Essex Outfielder : The Unofficial Essex CCC Forum
Off-Topic => In The Hut => Topic started by: Graham93 on November 12, 2016, 08:09:25 PM
-
I wonder whether I am alone in getting driven mad by the constant replays shown during live transmission. I can't tell sometimes which is live and which is not particularly when they show wickets previously fallen in the middle of an over.
-
Annoys me too, I can remember the days when the action replay was "invented", always had something on the screen throughout to show that it was a replay.
-
Grannies would get confused when they first introduced replays and think that a team had just scored two identical goals in the space of thirty seconds.
-
I loathe replays in all sports coverage. There is plenty of time at the interval when I can absent myself. It is particularly galling in rugby where it is not unknown for conversions to be missed whilst replaying the try. There should be an opt out button for replays.
-
Grannies would get confused when they first introduced replays and think that a team had just scored two identical goals in the space of thirty seconds.
Well - as a male granny I never got confused. Ageism is rife on Essex Outfielder. 8) 8)
I like replays. It's good to have a second look to see whether your first reaction was right - whether the decision was right etc. Cricket with it's natural breaks lends itself well to them
But I do, of course, recognise that anything after the 70s/80s is anathema to this board's membership....
-
Grannies would get confused when they first introduced replays and think that a team had just scored two identical goals in the space of thirty seconds.
Well - as a male granny I never got confused. Ageism is rife on Essex Outfielder. 8) 8)
But I do, of course, recognise that anything after the 70s/80s is anathema to this board's membership....
Indeed, it all started going downhill after Mafeking.
-
Grannies would get confused when they first introduced replays and think that a team had just scored two identical goals in the space of thirty seconds.
Well - as a male granny I never got confused. Ageism is rife on Essex Outfielder. 8) 8)
I like replays. It's good to have a second look to see whether your first reaction was right - whether the decision was right etc. Cricket with it's natural breaks lends itself well to them
But I do, of course, recognise that anything after the 70s/80s is anathema to this board's membership....
Not ageism, merely a fact, no offence intended, hell I'm waiting for the craze for "talkies" to blow over.
-
Not only the reply saga , but the coverage of Pujara, who effectively walked without consulting DRS (his batting partner must have also thought he was out, has well has the umpire and himself ) when incorrectly given out LBW.
I wondered if his future test career would be instantly over, by court of media experts commentators, through such a discretion of - walking without revue .
-
Grannies would get confused when they first introduced replays and think that a team had just scored two identical goals in the space of thirty seconds.
Well - as a male granny I never got confused. Ageism is rife on Essex Outfielder. 8) 8)
I like replays. It's good to have a second look to see whether your first reaction was right - whether the decision was right etc. Cricket with it's natural breaks lends itself well to them
But I do, of course, recognise that anything after the 70s/80s is anathema to this board's membership....
Not ageism, merely a fact, no offence intended, hell I'm waiting for the craze for "talkies" to blow over.
No offence taken
-
Sky is optional - I will never subsidise Rupert Murdoch's lifestyle.
-
It's all going to BT in the near future anyway!
-
I will never subsidise Rupert Murdoch's lifestyle.
Don't agree with your moderation but agree with you on that.
-
The best way to appreciate Botham's commentary/views is with the sound turned down/off!!
From what I understand he is a critic of Cook's captaincy - I seem to recall his captaincy record being especially poor - much worse than that of Cook, enough said!!
-
I do, of course, recognise that anything after the 70s/80s is anathema to this board's membership....
Well that was when Essex won stuff so you can understand the desire to live in the past.
-
I do, of course, recognise that anything after the 70s/80s is anathema to this board's membership....
Well that was when Essex won stuff so you can understand the desire to live in the past.
Well that's to ignore the 10 titles Essex have won since 1990.
But, as I say, living in the 70s/80s. 8) 8). Still got your flares VP?
-
Well that's to ignore the 10 titles Essex have won since 1990.
Mostly one day rubbish though.
PS
Although I do have a soft spot for Grant Flower sticking it to Kent I admit.
-
Well that's to ignore the 10 titles Essex have won since 1990.
Mostly one day rubbish though.
PS
Although I do have a soft spot for Grant Flower sticking it to Kent I admit.
Not sure I'd call 60% mostly. But I know it will be "only CC2" next.....
We had an exceptional team in the late 70s/80s. I think we are gradually getting things together now and it would be good to look forward rather than backwards
Now if you can just ditch the Afghan VP you can leave the past behind.
-
I think we are gradually getting things together now and it would be good to look forward rather than backwards
I'm happier than I've been for years as far as Essex are concerned.
That numpty Grayson has finally gone & the club even look to be prioritising their so-called priority.
Wonders never cease.
-
That numpty Grayson has finally gone
Sigh! Not moving on. 8) 8)
-
Did we win the floodlit cup ?
-
Did we win the floodlit cup ?
You mean the one where Essex emulated the Harlem Globetrotters by beating hapless opponents?
Until it was discontinued as Essex became too hapless themselves. ;D
-
Valentines Park being as relevant to county cricket in the second decade of the 21st century as Valentines Park. Some things never change 😃.
-
Valentines Park being as relevant to county cricket in the second decade of the 21st century as Valentines Park. Some things never change 😃.
Yeah, because the loss of outgrounds is a good thing isn't it.
Hope you live in Colchester.
