Arthur Crabtree wrote:Root gets rested by England but is available for the IPL.
Where's the anger?
Shame KP didn't get this preferential treatment
Instead there was a witch hunt to get rid of him
Arthur Crabtree wrote:Root gets rested by England but is available for the IPL.
Where's the anger?
Arthur Crabtree wrote:Root gets rested by England but is available for the IPL.
Where's the anger?
sussexpob wrote:No mention of it in this article, but it has been reported that Graves has threatened Surrey with removing the Oval as a venue for the 100 ball spectacular, unless they fall into line and agree with everything he says. As this article says, is the left hand in the same time zone as the right hand? How can Graves talk about tapping into audience growth, and then threaten the biggest success story of T20 cricket in this country with abandonment?
Surrey have had multiple 20,000 plus sell outs at the Oval in 2017. They reported on ticket sales surveyed this year that 45% of buyers are first time live cricket watchers.
But all thats in a mediocre format I guess.
Its going beyond the point of beyond embarrassment
Surrey have been threatened with being removed as a venue for the new 100-ball tournament if they do not fall into line and give their full backing to the new eight-team competition.
Colin Graves, chairman of the ECB, told the Telegraph: “We chose eight venues that we thought were right for the new competition. We offered them [Surrey] the opportunity to be one of those venues. If they don’t want it, fine. But if they do want it, they have to be 100 per cent committed. If they are not on board then, fine, we will go somewhere else.”
It is understood that Surrey received a letter from the ECB shortly after the new 100-ball tournament, being branded “The Hundred”, was announced, requesting a meeting with their committee to ensure it was fully behind the new tournament. It contained a warning that even though the eight venues for The Hundred had been announced they were still “subject to contract” and the team who were to be based at the Oval could be moved.
Alviro Patterson wrote:Opportunity for Middlesex to voice their opposals and throw the 100 ball format into doubt. Good luck to the ECB in trying to find a suitable venue in London during peak summer.
Richard Gould has got the right approach for Twenty20 - just grow the Blast and have a mixture of traditional counties and other named teams.
Alviro Patterson wrote:sussexpob wrote:No mention of it in this article, but it has been reported that Graves has threatened Surrey with removing the Oval as a venue for the 100 ball spectacular, unless they fall into line and agree with everything he says. As this article says, is the left hand in the same time zone as the right hand? How can Graves talk about tapping into audience growth, and then threaten the biggest success story of T20 cricket in this country with abandonment?
Surrey have had multiple 20,000 plus sell outs at the Oval in 2017. They reported on ticket sales surveyed this year that 45% of buyers are first time live cricket watchers.
But all thats in a mediocre format I guess.
Its going beyond the point of beyond embarrassment
Time for Richard Gould to put his name forward for the ECB Chairman's role, shoddy treatment if that is the case though I imagine Surrey can afford not to be involved in the 100 ball circus.
sussexpob wrote:Surrey have had multiple 20,000 plus sell outs at the Oval in 2017. They reported on ticket sales surveyed this year that 45% of buyers are first time live cricket watchers.
Alviro Patterson wrote:
Richard Gould has got the right approach for Twenty20 - just grow the Blast and have a mixture of traditional counties and other named teams.
Arthur Crabtree wrote:Alviro Patterson wrote:
Richard Gould has got the right approach for Twenty20 - just grow the Blast and have a mixture of traditional counties and other named teams.
Or just leave it as it is.
Return to International Cricket
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests