Topic: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation (Read 20762 times)

enlightened · « **Reply #60 on:** July 12, 2018, 06:51:43 AM »

I don't know the answer but some random opinions......
- I love batting out for a draw when the opposition has the upper hand, almost feels like a win and gives some purpose to batting second when you're facing a huge total or have had an early collapse
- Earlier starts make sense but some people do still work on Saturday mornings
- Two innings 20:20 probably means that some people get a decent chance to bat every week whilst others have to go in for 2 overs and swing at everything ..... twice (not my idea of fun)
- Cricket needs to be on terrestrial TV
- 30 x 8 ball overs (rather than 40 x 6) might speed things up a little
- Having a pyramid where overs increase as standard increases is difficult..... players start playing 20:20 which requires significantly different approach to a 40 over game .... how do they transition?
- Based upon the people that I know that play cricket (and I'm at the older end of the spectrum) reducing the number of overs would, in the short term, lead to many players leaving the game

HallamKeeper · « **Reply #61 on:** July 12, 2018, 08:30:34 AM »

Quote from: RPC/Blueroom Cricket - Adie on July 11, 2018, 05:52:12 PM

If you can�t TAKE ten wickets you�re not �obviously better�.. you just batted better.. this is the funny thing with win lose.. it�s gone from being a bat and bowling all round team to simply �if we smash 300+ more often and not the oppos will more often than not fail to chase so we are obviously better�.. if you allow a team to decide �actually, we aren�t good enough to get 300 but you�re also mot good enough to take my wicket�.. actually, both sides deserve the draw

After all.. it�s all fun if you�re the team who slaps runs for fun . It�s not fun if a team racks up a monster score but you know they aren�t good enough to take your wicket..simply rely on you giving it away slogging.. that�s also just as Boring..

This �have a bit of fun, hit out� isn�t what some players play for so it�s not fun to go out hitting . The game is there so all types of players have a role.. what we have now is a generation who want to have a format purely for one style of player then we wonder why people are walking away

I should point out that 300 is not something that happens very often at all. It is usually scores between 130 and 230. You will often have teams bowled out in the first innings or 8 or 9 wickets down. Then what happens is a team will chase, say 180 and lose early wickets, so decide whether to keep going knowing they will probably lose or they can block out for 15 overs. I would argue that if you concede 300 runs, bowlers aren't very good. We play on very helpful wickets on the whole with slow outfields. Most teams at our standard are far better bowling teams than batting.

Ultimately, for me, sport is a contest to find out who is best. I don't think a bonus point system can accurately judge how close a game is, conditions can change making it easier or harder for the second innings. I don't have a huge problem with bonus points for getting within 90-95% of the target or getting a team 8 or 9 down in a chase but if someone scores 100 runs, you shouldn't be rewarded for getting 50-80 runs.

My point in relation to this topic is that the current game lasts too long. A lot of time is wasted. Watching a team block out for 15 overs is not enjoyable, even your own team, because the tiny reward of a point isn't really worth it. Blocking out and all of that is fine in a multi-day game but not a 40 over match. I'm not sure I'd like to see a football team who are 3-0 down take the ball into the corner for the last 10 minutes so they don't concede more goals.

Boondougal · « **Reply #62 on:** July 12, 2018, 12:28:58 PM »

Some great points in all of this and it just shows how hard it is to get a universal approach that works... even just for the majority.

One thing that seems to crop up a lot in peoples thinking is to regionalise the leagues... personally i really don�t see how this works... yes you might travel a bit less for games but the likelihood of a fair contest is surely greatly reduced? I play in a developement league and they are talking about regionalising the bottom 2 divisions... but all that will happen is the 5/6 teams that are genuine developement sides will end up being split up and instead of having at least half their games a season where they have a genuine competitive chance it will be reduced to 2/3 games a year.. with the other games just ending up in a runs fest for the opposition. A good game of cricket is about a competitive match (no matter what the length), involvement with Bat and ball and a team spirit. We need to focus on those things... especially in the lower divisions. I am an advocate of 40 over games att he level i play (maybe even 35) i would back a midday start (we start at 1 and play 45) but more over i would support 8/10 over maximum overs for bowlers to ensure you always use 5, i would ditch whites and introduce a more colourful approach to the kit.... get the flashing stumps and bails out there and try and find ways of rewarding teams for promoting youth... not penalisingthem for not having a youth system.... Find ways of providing club assistance when X% of games played had a 20% under 18 presence... i am sure we could do a more carrot than stick approach in order to promote the inclusion of youth.... it might not have to be youth, it could be players who are new to the game even.

I�m also a fan of win/loose cricket.... i much prefer it and at the standard i play at it tends to work out like that anyway...the other thing i would also welcome is a more mixed season when it came to the format on a Sat, i�m Not too sure on the 2xt20 innings format, but i would welcome splitting the season between a short form and a long form, smaller divisions could play the same person 3 times, larger leagues could play each other twice across 2 formats.... i think a week in week out leave the house at 11 get back at 8/9 is not sustainable for people, if every second week you knew you would be finished for 5/6 participation (or availability at least) over the entirety of the season would be improved... it would also be a great way of getting people to �try� the game on a sat... just play in the short form.

Just an idea.

SD · « **Reply #63 on:** July 12, 2018, 03:14:40 PM »

I don't support regionalising leagues. From experience, it leads to far too many mismatches and far too few competitive games of cricket which doesn't encourage people to want to turn out on a Saturday

ProCricketer1982 · « **Reply #64 on:** July 12, 2018, 06:13:53 PM »

Quote from: HallamKeeper on July 12, 2018, 08:30:34 AM

I should point out that 300 is not something that happens very often at all. It is usually scores between 130 and 230. You will often have teams bowled out in the first innings or 8 or 9 wickets down. Then what happens is a team will chase, say 180 and lose early wickets, so decide whether to keep going knowing they will probably lose or they can block out for 15 overs. I would argue that if you concede 300 runs, bowlers aren't very good. We play on very helpful wickets on the whole with slow outfields. Most teams at our standard are far better bowling teams than batting.

Ultimately, for me, sport is a contest to find out who is best. I don't think a bonus point system can accurately judge how close a game is, conditions can change making it easier or harder for the second innings. I don't have a huge problem with bonus points for getting within 90-95% of the target or getting a team 8 or 9 down in a chase but if someone scores 100 runs, you shouldn't be rewarded for getting 50-80 runs.

My point in relation to this topic is that the current game lasts too long. A lot of time is wasted. Watching a team block out for 15 overs is not enjoyable, even your own team, because the tiny reward of a point isn't really worth it. Blocking out and all of that is fine in a multi-day game but not a 40 over match. I'm not sure I'd like to see a football team who are 3-0 down take the ball into the corner for the last 10 minutes so they don't concede more goals.

But it�s just as boring if you know you can�t get the total and gifting your wicket away ?!?! Remember it�s a game for 22 players not just the 11 who biff the most runs. If you can�t take ten wickets you don�t deserve to win and your not �the best� . You�re just the best batting side

richthekeeper · « **Reply #65 on:** July 12, 2018, 08:36:26 PM »

Quote from: HallamKeeper on July 12, 2018, 08:30:34 AM

I should point out that 300 is not something that happens very often at all. It is usually scores between 130 and 230. You will often have teams bowled out in the first innings or 8 or 9 wickets down. Then what happens is a team will chase, say 180 and lose early wickets, so decide whether to keep going knowing they will probably lose or they can block out for 15 overs. I would argue that if you concede 300 runs, bowlers aren't very good. We play on very helpful wickets on the whole with slow outfields. Most teams at our standard are far better bowling teams than batting.

