Topic: Hello - who woke up the ECB! (Read 12659 times)

ProCricketer1982 · « **Reply #15 on:** February 25, 2015, 12:25:11 PM »

Quote from: uknsaunders on February 25, 2015, 12:15:38 PM

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.

40overs is aweful. 50 over is fine. TBH, you could argue to do away with 40/50 over cricket and just play T20's and tests (or 2020's and LVCC)

As for franchise cricket. I also believe there are way too many counties and the talent just isn't there. A lot of the div 2 sides near the bottom especially are playing substandard cricket and shouldn't be pro's. Of course, the only sticking point for me is how do you decide what counties merge and where is it played. How does someone from sommerset see a game in the new franchise if it's say based in Bristol or Glamorgan etc.. You could end up not increasing fan bases of less teams.. just less people watching overall but increase the quality of cricket. TBH, I'd go for that over keeping all the current counties.

uknsaunders · « **Reply #16 on:** February 25, 2015, 12:44:18 PM »

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

Remind me how the domestic 40 over competition went?

It went fine until the ECB decided they wanted to mimic the WC. This is just a roundabout way of getting domestic cricket back to 40 overs

SLC · « **Reply #17 on:** February 25, 2015, 12:51:53 PM »

Somerset, why would we merge, we've been in div 1 for years. Feel free to get rid of serial losers like Lancashire and Surrey.

And this is why reducing the number of counties won't work! Apart from Derbyshire, no one would miss them.

WalkingWicket37 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 25, 2015, 12:59:02 PM »

Quote from: uknsaunders on February 25, 2015, 12:44:18 PM

It went fine until the ECB decided they wanted to mimic the WC. This is just a roundabout way of getting domestic cricket back to 40 overs

And there we have it!
Seems to be a common denominator in all the cock ups in the English system...

And as it went fine they surely won't resort back to it, this is the ECB after all...

uknsaunders · « **Reply #19 on:** February 25, 2015, 01:05:09 PM »

Quote from: ProCricketer1982 on February 25, 2015, 12:25:11 PM

40overs is aweful. 50 over is fine. TBH, you could argue to do away with 40/50 over cricket and just play T20's and tests (or 2020's and LVCC)

As for franchise cricket. I also believe there are way too many counties and the talent just isn't there. A lot of the div 2 sides near the bottom especially are playing substandard cricket and shouldn't be pro's. Of course, the only sticking point for me is how do you decide what counties merge and where is it played. How does someone from sommerset see a game in the new franchise if it's say based in Bristol or Glamorgan etc.. You could end up not increasing fan bases of less teams.. just less people watching overall but increase the quality of cricket. TBH, I'd go for that over keeping all the current counties.

I'll go back to another thread for one solution I mentioned - counties don't play 4 day cricket. They play the money making limited overs stuff/t20 and leave the County Championship to the ECB in return for not getting a handout. The ECB then use that �40m to create 8-12 franchises with a remit to play 4 day CC cricket and an IPL tournament. The ECB hire the grounds off the counties (like a test match of ODI) for the higher level franchise stuff. The counties still get there profit making cricket and the spectator the local derby, but alongside that a higher level of cricket is created to support team England.

This is why the fixture list needs decongesting!

uknsaunders · « **Reply #20 on:** February 25, 2015, 01:13:17 PM »

Quote from: SLC on February 25, 2015, 12:51:53 PM

Somerset, why would we merge, we've been in div 1 for years. Feel free to get rid of serial losers like Lancashire and Surrey.

And this is why reducing the number of counties won't work! Apart from Derbyshire, no one would miss them.

If you live in the huge swathes of the UK were nobody get's FC cricket, then that can be said of most of the counties. Berkshire has a similar population and probably more net wealth/industry but doesn't get FC cricket. Just because 100 years ago some counties got lucky, doesn't mean that model applies now. The fact only Durham have managed to get inclusion shows how out of step English cricket has been with the UK Demographics. 61m people and we can't find 18 solvent teams - what does that tell you?

ProCricketer1982 · « **Reply #21 on:** February 25, 2015, 01:16:21 PM »

Quote from: SLC on February 25, 2015, 12:51:53 PM

Somerset, why would we merge, we've been in div 1 for years. Feel free to get rid of serial losers like Lancashire and Surrey.

And this is why reducing the number of counties won't work! Apart from Derbyshire, no one would miss them.

You'd have to do it on Geographic reasoning, not who has done well etc.. You'd get rid of Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Northants if you went off performances only and then a large area of the country wouldn't have anything even remotely local. Now, that's not to say those counties don't deserve to disappear due to performances (discount 2020/one day filth), teams like Essex, Gloucestershire, Glamorgan, Lancs etc would all be in the firing line as they have been yoyo type teams too

SLC · « **Reply #22 on:** February 25, 2015, 01:35:57 PM »

I'm sure it'd be done based on test match grounds staying. Somerset might have the highest cc attendances in the country and a successful side, but that's not enough to stop athers taking potshots.

