Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Posted: **Tue Jun 25, 2013 3:40 pm**

Theoretically eight city franchises could be created for Premier League Cricket; London, Southampton, Bristol, Cardiff, Birmingham, Nottingham, Leeds, Manchester. Have two regional groups of four who play each other twice (6 games), top 2 in each group through to finals day.

The level of success would be mixed though; London and Birmingham have a wide catchment area, Manchester and to a lesser extent Leeds if they are affiliated to their popular football clubs, Nottingham with a hardcore fanbase. Not sure how successful Bristol and Southampton would fare, whereas Cardiff doesn't have a cricket fanbase to fall upon or even top class Welsh cricketers.

Most of the support is going to be artificial and is either reliant on bored football fans or overseas cricket fanatics who might relate to the franchises, very difficult to sustain success when cricket is not the national sport and participation at grassroot levels is dwindling.

Posted: **Tue Jun 25, 2013 3:42 pm**

Kim wrote:One change Id make is getting rid of the heavy roller again. The players don't like it, not a single groundsman wants it - and it creates boring cricket. In Div one there have already been more draws than in the whole of 2011 and we are getting more games like current Notts V Sussex one where they are still in the first innings after 3 days.

Last week or maybe the week before the sun came out and every game was drawn. Its not good.

Having got rid of it, I wonder they brought it back? Somebody must have wanted it

Southwood and I used to have a theory that the absence of the heavy roller meant that the Riverside groundsman prepared the pitch in such a way that it barely deteriorated over the 4 days. I don't know why... perhaps there was a bit of concern that if pitches deteriorated too quickly, and there was no heavy roller to flatten it, there might have been penalties for preparing a poor pitch..... or (heaven forbid) a dangerous pitch.

Whatever the reason, the nature of the Riverside pitch pitch changed markedly over those 2 years, and now it seems to be back to normal (whatever that is).

Posted: **Tue Jun 25, 2013 3:45 pm**

I would abolish the county championship and expand the T20 throughout the season with more games. Much more games.

What? No I'm not tied to a chair with Giles Clarke pointing a gun at my head. Honest.

Posted: **Tue Jun 25, 2013 3:59 pm**

Alviro Patterson wrote:Theoretically eight city franchises could be created for Premier League Cricket; London, Southampton, Bristol, Cardiff, Birmingham, Nottingham, Leeds, Manchester. Have two regional groups of four who play each other twice (6 games), top 2 in each group through to finals day.

The level of success would be mixed though; London and Birmingham have a wide catchment area, Manchester and to a lesser extent Leeds if they are affiliated to their popular football clubs, Nottingham with a hardcore fanbase. Not sure how successful Bristol and Southampton would fare, whereas Cardiff doesn't have a cricket fanbase to fall upon or even top class Welsh cricketers.

Most of the support is going to be artificial and is either reliant on bored football fans or overseas cricket fanatics who might relate to the franchises, very difficult to sustain success when cricket is not the national sport and participation at grassroot levels is dwindling.

which is why I'd separate it out from the county game, and the best way to do that, I think, is to put it all in one place a long way away from a cricket ground. Olympic park would be perfect for that. Easy transport, masses of facilities, every opportunity to turn it into a day out for everyone with shops, markets, bands, jugglers, you blooming name it.... it could be held there alongside the cricket.

Since I stopped thinking of T20 (and particularly the IPL) as being a form of cricket, and started thinking of it as a form of entertainment, a lot of things have suddenly seemed possible, with endless opportunities.

Thinking of a T20 franchise tournament as a cricket competition is just fraught with objections, and problems. Stop thinking cricket.... think entertainment!

suddenly dancing girls, fireworks, tweets, MDF blimps, 40 yard boundaries, huge bats, edged sixes.... seems fine. In fact.... I'd go one step further and ban dibbly dobbly 'pace off the ball' bowling. I'd have big fast bowlers steaming in and banging the ball in short with the batsmen flogging them to all parts ...... brilliant entertainment................. As long as nobody thinks of it as being cricket, it'd work.... definitely

(and if I had the money, and hadn't gone to a school with 'riff raff welcome' on the door, I'd make a stinking fortune out of this idea)

don't expect the ECB to do this, btw..... they'd still think that this idea had something to do with cricket.