-
Don't live in Colchester and actually Valentines Park was always my favourite outground. The cricket, "proper" and LO, was usually good and unlike other places the local club was happy to sell you pint in their pavilion. I still preferred 3 day to 4 day cricket (with lower over rates and less playing time each day you don't get as much extra cricket in 4 days as you should), liked LO cricket on a Sunday afternoon and the occasional KO LO match on a wednesday, compared to the mess of a schedule we have now. Having said that, all we can do is make the most of what we have now. The way the ECB are going, we might not have it for ever.
-
I have to admit that Sky's coverage is very thorough and you don't miss anything (unlike the time when the BBC moved across to racing just before Gooch reached 300 at Lord's), despite their sometimes irritating commentators. But the real long term effect of their monopoly of home live cricket since 2005 is the withdrawal of the game further and further from people's consciousness. I was watching "Pointless" on TV the other day (it's the kind of thing you do in the winter at my advanced age) when the winning contestants had to name players who'd appeared in the 2015 Ashes for either side. Almost all the Aussies were pointless-including Clarke-as were several England players. Maybe the sample of 100 people who establish the score was unrepresentative but I suspect not. Driven off terrestrial TV by the ECB's megadeal, the game is drifting away from more and more people, especially youngsters. Another reason, incidentally, why the ECB's argument for the City-based T20-ie that it will attract new followers to the game-is so bogus when it will only be shown behind a paywall.
-
My other half's grandkids know the names of the wrestlers and fighters from WWE, UFC all of which is exclusively on Sky and BT. I know people aren't really saying this but it isn't as simple as put it on terrestrial and they will come - although, obviously, there is a bigger audience (only if they watch it, though).
I'd agree that the damage is done but, these days, in general, kids want things that are more instant. That's why I can see the idea of the city based 20/20. Quick sport and teams which youngsters can identify with. I am inclined to the view that if you get the marketing right the terrestrial thing is a it of a red herring
-
My other half's grandkids know the names of the wrestlers and fighters from WWE, UFC all of which is exclusively on Sky and BT. I know people aren't really saying this but it isn't as simple as put it on terrestrial and they will come - although, obviously, there is a bigger audience (only if they watch it, though).
I'd agree that the damage is done but, these days, in general, kids want things that are more instant. That's why I can see the idea of the city based 20/20. Quick sport and teams which youngsters can identify with. I am inclined to the view that if you get the marketing right the terrestrial thing is a it of a red herring
By all means have a city-based tournament. Just don't call it cricket ... instead call it what it is ...
...
baseball.
-
My other half's grandkids know the names of the wrestlers and fighters from WWE, UFC all of which is exclusively on Sky and BT. I know people aren't really saying this but it isn't as simple as put it on terrestrial and they will come - although, obviously, there is a bigger audience (only if they watch it, though).
I'd agree that the damage is done but, these days, in general, kids want things that are more instant. That's why I can see the idea of the city based 20/20. Quick sport and teams which youngsters can identify with. I am inclined to the view that if you get the marketing right the terrestrial thing is a it of a red herring
By all means have a city-based tournament. Just don't call it cricket ... instead call it what it is ...
...
baseball.
Umm. No it's not........
And even if it was if it gets people in to watch then I think that's positive
Speaking as an old fart I know this is an old fart's message board but it is getting sad on here.
-
In my last informal conversation with Nigel Hilliard he said that was what he wanted cricket to become - I kid you not - whole new young impressionable audience and all that...
-
Fact is, when cricket was on the BBC everyone knew the players. Now they don't despite the major successes in The Ashes and generally being far more competitive than back in the 1980s/1990s when I was growing up. The WWE, as admirable as its marketing (and little Asuka) is, doesn't provide a good comparison. It is, after all, a highly individualised 'sport' that relies heavily upon a very limited number of over-the-top characters. They might sell out the MEN Arena once a year, but that's not the same as supporting even 8 professional teams. In addition, the WWE was not behind a paywall back in the day - only the major 'events'. Baseball and NFL have a cult following over here - unfortunately that's we're going to get if Hilliard gets his way.
-
It's a perfectly fair comparison. These days a lot of people spend their time online and get their heroes from there and on TV. The fact that WWE, UFC, baseball, US Football don't have many events over here goes some way to proving that. Kids want to be McGregor, The Rock whoever - not Jimmy Anderson or Stuart Broad
In the halcyon days when cricket was on "proper telly" there wasn't anywhere as much competition for attention from other sports (particularly American ones). I wonder how many kids would know more names of the players from the Patriots, Dodgers, Bulls etc than from Essex, Hampshire etc. They'll probably know the names of the stars too - Tom Brady etc -when they wouldn't know Cooky.
Cricket isn't fast enough or interesting enough for many youngsters these days and is losing ground. Somehow you've got to try to get them back. If that means a city based tournament with all the bells and whistles that will come with it then sobeit. Maybe, just maybe, if they get hooked on Ben Stokes, Moeen Ali, whoever in the 20/20 format they'll be interested in watching their heroes in the longer forms of the game
That might all be cobblers but cricket sure as hell isn't getting it right now
There is, of course, an additional discussion about selling off school playing fields/cutting down on team sports at school to be had
-
Neil, how will a city based t20 tournament be any more whizz bang than a county based one? If you want to have city based rivalries then Liverpool and Manchester will need teams, as will Leeds, Sheffield, Norwich, Ipswich etc. That's why there's 92 league clubs. The rugby experience demonstrates concocted teams don't work in the U.K. Plenty of South Asian diaspora play cricket in leagues unrelated to the county set up. That's where the ecb have got it wrong for years, not tapping into the actual support but preferring to rely upon public school kids.
-
Neil, how will a city based t20 tournament be any more whizz bang than a county based one? If you want to have city based rivalries then Liverpool and Manchester will need teams, as will Leeds, Sheffield, Norwich, Ipswich etc. That's why there's 92 league clubs. The rugby experience demonstrates concocted teams don't work in the U.K. Plenty of South Asian diaspora play cricket in leagues unrelated to the county set up. That's where the ecb have got it wrong for years, not tapping into the actual support but preferring to rely upon public school kids.
Well.
I think there may be more identification with city teams for those who aren't, currently, that interested in cricket. Transport may well be better - people will come from all different parts. Look at London - as opposed to Chelmsford.
There are plenty more things going on before and after the games for the younger element. They can stay out longer and get home easier. London has night tubes now, for example. Cities, often, have large working populations. If you time your games right then you can aim at folks who are leaving work. 7pm start on a Friday night - a few beers before the game with your work mates and time for hitting the bars when it's over
You have to start anew - not look at football which had had clubs going for ages. And not a big number of cities - you need to have real star studded teams - not watered down by too many sides etc etc
I've never said I support it btw but I can see the arguments. And we do have to find something fresh - not based on the past..
I agree completely with your views on concentrating on the public schools btw. But how many of the kids who haven't been targeted live in or around the cities?
-
Understand the theory but there is already a shining example of a big city team failure in the second biggest city in the country. Crowds there have fallen since the name change. Or is it the fault of the opponents, being called counties rather than cities that is keeping the locals away?
-
Understand the theory but there is already a shining example of a big city team failure in the second biggest city in the country. Crowds there have fallen since the name change. Or is it the fault of the opponents, being called counties rather than cities that is keeping the locals away?
Well. It's not the fault of the opponents that's for sure
And, to be fair, Birmingham are the only city team out there. We are talking about a competition with eight city teams with proper marketing with a number of big name players in each side. Personally, Ireckon a London team would do well
Look I haven't really thought about this before. I am stuck indoors with a bad back - to an extent anyway - making it up as I go along. But the more I do ruminate on it the more I can see some of the logic. And, I'm happy to present an alternative view to stimulate some conversation on this board.
Plus - I haven't seen other suggestions to getting younger supporters going to the games.
ETA. Having had a quick look. Birmingham finished sixth last year and played 14 games. Seemed to start okay and fall away. 14 games is quite a lot if you aren't doing well (I haven't checked how the attendances went to be fair!) . A shorter sharper tournament may retain the interest more - which would give some support to a two league 20/20 as an alternative, I guess
-
The London teams already do very well for attendances, particularly games against each other, us and to some extent Kent, which is why Surrey are not keen on the proposal. As for the northern and midlands cities, they have all failed to connect with their diverse populations, who turn out in large numbers when the international teams that they support are in town. Would re-naming the teams make a difference? We need to attract young people to the game but cricket has a boring image which is going to be hard to break, I don't think the excessive media attention to test matches and the snobbery within the game and county memberships to anything that's not "proper" helps. I think the terrestrial tv argument is a fallacy, would be good for the something for nothing people that watched it before, but as was in the news this week, young people spend more time on line than watching tv. I don't know the answers but suspect the city league would cause more damage than good. A 2 division league would improve competition though as it has in the championship, so I do support that.
-
The London teams already do very well for attendances, particularly games against each other, us and to some extent Kent, which is why Surrey are not keen on the proposal. As for the northern and midlands cities, they have all failed to connect with their diverse populations, who turn out in large numbers when the international teams that they support are in town. Would re-naming the teams make a difference? We need to attract young people to the game but cricket has a boring image which is going to be hard to break, I don't think the excessive media attention to test matches and the snobbery within the game and county memberships to anything that's not "proper" helps. I think the terrestrial tv argument is a fallacy, would be good for the something for nothing people that watched it before, but as was in the news this week, young people spend more time on line than watching tv. I don't know the answers but suspect the city league would cause more damage than good. A 2 division league would improve competition though as it has in the championship, so I do support that.
Agree very much with a lot of this - in fact almost all of it!
I guess I think the City league may "break the mould" so from that point of view, on reflection, I might support it.
Definitely a 2 division league, if not
-
I just don't get it ...
...
the current tournament is doing well, year on year increases in attendances, all counties start off with an equal chance of winning the competition. Very few 'dead' matches.
It ain't broke ... despite what the ECB and players might say.
-
A few of the possible reasons
Money. Lots of counties are struggling. The carrot of a big TV deal for a big bash sort of thing would be tempting
Quality. Is our Twenty20 that good?
Crowds. A lot of counties aren't anywhere near selling out the games
Getting youngsters involved/interested in cricket. I have sympathy for this one
I, personally, think 14 games plus is too much.
-
Are we all barking up the wrong tree, and it's just that life in general has moved on?
We are classical music lovers and have noticed, over the 40-odd years we've been going to musical events, that less and less younger people attend concerts - even city-based ones. Sometimes we feel that we're amongst the youngest in the audience (69 and 66). Classical music has suffered a lack of terrestrial TV coverage in the same way that cricket has, but for a different reason - they just don't bother any more. There used to be regular classical music series; plenty on at Christmas and New Year; even the commerical channels showed classical music programmes. But we don't think it's the lack of TV coverage that's caused waning interest, just that life is different now and younger generations are into different things.
Our only consolation is that maybe people come to classical music (and cricket) as they get older and start to appreciate different forms of entertainment.
Lynda and Steve
-
Linda and Steve have a point, why should we bother so much about the young demographic, but I have a different take.
What we know about youth culture is that it's mostly middle aged who spend much time trying to guess 'what the kids'll like'. We see it in TV and pop music (think 40 year old gay men trying to be 'hip') even in church movements (think 40 year old pastors in ripped jeans) as well as more notorious religious groups (Al-Qaeda, ISIL). Sometimes it works, unfortunately in some cases when it leads to exploitation of youthful naivety and ignorance, but often it doesn't: just attend one of my lectures.
However, there are two other characteristics of youth culture: it can be emergent, fashions popping up unexpectedly from those not paid to "know what the kids'll like", as well as cyclical. Who would've thought 20 years ago that in the era of the internet that a series of books with long, complex plots about good and evil would be so massive - 500 pages of long words with no pictures whatsoever!
So, perhaps we should be mindful not to thrash around too much with the county system in a frantic attempt to get down with the kids. There's a need to stick with a routine format that is bringing in families, however I still think that whilst the to audiences aren't what they were, terrestrial to coverage is more valuable than we think: millions still watch the drivel on the 4 main channels, not all youngsters are online all the time and anyway it is not a bad idea to reconnect with their parents and grandparents who are the ones who will pay for the tickets...
...also, classical music is unfashionable with the TV companies at the moment, but the likes of Andre Rieu sell out across the globe targeting the older audience who have the money. Who's to say that a Nigel Kennedy-esque star with street cred won't emerge in the future?
-
Not sure where you are coming from now Andy.
In one post you are saying that the ECB has got it wrong in concentrating on the public schools - now you are saying we shouldn't get "down with the kids". Which is not what anyone is saying, anyway. It's about looking at ways to get the younger generation attending, and participating in, cricket.
At the moment it would appear that this demographic have not much interest in the game - whether we like it or not. I don't agree with you about terrestrial TV - there is coverage now on Channel5 so it's not like it's not available at all. And it's packaged highlights at what would seem a reasonable hour. I can't say I have come across many younger folk who watch it. With the ability to watch telly in different rooms, on tablets etc as well as being online I can't see a sudden influx of families sitting down together to watch cricket if it miraculously appeared on terrestrial TV.
And are we really talking about "thrashing around with the county game" (love your emotive language) - nope - we are looking at taking one competition and changing it to see if it will produce some benefits - while still retaining the major part of cricket as we know it
You talk about J K Rowling and who'd have thought it. Who'd have thought it a number of years back that we would be playing Twenty/20 cricket under lights with rock music blaring out between balls and overs.
-
Da playerz needs to like, wear those baseball caps with the flat peaks and the stickers on them innit.
-
Half hour packages on Channel 5 which sometimes go out around mid night is not going to entice anybody very much. In 2005 ( not exactly at the other end of time) when the Ashes were shown on Channel 4 the whole nation seemed to be hooked and I remember the scenes in Trafalgar Square etc with the route crowded with thousands of people. It was immediately after that that the ECB took the decision to go with Murdoch's money which many of us at the time said was craven,short term and disastrous in respect of the long term health of the game. And so it has transpired.
Most of those interested in the sport have been enticed by the test matches of recent years and intrigued, for instance by the current state of Australian cricket - the yardstick of whether you can play the game is still whether you can cut it in the longer format and in tests in particular. How many can ever remember the results of most 20:20 matches anywhere, domestic or otherwise.It is the epitome of an instant buzz- unenduring and disposable.
I understand that although the test match gates in Bangladesh and India have been meagre the interest in terms of following the games remotely has been astonishing. In a lesser way in this country thousands follow the county championship through cric info etc than ever attend, because by its very nature many people can't attend it because of work commitments or the insanity of getting rid - wholesale- of festival cricket where numbers attending are usually significantly higher pace Scarborough, Cheltenham , Colwyn Bay etc. ( As an aside a senior member of the Gloucester committee me that the Gloucester CEO and Chairman were summoned to the ECB who demanded to know why they were maintaining the Cheltenham festival for the foreseeable future . Again j'accuse the ECB).
I am not a marketing man but there must be a way to harness more profitably and favourably that remote interest in the longer form of the game which can result in more income and/or more attendance at meaningful cricket matches.
-
Half hour packages on Channel 5 which sometimes go out around mid night is not going to entice anybody very much. In 2005 ( not exactly at the other end of time) when the Ashes were shown on Channel 4 the whole nation seemed to be hooked and I remember the scenes in Trafalgar Square etc with the route crowded with thousands of people. It was immediately after that that the ECB took the decision to go with Murdoch's money which many of us at the time said was craven,short term and disastrous in respect of the long term health of the game. And so it has transpired.
Most of those interested in the sport have been enticed by the test matches of recent years and intrigued, for instance by the current state of Australian cricket - the yardstick of whether you can play the game is still whether you can cut it in the longer format and in tests in particular. How many can ever remember the results of most 20:20 matches anywhere, domestic or otherwise.It is the epitome of an instant buzz- unenduring and disposable.
