Custom Bats Cricket Forum
General Cricket => World Cricket => England => Topic started by: uknsaunders on June 05, 2015, 11:21:37 AM
-
http://www.cricketsurveys.com/s/playingsurvey2015/ (http://www.cricketsurveys.com/s/playingsurvey2015/)
-
Just finished it, nearly lost the will to live at one point.
-
Hmm not too bad. A few questions seem a bit neither here nor there though. I filled it in last year.
-
Have just completed this.
Then use the comments section to give the ECB both barrels about not having cricket on free tv and not getting investing enough cash to get cricket back into schools.
-
they seem to have an obsession with t20 and shortening the format of league cricket. To me the two biggest issues are (and commented on):-
1. Sky - great coverage but with no FTA platform the awareness goes down the pan. Clubs don't pick up casual players like the use because there is nothing to prompt them to play.
2. Sept/Oct - weather generally better than Apri/May but no cricket played for most of it. No point trying to improve participation unless you improve availability.
And I'm still waiting to see who plays cricket outdoors in the winter.
Did also mention wet weather rules in league cricket. This time of year you can play easily to 9pm, yet most leagues ignore this for a rigid cut off. This more often than not spoils the game for one side as the rules are heavily in the other teams favour, normally the team batting 2nd. Try and play the whole game if you have the light available.
-
it's all the ECB and anyone involved in running a league seem to think 'everyone says they don't have time, lets shorten the game'...
Easier to get rid of the tea break, make over rates enforced and quicker (ie, you suffer pts loss if you can't keep up an over rate)... would cut a fair bit of time out of the day.. oh and restructuring leagues to cut travel time.
-
I agree with you Nick, felt like shutting it down after a while, very long winded.
-
Yep, they want to shorten it because they've heard people stop playing because they don't have the time. I agree with @uknsaunders they should let games be proper games even if it means running them till 9pm, but then we're not threatening to stop playing, are we? So why should the ECB be concerned with what we want?
In fact, if they want to stop people who haven't got the time to play cricket leaving, they should replace all the games with football matches, attendance would go through the roof! It would miss the point of an cricket league slightly, but if it gets more people through the doors...
-
Just filled it in, my comments centered around poor umpiring at league level and the fact that international cricket is so expensive.
-
Yeah I mentioned the expense of going to the games. My exact words were 'it's very expensive to get drunk at the cricket', a theory I'm likely to prove in about an hour when I get to the Oval.
-
Inspired by @Buzz I also used the comments section to beg for a return to free to air TV. I think this is the most important factor in the future of cricket in England, is there a petition somewhere?
-
Filled it in. Used it to rant about my league and there proposals for 2016 season.
These include. Lower division bowlers only allowed short run ups to improve game time.
Shorter games
Power plays where batsmen choose two fielders.and they have to stand in slip for duration off power play.
Extra points for declaring and winning at 30 overs.
Extra points for knocking off before 30 overs.
It does seem my league wants short games. Probably around 30 overs? If so I shall be off to another league. Or retiring.
More will leave if they make these changes that. They are currently losing.
-
Filled it in. Used it to rant about my league and there proposals for 2016 season.
These include. Lower division bowlers only allowed short run ups to improve game time.
Shorter games
Power plays where batsmen choose two fielders.and they have to stand in slip for duration off power play.
Extra points for declaring and winning at 30 overs.
Extra points for knocking off before 30 overs.
It does seem my league wants short games. Probably around 30 overs? If so I shall be off to another league. Or retiring.
More will leave if they make these changes that. They are currently losing.
I'd be out of there like a shot to be honest.
-
Filled it in. Used it to rant about my league and there proposals for 2016 season.
These include. Lower division bowlers only allowed short run ups to improve game time.
Shorter games
Power plays where batsmen choose two fielders.and they have to stand in slip for duration off power play.
Extra points for declaring and winning at 30 overs.
Extra points for knocking off before 30 overs.
It does seem my league wants short games. Probably around 30 overs? If so I shall be off to another league. Or retiring.
More will leave if they make these changes that. They are currently losing.
That sounds horrendous, I'd simply retire or move leagues. Ridiculous
-
Filled it in. Used it to rant about my league and there proposals for 2016 season.