Posted: **Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:18 pm**

For a flagship Twenty20 tournament

20 counties (18 first class and 2 minor counties on a licencing system similar to Super League Rugby)
4 groups of 5 randomly drawn, teams play each other once (4 games)
Counties nominate a 16 man squad (maximum of 4 overseas players), non registered county players encourage to join the minor counties
Top 2 through to the quarter finals, winners through to finals day.
ECB make all England players available
Tournament played in July to avoid clashing with football/wimbledon
Tournament completed in 21 days

Posted: **Tue Jun 25, 2013 9:32 pm**

Durhamfootman wrote:...and lots of people watch the IPL on ITV... People will watch anything if it's marketed properly. You adopt a team, I suppose.

I'd hate it, but there you go, that's just me........ lots of people would go for it if you had enough fireworks, loud music and half naked dancing girls.

Sort of polishing a t*rd then, to coin a phrase. I see what you mean now, DF.

Can't see many people turning out to see say, Barnes Bridge v Leyton Panthers from the All London Cricket League. Their players may appreciate getting paid to play, though.

Posted: **Tue Jun 25, 2013 9:52 pm**

I reckon that your average Joe from Wolverhampton, who knows little about cricket but enjoys watching the IPL on ITV has a favourite player and would follow whichever team that that player plays for

My old grandad used to reckon that the only way to sell a turd, is to make it a *modded* shiny one!

and never throw it at county cricket

Posted: **Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:25 pm**

Durhamfootman wrote:I reckon that your average Joe from Wolverhampton, who knows little about cricket but enjoys watching the IPL on ITV has a favourite player and would follow whichever team that that player plays for...

Perhaps, and you're working hard here, DF, but would he hold down a job that paid enough to have any discretionary income that the advertisers may be after? Or any job at all come to that? Maybe not even a TV licence.

Posted: **Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:33 pm**

I don't think I'm working hard at all, DL

I think it's a very simple idea

of course I may not be selling it very well, but I think I am starting to break down some barriers.

Posted: **Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:45 pm**

T20 franchise wouldnt work for numerous reasons.

Posted: **Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:11 am**

SaintPowelly wrote:T20 franchise wouldnt work for numerous reasons.

the first reason being that powelly wouldn't like it

Posted: **Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:26 am**

Durhamfootman wrote:
SaintPowelly wrote:T20 franchise wouldnt work for numerous reasons.

the first reason being that powelly wouldn't like it

I think the idea of moving the centre of gravity from counties to cities will end up with the situation they have in Australia where the quality of the state teams has fallen along with spectator support. If anyone believes you can have a city based franchise T20 competition without adversely affecting the counties, they are wrong.

Posted: **Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:59 am**

hopeforthebest wrote:
Durhamfootman wrote:
SaintPowelly wrote:T20 franchise wouldnt work for numerous reasons.

the first reason being that powelly wouldn't like it

I think the idea of moving the centre of gravity from counties to cities will end up with the situation they have in Australia where the quality of the state teams has fallen along with spectator support. If anyone believes you can have a city based franchise T20 competition without adversely affecting the counties, they are wrong.

There are so many things working against it; the cooperation that would be needed from the established cricket authorities to release players, officials, grounds etc. (and it needs to be borne in mind that such a thing would threaten their jobs), public apathy and therefore unattractiveness to broadcasters, sponsors, advertisers etc. and the fact that there is only so much money that the public will spend on watching cricket, however it's polished.

Posted: **Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:27 pm**

Durhamfootman wrote:I didn't say it would be easy, D/L, the thread asks what I would do.

Posted: **Wed Jun 26, 2013 2:57 pm**

I know DF, but I think it'd be easier to build a bridge across the Atlantic.

Too many vested (self-)interests.

Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

What would you do with the county system?

Re: What would you do with the county system?

Re: What would you do with the county system?

Re: What would you do with the county system?

Re: What would you do with the county system?

Re: What would you do with the county system?

Re: What would you do with the county system?

Re: What would you do with the county system?

Re: What would you do with the county system?

Re: What would you do with the county system?

Re: What would you do with the county system?

Re: What would you do with the county system?

Re: What would you do with the county system?

Re: What would you do with the county system?

Re: What would you do with the county system?

Re: What would you do with the county system?