Chat Forum
It is currently Mon Aug 20, 2018 1:20 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 9:27 am
Posts: 1076
happyhooker wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
All these people who love test cricket yet the "stadiums" are farking empty

Not in London.


Test cricket happens in places other than London :nod:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19042
slick wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
All these people who love test cricket yet the "stadiums" are farking empty


Have you ever tried getting tickets for Lords or the Oval?

Yes😎😎😎😎😎


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19042
sturginho wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
All these people who love test cricket yet the "stadiums" are farking empty

Not in London.


Test cricket happens in places other than London :nod:

And in other news, water is wet


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:57 pm
Posts: 3138
I'm sure reducing the number of balls bowled from 120 to 100 is going to pull in the young crowd. :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5272
Location: Terenure, Dublin 6, Ireland
Anonymous. wrote:
Miguel Indurain wrote:
ScarfaceClaw wrote:
Tests are too long, let’s have a one day match. One day matches are too long. Let’s have 20/20. Now they’re too long and we have to have an even more contrived shorter format? Fk me. It’s just becoming farcical.


Test match cricket is where it's at.

If you think 5 day test match is too long, you'd never be able for Timeless Tests.

Timeless tests were a thing of their day. The same as 5 day test matches. Most countries host these test matches with one man and his dog watching them.


You have to understand if it's a choice between a dying form of the game like 5 day test cricket and exploring much shorter formats in order to keep the game of cricket alive at a professional level then it's fuck 5 day tests.


Most countries such as who?

I think Cricket has created a bind for itself, in that it sought to spread the game far and wide but in trying to do so it diluted it's own product.

Zimbabwe, a test playing country? Bangladesh? Even Sri Lanka? To be perfectly honest none of these countries should have been granted test status. Ireland :roll:
Test cricket when it was confined to England, Australia, West Indies, India, South Africa, Pakistan and New Zealand, was a good product.

Granting test status to clearly far weaker countries has ruined test cricket as a spectacle.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm
Posts: 9377
Miguel Indurain wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Miguel Indurain wrote:
ScarfaceClaw wrote:
Tests are too long, let’s have a one day match. One day matches are too long. Let’s have 20/20. Now they’re too long and we have to have an even more contrived shorter format? Fk me. It’s just becoming farcical.


Test match cricket is where it's at.

If you think 5 day test match is too long, you'd never be able for Timeless Tests.

Timeless tests were a thing of their day. The same as 5 day test matches. Most countries host these test matches with one man and his dog watching them.


You have to understand if it's a choice between a dying form of the game like 5 day test cricket and exploring much shorter formats in order to keep the game of cricket alive at a professional level then it's fuck 5 day tests.


Most countries such as who?

I think Cricket has created a bind for itself, in that it sought to spread the game far and wide but in trying to do so it diluted it's own product.

Zimbabwe, a test playing country? Bangladesh? Even Sri Lanka? To be perfectly honest none of these countries should have been granted test status. Ireland :roll:
Test cricket when it was confined to England, Australia, West Indies, India, South Africa, Pakistan and New Zealand, was a good product.

Granting test status to clearly far weaker countries has ruined test cricket as a spectacle.


Not sure I really agree - Bangladesh hardly get any tests. Zimbabwe similarly for a decade or so. Ireland and Afghanistan haven't had any yet. Hard to say these teams are diluting anything.

Sri Lanka have produced some of the greatest cricketers of the last 20+ years and at times (and particularly at home) could beat anyone.

I think test cricket's biggest problem is getting people to watch something that takes all day when they have to work. Outside of Engalnd and Australia, test cricket is the least popular version of the international game. And the ECB appear to be doing everything possible to kill it off here at the moment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 5:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11985
Location: Indiana
if they were going to bastardize it anyway, why didn't they instead just have 20 5-ball overs?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 5:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:15 pm
Posts: 1710
happyhooker wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
All these people who love test cricket yet the "stadiums" are farking empty

Not in London.


Test cricket also rates v well on TV every time I've looked on BARB. EDIT: By the standards of pay tv that is.


Last edited by London_Lurker on Fri Apr 20, 2018 5:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 5:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10920
A5D5E5 wrote:
Sri Lanka have produced some of the greatest cricketers of the last 20+ years and at times (and particularly at home) could beat anyone.


...with Test series wins against England in 2003/4, 2007/8 and 2014.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 5:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 34614
Location: Planet Rock
slick wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
All these people who love test cricket yet the "stadiums" are farking empty


Have you ever tried getting tickets for Lords or the Oval?

I'm alright Jack


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 5:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:15 pm
Posts: 1710
The ECB have got themselves in a massive bind, hence this 100 ball abomination.

I assume that when the ECB went 100% to Sky back in '06 (iirc) they thought that eventually pay-to-view sports would massively penetrate the UK market and eventually have a mass viewership.

This hasn't happened.

Sports you get on licence fee still get massively more viewers than their counterpart matches on pay channels. Recent Rugby example: England vs Argentina summer tour tests got 1.5m viewers per match on BBC. Thats double the viewers for the first lions test on sky and (for contrast) more than most Premier league football matches on sky get in the UK (obviously internationally the PL will be watched by millions).

The model for pay for view sports in the UK is to charge a lot of money to give very high quality broadcasting to absolute sports fanboys, but the actual numbers of people watching are comparatively tiny.

All the other sports have by luck or by judgement kept their feet in both the lucrative pay market and the popular licence fee accessible market. Cricket has slowly come to the realisation that it made a mammoth error of judgement going 100% with Sky. They should, at the very least, have found a way to keep home Ashes on terrestrial telly.

Why therefore 100 ball abomination? They have probably sold the rights for any domestic T20 tournament to Sky. The ECB will be absolutely desperate to have something on terrestrial. The beeb have them over a barrel and are demanding that any game they televise won't go over 3 hours (a lot of T20s go about 4 hours).

Combine these factors and you arrive at super abbreviated not-T20 hodgepodge shite. Which will impact negatively on the T20 they already have... ECB know this but are desperate. What a shit-shower.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 5:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:15 pm
Posts: 1710
Anonymous. wrote:
slick wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
All these people who love test cricket yet the "stadiums" are farking empty


Have you ever tried getting tickets for Lords or the Oval?

I'm alright Jack


What is this cricket format that has better attendance and viewing in the UK than test cricket?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 7:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 34614
Location: Planet Rock
Miguel Indurain wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Miguel Indurain wrote:
ScarfaceClaw wrote:
Tests are too long, let’s have a one day match. One day matches are too long. Let’s have 20/20. Now they’re too long and we have to have an even more contrived shorter format? Fk me. It’s just becoming farcical.


Test match cricket is where it's at.

If you think 5 day test match is too long, you'd never be able for Timeless Tests.

Timeless tests were a thing of their day. The same as 5 day test matches. Most countries host these test matches with one man and his dog watching them.


You have to understand if it's a choice between a dying form of the game like 5 day test cricket and exploring much shorter formats in order to keep the game of cricket alive at a professional level then it's fuck 5 day tests.


Most countries such as who?

New Zealand
West Indies
Pakistan
South Africa
India

All these countries regularly play home test matches with hardly anyone to watch it live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:15 pm
Posts: 1710
Anonymous. wrote:
Miguel Indurain wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Miguel Indurain wrote:
ScarfaceClaw wrote:
Tests are too long, let’s have a one day match. One day matches are too long. Let’s have 20/20. Now they’re too long and we have to have an even more contrived shorter format? Fk me. It’s just becoming farcical.


Test match cricket is where it's at.

If you think 5 day test match is too long, you'd never be able for Timeless Tests.

Timeless tests were a thing of their day. The same as 5 day test matches. Most countries host these test matches with one man and his dog watching them.


You have to understand if it's a choice between a dying form of the game like 5 day test cricket and exploring much shorter formats in order to keep the game of cricket alive at a professional level then it's fuck 5 day tests.


Most countries such as who?

New Zealand
West Indies
Pakistan
South Africa
India

All these countries regularly play home test matches with hardly anyone to watch it live.


Even when attendances are sparse the interest and revenue from tests can be huge. The recent SA-India series contesting the #1 test spot was massive. Basically, if you think that cricket is going to die unless you replace every day of test matches with a shorter format then you're wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 11:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 34614
Location: Planet Rock
London_Lurker wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
New Zealand
West Indies
Pakistan
South Africa
India

All these countries regularly play home test matches with hardly anyone to watch it live.


Even when attendances are sparse the interest and revenue from tests can be huge. The recent SA-India series contesting the #1 test spot was massive. Basically, if you think that cricket is going to die unless you replace every day of test matches with a shorter format then you're wrong.


Dream on. Administrators by their words and actions are saying one thing and you are saying another

Quote:
Low crowds at South Africa v. Australia Test raises yet more concerns for the game

DURBAN: When it comes to Test cricket in the modern era, it does not get much better than South Africa against Australia.
In the quarter of a century since the Proteas were readmitted to the international fold, the two teams have clashed in some epic games, in a rivalry that has been both engrossing and bizarre. But judging by attendance figures for the first Test in Durban, you would not know it.
Kingsmead holds 18,000 spectators, and was heaving just over a month ago when Virat Kohli’s Indian side won the first of six ODIs against the hosts. But, for the first day of this eagerly anticipated series – among Test-lovers around the world, at any rate – only 3,957 made it through the turnstiles.


Quote:
Former England captain Mike Brearley believes Test cricket could "die" in countries such as Pakistan, New Zealand and South Africa due to dwindling crowds.

Brearley, who recently stepped down from his role as chairman of the MCC World Cricket Committee, claims Test cricket is facing a looming crisis due to the popularity of the limited-overs game.


Quote:
Cheteshwar Pujara will have dreamt all his life of raising his bat to celebrate a Test century in his home city but he probably never envisaged being greeted by the sight of so many empty yellow, green and blue bucket seats.

Pujara provided the fairy tale by scoring a century in Rajkot’s first Test match. The local media has been full of his story: the father who has coached him all his life but would see him bat live for India for the first time in this match.

Word spread around the city and by the time he reached his hundred the attendance had grown to around 9,000, but for most of the day the crowd was made up of children who had arrived in the yellow school buses parked at the back of the stadium.

The current generation are the fans the Indian board are trying to lure to Test cricket by giving away 15 per cent of tickets at every match in this series to children.



Quote:

DUBAI: Empty seats all round at the Dubai Sports Stadium comes no doubt as bad publicity for Test cricket. Not that this is something new for me or for those who watched a Test before, but rather disappointing for the fact that Friday being a public holiday, the attendance here was very poor.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 12:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21104
I read recently that Sri Lankan players were told not to board a plane for a tour as the politicians hadn't approved the selected side. No wonder they haven't been able to rebuild.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 4:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19042
The ECB doubles down.......

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/201 ... ssion=true


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 4:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21728
Don't agree. Interest rates need to stay where they are for the foreseeable future.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 4:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19042
Uncle Fester wrote:
Don't agree. Interest rates need to stay where they are for the foreseeable future.

Well quite.

(I'm trying to work out which thread you meant to post that on!)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 4:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11793
happyhooker wrote:


What the F&*K x(

They could easily speed things up by bowling bowling 10 overs from one end, and then 10 from the other, eliminating the time lost through the change overs.

We play 20 overs a side and have a 1 hr 20 min time limit on the overs. They should, easily, be able to keep it to no more than 1 1/2 hours per side.

