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

Does anyone think this is a good idea?

sussexpob wrote:Does anyone think this is a good idea?

I think the only ones so far are contracted to the ECB!

sussexpob wrote:Does anyone think this is a good idea?

I'm not dead set against it, but I entirely accept the point that the ECB dropped the 40 over comp simply because it did not mirror any international format, so there is a level of inconsistency about this that is entirely consistent with the ECB

I imagine that eventually the money will decide. If the sponsors/franchises/broadcasters become a bit more modest about the amount of money they are prepared to pump into it, the ECB will drop the idea like a *modded* stone.

To me it just seems like another gimmick. When will authorities learn the quality of the show is the only thing people care about, and not the endless gimmicks.

I am a grown man.... why does someone thing the number of 100 balls will excite me more?

and yet look at the way T20 took off when it was introduced. Again, I accept that club cricket had played 20 over cricket for years, so it wasn't completely new, but it was certainly new at county and international level. I remember going to the first ever match at the riverside, and nobody had a clue whether the first innings score was a good one, or not

the 10 ball over is a bit of a stretch though, but cricket hasn't always been a 6 ball over game.

Personally I feel that there will be some bean counter reluctance to take a gamble on a new format, when the original format has a proven record, which will kill the idea stone dead. ECB only wants to emulate the revenue potential of the IPL... it could not care less about the cricket, so I expect them to be entirely pragmatic about it.

The shorter span is supposed to be better for tv... but that can't be necessary given how much broadcasting space is given to all other sports on BBC. Strauss seems to be concerned about mothers and children going to games and then getting home and to bed in time for a school day...

My current hunch is it will die unloved within a season. But the crassness of the whole gimmick will contaminate the games that remain (especially the Blast which was doing well).

When did this become Strauss' job. He was supposed to be the England team supremo.

Says a lot that I'm prepared to tolerate changes to T20. If someone suggested making a radical change to the county championship, I'd probably vehemently resist it... because it's t20 it doesn't feel particularly important to me

Arthur Crabtree wrote:When did this become Strauss' job. He was supposed to be the England team supremo.

part of the make it up as you go culture prevalent in the ECB

DFM,

When T20 came in, it satisfied at least a unique type of entertainment, a condensed version of the game. It wasnt like the ECB were trying something like 48.5 over cricket, or the like, which has little effect on the tactics or skills required. And that turned out to be an interesting concept, it brought us a fast version of the game, one that attracted many people. I mean, had they decided to try something absolutely off the hook, like a 10 over slog fest competition, then it may have even made me interested. A form of the game that takes all tactics out, and is simply a quick display of hitting power. Not my thing maybe, but at least different with its advantages.

This 16.4 over concept seems neither here nor there. Not distinct enough from T20 to make it worthwhile, not similar enough to engender any feelings of loyalty to the format.

So Ill simply reject it.

If I want top quality slog festing, Ill turn on the IPL. Or stick with watching a team I actually support.

The irony of Strauss suggesting he wants to targets kids and mothers for 100 ball cricket is the youngsters are rarely interested in watching the game in it's entirety.

Kids either want to play cricket in any given space, wave a flag, sport some colourful objects or see some dazzling displays. Not sit in a stand for 3 hours bored out of their minds and barely understand what is going on. You could have the greatest (or worst match) played out in history, but if the new audience don't feel the emotion of a match outcome then the game is wasted on them.

sussexpob wrote:DFM,

When T20 came in, it satisfied at least a unique type of entertainment, a condensed version of the game. It wasnt like the ECB were trying something like 48.5 over cricket, or the like, which has little effect on the tactics or skills required. And that turned out to be an interesting concept, it brought us a fast version of the game, one that attracted many people. I mean, had they decided to try something absolutely off the hook, like a 10 over slog fest competition, then it may have even made me interested. A form of the game that takes all tactics out, and is simply a quick display of hitting power. Not my thing maybe, but at least different with its advantages.

This 16.4 over concept seems neither here nor there. Not distinct enough from T20 to make it worthwhile, not similar enough to engender any feelings of loyalty to the format.

So Ill simply reject it.

If I want top quality slog festing, Ill turn on the IPL. Or stick with watching a team I actually support.

I understand that entirely, SP, and entirely respect your point of view... one that I imagine will be shared by the 'money'

Further developments - according to The Times the scoreboards for these matches may be "simplified" and could just show the score, number of wickets and balls remaining.
They're also thinking about scrapping extra deliveries for no balls/wides and instead adding runs to the batting side. All to do with the obsession of getting the games finished by 9pm.

they add runs anyway, so presumably they mean add more runs. Getting rid of the free hit sounds like a brave thing to do (as Sir Humphrey might have put it)