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

Arthur Crabtree wrote:It would help if there was some logic to the CC, like there actually was fairly recently. It feels like it suffers from neglect now.

Main problem with 50 over cricket is its diminished status. But I think otherwise a knockout is a good format.

It was all falling apart well before the hundred though.

My memory is sketchy but think the 50 over game used to be a knockout- but that was the era where we had the Sunday League.

Yes, when they used to have minor county sides. Like Durham...

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Yes, when they used to have minor county sides. Like Durham...

Yes! I think it continued for a while after we got FC status because when I first became a member there were few 50 over games after the inevitable early exit. But if these new proposals are accepted some of the 18 FC counties will , on time, effectively become minor counties.
Alec Stewart critical of the proposals..

All but one div 1 match over after 3 days. Looks as if we're in for a belter of a final round, with positions 6, 7 and 8 on the ladder the only ones still up for grabs

I'm a bit conflicted on the reforms. It's a bit telling when Jon Filby of sussex is quoted as saying that the proposals are, from a high performance perspective, exactly what the game needs, and then goes on to criticise them for other reasons. So yes, they'll work to improve England's performance, but some of the counties have to lose out, so modded off.

It's clear they're trying to emulate the Australian model to some extent, with fewer elite first class teams to push the average standard, the month of the major school holidays (January/August) devoted to T20 nonsense (or hundred even more nonsense) as it is a cash-spinner. I think it's been clear for a while that 18 counties and four competitions is too many, and results in too many compromises in quality to fit in quantity over the season. The trouble is, to fix it, some counties have to lose out. You'd never design a system like the one we have from the ground up, but having got it, someone stands to lose if it's taken away, even if it's for the greater good, so fat chance of it getting anywhere.

Like a lot of problems in politics really.

bigfluffylemon wrote: I think it's been clear for a while that 18 counties and four competitions is too many, and results in too many compromises in quality to fit in quantity over the season. The trouble is, to fix it, some counties have to lose out. You'd never design a system like the one we have from the ground up, but having got it, someone stands to lose if it's taken away, even if it's for the greater good, so fat chance of it getting anywhere.

4 competitions is certainly too many, but Goerge Dobell keeps pointing out that just a handful of years ago, England were the number one test team in the world with the same 18 counties back home. I seem to recall (but I'm happy to be corrected) that after England won in Australia in 2011 that there were conversations in Australia about whether they had enough domestic cricket. It strikes me that the domestic game only comes under the spotlight when the international team is struggling and I suspect that may be true in most countries. The problem, I deduce, is that the problem is not with county cricket, but with England cricket. I saw a reference to Stokes talking about the strain of playing too much cricket. It was mentioned in an article about domestic cricket, but Stokes hardly plays any domestic cricket... apart from the IPL, of course, so he was talking about there being too much England cricket.... which there is, far too much, it's relentless....... but no-one at the ECB ever talks about that, why would they, it's the biggest money spinner they have

and that's the heart of it, I think. Strauss took it upon himself to take the general anger and dissatisfaction with the England team and use it to come up with a review into how best to boil cricket down to only its most lucrative constituents.

and, of course, they see the hundred as potentially their second most lucrative constituent.

They must surely know that currently 12 counties will not agree to their proposals..... so.... extend the hundred to 10 teams for 2 years and then in 2025 put these same proposals to the county chairman as part of a discussion into how best to extend the hundred to 12 counties

it's a funny number is 12.... In cricket, it opens the door to anything you want and counties are businesses after all, with a duty to maximise their revenues

not that I'm being cynical, you understand

So... good Dom Bess was unable to sigle handedly save Yorkshires sorry @rse, but can Warks make them pay for that.

Out of Yorkshire's hands, but a tall order for Warks with a fair bit rain likely around the country tomorrow

simple equation for Warks (and Yorks).... sh1t or bust

Looks like a tall order for Warks, but strange things happen on the last day of the Championship.

Not exactly been a vintage last couple of rounds. Surrey presumably still have the post-victory hangover.

Durhamfootman wrote:

bigfluffylemon wrote: I think it's been clear for a while that 18 counties and four competitions is too many, and results in too many compromises in quality to fit in quantity over the season. The trouble is, to fix it, some counties have to lose out. You'd never design a system like the one we have from the ground up, but having got it, someone stands to lose if it's taken away, even if it's for the greater good, so fat chance of it getting anywhere.

4 competitions is certainly too many, but Goerge Dobell keeps pointing out that just a handful of years ago, England were the number one test team in the world with the same 18 counties back home. I seem to recall (but I'm happy to be corrected) that after England won in Australia in 2011 that there were conversations in Australia about whether they had enough domestic cricket. It strikes me that the domestic game only comes under the spotlight when the international team is struggling and I suspect that may be true in most countries. The problem, I deduce, is that the problem is not with county cricket, but with England cricket. I saw a reference to Stokes talking about the strain of playing too much cricket. It was mentioned in an article about domestic cricket, but Stokes hardly plays any domestic cricket... apart from the IPL, of course, so he was talking about there being too much England cricket.... which there is, far too much, it's relentless....... but no-one at the ECB ever talks about that, why would they, it's the biggest money spinner they have

and that's the heart of it, I think. Strauss took it upon himself to take the general anger and dissatisfaction with the England team and use it to come up with a review into how best to boil cricket down to only its most lucrative constituents.

Pretty much all this DFM.

When England are crap, its the 18 county system's fault.... when Australia are crap, its the 6 state system thats at fault.

Warks v Hants is a tight finish.

Durhamfootman wrote:So... good Dom Bess was unable to sigle handedly save Yorkshires sorry @rse, but can Warks make them pay for that.

Out of Yorkshire's hands, but a tall order for Warks with a fair bit rain likely around the country tomorrow

simple equation for Warks (and Yorks).... sh1t or bust

turns out they can. It was a high risk/reward strategy from Warks, declaring early first innings and forcing a result. It could have easily gone the other way, but it didn't, it worked. And well done Liam Norwell for single handedly keeping them up with a 9 wicket haul. And he must have pretty much bowled all his overs back to back because apart from the two opening bowlers only a handful of overs were used by anybody else

A spectacular result for Warks and perhaps a bit of natural justice too. What the ECB refused to do, the counties did instead

Audacious, nerve shredding win for Warks. Well done to them. Yorks have fewest wins in the division so can have no complaints.

Well done Surrey too.

The Times reporting that Strauss's proposals have all been rejected by the counties! No reduction in Championship matches or changes to the current 2 division system.

good

Durhamfootman wrote:good

Assuming the story is true it seems as if the only change will be to reduce the length of The 100 by a week.