Ultimately, for me, sport is a contest to find out who is best. I don't think a bonus point system can accurately judge how close a game is, conditions can change making it easier or harder for the second innings. I don't have a huge problem with bonus points for getting within 90-95% of the target or getting a team 8 or 9 down in a chase but if someone scores 100 runs, you shouldn't be rewarded for getting 50-80 runs.

My point in relation to this topic is that the current game lasts too long. A lot of time is wasted. Watching a team block out for 15 overs is not enjoyable, even your own team, because the tiny reward of a point isn't really worth it. Blocking out and all of that is fine in a multi-day game but not a 40 over match. I'm not sure I'd like to see a football team who are 3-0 down take the ball into the corner for the last 10 minutes so they don't concede more goals.

This is my league down to a tee

edge · « **Reply #66 on:** July 13, 2018, 05:21:29 AM »

Re. win/lose cricket - earlier this season a new player at our club looked surprisingly confused and disappointed after we defended our score with about 10 to spare in a high scoring game, wondering why we were all so happy when he was gutted we could only get the draw after putting on a big score! Cheered him up no end when we explained we'd won haha.

SLA · « **Reply #67 on:** July 13, 2018, 08:26:05 AM »

Quote from: t2ylo on July 11, 2018, 06:19:14 PM

Free to air cricket - surely India series this summer is a 'crown jewel' event - people can't play what they don't see

ECB to instruct top down structure not wait for leagues to reform & restructure.

FTA cricket is the elephant in the room. The big problem most clubs face is the lack of players between 14 (when they start to drop off) and 25 (the last cohort to remember cricket on FTA tv).

The ECB should (No Swearing Please) off. The last thing we need is those money-hungry morons sticking their oar in. I strongly recommend all leagues disaffiliating from the ECB and starting their own organisation.

HallamKeeper · « **Reply #68 on:** July 13, 2018, 11:43:44 AM »

Quote from: RPC/Blueroom Cricket - Adie on July 12, 2018, 06:13:53 PM

But it�s just as boring if you know you can�t get the total and gifting your wicket away ?!?! Remember it�s a game for 22 players not just the 11 who biff the most runs. If you can�t take ten wickets you don�t deserve to win and your not �the best� . You�re just the best batting side

Surely if your bowlers are better they can restrict the opposition's batsmen to a lower score by getting them out or just bowling tight? If you want to scratch around and not go for a total go ahead but I don't see why you should get any points. In our league you still win the game if you score more runs, you just enter a complex bonus point system afterwards. You can score 300 and bowl a team out but they still get points if they score a certain percentage of the runs. How have they earnt them?

If you remove the chance of points for scoring fewer runs, then the opposition have a choice of how they want to bat all game. If you want to get your moneys worth and go at 1 an over that's fine or if you want to play some shots you can, without getting told off by your captain for missing out on a bonus point if you get out.

It's clear we aren't going to agree on this. Maybe our leagues are different. In my experience the bonus points only come into people's thoughts when the result is all but certain and then people change how they play, negatively in most cases. Maybe in leagues with more capable captains and thoughtful teams bonus points add an extra layer of interest to dull games.

ProCricketer1982 · « **Reply #69 on:** July 13, 2018, 12:35:35 PM »

Quote from: HallamKeeper on July 13, 2018, 11:43:44 AM

Surely if your bowlers are better they can restrict the opposition's batsmen to a lower score by getting them out or just bowling tight? If you want to scratch around and not go for a total go ahead but I don't see why you should get any points. In our league you still win the game if you score more runs, you just enter a complex bonus point system afterwards. You can score 300 and bowl a team out but they still get points if they score a certain percentage of the runs. How have they earnt them?

If you remove the chance of points for scoring fewer runs, then the opposition have a choice of how they want to bat all game. If you want to get your moneys worth and go at 1 an over that's fine or if you want to play some shots you can, without getting told off by your captain for missing out on a bonus point if you get out.

It's clear we aren't going to agree on this. Maybe our leagues are different. In my experience the bonus points only come into people's thoughts when the result is all but certain and then people change how they play, negatively in most cases. Maybe in leagues with more capable captains and thoughtful teams bonus points add an extra layer of interest to dull games.

It�s more about providing a game which enables different playing styles (both batting and bowling) to take part. Your theory rewards hitters and economy dry bowling. Where will the more technical players bat ? Where will the erratic but more wicket taking players or attacking spinners bowl ? Where will skippers and Bowlers learn the arts of �taking� a wicket rather Han just sitting back waiting for the batter to give it away.

Your game will literally remove players from the game as not every can or wants to just hit and not every bowler can or wants to bowl dry. You also remove many tactical layers to the game which is part of what makes Cricket enjoyable. Otherwise, just play baseball where it�s smash as many balls as you can.

stevat · « **Reply #70 on:** July 13, 2018, 01:02:32 PM »

There's a guy on my team that averages about 80 this season, about 50 per innings with the odd red inker thrown in. I'd guess he hits one or two boundaries per innings, is always rotating the strike with nudges and nurdles. His strike rate is above a run a ball despite the lack of boundaries to negate the dots - just there is virtually no dots when he bats, very good at finding gaps, but pushes the ball into them rather than hits it. He's absolute proof that there is more than one way to do it, but he's great to watch bat, technically brilliant against all bowlers - indeed his boundaries tend to come against quicks where he doesn't need to put pace onto the ball.

Has to be room in the game for players like that. Should be room in the game for all types of players.

HallamKeeper · « **Reply #71 on:** July 13, 2018, 01:16:02 PM »

Quote from: RPC/Blueroom Cricket - Adie on July 13, 2018, 12:35:35 PM

It�s more about providing a game which enables different playing styles (both batting and bowling) to take part. Your theory rewards hitters and economy dry bowling. Where will the more technical players bat ? Where will the erratic but more wicket taking players or attacking spinners bowl ? Where will skippers and Bowlers learn the arts of �taking� a wicket rather Han just sitting back waiting for the batter to give it away.

Your game will literally remove players from the game as not every can or wants to just hit and not every bowler can or wants to bowl dry. You also remove many tactical layers to the game which is part of what makes Cricket enjoyable. Otherwise, just play baseball where it�s smash as many balls as you can.

How do you win a game? By stopping a team scoring as many runs as you can manage.

How do you get a decent total or chase one? By batting well.

How do you bat well? Many ways. Big hitting, classy stroke play, hard running, patient play.

How do you restrict a total or chase? By bowling well.

How do you bowl well? By being accurate and forcing the run rate up which induces mistakes or by bowling aggressively and taking early wickets removing the opposition's best batsmen.

Cricket is a battle between bat and ball and ultimately if you aren't better than the other team when you combine the two you should lose. Personal pride should be enough for a player when there is nothing to lose in a match. It is their choice how they play. If they want to score enough to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat that is great. It would feature during a lunch break on sky if it was a pro game. If they want to play in a more conservative way to reach a smaller total that's fine too, but it isn't trying to win and it isn't brave or worthy of anything other than a small moral victory that you didn't get bowled out.

If you aren't good enough to beat the opposition, by all means enjoy your day in your own way but your team shouldn't be rewarded for not being as good as the other.

SLA · « **Reply #72 on:** July 13, 2018, 02:44:32 PM »

Bonus points are:

1) a good way to separate teams in the league with the same win/loss record in a fair and transparent manner
2) a good way to incentivise and reward attacking cricket (taking wickets, scoring runs)
3) a good way to add interest to the end of one-sided games once the result is effectively decided

Bonus points should not:
1) make up be the majority of points on offer
2) incentivise teams to play negative cricket or give up on trying to win
3) be a factor in whether to bat or bowl first

Can we all agree on that?

ProCricketer1982 · « **Reply #73 on:** July 13, 2018, 03:18:42 PM »

Quote from: HallamKeeper on July 13, 2018, 01:16:02 PM

How do you win a game? By stopping a team scoring as many runs as you can manage.

How do you get a decent total or chase one? By batting well.