I understand that although the test match gates in Bangladesh and India have been meagre the interest in terms of following the games remotely has been astonishing. In a lesser way in this country thousands follow the county championship through cric info etc than ever attend, because by its very nature many people can't attend it because of work commitments or the insanity of getting rid - wholesale- of festival cricket where numbers attending are usually significantly higher pace Scarborough, Cheltenham , Colwyn Bay etc. ( As an aside a senior member of the Gloucester committee me that the Gloucester CEO and Chairman were summoned to the ECB who demanded to know why they were maintaining the Cheltenham festival for the foreseeable future . Again j'accuse the ECB).
I am not a marketing man but there must be a way to harness more profitably and favourably that remote interest in the longer form of the game which can result in more income and/or more attendance at meaningful cricket matches.
But, to be fair, it is only really the Ashes series that engender any major "non cricket" interest
Problem is that people following the scores on Crickinfo (or wherever) aren't putting money into the county coffers. I get what you say - maybe there is scope for some sort of twin attack - one through the longer forms of the game -the other through Twenty20. But we can't do nothing - and getting younger folk engaged is a priority - for me anyway!
-
Not sure where you are coming from now Andy.
In one post you are saying that the ECB has got it wrong in concentrating on the public schools - now you are saying we shouldn't get "down with the kids". Which is not what anyone is saying, anyway. It's about looking at ways to get the younger generation attending, and participating in, cricket.
At the moment it would appear that this demographic have not much interest in the game - whether we like it or not. I don't agree with you about terrestrial TV - there is coverage now on Channel5 so it's not like it's not available at all. And it's packaged highlights at what would seem a reasonable hour. I can't say I have come across many younger folk who watch it. With the ability to watch telly in different rooms, on tablets etc as well as being online I can't see a sudden influx of families sitting down together to watch cricket if it miraculously appeared on terrestrial TV.
And are we really talking about "thrashing around with the county game" (love your emotive language) - nope - we are looking at taking one competition and changing it to see if it will produce some benefits - while still retaining the major part of cricket as we know it
You talk about J K Rowling and who'd have thought it. Who'd have thought it a number of years back that we would be playing Twenty/20 cricket under lights with rock music blaring out between balls and overs.
Neil, perfectly simple. The franchise nonsense is a prime example of marketing bull showing little understanding both of the traditional supporter or 'the kids'.
There isn't much coverage on channel 5, it's minimal and poorly timed. Always admired Sunset and Vines approach to the televising of live or highlights.
What you describe about T20 isn't that surprising if you consider Packer was doing all that in 1977. Point is that we can't be sure that the wheel won't come full circle and the kids will suddenly discover the longer game - despite the apparent attempts by Vaughan et al to destroy the 4 day game.
P.S. Hope the back situation improves.
-
Not sure where you are coming from now Andy.
In one post you are saying that the ECB has got it wrong in concentrating on the public schools - now you are saying we shouldn't get "down with the kids". Which is not what anyone is saying, anyway. It's about looking at ways to get the younger generation attending, and participating in, cricket.
At the moment it would appear that this demographic have not much interest in the game - whether we like it or not. I don't agree with you about terrestrial TV - there is coverage now on Channel5 so it's not like it's not available at all. And it's packaged highlights at what would seem a reasonable hour. I can't say I have come across many younger folk who watch it. With the ability to watch telly in different rooms, on tablets etc as well as being online I can't see a sudden influx of families sitting down together to watch cricket if it miraculously appeared on terrestrial TV.
And are we really talking about "thrashing around with the county game" (love your emotive language) - nope - we are looking at taking one competition and changing it to see if it will produce some benefits - while still retaining the major part of cricket as we know it
You talk about J K Rowling and who'd have thought it. Who'd have thought it a number of years back that we would be playing Twenty/20 cricket under lights with rock music blaring out between balls and overs.
Neil, perfectly simple. The franchise nonsense is a prime example of marketing bull showing little understanding both of the traditional supporter or 'the kids'.
There isn't much coverage on channel 5, it's minimal and poorly timed. Always admired Sunset and Vines approach to the televising of live or highlights.
What you describe about T20 isn't that surprising if you consider Packer was doing all that in 1977. Point is that we can't be sure that the wheel won't come full circle and the kids will suddenly discover the longer game - despite the apparent attempts by Vaughan et al to destroy the 4 day game.
P.S. Hope the back situation improves.
Hi Andy.
Back still sore thank you. More annoyingly it was my own stupid fault! 8)
Well I think if you are waiting for the wheel to turn full circle you may be waiting a long time. As Linda and Steve indicated in their eminently sensible post times have changed.
The franchise system may - or may not - be nonsense but I reckon it's worth a try. After all we have other forms of the game for the "traditionalists" and it's there if the youngsters want to go back to it at some time. So experiment with the Twenty/20 -I'm not sure there is much to lose is there? If it turns out to be a dumb idea and fails then back to where we were before - if it works then all good.
-
There's 14 years of popular t20 tradition at Chelmsford already, so I am opposed to anything that will do damage to that, and city t20 will. It's the thin end of the wedge, whatever the liars say there won't be room in the calendar for traditional t20 as well. Once that goes, the end is nigh for the non-test ground counties. We will see flats built on the County Ground, a lot more than the failed redevelopment planned.
