Why do you think the city based T20 is overdue? Every single reason for the franchise system being introduced and being a success in Australia isn't true for England. The Australian system increased the number of teams, we'll be reducing the number, they made games accessible for a greater percentage of the population, we'll be restricting access compared to the current system. They build interest by making it free to air, we'll be locking it behind a Sky subscription.
All that will happen by moving to a city based format is fewer fans will get to see games either live or on TV and money will be concentrated in the test ground owning counties (yay, lets screw Kent, Sussex and Essex, as long as Surrey get richer, eh?!))
I think its overdue for 2 simple reasons...1) It will improve the standard of players and therefore cricket being played - because of condensing the talent and It will improve England because of above and 2) it will make a better spectacle and improve attendances. TBH, we all want a stronger England.
TBH, it wont screw Kent,Sussex etc because they be still be providing players for South London Lions and Southampton Saints etc with the likes of Billings/Jordan etc and getting the associated money. However, it might make the counties with the grounds where its being played 'poaching' the aforesaid players - unfortunately, that's Market Forces , in the same way that Charlton want to buy Moncur or any other player from lower leagues. Also, if they are not financially viable (and I think that Kent was one of the counties that was bailed out) then maybe it should be potentially looked at as a feeder club to the more affluent counties and transfer fees paid- we cant keep bailing out failing counties every season.
Personally I will watch Kent 10-12 times this season over all formats. I won't watch Surrey or South London Lions or whatever they are called. So if Kent don't play I won't watch. I will just stick to England games. Simple. Not convinced South London Lions v Southampton Saints will get a better attendance than Surrey v Hampshire or Kent either.
Why do you think the city based T20 is overdue? Every single reason for the franchise system being introduced and being a success in Australia isn't true for England. The Australian system increased the number of teams, we'll be reducing the number, they made games accessible for a greater percentage of the population, we'll be restricting access compared to the current system. They build interest by making it free to air, we'll be locking it behind a Sky subscription.
All that will happen by moving to a city based format is fewer fans will get to see games either live or on TV and money will be concentrated in the test ground owning counties (yay, lets screw Kent, Sussex and Essex, as long as Surrey get richer, eh?!))
I think its overdue for 2 simple reasons...1) It will improve the standard of players and therefore cricket being played - because of condensing the talent and It will improve England because of above and 2) it will make a better spectacle and improve attendances. TBH, we all want a stronger England.
TBH, it wont screw Kent,Sussex etc because they be still be providing players for South London Lions and Southampton Saints etc with the likes of Billings/Jordan etc and getting the associated money. However, it might make the counties with the grounds where its being played 'poaching' the aforesaid players - unfortunately, that's Market Forces , in the same way that Charlton want to buy Moncur or any other player from lower leagues. Also, if they are not financially viable (and I think that Kent was one of the counties that was bailed out) then maybe it should be potentially looked at as a feeder club to the more affluent counties and transfer fees paid- we cant keep bailing out failing counties every season.
Surrey's attendances for T20 went up by 20% last year, they averaged over 20k. How much more do you think attendances could possibly improve? I would suggest that creating a new City team with no history and no existing fanbase will actually lower attendances.
I don't think condensing talent will improve England, if anything it'll mean less chances for English players as there will be fewer teams, and those teams will have more money to bring in big name foreign players instead of playing their own young players. What you will see in fact is a massive drop in the number of English players playing in our own T20 competion. You currently have 18 counties with 8-10 of their 11 being English, so 144-180 English players playing every round. If we move to a 10 or 12 team franchise system, with more big name players coming in, then that number will halve. Yes the cream will rise to the top, but anybody borderline, who may develop into a decent player given the opportunity will automatically lose that opportunity. We'll be casting aside dozens of decent cricketers because they weren't in the top few of their county (or assuming london has 2 franchise team, the top 15-20 players across 4 or more counties) at the time the franchises started.
It's all about the money and to pretend it isn't is disingenuous at best, English cricket will gain nothing from this change and it's being forced through for the benefit of the few at the cost of the rest, and eventually to the cost of the game as a whole.
Why do you think the city based T20 is overdue? Every single reason for the franchise system being introduced and being a success in Australia isn't true for England. The Australian system increased the number of teams, we'll be reducing the number, they made games accessible for a greater percentage of the population, we'll be restricting access compared to the current system. They build interest by making it free to air, we'll be locking it behind a Sky subscription.
All that will happen by moving to a city based format is fewer fans will get to see games either live or on TV and money will be concentrated in the test ground owning counties (yay, lets screw Kent, Sussex and Essex, as long as Surrey get richer, eh?!))
Off to see Surrey vs Middlesex next month, as an Essex fan I'm definitely going as a neutral, with some work friends. I might go again if they are a city team with a couple of Essex players but I doubt I'll get as excited about it as I will tomorrow watching Essex play.
A top order collapse followed by a backs to the wall rebuilding job by the lower middle batsmen. It's been the same story from England for years. At least we're not boring.
Why do you think the city based T20 is overdue? Every single reason for the franchise system being introduced and being a success in Australia isn't true for England. The Australian system increased the number of teams, we'll be reducing the number, they made games accessible for a greater percentage of the population, we'll be restricting access compared to the current system. They build interest by making it free to air, we'll be locking it behind a Sky subscription.
All that will happen by moving to a city based format is fewer fans will get to see games either live or on TV and money will be concentrated in the test ground owning counties (yay, lets screw Kent, Sussex and Essex, as long as Surrey get richer, eh?!))