How do you bat well? Many ways. Big hitting, classy stroke play, hard running, patient play.

How do you restrict a total or chase? By bowling well.

How do you bowl well? By being accurate and forcing the run rate up which induces mistakes or by bowling aggressively and taking early wickets removing the opposition's best batsmen.

Cricket is a battle between bat and ball and ultimately if you aren't better than the other team when you combine the two you should lose. Personal pride should be enough for a player when there is nothing to lose in a match. It is their choice how they play. If they want to score enough to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat that is great. It would feature during a lunch break on sky if it was a pro game. If they want to play in a more conservative way to reach a smaller total that's fine too, but it isn't trying to win and it isn't brave or worthy of anything other than a small moral victory that you didn't get bowled out.

If you aren't good enough to beat the opposition, by all means enjoy your day in your own way but your team shouldn't be rewarded for not being as good as the other.

Sigh

Enjoy playing 2020 In a few years with fewer people playing and one trip pony teams
You miss the point of having different things available. Sure, so you�ve hit your way to a large total.. you come out and bowl nice and tidy outside off stump .. great.. run rate at 8 an over.. you�re not taking 10wixkets to win the game .. you�re simply restricting runs knowing they�ll have to go for it. There is immense skill in economy bowing but there is also skill in having to actually take wickets .. attacking bowling and fielding etc

If you simply go towards what we are heading towards you will lose all those variations in games, the different skills needed and catered for. Depends how simplistic you like your Cricket I suppose but your way will see the end of a load of players and youngsters aren�t all happy hitters.. a lot can�t and don�t and so drop out the game as there is no place for them.. same with bowlers.. if they can�t bowl tight they�ll be dropped and os leave the game

So, you end up still having participation issues .. and end up with a shorter or simpler game .. there is 2020 for pure hitting at the amateur level, all we have is Saturday Cricket to replicate the longer form skills

SLA · « **Reply #74 on:** July 13, 2018, 03:41:35 PM »

Quote from: RPC/Blueroom Cricket - Adie on July 13, 2018, 03:18:42 PM

Sigh

Enjoy playing 2020 In a few years with fewer people playing and one trip pony teams
You miss the point of having different things available. Sure, so you�ve hit your way to a large total.. you come out and bowl nice and tidy outside off stump .. great.. run rate at 8 an over.. you�re not taking 10wixkets to win the game .. you�re simply restricting runs knowing they�ll have to go for it. There is immense skill in economy bowing but there is also skill in having to actually take wickets .. attacking bowling and fielding etc

If you simply go towards what we are heading towards you will lose all those variations in games, the different skills needed and catered for. Depends how simplistic you like your Cricket I suppose but your way will see the end of a load of players and youngsters aren�t all happy hitters.. a lot can�t and don�t and so drop out the game as there is no place for them.. same with bowlers.. if they can�t bowl tight they�ll be dropped and os leave the game

So, you end up still having participation issues .. and end up with a shorter or simpler game .. there is 2020 for pure hitting at the amateur level, all we have is Saturday Cricket to replicate the longer form skills

Even in win/lose cricket, there is still clearly a place for the defensive batsman or the wicket-taking but uneconomical bowler. As a worst case scenario, maybe they need to drop a couple of leagues for their skills to be appreciated. Its not unusual in lower-league cricket for a 40* or a 5-60 to be the defining match-winning contribution.

We play amateur T20, and its a fantastic game. Its definitely not a game of "pure hitting". You see occasional 6's, but mostly its a game of orthodox strokeplay and aggressive running.

Author Topic: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation (Read 20762 times)

enlightened

Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation

HallamKeeper

Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation

Boondougal

Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation

SD

Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation

ProCricketer1982

Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation

richthekeeper

Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation

edge

Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation

SLA

Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation

HallamKeeper

Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation

ProCricketer1982

Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation

stevat

Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation

HallamKeeper

Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation

SLA

Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation

ProCricketer1982

Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation

SLA

Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation