Page 4 of 6

Re: ICC FTP Reforms

PostPosted: Mon Jun 13, 2016 6:58 am
by Dr Cricket

Re: ICC FTP Reforms

PostPosted: Mon Jun 13, 2016 2:17 pm
by Alviro Patterson
bhaveshgor wrote:2 division likely to be rubber stamp by next month and graves still wants 4 day test cricket although BCCI doesn't want it so it probably won't happen.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricke ... ality.html


I reckon 4 day tests with a reserve day incase of lost play to the weather is workable, matches go beyond the originally scheduled 6hrs of play because of lost time being recovered to weather or fielding sides inability to 15 overs per hour.

A four 8hr test day (including lunch and tea) with 16 overs per hour works out at 112 overs per day, multiply by 4 works out at 448, two overs less than a possible 450 overs in a five 7hr test day.

Re: ICC FTP Reforms

PostPosted: Mon Jun 13, 2016 2:29 pm
by Dr Cricket
true but having a reserve day in case of bad weather makes it the same thing as a 5 day test for the counties, considering they would still have to hire the staff, make plans etc for the extra day.
Having 4 days or 5 days doesn't really make much of a difference.
Not sure having 4 days will work in Australia where the pitches are flat like a pancake and needs 7-8 days just for a result.


But if the pitches are result pitches 4 days work better although not sure on Australia for this.

Really I would stick with 5 days since going to 4 days and draws or poor weather people would want 5 days again and if you have a 4 day test with a reserve day it is literally the same thing as a 5 day test match for each county and they probably wasting more money in buying the stock beforehand and then not using it.

Also would they like a 4 day ashes test or 4 day India test where people would still spend 30-40 pounds on the last day.

Also reckon ticket prices will go up if we get more over.

Re: ICC FTP Reforms

PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2016 10:23 pm
by ianp1970
bhaveshgor wrote:http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/1025727.html

Really good article


Seems almost meritocratic, surely it can't be an ICC idea?

Re: ICC FTP Reforms

PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2016 10:07 am
by Dr Cricket
Seem like meritocratic aspect will be on the ODI system as well.

Re: ICC FTP Reforms

PostPosted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 10:43 am
by Dr Cricket
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/cont ... um=twitter
Champions trophy might be scrapped as well now.

Re: ICC FTP Reforms

PostPosted: Mon Jul 04, 2016 9:34 am
by Dr Cricket
Australia willing to share india overseas tv cash.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/c ... 32005.html

Re: ICC FTP Reforms

PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2016 8:21 am
by Dr Cricket
CA again telling other boards to look at the wider picture after BCCI said it wanted to play all teams and the lower teams would lose out.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/c ... 43941.html

Re: ICC FTP Reforms

PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2016 6:16 pm
by Dr Cricket
what a quote.
Twenty20 will not kill first-class cricket, Test cricket or the 18-county structure, but narrow-mindedness and stuck-in-the-mud traditionalism might.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2016 ... must-be-f/

Also looks like SA are supporting the proposals, which isn't a surprise considering their players and board hated the old system and for years were craving more games with England and Australia.

Re: ICC FTP Reforms

PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2016 1:29 pm
by Alviro Patterson
bhaveshgor wrote:what a quote.
Twenty20 will not kill first-class cricket, Test cricket or the 18-county structure, but narrow-mindedness and stuck-in-the-mud traditionalism might.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2016 ... must-be-f/

Also looks like SA are supporting the proposals, which isn't a surprise considering their players and board hated the old system and for years were craving more games with England and Australia.


Written by a Rugby correspondent, he should stick to the egg chasing.

Re: ICC FTP Reforms

PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2016 2:14 pm
by Dr Cricket
Nothing wrong with what he said.

Re: ICC FTP Reforms

PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2016 5:45 pm
by Alviro Patterson
bhaveshgor wrote:Nothing wrong with what he said.


A 10 match County Championship is still a meaningful competition and matches don't get affected by the weather are debatable claims, what cricket was he watching in April and May?

Twenty20 cricket is indeed the financial lifeblood of domestic cricket, but not at the expense of any county. For the arguments of test venue based Twenty20, no-one has said where the crowds will come from. Glamorgan have yet to sell out their biggest Twenty20 match in over a decade, Durham struggle to attract crowds for internationals let alone Twenty20, Hampshire can't even fill the Rose Bowl despite having history in Twenty20.

What about the non-test counties who are expanding in response to the increasingly popular Natwest T20 Blast? Taunton is going through stadium development, Essex plan to play matches at The Olympic stadium. Kent have potential to draw big crowds if they played at a decent sized venue closer to the capital.

Re: ICC FTP Reforms

PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2016 7:08 pm
by Dr Cricket
well for one he said to have 2 T20 competition.
and it is fact if nothing changes Test cricket will die.
Anyway was basing the quote more on Test cricket than County cricket.

Re: ICC FTP Reforms

PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2016 7:47 pm
by Dr Cricket
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/co ... 45905.html
really good article.

This means that if international cricket becomes even a little less lucrative in Australia, England and India - even if only through the rising appeal of domestic T20 leagues - the entire economy of the international game will suffer. Never mind the cricketing arguments for meritocracy; on a business level, that is poor risk management. The risk to international cricket's future lies not in meritocracy but in rejecting it.


Really this is the major issue and was one critical decision in the Big 3 forming in the first place.

Re: ICC FTP Reforms

PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 1:47 pm
by Alviro Patterson
bhaveshgor wrote:http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/1045905.html
really good article.

This means that if international cricket becomes even a little less lucrative in Australia, England and India - even if only through the rising appeal of domestic T20 leagues - the entire economy of the international game will suffer. Never mind the cricketing arguments for meritocracy; on a business level, that is poor risk management. The risk to international cricket's future lies not in meritocracy but in rejecting it.


Really this is the major issue and was one critical decision in the Big 3 forming in the first place.


While the author is keen to point out Japan's recent rise in Rugby Union, their top tier domestic league had to turn professional in order to compete at international level. As far as I am aware, associate nations are First Class/List A/Twenty20 by virtue of playing international cricket.

For Asscoiate Nations to progress, they need to put a full time domestic league in place. In turn the standard of cricket improves right across the board and one day the ICC can increase the number of teams in ICC events without compromising on quality.