Print

[uknsaunders]

Cricinfo going mad with English cricket ideas and changes:-

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/story/838533.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/838489.html

Looks like Graves has wasted no time in bringing the game into the 21st century. He's done some good work at Yorkshire and now hopefully the ECB. Better than that waste of space Clarke.

4 Day tests is interesting. I could see it working and being a commercial success in many parts of the world, if the overs for the 5th Day were spread amongst the other 4 days. That's 22 more overs roughly or an evening session under floodlights maybe? Could be very good for the game as all teams would have to play 5 bowlers and possibly an allrounder, re-dressing recent history of having 7 batsman. More collaspes, more spin and better bang for your buck as a spectator.

[uknsaunders]

thinking further on 4 day tests, could also make some interesting early starts and give the new ball a bit more bite for the bowlers. I think somewhere they discussed 110 overs a day, which makes sense and would mean 3 * 2.5 hour sessions instead of 3 * 2 hour sessions. Start 10pm - 12.30, 1.10 to 3.40 and then 4 to 6.30pm. Not sure how it would work overseas with less twilight than the UK. Might also mean the end of back to back tests and some sensible rest periods between tests.

[amritpremi]

Looks like KPs tweets are working 

[Buzz]

Just to make my position clear - if you lengthen the days then you increase the strain on players, reduce the opportunity to see genuine fast bowling and increase the risk of injuries. And that is just a start.

Plus as a spectator 90 overs is already a long day.

I think my view on that is pretty clear.

And don't start me on the ridiculous concept of franchise cricket - this is bonkers.

[SLC]

It won't happen - not because its a daft idea, but because it'd mean fewer tickets to sell, and fewer days of TV coverage.

[WalkingWicket37]

It won't happen - not because its a daft idea, but because it'd mean fewer tickets to sell, and fewer days of TV coverage.

Why fail to sell out 4 days worth of seats when you can fail to sell out 5 days worth instead, eh?

[uknsaunders]

Just to make my position clear - if you lengthen the days then you increase the strain on players, reduce the opportunity to see genuine fast bowling and increase the risk of injuries. And that is just a start.

Plus as a spectator 90 overs is already a long day.

I think my view on that is pretty clear.

And don't start me on the ridiculous concept of franchise cricket - this is bonkers.

Totally agree on the increase in overs but no more strain than playing a test 2 days later, or actually playing 5 proper bowlers instead of flogging the opening bowler for 20 overs+ in a day. How often has Steyn/Anderson/Broad done that currently? Most current test teams play 4 bowlers because they want the batting and think they can get away with it, not because they care about workload. The workload wouldn't change over a test either. Whereas today if a team bats to tea on day 2, it's around 140-150 overs, in a 4 day test it's lunchtime Day 2. Bowlers are in the field for the same amount of time no matter what.

How often has the spectactor been short changed with 80-85 over days in recent years? Or had to pay a huge amount of money for a shortened days cricket? Don't think anybody apart from you would be upset at watching more cricket!

Not sure on franchise cricket but 18 counties is too much, not enough quality.

[uknsaunders]

Why fail to sell out 4 days worth of seats when you can fail to sell out 5 days worth instead, eh?

I don't know test match economics but I guess selling days 4 & 5 are difficult to sell as it stands, from a ticket and corporate hospitality point of view. You might make more money by having one less day and having increased ticket sales because Joe public thinks the game will go to the 4th day.

[uknsaunders]

It won't happen - not because its a daft idea, but because it'd mean fewer tickets to sell, and fewer days of TV coverage.

might mean more ticket sales with increased certainty of play, as per my point above. TV Coverage for the same number of overs? I think Sky would have a job trying to knock the price down.

[SLC]

You're moving part of the problem forwards though - most matches would end towards the start of day 4, so that only gives you 3 days of proper ticket sales.

[Rob580]

If a day is washed out, you'd lose a quarter of the game, rather than a fifth, which would have a huge impact.

It's purely a concept, I think Mr Graves just trying to prove he's full of ideas, and not the un-inventive stick-in-the-mud types we're used to.

[uknsaunders]

If a day is washed out, you'd lose a quarter of the game, rather than a fifth, which would have a huge impact.

It's purely a concept, I think Mr Graves just trying to prove he's full of ideas, and not the un-inventive stick-in-the-mud types we're used to.

Agree on both counts. That said, 5th days get washed out as well so it could have less of an impact in some ways. Why not have a reserve day if you have freed up time in the calendar?.

Better to have some discussion and nothing come of it than none at all.

[uknsaunders]

Views on a 40 over World Cup? To keep in step with t20, I don't think it's a bad thing. Shorten those prod and poke middle overs wouldn't it.

[WalkingWicket37]

Views on a 40 over World Cup? To keep in step with t20, I don't think it's a bad thing. Shorten those prod and poke middle overs wouldn't it.

Remind me how the domestic 40 over competition went? 

[ProCricketer1982]

early starts for tests would be good, no reason why they can't start at 0900. As you say, it might also make the ball swing and seam around more etc.. Which is always a good thing.