Topic: Hello - who woke up the ECB! (Read 12645 times)

ProCricketer1982 · « **Reply #30 on:** February 25, 2015, 02:47:43 PM »

Quote from: uknsaunders on February 25, 2015, 02:39:50 PM

It's a valid point. How do you encourage players to play cricket. They need to see it on TV, have a nearby club, have the facilities to train and more importantly the the older guys willing to take that on. Less clubs equals less exposure, 10 clubs in 10 square miles has to be better than 2 big clubs. If you stick cricket on Sky, the local club folds due to lack of investment/players and then force youngsters to get their parents to drive 9 miles to the nearest club then it's hardly going to push participation up.

and no offence, but who teh hell wants to play in a league where you have team a 5xi vs team b 4th xi.. zzzz Surely at the Amateur level you want villages etc to maintain their 1st xi etc.

SLC · « **Reply #31 on:** February 25, 2015, 02:53:31 PM »

I wasn't saying allowing mediocre proffessional players to stay in the game was good, but allowing late bloomers, is.

I'm now struggling to think of people that have had much better ends to their career than starts...

Nick Compton
Moeen Ali
Guys like Trescothick might not even have got his start (as a bowler) if there were fewer sides.

The ecb would love it, because then no one would ever make it into the England side without having been on a performance pathway since the age of 10.

edge · « **Reply #32 on:** February 25, 2015, 02:59:13 PM »

Leicester? Put a franchise there, make sure you sign a couple of Indian/Pakistani overseas, advertise it well and the crowds would absolutely fly in, Grace Road would be full every single game. Public there love cricket, they just don't love Leicestershire CCC.

ProCricketer1982 · « **Reply #33 on:** February 25, 2015, 03:00:38 PM »

Quote from: SLC on February 25, 2015, 02:53:31 PM

The ecb would love it, because then no one would ever make it into the England side without having been on a performance pathway since the age of 10.

I think you'll find that will be the case anyway IMO.

uknsaunders · « **Reply #34 on:** February 25, 2015, 03:07:34 PM »

No system is ever perfect but would cutting the number of sides to 12, for example, be an issue?. A much improved standard of cricket traded off against a few late bloomers.

When I see Gareth Berg, at 34, has got a contract at Hampshire you kind of think culling 30% of the first class opportunities wouldn't be a bad thing. No disrepect to Gareth Berg but he isn't going to play for England or any test country soon or be a major force in first class cricket (I mean a huge run/wicket machine, player of test match experience ie. Katich a few years back - trying not to dig myself into a hole here!). He's a decent experience pro and will do a good job I'm sure, but should the FC system be geared towards players earning a living or striving for England places?

kenbriooo · « **Reply #35 on:** February 25, 2015, 03:19:57 PM »

I'm not arguing one way or the other here but there are approx. 170,200 people who play rugby once a week according to Sport England but the International Rugby Union has it at 820,283 teen and senior males playing in England at 1900 clubs. Which is very similar to the how many people play cricket in England.

There are 24 clubs in the top 2 English divisions with probably only 14 realistically likely to play regularly in the top division leaving large swathes of the country with out a top Rugby team nearby.

Yet they seem to feed the national team well and the top clubs are attracting large crowds and are in a financially strong position.

Should we stop the other 10 clubs playing? Or allow them to play giving chances to 'lesser' players to play against top players and they may prove themselves and get a move to a 'bigger' club.

What is Rugby doing that cricket isn't?

Manormanic · « **Reply #36 on:** February 25, 2015, 03:31:52 PM »

Quote from: WalkingWicket37 on February 25, 2015, 12:17:13 PM

Remind me how the domestic 40 over competition went?

Actually, for paying fans it was a blast right back from the inception of the JPL in 1971; the advantages such as being able to have lunch before the game, no ten overs of nurdling in the middle etc. made lots of sense. It has only ever been the case that domestic cricket left the 40 over format because it wished to mirror ODIs.

ProCricketer1982 · « **Reply #37 on:** February 25, 2015, 03:36:30 PM »

Slight deviation..