If they want young kids to watch (and still go to bed early) have the games on a Sunday afternoon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 4:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10692
Am I not right in thinking that Test Cricket, and especially the Ashes, are the big cash cow for the ECB? So why are they thinking up even more bizarre ways to distract their players, and future payers from the longer form of the game. Inevitably resulting in more saying, sod this sitting on a balcony for a week carry on. Seems like there has been some really good 4 day cricket played over the weekend, with new potential english stars emerging. Why dont they employ their miriad of marketing twerps to actually market the product they have rather than dream up monorail cricket.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 5:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11793
etherman wrote:
Am I not right in thinking that Test Cricket, and especially the Ashes, are the big cash cow for the ECB? So why are they thinking up even more bizarre ways to distract their players, and future payers from the longer form of the game. Inevitably resulting in more saying, sod this sitting on a balcony for a week carry on. Seems like there has been some really good 4 day cricket played over the weekend, with new potential english stars emerging. Why dont they employ their miriad of marketing twerps to actually market the product they have rather than dream up monorail cricket.


They think they can have both and are underestimating the risks to the longer form - especially in how they are scheduling the season and the effect that will have in the development of 1st class cricketers.

They've just got an enormous TV rights deal, £1.1Bn 2020-2024, years (mostly around international cricket) - about 3 times the value of the last one - but they look at the IPL and see even bigger money - TV rights for IPL (alone) are 3 times what we get for cricket over here. India also has TV deal for Internationals that is comparable to ours.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 6:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10692
ovalball wrote:
etherman wrote:
Am I not right in thinking that Test Cricket, and especially the Ashes, are the big cash cow for the ECB? So why are they thinking up even more bizarre ways to distract their players, and future payers from the longer form of the game. Inevitably resulting in more saying, sod this sitting on a balcony for a week carry on. Seems like there has been some really good 4 day cricket played over the weekend, with new potential english stars emerging. Why dont they employ their miriad of marketing twerps to actually market the product they have rather than dream up monorail cricket.


They think they can have both and are underestimating the risks to the longer form - especially in how they are scheduling the season and the effect that will have in the development of 1st class cricketers.

They've just got an enormous TV rights deal, £1.1Bn 2020-2024, years (mostly around international cricket) - about 3 times the value of the last one - but they look at the IPL and see even bigger money - TV rights for IPL (alone) are 3 times what we get for cricket over here. India also has TV deal for Internationals that is comparable to ours.

They haven't a hope of competing with IPL, that ships sailed. Why not really differentiate and have the best 4 day cricket comp in the world. Actually fix the schedule. Compel test players to play for their counties. Have decent pitches. Get big int test players signed. Get it on terrestrial. Get the newspapers covering it. It's like they're trying to get kids hooked on speed so they can sell them Brown ale when they're older. Weird.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 6:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21728
happyhooker wrote:
Uncle Fester wrote:
Don't agree. Interest rates need to stay where they are for the foreseeable future.

Well quite.

(I'm trying to work out which thread you meant to post that on!)

It's a thread about the ECB. Of course the future direction of interest rates is of primary concern.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 6:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 47103
It's time for.... MULTIBALL!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 6:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32536
happyhooker wrote:


Has any sporting body in history ever lost their marbles so conclusively?

It's a pity, as the city-based 20/20 concept had real potential.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 7:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11793
etherman wrote:
ovalball wrote:
etherman wrote:
Am I not right in thinking that Test Cricket, and especially the Ashes, are the big cash cow for the ECB? So why are they thinking up even more bizarre ways to distract their players, and future payers from the longer form of the game. Inevitably resulting in more saying, sod this sitting on a balcony for a week carry on. Seems like there has been some really good 4 day cricket played over the weekend, with new potential english stars emerging. Why dont they employ their miriad of marketing twerps to actually market the product they have rather than dream up monorail cricket.


They think they can have both and are underestimating the risks to the longer form - especially in how they are scheduling the season and the effect that will have in the development of 1st class cricketers.

They've just got an enormous TV rights deal, £1.1Bn 2020-2024, years (mostly around international cricket) - about 3 times the value of the last one - but they look at the IPL and see even bigger money - TV rights for IPL (alone) are 3 times what we get for cricket over here. India also has TV deal for Internationals that is comparable to ours.

They haven't a hope of competing with IPL, that ships sailed. Why not really differentiate and have the best 4 day cricket comp in the world. Actually fix the schedule. Compel test players to play for their counties. Have decent pitches. Get big int test players signed. Get it on terrestrial. Get the newspapers covering it. It's like they're trying to get kids hooked on speed so they can sell them Brown ale when they're older. Weird.


All things I totally agree with - they could trade a free to air TV deal for lots more promotion of the competition.

Not sure it'd be easy to get big names playing all the time - England players are kept pretty busy with Internationals - but it would certainly help the county game if they played more games. As it stands, they are more likely to be made available just for the new 100 ball abortion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 7:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19042
Uncle Fester wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
Uncle Fester wrote:
Don't agree. Interest rates need to stay where they are for the foreseeable future.

Well quite.

(I'm trying to work out which thread you meant to post that on!)

It's a thread about the ECB. Of course the future direction of interest rates is of primary concern.

Oh my poor sides.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 9:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10920
Exclusive footage of the latest ECB meeting

Spoiler: show
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 9:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10659
Location: Bucks
As to the OP - They are losing their marbles as they're becoming increasingly aware that their Damascene conversion to the fact they've killed the sport has come too late to save it from major damage. It also keeps everyone looking the other way as a whole bunch of clubs up and down the country have taken the April decision that they don't have a viable side anymore and are shutting up shop.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 12:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 47103
From Andy Bull

Quote:
If something isn’t broken …
Each county ground has its own soundtrack, subtly distinct from every other. So at the Oval, there are the schoolchildren playing over the Harleyford Road, the high jet planes on the approach to Heathrow, and the gravelly shouts of “C’mon the ‘rey” from the gruff fan who sits at the back of the Peter May stand. These last few days, while Surrey have been playing Hampshire, there’s been a new undertone below it, murmurs, mutters, disgruntled chuntering about the England and Wales Cricket Board. It’s not an entirely unfamiliar sound, but is louder and more insistent than before. And unlike those other notes, these aren’t unique to the Oval.

As you know by now, the ECB want to launch a new format of the sport, 100 balls-a-side, split into 15 six-ball overs and another, at the end, of 10 balls. Which means they’d need to rewrite the Laws of the sport. The rest of us have been chewing this over for the best part of a week now, and it hasn’t gotten any easier to swallow. The ECB have achieved the difficult feat of bringing English cricket into broad agreement. Almost everyone thinks it stinks, whether they’re from Middlesex, Surrey, Lancashire or any one of the four corners of Yorkshire, love T20 or Tests. The most enthusiastic responses run to lukewarm caution.

Which, the marketing men will tell you, is exactly the reaction the ECB wanted. Because if you already go to the Oval, this competition’s not for you, likewise if you subscribe to Sky, listen to TMS, are a county member, part of the Barmy Army or in the ballot for tickets to the Lord’s Test. When Cricket Australia were setting up the Big Bash, their consultant Dan Migala felt “everyone in the room should feel a little uncomfortable”. If the fans were uneasy, that only meant the plans were radical. “What you have to remember,” Migala said, “is that there’s a lot more people who know nothing about this sport than there are people that love it.”

And that’s the audience the ECB are after, the many more who know nothing about the sport. This is an attempt to fix the mess they made when they sold the TV rights to Sky back in the 2000s. English cricket has never been more popular than it was in 2005, when 22.65m people watched at least 30 minutes of the Ashes, and never been less popular than it is in 2018. The ECB’s own survey of schoolchildren showed that three in five didn’t even rank cricket in their top 10 favourite sports, and adult participation in club cricket dropped by 64,000.

So the ECB have taken Migala’s principle and run with it. They’re so desperate to get back into the mainstream that they’re willing to alienate, and infuriate, the millions of fans who have stuck with them so they can try and sell the sport to an audience who either don’t know it or don’t like it. And they’re going to marginalise, and even scrap, the competitions which serve their existing market, the County Championship, the T20 Blast, the one-day cup, and the women’s Super League, to do it.

Which leaves them in the challenging position of trying to sell cricket to people who don’t like it, when they can’t even satisfy the people who do. In their wisdom, they’ve decided that the complexity of the sport is the big barrier to entry. As England’s director of cricket, Andrew Strauss, said in a clumsy interview last Sunday, they want to “attract a new audience” of “mums and kids in the school holidays” by making the game “as simple as possible for them to understand”. Because mums are incapable of understanding overs. Obviously.

The ECB seem to believe that the public are too simple to understand any of the Laws but the one which awards six runs for a big hit. Which is why, as Tom Harrison, the ECB’s chief executive, wrote in the latest Wisden, people who come to watch the new competition “won’t need to know the ins and out of the LBW law or even how many balls are in an over”, just so long as they enjoy watching “sixes fly”. You wonder exactly what kind of audience Harrison imagines he’s pitching this to. People who won’t even notice that their favourite player has left the middle because he was hit on the pads, who can’t grasp 20 six-ball overs, but can understand 15 with another of 10, at the end.

Shrewd observers will have noticed that cricket already has a format which is designed to appeal to a mass audience, to provide sixes, wickets, and athletic catches. It’s called T20, and it’s the most popular form of the sport in every other cricket-playing country. The ECB actually run a pretty serviceable version of it already. If the broadcasters need the ECB to fit games into a two-and-a-half hour window, fine, bring in stringent punishments for slow play. If the ECB want to attract a new family audience, great, improve the facilities, stop encouraging so much boozing at the grounds, and change-up the marketing campaign.

Instead we have The Hundred, an idea no one in cricket likes, and no one outside cricket knows they want. Harrison and Strauss have so little faith in their own sport they don’t believe it’s fit for purpose, so little respect for their own fans they are sure they can afford to upset them, and so little regard for the general public they believe they can flog them cricket for idiots.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:15 pm
Posts: 1710
croyals wrote:
As to the OP - They are losing their marbles as they're becoming increasingly aware that their Damascene conversion to the fact they've killed the sport has come too late to save it from major damage. It also keeps everyone looking the other way as a whole bunch of clubs up and down the country have taken the April decision that they don't have a viable side anymore and are shutting up shop.


Absolutely. Cricket (test in particular) rates well on sky and the ECB have a monster recent TV deal with sky and the BBC (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2017/06/30/game-changing-tv-deal-sky-bbc-will-broaden-crickets-appeal-says/), but they've become the wealthiest sport that few people watch.

The beeb have the ECB over a barrel because they are obviously desperate about the collapse of general interest in the game. Hence 100 ball simply because T20 is too long for the time slot the Beeb offered. I bet literally no one in the ECB actually thinks its a good idea, and would much rather a re-vamped T20.

I feel sorry for them. In most countries pay channels for sport are normal, and have much greater viewership. I don't think anyone really thought that selling out to sky after 2005 was going to remove cricket so completely from the consciousness of the average sporting fan in England and their kids.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm
Posts: 9377
So I don't actually think the 20/20 format needs any changes ...

... but, if I was going to design a new short format, I'd go with something like...

2 innings of 6 or 7 eight or nine ball overs per side (depending on how the TV companies want the game to be) - reduced changes of end cuts down time to compensate for more changes of innings
2 innings means less need to pack the bowling places with bowlers who bat - allowing bowlers who bowl more chance to play.
2 innings means a team has more chance to recover from a bad start and reduces the chance of the dull games where one side is 20/4 after 4 overs and the game is pretty much dead.
A strict time allowance - a timekeeper allocates overruns and penalises the guilty side (whether batting or bowling) by loss of runs at 2x the innings run rate
Fielding restrictions in place for the whole game.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:15 pm
Posts: 1710
Seneca of the Night wrote:
happyhooker wrote:


Has any sporting body in history ever lost their marbles so conclusively?

It's a pity, as the city-based 20/20 concept had real potential.


They are desperate, they started U-turning a year ago and this hodge-podge is the result.