These include. Lower division bowlers only allowed short run ups to improve game time.
Shorter games
Power plays where batsmen choose two fielders.and they have to stand in slip for duration off power play.
Extra points for declaring and winning at 30 overs.
Extra points for knocking off before 30 overs.
It does seem my league wants short games. Probably around 30 overs? If so I shall be off to another league. Or retiring.
More will leave if they make these changes that. They are currently losing.
Wow, these changes are even more ridiculous than our league!
-
They seem so focused on the 'casual' players who would rather go shopping than play, than the guys who play regularly. Sadly, if they ruin the game with silly short games they'll not attract more players but scare off those they have now.. Those keen ones run clubs.. Lose them, lose clubs and then you'll lose players even faster.
ECB really are moronic
-
That's exactly my thoughts.
They seem intent on catching and returning the 10% of casual cricketers that drift away. That they don't seem to care or realise there upsetting and losing the cricketers that play week in week out.
-
Something to cheer people up
https://amp.twimg.com/v/62b73d30-1393-48d2-8cc6-e5ff50072354
If you still aren't happy... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QB3Ts_6177I
Now, if this legendary over doesn't cheer you up.... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l2yv7OIXKIc
-
I think over rates and crap cricket dont help. By this I mean that when I started 16-18 overs an hour were standard, if not expected. Timed cricket on a sunday meant most teams could bowl 45-50 overs in 2 hours 40 mins. However by the late 1990s we were down to teams bowling 35-38 overs in the same time. Playing a 100 over TVL game on a Saturday became a very long day from then on. Part of the reason is poor bowling, more wides are bowled now then 30 years ago. Some weeks I look at our scorecard and 15-20 wides get bowled, 10 is about average. We aren't a bad bowling side but it seems most teams bowl a similar amount. Add in waist high no balls and teams are probably bowling 2-3 over's more than 30 years ago. One final factor are the pitches, better for runs and more fetching from the bushes!
-
I think over rates and crap cricket dont help. By this I mean that when I started 16-18 overs an hour were standard, if not expected. Timed cricket on a sunday meant most teams could bowl 45-50 overs in 2 hours 40 mins. However by the late 1990s we were down to teams bowling 35-38 overs in the same time. Playing a 100 over TVL game on a Saturday became a very long day from then on. Part of the reason is poor bowling, more wides are bowled now then 30 years ago. Some weeks I look at our scorecard and 15-20 wides get bowled, 10 is about average. We aren't a bad bowling side but it seems most teams bowl a similar amount. Add in waist high no balls and teams are probably bowling 2-3 over's more than 30 years ago. One final factor are the pitches, better for runs and more fetching from the bushes!
Slow over rates are an absolute pain, I fully expect the first 15 of the 45 overs I play to be done within an 50 minutes to an hour, yet it can take 90 minutes most weekends.
Bowling standards aren't very good, that does have to be said. People seem to have forgotten about line and length and are trying to do everything with the ball, but end up doing nothing, with predictable extras and boundaries being scored.
I'm considered old fashioned for having these views, i'm only 21!
-
Look around the leagues and all the line and length merchants are 30+, probably 40+. 90 minutes for 15 overs is shocking, at 6 minutes an over or a minute a ball. What are they doing?
-
You're right about the line an length bowlers, both of my second team's line and lengthers are in their 50s, late 30s-50s in the first team.
As for the over rate, our boundary is the fence for half of the ground so if a six gets hit, it means walking all the way round to find the ball. That, and there's an awful lot of messing about getting the ball from keeper to bowler and shining the ball in the process. If my plan to keep comes to fruition then i'm putting a stop to it, once the ball is back to me and dead, its going straight to the bowler, rather than all the way around one half of the fielders inside the circle. There's also the usual culprites like mid over field changes and movement of the sight screens to be factored in as well.
-
Slow over rates are an absolute pain, I fully expect the first 15 of the 45 overs I play to be done within an 50 minutes to an hour, yet it can take 90 minutes most weekends.
Bowling standards aren't very good, that does have to be said. People seem to have forgotten about line and length and are trying to do everything with the ball, but end up doing nothing, with predictable extras and boundaries being scored.