England were pretty much top ranked in all 3 formats a couple of years ago, with Australia stuggling, back then people were saying Australia had too small a pool of players, and the system didn't allow later developers to stay in the game.

SLC · « **Reply #23 on:** February 25, 2015, 01:40:31 PM »

Sorry, rant started now. And another thing! Australia suits having few sides, because they have only a handful of pockets with high populations, England's is far more evenly distributed. I don't see how stopping more of the country having easy access to watching cricket will increase the amount of people and talent in the game.

It's not just about the men's county 1st 11, but the whole youth structures below, which wouldn't ve viable without the 1st class setup above it.

ProCricketer1982 · « **Reply #24 on:** February 25, 2015, 01:48:21 PM »

Quote from: SLC on February 25, 2015, 01:40:31 PM

Sorry, rant started now. And another thing! Australia suits having few sides, because they have only a handful of pockets with high populations, England's is far more evenly distributed. I don't see how stopping more of the country having easy access to watching cricket will increase the amount of people and talent in the game.

It's not just about the men's county 1st 11, but the whole youth structures below, which wouldn't ve viable without the 1st class setup above it.

What do the youth structures do? Also, why is it good that average players 'make it' due to having too many sides etc.......

You can decrease the fC game BUT invest in grass roots (so not the ECB premier clubs as they have enough money) to make that viable and a production line. Tbh, hi kin you have to go through youth squads to make it is out dated.

uknsaunders · « **Reply #25 on:** February 25, 2015, 02:04:03 PM »

400k Austrlians play club cricket in 2013/14 out of 23m - approx 1.7% - http://www.cricket.com.au/news/media-release-national-cricket-participation-hits-one-million/2014-08-11
844k in the UK out of 64m in 2014 - approx 1.3% - http://www.ecb.co.uk/development/get-into-cricket/participation/

(if I've got the above wrong - happy to be corrected but I took them of the countries official websites)

Why do we need 18 counties when Australia do a pretty good job with 6? It can't be because we have more players - we might have double but that would only be enough for 12 decent teams. I doubt it's because we have more talented players.

Quote from: SLC on February 25, 2015, 01:40:31 PM

I don't see how stopping more of the country having easy access to watching cricket will increase the amount of people and talent in the game.

It's not just about the men's county 1st 11, but the whole youth structures below, which wouldn't ve viable without the 1st class setup above it.

Devils advocat time - Firstly, if you don't live in a FC county, I'll take a built up area like Reading/Bracknell as an example, you don't have easy access to a county. There is 2.1m people in the Thames Valley without a FC county so why should Somerset have an automatic right? You could probably make a very successful commerical franchise in the Thames Valley, as opposed to Leicestershire.

Secondly - Bucks and most other Minor Counties have a youth development structure and a minor county team, it doesn't mean they have to play first class cricket. In fact many of the FC Counties recruit minor county talent for their teams, bypassing their own scouting network and centres of excellence. Why can't this operate in the same way for a combined franchise?

ProCricketer1982 · « **Reply #26 on:** February 25, 2015, 02:09:21 PM »

Quote from: uknsaunders on February 25, 2015, 02:04:03 PM

most other Minor Counties have a youth development structure and a minor county team, it doesn't mean they have to play first class cricket.

Most clubs now have youth teams... Ok, you can say they don't produce the quality BUT.. Counties take players from clubs so actually.. clubs do produce the quality, it's just they don't stay at clubs as they get poached by the ECB Premier league clubs who hover up and spit out youth. Again, you can invest in the grass roots (not ECB Premier teams who do more harm than good) and you'd produce more players, as well as keep people in the game (which surely has to be the main factor!!)

KIPPERS · « **Reply #27 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?

ProCricketer1982 · « **Reply #28 on:** February 25, 2015, 02:28:11 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?

nope. Just played at enough high levels in a couple of sports to know that the 'top' teams in amateur sport are often not actually that good for the game. Since taking up cricket at 28 I've seen large clubs pay players, rake in youth, then spit 95% of them away and so lost from the game. Not sure how anyone can defend that unless you are simply all about winning and have no regard for the game or the fact it's amateur cricket so about participation.

alternatively you can just go 'bitter and twisted'.. Either way, it's teh only way you'll raise participation and keep people in the game by not focusing on the big clubs.

uknsaunders · « **Reply #29 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.

Author Topic: Hello - who woke up the ECB! (Read 12659 times)

ProCricketer1982

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!

uknsaunders

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!

SLC

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!

WalkingWicket37

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!

uknsaunders

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!

uknsaunders

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!

ProCricketer1982

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!

SLC

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!

SLC

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!

ProCricketer1982

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!

uknsaunders

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!

ProCricketer1982

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!

KIPPERS

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!

ProCricketer1982

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!

uknsaunders

Re: Hello - who woke up the ECB!