Quote:
Alongside the promise of more money came assurances in 2005 that viewing habits were changing so rapidly that cricket’s removal from terrestrial television would not be damaging to the sport.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2017/may/17/cricket-free-air-tv-ecb

Turned out to be absolute bollocks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10692
A5D5E5 wrote:
So I don't actually think the 20/20 format needs any changes ...

... but, if I was going to design a new short format, I'd go with something like...

2 innings of 6 or 7 eight or nine ball overs per side (depending on how the TV companies want the game to be) - reduced changes of end cuts down time to compensate for more changes of innings
2 innings means less need to pack the bowling places with bowlers who bat - allowing bowlers who bowl more chance to play.
2 innings means a team has more chance to recover from a bad start and reduces the chance of the dull games where one side is 20/4 after 4 overs and the game is pretty much dead.
A strict time allowance - a timekeeper allocates overruns and penalises the guilty side (whether batting or bowling) by loss of runs at 2x the innings run rate
Fielding restrictions in place for the whole game.


Well shit if you're gonna do all that you might as well make it 5 aside and shrink the pitch to fit in football stadiums.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19042
etherman wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
So I don't actually think the 20/20 format needs any changes ...

... but, if I was going to design a new short format, I'd go with something like...

2 innings of 6 or 7 eight or nine ball overs per side (depending on how the TV companies want the game to be) - reduced changes of end cuts down time to compensate for more changes of innings
2 innings means less need to pack the bowling places with bowlers who bat - allowing bowlers who bowl more chance to play.
2 innings means a team has more chance to recover from a bad start and reduces the chance of the dull games where one side is 20/4 after 4 overs and the game is pretty much dead.
A strict time allowance - a timekeeper allocates overruns and penalises the guilty side (whether batting or bowling) by loss of runs at 2x the innings run rate
Fielding restrictions in place for the whole game.


Well shit if you're gonna do all that you might as well make it 5 aside and shrink the pitch to fit in football stadiums.

Indoor cricket is great craic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10692
Also theres been a few references to baseball on here. But actually what base ball has done pretty succesfully is retained its heritage and traditions in the most part. And the game itself has changed little enough that you can statistically compare older generations to the current players etc. Even young people like stuff that has history attached to it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10904
Location: The Fountain of Running Rugby
etherman wrote:
Also theres been a few references to baseball on here. But actually what base ball has done pretty succesfully is retained its heritage and traditions in the most part. And the game itself has changed little enough that you can statistically compare older generations to the current players etc. Even young people like stuff that has history attached to it.

:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 5:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10659
Location: Bucks
London_Lurker wrote:
croyals wrote:
As to the OP - They are losing their marbles as they're becoming increasingly aware that their Damascene conversion to the fact they've killed the sport has come too late to save it from major damage. It also keeps everyone looking the other way as a whole bunch of clubs up and down the country have taken the April decision that they don't have a viable side anymore and are shutting up shop.


Absolutely. Cricket (test in particular) rates well on sky and the ECB have a monster recent TV deal with sky and the BBC (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2017/06/30/game-changing-tv-deal-sky-bbc-will-broaden-crickets-appeal-says/), but they've become the wealthiest sport that few people watch.

The beeb have the ECB over a barrel because they are obviously desperate about the collapse of general interest in the game. Hence 100 ball simply because T20 is too long for the time slot the Beeb offered. I bet literally no one in the ECB actually thinks its a good idea, and would much rather a re-vamped T20.

I feel sorry for them. In most countries pay channels for sport are normal, and have much greater viewership. I don't think anyone really thought that selling out to sky after 2005 was going to remove cricket so completely from the consciousness of the average sporting fan in England and their kids.

I have to disagree strongly with the last sentence. They got their analysis and were told it was bollocks repeatedly. They didn't care because they thought that chucking money at facilities would mitigate the fact that kids aged 18 today will have no memory of cricket on FTA TV. People won't go down to the club with the new nets if they have no idea what they'd use a net for.

As it happens, I suspect that 'The Hundred' will succeed in its aim of attracting a new audience. I broadly accept that it should make people uncomfortable within cricket and aim at others, I suspect they will still watch the Champ. There is no doubt that behind the ECB board the most damaging people to the sport are its older generation, be they county members or the members of League and Club committees. Cricket will recover from where we are now, but we are not at the lowest ebb yet. They'll lose another 10% of adult playing numbers by the time this new competition draws in a new, and different, audience, and with it a number of the clubs they would like this new audience to go along to and start their own cricketing journeys.

As mentioned before, clubs like mine who have worked hard over decades on having large junior sections and on improving facilities over the years will carry on much as we are, and obviously those with money are fine. A few more will limp grimly on, down to one half respectable team and a rag tag occasional 2s. A lot of smaller clubs will fold, and we will lose the link between cricket and a certain form of Englishness with which it has been associated for generations. And this decision was taken only 13 years ago. Depressing stuff.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 6:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11793
croyals wrote:
London_Lurker wrote:
croyals wrote:
As to the OP - They are losing their marbles as they're becoming increasingly aware that their Damascene conversion to the fact they've killed the sport has come too late to save it from major damage. It also keeps everyone looking the other way as a whole bunch of clubs up and down the country have taken the April decision that they don't have a viable side anymore and are shutting up shop.


Absolutely. Cricket (test in particular) rates well on sky and the ECB have a monster recent TV deal with sky and the BBC (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2017/06/30/game-changing-tv-deal-sky-bbc-will-broaden-crickets-appeal-says/), but they've become the wealthiest sport that few people watch.

The beeb have the ECB over a barrel because they are obviously desperate about the collapse of general interest in the game. Hence 100 ball simply because T20 is too long for the time slot the Beeb offered. I bet literally no one in the ECB actually thinks its a good idea, and would much rather a re-vamped T20.

I feel sorry for them. In most countries pay channels for sport are normal, and have much greater viewership. I don't think anyone really thought that selling out to sky after 2005 was going to remove cricket so completely from the consciousness of the average sporting fan in England and their kids.

I have to disagree strongly with the last sentence. They got their analysis and were told it was bollocks repeatedly. They didn't care because they thought that chucking money at facilities would mitigate the fact that kids aged 18 today will have no memory of cricket on FTA TV. People won't go down to the club with the new nets if they have no idea what they'd use a net for.

As it happens, I suspect that 'The Hundred' will succeed in its aim of attracting a new audience. I broadly accept that it should make people uncomfortable within cricket and aim at others, I suspect they will still watch the Champ. There is no doubt that behind the ECB board the most damaging people to the sport are its older generation, be they county members or the members of League and Club committees. Cricket will recover from where we are now, but we are not at the lowest ebb yet. They'll lose another 10% of adult playing numbers by the time this new competition draws in a new, and different, audience, and with it a number of the clubs they would like this new audience to go along to and start their own cricketing journeys.

As mentioned before, clubs like mine who have worked hard over decades on having large junior sections and on improving facilities over the years will carry on much as we are, and obviously those with money are fine. A few more will limp grimly on, down to one half respectable team and a rag tag occasional 2s. A lot of smaller clubs will fold, and we will lose the link between cricket and a certain form of Englishness with which it has been associated for generations. And this decision was taken only 13 years ago. Depressing stuff.


Will the change form 20 overs to 16.4 really attract a new audience. Surely the new audience will come about by having the competition properly marketed and hyped in the media, having the top stars playing - and being free to air.

To be a real success the game has to appeal to the existing fan base as well as new fans - and not by destroying the 1st class competition. No doubt it will have a certain amount of success - but that would be achieved just as well without the stupid 100 ball change.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: backrow, Bayern, Bert, bessantj, Boxcar Ira, camroc1, Crazy Ed, Dark, DOB, Google Adsense [Bot], guy smiley, handyman, Jim Lahey, koroke hangareka, Liathroidigloine, Margin_Walker, Merciless, nardol, obelixtim, odd144, P in VG, Plato'sCave, rabble, Saint, shortbutlong, Sonny Blount, St_Badger, The Prophet Zarquon, Toro, Trig and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group