I'm considered old fashioned for having these views, i'm only 21!
Batsman?
-
I really think that time games at lower levels (3s/4s) is a major issue. Realistically, 1XI and to a degree 2XI sides are generally made up of those who take their cricket fairly seriously, or are good at it. Thus they are less likely to give it up in my experience.
It is at 3/4 team level where those elder statesmen have dropped down and don't want to spend all day at cricket anymore, and those aged u25 who want to be free to do something else on a Satirday evening. These are the players most likely to drop out, as cricket is far from the be all and end all for them, which is quite right.
-
One of the many issues you have is that an increasing number of players moving away from the game creates an imbalance in abilities. Yes, you can always condense leagues down into certain divisions, but how long do you go for before those regulars end up playing in divisions of 4 or 6 teams, or less?
The more players you have, the more diverse the abilities. People will move away from the game if they are playing at the wrong levels. Shorter formats at least get people playing the game and then potentially moving back into longer forms of cricket. Example; I'm managing a Last Man Stands league this season and already there are players who've come back into the game now saying they make look for a weekend club as they are loving playing again. On the flip side, I know a guy who plays regional cricket who is thinking of giving up because he travels up to 3 hours for a game on a Saturday that doesn't start until 2pm. Ends up getting home at nearly 11pm. The leagues won't change to earlier times for a multitude of reasons, but basically evolution happens quicker than change on league committees...
The point is, there are various means of getting more people back into the game - I was one of them in 2006 post-2005 ashes. Speaking a national member of staff for the RFU yesterday. They insist on keeping the world cup and six nations free-to-air and are seeing participation rise overall. Although TV isn't the sole reason for this, its a significant factor. The ECB Development staff can't affect what the suits on the committee do in terms of pricing, structure and TV. But they can try to make the most informed decisions possible by asking those that count.
-
One of the many issues you have is that an increasing number of players moving away from the game creates an imbalance in abilities. Yes, you can always condense leagues down into certain divisions, but how long do you go for before those regulars end up playing in divisions of 4 or 6 teams, or less?
The more players you have, the more diverse the abilities. People will move away from the game if they are playing at the wrong levels. Shorter formats at least get people playing the game and then potentially moving back into longer forms of cricket. Example; I'm managing a Last Man Stands league this season and already there are players who've come back into the game now saying they make look for a weekend club as they are loving playing again. On the flip side, I know a guy who plays regional cricket who is thinking of giving up because he travels up to 3 hours for a game on a Saturday that doesn't start until 2pm. Ends up getting home at nearly 11pm. The leagues won't change to earlier times for a multitude of reasons, but basically evolution happens quicker than change on league committees...
The point is, there are various means of getting more people back into the game - I was one of them in 2006 post-2005 ashes. Speaking a national member of staff for the RFU yesterday. They insist on keeping the world cup and six nations free-to-air and are seeing participation rise overall. Although TV isn't the sole reason for this, its a significant factor. The ECB Development staff can't affect what the suits on the committee do in terms of pricing, structure and TV. But they can try to make the most informed decisions possible by asking those that count.
Presumably this chap lives in the Atlantic ocean somewhere and the nearest club plays on the beach at Land's End? Otherwise surely he can't seriously think the whole league should start early just to suit him?
-
You're right about the line an length bowlers, both of my second team's line and lengthers are in their 50s, late 30s-50s in the first team.
As for the over rate, our boundary is the fence for half of the ground so if a six gets hit, it means walking all the way round to find the ball. That, and there's an awful lot of messing about getting the ball from keeper to bowler and shining the ball in the process. If my plan to keep comes to fruition then i'm putting a stop to it, once the ball is back to me and dead, its going straight to the bowler, rather than all the way around one half of the fielders inside the circle. There's also the usual culprites like mid over field changes and movement of the sight screens to be factored in as well.
Bowlers won't thank you for not shining it!
-
Bowlers won't thank you for not shining it!
They can do it themselves, rather than wasting time with the fielders messing about with it. Why 2/3/4 fielders feel the need to shine the ball before the bowler gets it is lost on me.