Someone was in my barn yesterday and the subject of value for time, value for money of Saturday/Sunday cricket was raised. He said himself that he gave up playing for 15 years due to being at 6/7/8 every week, then watching the all rounders bowl the overs etc, he felt that it wasn't worth investing his time or money in. He's back in the game now but still feels that it's the same.

So, he is a middle of the road player, nothing special but not crap... His thought was that we have a limit on bowlers, so why not batting? He suggested retire at 50 as. That's a good bat and means more players will get to play. He thinks that for your average player, it would keep more people intersted as they'd get a game over how it is now.

Now, what do you guys think??

Personally, as a batter I hate the idea of retiring BUT, if I think about participation etc.. It sort of makes sense

WalkingWicket37 · « **Reply #38 on:** February 25, 2015, 03:39:28 PM »

Having to retire at 50, no way, end of discussion lol

Manormanic · « **Reply #39 on:** February 25, 2015, 03:43:10 PM »

The problem with reducing the number of first class sides in England is not so much that it is a good thing, but that there is little hope of getting turkeys to vote for Christmas - who goes? On playing standards you'd suggest Leicestershire, Glamorgan, and Gloucestershire are very vulnerable because they have all been rooted in division 2 for a number of years - whilst Essex have also been in that position, and Derbyshire and Northants can only reference single season jaunts to Division One.

But...Leicestershire have a great record of producing young talent and, with Wasim Khan taking over as Chief Executive, might manage to engage better with the Asian communities around the area over the next five years. Glamorgan represent the W in EWCB and it would be one hell of a gamble to cull, in effect, an entire country. Essex are well managed and profitable and seem to have taken a value decision to prioritise one day performance. Derbyshire would point to a much improved record in the last few years, and Northants would say that it was harsh when they were just in division one last season...

You couldn't even do it on financial grounds. If you did, you may well find that Durham, Lancashire and Warwickshire went under, whilst my own Yorkshire are solvent only because Mr Graves has deep pockets and Middlesex would struggle were the MCC not to allow them such preferential arrangements as regards Lords...

So, stalemate, except perhaps for poor Gloucestershire...

Manormanic · « **Reply #40 on:** February 25, 2015, 03:44:53 PM »

Quote from: ProCricketer1982 on February 25, 2015, 03:36:30 PM

Personally, as a batter I hate the idea of retiring BUT, if I think about participation etc.. It sort of makes sense

Is participation the be all and end all of the game, to the exclusion of actual standards?

I'd argue not, though I do think there is a case for this rule to be applied in friendly cricket!

ProCricketer1982 · « **Reply #41 on:** February 25, 2015, 03:46:20 PM »

Quote from: KIPPERS on February 25, 2015, 02:19:43 PM

not ECB Premier teams who do more harm than good" Bitter and twisted me thinks. Did you get dropped?

Few examples

A member of this forum just the other day said that his club (big in the area) had promised him x and y but continually failed to deliver. That to me is a classic big club mentality.

2) our opening bowler played for Frocester 1sts (top WEPL club), he gave up playing at 21 because (his words) "the atmosphere of the club had no regard for players, only winning. I also got tired of the contest travelling distance, it become a chore and far more hassle than it's worth, so I stopped playing'. He's bk playin now 2 divs below his old doc with us, little travelling etc. Loving it.. Why, because of he atmosphere, because smaller clubs tend to be more friendly, more 'mates' etc. Im sure there are loads who give up playing (who are more than good enough for ecb prem) due to time/money/loss of enjoyment, which may (I say may) not have happened if they were playing more locally, with mates.

3) our club has a batch of 21-24 yr olds who all grew up in 'big' clubs youth. Become disillusioned with it and so left. All stopped playing until one lad joined and so brought them all by to the game. All now playing in 4th doc so arent bad players.. So, cricket could have lost a fair few guys purely because of the action of a big club...

I could go on with examples I've seen/heard in 4 seasons of playing. Big clubs are big for a variety of reasons, not many will be there because of their ability to train and bring through youth.. It's always worth looking at how many players have come through he ranks and how many are mercenaries. What is the club about?? Is it a club? Or is it just a collection of randoms brought together for a game

ProCricketer1982 · « **Reply #42 on:** February 25, 2015, 03:49:30 PM »

Quote from: Manormanic on February 25, 2015, 03:44:53 PM

Is participation the be all and end all of the game, to the exclusion of actual standards?

I'd argue not, though I do think there is a case for this rule to be applied in friendly cricket!

As I said, I personally don't like the idea of retiring. I think participation has more value though thn we think, it's the 'casuals' and 'cameo' players that keep it going after all.. Not us keenos. You could maybe argue that say div 8-14 of. 14 div league could do it and it wouldn't affect standards overly

Standards are dropping now anyway, due to lack of participation...

Manormanic · « **Reply #43 on:** February 25, 2015, 03:57:39 PM »

Quote from: ProCricketer1982 on February 25, 2015, 03:49:30 PM

Standards are dropping now anyway, due to lack of participation...

I don't think participation is as bad as some people think - its lower in some areas/leagues but up in others (the TVL claim to be one of them, and the numbers of teams being fielded by clubs would seem to substantiate that).

uknsaunders · « **Reply #44 on:** February 25, 2015, 04:02:05 PM »

Quote from: kenbriooo on February 25, 2015, 03:19:57 PM

I'm not arguing one way or the other here but there are approx. 170,200 people who play rugby once a week according to Sport England but the International Rugby Union has it at 820,283 teen and senior males playing in England at 1900 clubs. Which is very similar to the how many people play cricket in England.

There are 24 clubs in the top 2 English divisions with probably only 14 realistically likely to play regularly in the top division leaving large swathes of the country with out a top Rugby team nearby.

Yet they seem to feed the national team well and the top clubs are attracting large crowds and are in a financially strong position.

Should we stop the other 10 clubs playing? Or allow them to play giving chances to 'lesser' players to play against top players and they may prove themselves and get a move to a 'bigger' club.

What is Rugby doing that cricket isn't?

As a Wasps fan with my old man involved in the RFU, I feel I can speak on the differences.

Firstly, top flight rugby is played by 12 teams in the top division. While the CC does have 2 divisions, it doesn't for t20/One day stuff. It would be like letting all the championship sides play Wasps 2 times a season!

Secondly, you have true movement of players. The Premiership has players from all over the World, like the Premier League in Footy. Therefore the standard is higher than just having English qualified players.

Thirdly, club rugby does play a higher standard - Champions Cup Rugby. The top sides in each country go head to head on a regular basis. Again, similar to footy with the Champions League. It would be like Somerset going to Queensland (forget the travel logistics for a minute) and playing a must win one-dayer. More pressure, higher quality.

I also suspect they are also more commerically aware than cricket.They get money from the RFU and TV. They get compensation for England players from the RFU. They get Sky/BT money for club rugby. They don't get, to my knowledge, grants from RFU England TV money. Each team has to stand on it's own two feet. Wasps moved 60 miles to Coventry because they were losing �2m a season and they needed bigger attendences.

The RFU built possibly the best stadium in the country without too many problems and in rugby terms are the financial powerhouse of world rugby. Like India in Cricket. They have their moments but they look slick and organised in comparison to the ECB.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/10452201/Rugby-Football-Union-tops-150-million-revenue-mark-for-first-time-confirming-their-status-as-the-worlds-wealthiest-union.html

Rugby is run more along football lines than cricket, but with financial constraints of a proper commercial organisation.

Author Topic: Hello - who woke up the ECB! (Read 12645 times)

ProCricketer1982

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!

SLC

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!

edge

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!

ProCricketer1982

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!

uknsaunders

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!

kenbriooo

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!

Manormanic

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!

ProCricketer1982

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!

WalkingWicket37

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!

Manormanic

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!

Manormanic

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!

ProCricketer1982

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!

ProCricketer1982

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!

Manormanic

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!

uknsaunders

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!