-
There's 14 years of popular t20 tradition at Chelmsford already, so I am opposed to anything that will do damage to that, and city t20 will. It's the thin end of the wedge, whatever the liars say there won't be room in the calendar for traditional t20 as well. Once that goes, the end is nigh for the non-test ground counties. We will see flats built on the County Ground, a lot more than the failed redevelopment planned.
Or the city Twenty/20 will be a success - gets in money that goes to the counties and Chelmsford will be safe for ever....
Who knows. But one thing that comes out in this thread that no-one seems to have a good alternative.
-
I have a good idea ...
...
keep T20 as it is. You want T20 city coverage? You got it.
Yorkshire (Leeds)
Lancs (Manchester)
Birmigham (War)
London (Middx and Surrey who regularly sell out)
Bristol (Glo)
Cardiff ....etc etc.
plus many other counties sell out their grounds.
Leave it alone.
-
I have a good idea ...
...
keep T20 as it is. You want T20 city coverage? You got it.
Yorkshire (Leeds)
Lancs (Manchester)
Birmigham (War)
London (Middx and Surrey who regularly sell out)
Bristol (Glo)
Cardiff ....etc etc.
plus many other counties sell out their grounds.
Leave it alone.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2016/07/27/t20-revolution-provides-radical-change-needed-to-get-everyone-ta/
Don't necessarily agree with all that Michael Vaughan says but the ticket sale figures at the bottom of the article are illuminating
-
There's 14 years of popular t20 tradition at Chelmsford already, so I am opposed to anything that will do damage to that, and city t20 will. It's the thin end of the wedge, whatever the liars say there won't be room in the calendar for traditional t20 as well. Once that goes, the end is nigh for the non-test ground counties. We will see flats built on the County Ground, a lot more than the failed redevelopment planned.
Or the city Twenty/20 will be a success - gets in money that goes to the counties and Chelmsford will be safe for ever....
Who knows. But one thing that comes out in this thread that no-one seems to have a good alternative.
If it works City T20 will increase Essex's income from the ECB while reducing the income that Essex generate from their own games (Our T20 will be seen by players, the media, sponsors, spectators as second rate). Same for all the other outsiders. Increasing their financial dependence on the ECB cannot be good, and at some stage some bright spark in the ECB will ask why they are paying tens of millions of pounds a year between them to these counties in whom very few people are interested and maybe each produce an England player once a decade if that? Couldn't this money be put to better use elsewhere? Don't most of these counties occupy prime land ripe for residential development? We're doomed!
-
Yep this initiative is part of a strategy by the ECB to exert total control of all professional cricket in England. It must be resisted.
-
I have a good idea ...
...
keep T20 as it is. You want T20 city coverage? You got it.
Yorkshire (Leeds)
Lancs (Manchester)
Birmigham (War)
London (Middx and Surrey who regularly sell out)
Bristol (Glo)
Cardiff ....etc etc.
plus many other counties sell out their grounds.
Leave it alone.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2016/07/27/t20-revolution-provides-radical-change-needed-to-get-everyone-ta/
Don't necessarily agree with all that Michael Vaughan says but the ticket sale figures at the bottom of the article are illuminating
Comparing countries is pointless, different geography, different grounds, different competing sports and other attractions) The county figures illustrate the failure of most of the big city grounds to sell tickets to their locals, even the one that has changed it's name. And the non big city clubs are getting the blame. It is fanciful to suggest that will change and generate the sort of sums that are being promised to counties.
-
It doesn't matter if the promised income fails to materialise. The ECB has enormous reserves and will use them to pay the promised money to the counties. Make no mistake this is a battle for county survival... not not in the way that struggling counties see it.
-
I have a good idea ...
...
keep T20 as it is. You want T20 city coverage? You got it.
Yorkshire (Leeds)
Lancs (Manchester)
Birmigham (War)
London (Middx and Surrey who regularly sell out)
Bristol (Glo)
Cardiff ....etc etc.
plus many other counties sell out their grounds.
Leave it alone.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2016/07/27/t20-revolution-provides-radical-change-needed-to-get-everyone-ta/
Don't necessarily agree with all that Michael Vaughan says but the ticket sale figures at the bottom of the article are illuminating
Comparing countries is pointless, different geography, different grounds, different competing sports and other attractions) The county figures illustrate the failure of most of the big city grounds to sell tickets to their locals, even the one that has changed it's name. And the non big city clubs are getting the blame. It is fanciful to suggest that will change and generate the sort of sums that are being promised to counties.
I didn't post it as a comparison. I put it out there in response to nat's comments about many other counties selling out their grounds
-
It doesn't matter if the promised income fails to materialise. The ECB has enormous reserves and will use them to pay the promised money to the counties. Make no mistake this is a battle for county survival... not not in the way that struggling counties see it.
Disagree. It's about changing one of the competitions.
-
What happens to the outsider counties if Cityt20 happens may be open to debate but one thing is certain, that they will be even more dependent on ECB funding than ever. And it is not just changing one competition, it is introducing a new competition with a detrimental effect on existing competitions.
-
What happens to the outsider counties if Cityt20 happens may be open to debate but one thing is certain, that they will be even more dependent on ECB funding than ever. And it is not just changing one competition, it is introducing a new competition with a detrimental effect on existing competitions.
