Topic: The cost of cricket? (Read 13252 times)

Stuey · « **Reply #30 on:** September 13, 2016, 01:39:14 PM »

Quote from: ppccopener on September 13, 2016, 01:16:13 PM

I think this 30 over or 35 over matches for lower divisions or lower leagues will catch on in Middlesex as well. Not yet but i'm convinced it will.

the games take too long, no doubt. I finished some matches this year at 8pm...from a 1pm start. 100 overs matches.....

Especially when you throw in the strict off/leg side wides, we've had games where another 6-10 overs have been bowled in the match due to wides (and some no balls). We had one match go onto 8.15 from a 12.30 start! I raised the strict leg side wide issue with the Essex league, especially for lower levels, but their response was typically draconian.

GoodLeave · « **Reply #31 on:** September 13, 2016, 01:48:34 PM »

Quote from: Seniorplayer on September 13, 2016, 08:02:41 AM

Agree start earlier also shortening the overs will push players away as some won't get a bat or bowl they will paying to to field the ball.
Also to save time scrap teas.

See what you're saying about the not getting a bat or bowl. The joys of being a number 8 eh? I'd prefer it if we played 20/20, but set the line up so everyone gets a go. Doesn't matter if you're the best at batting and bowling, if you prefer opening the bowling, you bat 11. If you can't stand bowling, you open the batting.

It's meant to be fun. Not an ego trip (I'm the best at batting and bowling so I open both kinds of people)

thecord · « **Reply #32 on:** September 13, 2016, 02:04:21 PM »

Here's the 30 over format for the Bristol League:

�   30 overs per side
�   Start: 1.00
�   End of 1st innings: 2.45 (ie 1 hour 45 minutes to bowl overs)
�   15 minute break � any refreshments to be provided by players
�   Start of 2nd innings: 3.00
�   End of match: 4.45
�   Maximum overs per bowler 20% ie 6
�   Batsman to retire at 50 � can resume innings on the fall of the penultimate wicket. This is intended to prevent a match becoming one-sided or dominated by a player of a �better� standard
�   1 ball per match
�   Matches to be played on Saturdays � but could be arranged for Sundays if both teams agreed. (This could enable some 1st team grounds to be available)

I'm wondering what happens if clubs can only get players to play this format in what should be their lower teams? There is the potential for one club in particular who only has two teams and has entered this 30 over league with their 2nds to have to cancel their 1st team matches in that instance

Woodyspin · « **Reply #33 on:** September 13, 2016, 02:09:10 PM »

Quote from: Seniorplayer on September 13, 2016, 08:02:41 AM

Agree start earlier also shortening the overs will push players away as some won't get a bat or bowl they will paying to to field the ball.
Also to save time scrap teas.

Scrap teas? Leave. Don't bring your negativity here again.

Cin88 · « **Reply #34 on:** September 13, 2016, 02:19:06 PM »

This year marks the first year that i've had to pay full subs, it costs me �40 for the season (shirt included for this season only), �5 a week for winter nets and �7 a game. The unemployed, students and juniors pay �15 a season and �5 a game.

Like everyone else the major issue is getting 22 people to turn up each week. We have a lot of shift workers and family men on the books so availabilities can go crazy at times, especially during holiday season. Time is also an issue, one of the first XI players actually got himself in quite a bit of trouble with his partner this year because he got selected for all three games of a bank holiday weekend

Not having a junior set up tends to hurt us as we're not really getting many young players in, those that do usually come with their dad/grandad when they move clubs, which causes a selections nightmare.

I personally don't have a problem with the length of the games, i'd rather spend all day playing cricket on my saturdays off (which I have to fight for anyway, especially during football season) than being stuck at home with the inevitable visiting relative or at some mundane social event. I know quite a few in my club share the same view of things and would probably give up if they were subjected to 35 overs or less.

Churchy1989 · « **Reply #35 on:** September 13, 2016, 02:24:20 PM »

West Sussex Cricket Inviation League, are proposing to change all divisions to a 40/40 game, starting at 12:30, first innings to be completed by 15:10 (or penalty point deduction), 20 min tea. Game to finish by 5:50 (or penalty point deduction).

There idea s that more people will be able to plan their day if they know what time they will finish in the evening.

I think its a good idea, but i would rather play in a 5 day test match......

Woodyspin · « **Reply #36 on:** September 13, 2016, 02:26:08 PM »

Quote from: Churchy1989 on September 13, 2016, 02:24:20 PM

West Sussex Cricket Inviation League, are proposing to change all divisions to a 40/40 game, starting at 12:30, first innings to be completed by 15:10 (or penalty point deduction), 20 min tea. Game to finish by 5:50 (or penalty point deduction).

There idea s that more people will be able to plan their day if they know what time they will finish in the evening.

I think its a good idea, but i would rather play in a 5 day test match......

Love this, I hope the East Sussex do something similar... although 45/45 would be nice!

ppccopener · « **Reply #37 on:** September 13, 2016, 02:34:37 PM »

Quote from: Woodyspin on September 13, 2016, 02:26:08 PM

Love this, I hope the East Sussex do something similar... although 45/45 would be nice!

you can't please everyone of course but the leagues are changing things and it's catching on. if there was one change I would make it's to 45 over per side...or 40...

not sure about scrapping teas i'm a traditionalist

but.....unless something is done younger guys wont play.

this is well overdue.

Woodyspin · « **Reply #38 on:** September 13, 2016, 02:46:48 PM »

Quote from: ppccopener on September 13, 2016, 02:34:37 PM

you can't please everyone of course but the leagues are changing things and it's catching on. if there was one change I would make it's to 45 over per side...or 40...

not sure about scrapping teas i'm a traditionalist but.....unless something is done younger guys wont play.

this is well overdue.

Agreed, plus starting later, there's a chance of rearranging fixtures if you get called out for the end of the season (if you league are happy with that) as our point system destroys you if you get 2 rained off game when others luckily dont get rained off at all! 30 points for a win, 9 points for cancelled game.

Gurujames · « **Reply #39 on:** September 13, 2016, 02:52:09 PM »

Our second team's division went from 45 to 40 overs. However, you have to hit the same number Of runs to get maximum batting points (200) and match fees were the same.
Remember, the fewer overs you play the less balls you face, less balls you bowl. Therefore, the likelihood of 'not getting a decent game' increases.
Additionally, if you drop to 30 overs, I see it as a stepping stone to 20/20 cricket. Whilst this is great for mid week cricket, it will kill off weekend cricket as clubs cannot justify a �5/�7 match fee for this format and therefore would not be able to maintain the ground and facilities.
Personally don't find a 8pm finish a problem. Still 3 hours of drinking left, I don't want to start at 6pm, I'd be wasted by 10.

Cow_corner · « **Reply #40 on:** September 13, 2016, 03:15:39 PM »

Good to get different views on this, in Shanghai we have 3 divisions. D3 25 overs, D2 30 overs, D1 40 overs. Games have to finish by 6pm due to light. However all clubs charge the same match fee per division.

ProCricketer1982 · « **Reply #41 on:** September 13, 2016, 03:26:12 PM »

The realistic view is less youth are playing cricket regardless of format.. Correction.. Less of all ages !

If you shorten the game you reduce the amount of players getting a game (even Lms and indoor basically still mean only the front couple get a good game so it still holds true) drops, which anyone sensible will realise is a big factor in player retention to clubs and the sport in general

Shorter games will still cost the same because it costs that to produce the wicket, meaning less value for money

�x quid to bowl less overs or forced to retire ??

I think regardless what you do you will lose similar amounts of players to the sport, with the extra factor that by shortening the format you force a section of your natural playing people out the game as they can't or don't want to slog (that's not just eeyore, there are kids who are simply never picked for their team unless desperate not due to ability but because they can't muscle the ball around and in 2020, that's what matters).. I know at least 6 under 15's who are never picked by their club becUse they can't clear the ropes.. Yet, they are decent players but because yth cricket demands hitting they don't fit in..where is their role in short game ? Simple answer, they won't have one so are lost to the game)

It is interesting and I know some that would play short games but that's not a time issue, it's because they suit that format. He issue is with anyone batting 4+ would simply rarely bat.

The game doesn't need formats changing IMO, it needs re-balancing by enforcing rules to ensure all11 players have a active role.. Ie

Top six must not bowl more than 3 overs each and include the wk.. The 7+ players can bowl upto 20% of the total overs

This would ensure all 11 get a game

Currently what age group generally keep clubs running and do the groundsman jobs ?? 50+ yr olds?? Fast forward 25 years.. If you've shortened the game and potentially lost your 30+ yr olds .. Who will run clubs etc?? I doubt the youth will as a general rule.. And so, clubs die.

It will be interesting to see which way they decide and if over time it makes any difference

Boondougal · « **Reply #42 on:** September 14, 2016, 08:55:39 AM »

Really appreciate all the post to my original question.

So in short it looks like the financial cost of playing really doesn't seem to impact the majority but it could be appealing to some existing players to play for free.

The biggest impact that everyone feels is the length of the game and there are a few points on here that have been really interesting, especially some of those that warn against the proliferation of the 2020 format.. i think there is a lot of value in that point of view.

I would also say in the league i play in its 55 overs or an 8pm finish, the issue we have as a club is that we can often have 3/4 spinners playing.. often opening with them. Both this year and last the 8pm finish and our skippers preference for batting first has resulted on me being int he field for 68 overs..... its madness, And as a young player why would i want to do that - especially in a team where 1-5 is generally locked up by paid / pro level players...

i'm a massive fan of an earlier start and a fixed 45 over game... i think if we had that and then could also offer the chance for people to play for free i think our club and cricket generally in the area would strengthen in its participation.

thanks for all the input everyone.

Seniorplayer · « **Reply #43 on:** September 14, 2016, 09:10:12 AM »

As an opener often spend 80 plus overs on the field on a Sat after getting out early in my innings having to umpire 20 overs but this is what happens when you can't get 11 players

Mpt7 · « **Reply #44 on:** September 14, 2016, 12:07:37 PM »

@procricket - you make an interesting point. one I generally agree on and would love to discuss further

There are a number of teams in our league, and to a point us too, who rely on 3 or 4 players to do the bulk of the work, This happens because better cricketers are more adapt at being stronger at all 3 skills, this causes single skill cricketers to become marginalized or less required in a team and become fill-ins . it's a long day if you don't do a great deal or a young player watching the adult bowl 15-20 overs. neither make clubs better but does help to make clubs win more in the short term

10 overs should be the limit for each bowler. It would make better cricketers, better captains, a more team based game and better experiences for all involved.

should probably start a different thread but there lots of good point in this one already

Author Topic: The cost of cricket? (Read 13252 times)

Stuey

Re: The cost of cricket?

GoodLeave

Re: The cost of cricket?

thecord

Re: The cost of cricket?

Woodyspin

Re: The cost of cricket?

Cin88

Re: The cost of cricket?

Churchy1989

Re: The cost of cricket?

Woodyspin

Re: The cost of cricket?

ppccopener

Re: The cost of cricket?

Woodyspin

Re: The cost of cricket?

Gurujames

Re: The cost of cricket?

Cow_corner

Re: The cost of cricket?

ProCricketer1982

Re: The cost of cricket?

Boondougal

Re: The cost of cricket?

Seniorplayer

Re: The cost of cricket?

Mpt7

Re: The cost of cricket?