Topic: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation (Read 20756 times)

HallamKeeper · « **Reply #30 on:** July 11, 2018, 01:41:47 PM »

Quote from: SLA on July 11, 2018, 12:44:19 PM

But I don't see how that would be any better if there were no bonus points. If you score 300 you've already won the match, now you've got 40 overs (or whatever) to bowl the oppo out and claim full bonus points, so stick everyone round the bat, and see what you can make happen. Get the spinners on, have a bloke bowling bouncers with 3 short legs. Try stuff. Be creative.

I don't know about you, but I think that that challenge is far more exciting than just spending the next 2 1/2 hours going through the motions for 40 overs with a ring field, dibbly dobblers bowling dots, with nothing to achieve.

If you think being in a game where the batsmen are playing for a draw is boring, try being in a game where neither side is playing for any purpose whatsoever. Now THAT is boring.

I understand what you're saying but if a team posts 300 you know you have to go at 6.5 an over (46 over game). So if you know the only way to get any points is to go fairly hard then you either win the game with a very good performance or you lose wickets regularly playing positive, expansive cricket and maybe you only bat 30 overs. I'd far rather be part of that scenario than a team saying 'we can't get 300 so we have set our own target of 225'.

I'm not familiar with the history of bonus points but what other sport has them to this degree? Rugby has one additional point to encourage try scoring and to keep a the contest going as long as possible with a losing bonus point. The county championship has them, I'm assuming to encourage positive play and to make a 4-day draw actually mean something. But what professional one-day competition awards points for losing well? Net run rate makes sense in separating teams on the same points.

I suppose I start a game of cricket wanting to win. If you can't win, a bonus point or two doesn't make a difference, I've still lost. I don't want to win a league because the team below won more games but didn't bowl out a number 11 on a few occasions. I play cricket despite the long hours not because of them.

I'll give you an example of why I hate them so much. A few weeks ago we played the reigning champions. It rained half way through which delayed the start of our innings. They scored 190-odd. Our batsmen went off like a rocket and despite only having about 30 overs to actually chase them, we needed 9 off the final over with 1 wicket left. So did we go for a great win against the best team in the league? No, we blocked out and got a draw and bonus points. We battled hard all day and I felt like we had lost. We are currently bottom of the league, well done us.

SLA · « **Reply #31 on:** July 11, 2018, 01:44:34 PM »

Quote from: JTtaylor145 on July 11, 2018, 01:21:38 PM

Clearly you haven't been on CBF long enough When you have about 20 bats, 10 pairs of pads, 12 pairs of gloves and 6 helmets you'll find the cost does add up. Plus subs are �100 and �9 where I play and then travel costs...you see it does add up.

What's wrong with just sticking on some old mismatched pads from the kitbag and then borrowing the bat and gloves of the batsman you are replacing?

�100? Ouch. I play for 2 clubs, one is �30 (compulsory) and the other is �20 (voluntary).

HallamKeeper · « **Reply #32 on:** July 11, 2018, 01:47:01 PM »

Quote from: WalkingWicket37 on July 11, 2018, 01:40:49 PM

A white t-shirt? That would be village!

I'm more curious where you can pay �5 a game match fees on a Saturday, all the clubs down my way are 2 or 3 times that!

While not as expensive as say joining a golf club, cricket isn't what I'd describe as cheap.

We have to pay:
Membership - �75 a year
Club shirt - �40
Match fee - �10 a week

I don't want to add up how much I spend on cricket a year

To give you an idea of what hockey costs for a full season at my club (we aren't the cheapest locally but we are northern so still cheap):
�375 subs - no match fees.
�60 on kit but only every couple of seasons.
�150-�350 average on equipment each year (shoes, sticks, other bits of kit).

Not dissimilar but I'd say cricket is fairly cheap. What is football and rugby like? Anyone?

WalkingWicket37 · « **Reply #33 on:** July 11, 2018, 01:48:09 PM »

Quote from: SLA on July 11, 2018, 01:44:34 PM

What's wrong with just sticking on some old mismatched pads from the kitbag and then borrowing the bat and gloves of the batsman you are replacing?

Literally everything...

SLA · « **Reply #34 on:** July 11, 2018, 01:54:38 PM »

Quote from: WalkingWicket37 on July 11, 2018, 01:40:49 PM

A white t-shirt? That would be village!

I'm more curious where you can pay �5 a game match fees on a Saturday, all the clubs down my way are 2 or 3 times that!

While not as expensive as say joining a golf club, cricket isn't what I'd describe as cheap.

We have to pay:
Membership - �75 a year
Club shirt - �40
Match fee - �10 a week

I don't want to add up how much I spend on cricket a year

Ours is �30 membership and �5 subs, and we're in one of the most expensive areas of the country. Club t-shirts are �10, polo shirts are �20, cricket shirts �25, you can play in any of these, or in just any old white thing you can find. No-one is going to stop you.

Obviously you can splash the cash and buy all your own kit if you like, but its far from compulsory. The stuff you actually need for cricket is very cheap.

SLA · « **Reply #35 on:** July 11, 2018, 01:59:30 PM »

Quote from: HallamKeeper on July 11, 2018, 01:41:47 PM

I'll give you an example of why I hate them so much. A few weeks ago we played the reigning champions. It rained half way through which delayed the start of our innings. They scored 190-odd. Our batsmen went off like a rocket and despite only having about 30 overs to actually chase them, we needed 9 off the final over with 1 wicket left. So did we go for a great win against the best team in the league? No, we blocked out and got a draw and bonus points. We battled hard all day and I felt like we had lost. We are currently bottom of the league, well done us.

Well either your bonus points system is poorly conceived, with far too many points given for the draw, or your club is extremely cowardly.

HallamKeeper · « **Reply #36 on:** July 11, 2018, 02:06:37 PM »

Quote from: SLA on July 11, 2018, 01:59:30 PM

Well either your bonus points system is poorly conceived, with far too many points given for the draw, or your club is extremely cowardly.

Both. We got 15 points (8 for the draw plus 7 for getting close). They got 16 points (8 for the draw and 8 for taking 9 wickets). We would have got 20 for the win. We wouldn't get the full 25 because we didn't bowl them out in their first innings. Another load of rubbish that I didn't mention. A team can turn up and bat defensively to deny the opposition 5 points for not bowling them out. You could literally not score a run but the winning team lose 5 points for not getting 10 wickets.

SLA · « **Reply #37 on:** July 11, 2018, 02:10:50 PM »

Quote from: iand123 on July 11, 2018, 11:00:17 AM

The Kent league are suggesting a restructure where outside the top 3 divisions will be regionalised. I think its a good idea in some part but do worry it will make people gravitate towards teams in those 3 divisions to play the better standard?

We currently play 46 overs but i honestly dont see why it cant be 40. Maybe premier leagues might want to play 50 overs but i dont see why others need to?

So to give you a comparison, in East Angular, we have

The East Anglia Prem, which feeds from 3 cricket boards: Cambs&Hunts, Norfolk Alliance, and the two counties (which covers Suffolk & northern Essex).

There are 2 Cambs&Hunts premier leagues below the EAPL.

Then below that Cambs and Hunts split; in Cambridgeshire, the top 3 divisions that are county wide, then 2 leagues that are split into North and South, then 3 leagues that are split into North, South and West (not sure what happened to east)

The problem our 2nds have in the smaller divisions is that if 2 or 3 of the clubs are struggling, they often go a whole month without actually getting a game.

SLA · « **Reply #38 on:** July 11, 2018, 02:13:02 PM »

Quote from: HallamKeeper on July 11, 2018, 02:06:37 PM

Both. We got 15 points (8 for the draw plus 7 for getting close). They got 16 points (8 for the draw and 8 for taking 9 wickets). We would have got 20 for the win. We wouldn't get the full 25 because we didn't bowl them out in their first innings. Another load of rubbish that I didn't mention. A team can turn up and bat defensively to deny the opposition 5 points for not bowling them out. You could literally not score a run but the winning team lose 5 points for not getting 10 wickets.

Well, that's a ridiculous system. The majority of points on offer should just be for the win. Any bonus points should incentivise attacking cricket from both sides - batting teams should get points for scoring quickly, bowling teams for getting wickets.

HallamKeeper · « **Reply #39 on:** July 11, 2018, 02:19:53 PM »

We are in Sheffield. Our 3/4/5s play in the Yorkshire and Derbyshire league. That is basically a Sheffield league with quite a few teams from Derbyshire within 5-10 miles of Sheffield. Not many games where you travel for more than 20 minutes. Quite a few clubs are leaving to join either the Derbyshire league or the South Yorkshire league. I think because of the standard being poor more than anything, some teams furthest north/south do have to travel a bit more.

The top league isn't a great standard, not bad but still basically village cricket.