To be honest none of us know if that is the case do we? I admit to punting on this a bit but I don't really see T20 affecting the CC or the other non T20 competitions.
I just don't think standing still is an option. As I have said on a number of occasions I reckon there are too many T20 games. I like the two division option, as it happens, but can also see a short, sharp fewer teams competition being attractive
As a TV viewer I very much enjoyed the IPL and the Big Bash. They may not be comparable but the fact that they are over a discreet period enhanced them IMHO. It focussed attention for a start.
-
In my last informal conversation with Nigel Hilliard he said that was what he wanted cricket to become
Always thought he was an idiot.
Thanks for the confirmation.
-
What happens to the outsider counties if Cityt20 happens may be open to debate but one thing is certain, that they will be even more dependent on ECB funding than ever. And it is not just changing one competition, it is introducing a new competition with a detrimental effect on existing competitions.
To be honest none of us know if that is the case do we? I admit to punting on this a bit but I don't really see T20 affecting the CC or the other non T20 competitions.
I just don't think standing still is an option. As I have said on a number of occasions I reckon there are too many T20 games. I like the two division option, as it happens, but can also see a short, sharp fewer teams competition being attractive
As a TV viewer I very much enjoyed the IPL and the Big Bash. They may not be comparable but the fact that they are over a discreet period enhanced them IMHO. It focussed attention for a start.
Neil, I'm never frightened of change, but I'm afraid on this occasion T20 City cricket is one change too far. The Big Bash...great eh...done wonders for Aussie Cricket hasn't it, just look how good they are at the moment...oh hang on....
The ECB is after full control of the game. Graves, aided by Bramsgrove is after killing off the non test ground counties.
they must be stopped. every opportunity we have to take the fight to them, we should and I'm not joking.
-
What happens to the outsider counties if Cityt20 happens may be open to debate but one thing is certain, that they will be even more dependent on ECB funding than ever. And it is not just changing one competition, it is introducing a new competition with a detrimental effect on existing competitions.
To be honest none of us know if that is the case do we? I admit to punting on this a bit but I don't really see T20 affecting the CC or the other non T20 competitions.
I just don't think standing still is an option. As I have said on a number of occasions I reckon there are too many T20 games. I like the two division option, as it happens, but can also see a short, sharp fewer teams competition being attractive
As a TV viewer I very much enjoyed the IPL and the Big Bash. They may not be comparable but the fact that they are over a discreet period enhanced them IMHO. It focussed attention for a start.
Neil, I'm never frightened of change, but I'm afraid on this occasion T20 City cricket is one change too far. The Big Bash...great eh...done wonders for Aussie Cricket hasn't it, just look how good they are at the moment...oh hang on....
The ECB is after full control of the game. Graves, aided by Bramsgrove is after killing off the non test ground counties.
they must be stopped. every opportunity we have to take the fight to them, we should and I'm not joking.
Sure
As I've said a couple of times I am playing devils advocate to an extent - although by doing it I am beginning to see of the attractions of a city based smaller T20.
My serious concern is the lack of younger participants/spectators because that impacts on the future of the game. I guess that you can't really see the real effect of, say, the Big Bash until you find out if the crowd and playing demographic has changed in the future.
The majority of the posters here, appears that way anyway, are in the "old git" group like me and, perhaps, the long term isn't so important to us. Which is fair enough
I'd be genuinely interested in suggestions as to how to make the game more attractive to youngsters - apart from "with a bit of luck the tide will turn" for all the negative comments about the city tournament I haven't really seen anything concrete on here
-
I'd be genuinely interested in suggestions as to how to make the game more attractive to youngsters -
That's easy. Tell them that they can play with a game controller and HD TV screen.
-
What happens to the outsider counties if Cityt20 happens may be open to debate but one thing is certain, that they will be even more dependent on ECB funding than ever. And it is not just changing one competition, it is introducing a new competition with a detrimental effect on existing competitions.
To be honest none of us know if that is the case do we? I admit to punting on this a bit but I don't really see T20 affecting the CC or the other non T20 competitions.
I just don't think standing still is an option. As I have said on a number of occasions I reckon there are too many T20 games. I like the two division option, as it happens, but can also see a short, sharp fewer teams competition being attractive
As a TV viewer I very much enjoyed the IPL and the Big Bash. They may not be comparable but the fact that they are over a discreet period enhanced them IMHO. It focussed attention for a start.
Neil, I'm never frightened of change, but I'm afraid on this occasion T20 City cricket is one change too far. The Big Bash...great eh...done wonders for Aussie Cricket hasn't it, just look how good they are at the moment...oh hang on....
The ECB is after full control of the game. Graves, aided by Bramsgrove is after killing off the non test ground counties.
they must be stopped. every opportunity we have to take the fight to them, we should and I'm not joking.
Sure
As I've said a couple of times I am playing devils advocate to an extent - although by doing it I am beginning to see of the attractions of a city based smaller T20.
My serious concern is the lack of younger participants/spectators because that impacts on the future of the game. I guess that you can't really see the real effect of, say, the Big Bash until you find out if the crowd and playing demographic has changed in the future.
The majority of the posters here, appears that way anyway, are in the "old git" group like me and, perhaps, the long term isn't so important to us. Which is fair enough
I'd be genuinely interested in suggestions as to how to make the game more attractive to youngsters - apart from "with a bit of luck the tide will turn" for all the negative comments about the city tournament I haven't really seen anything concrete on here
I'm still working, have plenty of time to watch T20 cricket, but I will never support anyone, or go and watch anyone, other than Essex, or England.
I especially wouldn't pay to watch anything that benfitted the ponced up public school w***ers that are Middlesex CCC
As above, it's all about them controlling us....
-
What happens to the outsider counties if Cityt20 happens may be open to debate but one thing is certain, that they will be even more dependent on ECB funding than ever. And it is not just changing one competition, it is introducing a new competition with a detrimental effect on existing competitions.
To be honest none of us know if that is the case do we? I admit to punting on this a bit but I don't really see T20 affecting the CC or the other non T20 competitions.
I just don't think standing still is an option. As I have said on a number of occasions I reckon there are too many T20 games. I like the two division option, as it happens, but can also see a short, sharp fewer teams competition being attractive
As a TV viewer I very much enjoyed the IPL and the Big Bash. They may not be comparable but the fact that they are over a discreet period enhanced them IMHO. It focussed attention for a start.
Neil, I'm never frightened of change, but I'm afraid on this occasion T20 City cricket is one change too far. The Big Bash...great eh...done wonders for Aussie Cricket hasn't it, just look how good they are at the moment...oh hang on....
The ECB is after full control of the game. Graves, aided by Bramsgrove is after killing off the non test ground counties.
they must be stopped. every opportunity we have to take the fight to them, we should and I'm not joking.
Sure
As I've said a couple of times I am playing devils advocate to an extent - although by doing it I am beginning to see of the attractions of a city based smaller T20.
My serious concern is the lack of younger participants/spectators because that impacts on the future of the game. I guess that you can't really see the real effect of, say, the Big Bash until you find out if the crowd and playing demographic has changed in the future.
The majority of the posters here, appears that way anyway, are in the "old git" group like me and, perhaps, the long term isn't so important to us. Which is fair enough
I'd be genuinely interested in suggestions as to how to make the game more attractive to youngsters - apart from "with a bit of luck the tide will turn" for all the negative comments about the city tournament I haven't really seen anything concrete on here
I'm still working, have plenty of time to watch T20 cricket, but I will never support anyone, or go and watch anyone, other than Essex, or England.
I especially wouldn't pay to watch anything that benfitted the ponced up public school w***ers that are Middlesex CCC
As above, it's all about them controlling us....
I get all that but, without being rude, you aren't the audience that we are talking about here. As I've said there are other competitions that you, and others, can still go to where you can support Essex (assuming the city competition cones about). For me it's about getting new blood into cricket and this MAY be a way
I've yet to see any other suggestions about how best to change the game to do this
-
Two of the key stated benefits of the proposal are making the games more available to a larger tv audience and the substantial cash payments to all counties. The BBC have extended their contract for the world's greatest tennis tournament for as little as £20 million a year, would a free to air tv channel pay anything near that for cricket? This competition will be on pay tv following a bidding war between Sky & BT with a few less attractive games shown on BT showcase or SkySports Mix so they can be seen by people who don't subscribe to the paid sports packages.
I get the"something must be done" argument, but the proposals won't achieve the stated objectives (although they will achieve the underlying objectives of the ECB). Basically this all comes down to whether you trust the ECB.
-
Neil. How about we throw the cash at getting the game into schools, providing pitches to play on and kit to play with. Buy up some of the remaining playing fields and build free-to-play cricket complex's in short format, like the 5-a-side football places that are everywhere.
find a short format the kids can and like playing.
Increase the number of RDO positions and get ex-pro's into them to coach the kids in schools
Market the current T20 tournament correctly
there's a few suggestions.
But that is not what we're going to do is it? No. Because Graves won't make any money out of that. the ECB won't make any money out of that.
-
Neil. How about we throw the cash at getting the game into schools, providing pitches to play on and kit to play with. Buy up some of the remaining playing fields and build free-to-play cricket complex's in short format, like the 5-a-side football places that are everywhere.
find a short format the kids can and like playing.
Increase the number of RDO positions and get ex-pro's into them to coach the kids in schools
Market the current T20 tournament correctly
there's a few suggestions.
But that is not what we're going to do is it? No. Because Graves won't make any money out of that. the ECB won't make any money out of that.
Great. Thanks (really) for this. Gives us something to discuss
I am all for doing something in schools like you suggest. As I've said earlier the selling off of playing fields was always an action that I hated. Surprisingly, maybe, my old school still has it's land but no cricket played afaik - still play rugby and soccer, though. Maybe something to do with the upkeep of a square?. Not sure how this would work with Inner city schools where land is at a premium but there is surely a way - indoor cricket?
How would you market the T20 better now? I guess I think it's maybe about heroes/people you can emulate. Do we have to create those? It's one of the reasons I can see for a smaller team/shorter format competition. Pack the teams with the "star" names. One of the issues seems to be at the moment that counties change overseas players because of the sprawl of fixtures. It will be interesting to see how it works this year with the new timetable
I have to say I am still of the view that there are too many games.
-
Neil, BLocky et al - all great ideas and I suspect that Graves et al would say the ECB does it. Now, whether they really have ENOUGH commitment to developing grass roots cricket, I'm not sure - certainly the Leics Chairman has been very active, but I'm pretty sure Chance to Shine was not an ECB sponsored initiative (which says a lot).