then a single T20 or Hundred tournament (they’re basically the same format) in the school summer holidays. The existing counties would then be organised in the tiers below this Regional system, in a pyramid system (with minor counties able to get promoted up the tiers and vice versa).

It would provide less, and better, cricket. But its too radical for most and people will hate the idea of killing off the County Championship.

The problem with doing this in cricket is the same as it has been in other sports. People don't just have an affinity to the sport, they have an affinity to their favourite team.

Robert Maxwell thought that he could merge Oxford and Reading and get Thames Valley Royals with twice the fanbase. Maurice Lindsay thought he could merge Castleford, Wakefield Trinity and Featherstone Rovers to get a new team with three times the fanbase. But the fans didn't want to play.

It's a dodgy way of doing business to upset your current customers in hopes of attracting new ones.

Besides to answer the OP, trying to cut down the amount of domestic cricket to what is acceptable to a test player, can't be done. If they had to play twice they would want to play only once. The amount of cricket isn't half now compared with 50 years ago, and still they complain.

 

[essbee1]

The problem with doing this in cricket is the same as it has been in other sports. People don't just have an affinity to the sport, they have an affinity to their favourite team.

Robert Maxwell thought that he could merge Oxford and Reading and get Thames Valley Royals with twice the fanbase. Maurice Lindsay thought he could merge Castleford, Wakefield Trinity and Featherstone Rovers to get a new team with three times the fanbase. But the fans didn't want to play.

It's a dodgy way of doing business to upset your current customers in hopes of attracting new ones.

Besides to answer the OP, trying to cut down the amount of domestic cricket to what is acceptable to a test player, can't be done. If they had to play twice they would want to play only once. The amount of cricket isn't half now compared with 50 years ago, and still they complain.

Which just goes to show how moronic in so many senses industry people are. Perhaps when we observe how utterly sh*te Sugar's BBC Apprentice candidates are, they actually fit the mould.

 

[ROSM]

*cough* Travis Head! *cough*

And we still haven't got to alex Carey (one of the said part time few game mercenaries) who managed in the 2019 t20 quarter final against Worcestershire to get out cheaply for 8 and then dropped moeen on 6 and 12 before he went on to score a match winning 120ish in 60 odd balls.

I know Broad told him what he would be remembered for but I do bear a grudge and won't forget or get over it.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I find it maddening that everyone can see the issue is the 100 and yet those in power keep flogging it.

Mucks up the county fixtures
removal of a valid and top class 50 over cup - you know, the one there is a world cup for
tires out players
loses money

Just bin it.

 

[Titanic]

Reducing domestic cricket matches will not help, says Jon Filby

Reducing the amount of domestic cricket will not help the sport, says Sussex chair Jon Filby.

www.bbc.co.uk

Reducing the amount of domestic cricket will not help the sport, says Sussex chair Jon Filby.

 

[Titanic]

A post from Annie Chave on the Country Cricket Matter FB group:

It’s worth members and fans listening in to this important & very well researched and clear interview between Kevin Howells and Alan Higham on the implications of the sale of the 100 franchises. Alan’s interview appears at 2:19.30 *essential listening*

Cricket - Lancashire v Kent - BBC Sounds

Kevin Howells presents live commentary of Lancashire v Kent in the County Championship.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Change at Barnham]

Sussex Chairman Jon Filby raises an excellent point, the current schedule is abysmal not the amount of cricket played.
A total of seven days cricket at Hove throughout July and August is a disgrace.

"The issue that we, as the counties, would have is Sussex cricket have got three days to put before our members during July and four days during August, and that isn't enough cricket," Filby said.

"From my perspective, I would say I want more cricket. I understand that is also completely unrealistic. The main thing that I do agree with them on is that the schedule is abysmal."

 

[um bongo molongo]

Well by that logic, if we take the participation figures at face value (I wouldn't for either country), England should only have 3 teams.

The issue isn't that England have too many teams, that has as many benefits as it does problems, the issue is a smaller playing population (definitely not going to be helped by removing the professional game from most of the country) and conditions that are less conducive to the sport.

Even as it is, I'd suggest that if you replaced Steve Smith with a "typically good Australian test cricketer" over the last 10 years, most if not all of the difference between the teams would disappear. Obviously you could also say that England would be a worse team without Root, but the most he's averaged in an Ashes series is 57 in 2015, while Smith managed 56, 137 and 110 over 2015, 2017/18 and 2019. If he'd "only" averaged 57 in that 2019 series there's a decent chance England would have won every game.

I’d argue there’s a bigger gap in the bowling. We haven’t had a spinner comparable to Lyon for years, and before that they had Warne. And their 3 quicks currently are superb.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

I’d argue there’s a bigger gap in the bowling. We haven’t had a spinner comparable to Lyon for years, and before that they had Warne. And their 3 quicks currently are superb.

I think, most places outside Australia, there's not much between the seam attacks. If we could ever go to Australia with a fully fit side we might even be competitive on that score (and it's not like the seamers in and around the England team are being flogged to death on the county treadmill because they're normally too injured to get on the field for their counties).
Lyon's clearly better than anybody we've had since Swann, and obviously Warne's better than just about anybody England have had since the 1950s, but beyond that England's spinners have "generally" been at or about the same level as Australia's.
It's also worth nothing, to take it back to the original point about the number or teams, that our best spinners in recent years have generally either started at or played most of their career at the sort of smaller county that would be dumped in any rearrangement.
Swann and Panesar - Northants
Bashir - Somerset
Ahmed - Leicestershire
Ali - Worcestershire

 

[Change at Barnham]

This article from Barney Ronay IMHO is excellent and sets out all the reasons why the ECB and the counties need to think a little longer before they sell off our wonderful game to overseas investors.
A decision that will put a nail in the coffin of counties like Sussex and Kent.

If you have a spare five minutes please give it a read, it's very important.

Selling off the summer? Why Hundred plans should matter to all cricket lovers - Barney Ronay

 

[Brovion]

This article from Barney Ronay IMHO is excellent and sets out all the reasons why the ECB and the counties need to think a little longer before they sell off our wonderful game to overseas investors.
A decision that will put a nail in the coffin of counties like Sussex and Kent.

If you have a spare five minutes please give it a read, it's very important.

Selling off the summer? Why Hundred plans should matter to all cricket lovers - Barney Ronay

Indeed. Great article and for me these two paragraphs sum up the Hundred:

One problem is the obvious impediments to holding any kind of objective discussion. First the Hundred itself is an endlessly divisive entity. The good bits are clear enough. The Hundred was designed to expand the game’s reach and source newer, younger consumers. These are logical aims. Given the ECB’s own record of failure in growing the game, something had to be done. The Hundred offered the chance of a reset, for women’s teams to be given status, visibility and investment, for the junking of some old restrictive habits.

The problem is the collateral damage to all the other bits. The Hundred is unavoidably parasitic. It requires every other format to be subjugated and run down, although part of this is a deliberate managed decline to ensure its own success. People who have supported the game and kept it alive like the other formats. Test cricket is still the greatest cash cow. It is currently being asked to subsidise the thing that will cut its legs off, a Hundred that provides no players, no pathway, no midsummer stage in return.


(Hope only doing a partial quote is within the NSC rules. The link to the full article is still there)

 

[Titanic]

They want to control the direction of their investment, and to do so without interference from Sir Bufton Ballsack, who may well be a stalwart of the county board but knows very little about harvesting eyeballs.

The non-host counties, also known as first turkeys on the Christmas meat hook, have begun to question the deal being offered. There are windfalls and annual stipends to be divvied up. Money is being grubbed over. The heirs are gathered around the casket, arguing over the silver.

The problem is the collateral damage to all the other bits. The Hundred is unavoidably parasitic. It requires every other format to be subjugated and run down, although part of this is a deliberate managed decline to ensure its own success.

Test cricket is still the greatest cash cow. It is currently being asked to subsidise the thing that will cut its legs off, a Hundred that provides no players, no pathway, no midsummer stage in return.

The ECB’s chosen buyer-locator is the Raine Group, whose last job in English football was introducing Chelsea to Todd Boehly. These people are not always benevolent actors.

What will be the role of, say Kent CCC, in 10 years’ time? English cricket has a lot of money and a lot of debt. Where will this new money go?

Has the self interest of players, agents, broadcasters and all interested parties with a platform been excluded from consideration of the merits or otherwise of this course of action?

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

All these sports ....... cricket, snooker, football, rugby, golf ........... you know, they got on just fine, for decade or centuries before big foreign (or otherwise) investors came in and bought them, monetised them, celebritised their practitioners, offshored them to the middle east, made them exclusive.

They just existed because people loved them. They weren't massively profitable, but that was fine. They were sustainable.