Our 1/2s play in the Yorkshire Prem South and South Yorkshire Prem leagues, it seems like a lot of travel but the standard is very good.

I know I mention hockey a lot, but by comparison the lowest standard of hockey will still travel 1h45m to away games. Obviously a shorter game but that is the expectation of another sport.

HallamKeeper · « **Reply #40 on:** July 11, 2018, 02:20:45 PM »

Quote from: SLA on July 11, 2018, 02:13:02 PM

Well, that's a ridiculous system. The majority of points on offer should just be for the win. Any bonus points should incentivise attacking cricket from both sides - batting teams should get points for scoring quickly, bowling teams for getting wickets.

Maybe my hatred of bonus points is because of our stupid league not so much in general.

SLA · « **Reply #41 on:** July 11, 2018, 02:33:53 PM »

Quote from: HallamKeeper on July 11, 2018, 02:19:53 PM

We are in Sheffield. Our 3/4/5s play in the Yorkshire and Derbyshire league. That is basically a Sheffield league with quite a few teams from Derbyshire within 5-10 miles of Sheffield. Not many games where you travel for more than 20 minutes. Quite a few clubs are leaving to join either the Derbyshire league or the South Yorkshire league. I think because of the standard being poor more than anything, some teams furthest north/south do have to travel a bit more.

The top league isn't a great standard, not bad but still basically village cricket.

Our 1/2s play in the Yorkshire Prem South and South Yorkshire Prem leagues, it seems like a lot of travel but the standard is very good.

I know I mention hockey a lot, but by comparison the lowest standard of hockey will still travel 1h45m to away games. Obviously a shorter game but that is the expectation of another sport.

Yeah, I used to play league baseball - one of the big problems there is the distance between clubs of similar standards. 2 hours drive was not unusual. One of the reasons I gave it up (that and getting bored of having a sore arm).

SLA · « **Reply #42 on:** July 11, 2018, 02:39:07 PM »

Quote from: HallamKeeper on July 11, 2018, 02:20:45 PM

Maybe my hatred of bonus points is because of our stupid league not so much in general.

Yeah, if you play in a win/lose league where 70% of the points available are just for winning, then teams never really think about bonus points until the result is a foregone conclusion anyway. They just add a little bit of extra motivation for both sides to finish strong when getting pumped/pumping your oppo rather than giving up/going through the motions.

Like in a 40 over game, if team A scores 280 and team B is 130-7 after 30 overs, then the result isn't in doubt, but you've at least got a mini game where team B want to score 30 more runs to get to 160 to get a 4rpo bonus point and team A want 3 more wickets.

smilley792 · « **Reply #43 on:** July 11, 2018, 02:54:51 PM »

Quote from: HallamKeeper on July 11, 2018, 02:20:45 PM

Maybe my hatred of bonus points is because of our stupid league not so much in general.

The game against us was a freak occurrence, and we only both ended up with such huge points as the game was technically incomplete(you never finished your innings)

If you was 9 runs short with 1 wicket left on a full game. You�d have only got 8 bonus points and we�d have took 20 for the win.

Normal game is 20 for win if you don�t bowl oppo out, 25 for winning if you do bowl them out.

Dependant on what the losing side do in the second innings depends on what bonus points they get. The closer percentage wise they get to first innings score the more points they get(encourages teams to not block and keep trying to score runs).
The more wickets they take the more bonus points they get, so even if the oppo need ten of 20 overs, you�ll still try to get a wicket or two more to up your points.

They also have a rule to stop opposition blocking up, if the oppo don�t get 50% of the first innings score, they get nothing and the winning side get the extra 5 bowling points even if they don�t bowl them out.

Regardless you should have won. Your openers innings was the best I�ve seen in a long time. Shame he didn�t get a ton.

InternalTraining · « **Reply #44 on:** July 11, 2018, 03:04:24 PM »

Quote from: WalkingWicket37 on July 11, 2018, 01:33:15 PM

That would be great, but the Hampshire league has had 5 panel umpires resign since the start of the season! Finding people to actually do it would be the biggest challenge.

We were short on umpires last year. The league made a rule that each club would provide a number of leg umpires for (leg umpire) training, this is mandatory (compulsory). Now, this year, we have one regular umpire standing at the non-striker end and a leg umpire who belong to a neutral club officiating the game. This has alleviated the problem of umpire shortage.

Author Topic: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation (Read 20756 times)

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

HallamKeeper

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

WalkingWicket37

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

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

SLA

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

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

SLA

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

smilley792

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

InternalTraining

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