I think its overdue for 2 simple reasons...1) It will improve the standard of players and therefore cricket being played - because of condensing the talent and It will improve England because of above and 2) it will make a better spectacle and improve attendances. TBH, we all want a stronger England.
TBH, it wont screw Kent,Sussex etc because they be still be providing players for South London Lions and Southampton Saints etc with the likes of Billings/Jordan etc and getting the associated money. However, it might make the counties with the grounds where its being played 'poaching' the aforesaid players - unfortunately, that's Market Forces , in the same way that Charlton want to buy Moncur or any other player from lower leagues. Also, if they are not financially viable (and I think that Kent was one of the counties that was bailed out) then maybe it should be potentially looked at as a feeder club to the more affluent counties and transfer fees paid- we cant keep bailing out failing counties every season.
It's one of the quirks of history that Kent's main ground is in the rural end of the traditional county, whereas Surrey's is in central London. The Oval is probably 2 miles from the old Kent boundary (Deptford) and far more convenient for a large number of Kent supporters.
The problem I guess is that everyone will see matches at the Oval as Surrey. Similarly, who else would form the Lords team other than Middlesex?
If its marketed correctly, i dont see why that should happen. I would expect Essex to become part of North London Legends in the same way that Kent would become part of South London Lions.
Why do you think the city based T20 is overdue? Every single reason for the franchise system being introduced and being a success in Australia isn't true for England. The Australian system increased the number of teams, we'll be reducing the number, they made games accessible for a greater percentage of the population, we'll be restricting access compared to the current system. They build interest by making it free to air, we'll be locking it behind a Sky subscription.
All that will happen by moving to a city based format is fewer fans will get to see games either live or on TV and money will be concentrated in the test ground owning counties (yay, lets screw Kent, Sussex and Essex, as long as Surrey get richer, eh?!))
I think its overdue for 2 simple reasons...1) It will improve the standard of players and therefore cricket being played - because of condensing the talent and It will improve England because of above and 2) it will make a better spectacle and improve attendances. TBH, we all want a stronger England.
TBH, it wont screw Kent,Sussex etc because they be still be providing players for South London Lions and Southampton Saints etc with the likes of Billings/Jordan etc and getting the associated money. However, it might make the counties with the grounds where its being played 'poaching' the aforesaid players - unfortunately, that's Market Forces , in the same way that Charlton want to buy Moncur or any other player from lower leagues. Also, if they are not financially viable (and I think that Kent was one of the counties that was bailed out) then maybe it should be potentially looked at as a feeder club to the more affluent counties and transfer fees paid- we cant keep bailing out failing counties every season.
Personally I will watch Kent 10-12 times this season over all formats. I won't watch Surrey or South London Lions or whatever they are called. So if Kent don't play I won't watch. I will just stick to England games. Simple. Not convinced South London Lions v Southampton Saints will get a better attendance than Surrey v Hampshire or Kent either.
If the quality of the cricket is better , and the quality of the overseas players is improved then it *has* to improve attendances. For me , i would much rather go to watch a SLL v SS game than Surrey v Hampshire because i know i am going to see more quality players rather than just the 70mph county trundlers. TBH, the quality of the typical overseas player in T20 over here is very much 'B' list. There is also the option of playing the North London games at a drop-in pitch at the Olympic Stadium which was in the news recently - so maybe there might not a team based at Lord's ?.
Why do you think the city based T20 is overdue? Every single reason for the franchise system being introduced and being a success in Australia isn't true for England. The Australian system increased the number of teams, we'll be reducing the number, they made games accessible for a greater percentage of the population, we'll be restricting access compared to the current system. They build interest by making it free to air, we'll be locking it behind a Sky subscription.
All that will happen by moving to a city based format is fewer fans will get to see games either live or on TV and money will be concentrated in the test ground owning counties (yay, lets screw Kent, Sussex and Essex, as long as Surrey get richer, eh?!))
I think its overdue for 2 simple reasons...1) It will improve the standard of players and therefore cricket being played - because of condensing the talent and It will improve England because of above and 2) it will make a better spectacle and improve attendances. TBH, we all want a stronger England.
TBH, it wont screw Kent,Sussex etc because they be still be providing players for South London Lions and Southampton Saints etc with the likes of Billings/Jordan etc and getting the associated money. However, it might make the counties with the grounds where its being played 'poaching' the aforesaid players - unfortunately, that's Market Forces , in the same way that Charlton want to buy Moncur or any other player from lower leagues. Also, if they are not financially viable (and I think that Kent was one of the counties that was bailed out) then maybe it should be potentially looked at as a feeder club to the more affluent counties and transfer fees paid- we cant keep bailing out failing counties every season.
Surrey's attendances for T20 went up by 20% last year, they averaged over 20k. How much more do you think attendances could possibly improve? I would suggest that creating a new City team with no history and no existing fanbase will actually lower attendances.
I don't think condensing talent will improve England, if anything it'll mean less chances for English players as there will be fewer teams, and those teams will have more money to bring in big name foreign players instead of playing their own young players. What you will see in fact is a massive drop in the number of English players playing in our own T20 competion. You currently have 18 counties with 8-10 of their 11 being English, so 144-180 English players playing every round. If we move to a 10 or 12 team franchise system, with more big name players coming in, then that number will halve. Yes the cream will rise to the top, but anybody borderline, who may develop into a decent player given the opportunity will automatically lose that opportunity. We'll be casting aside dozens of decent cricketers because they weren't in the top few of their county (or assuming london has 2 franchise team, the top 15-20 players across 4 or more counties) at the time the franchises started.
It's all about the money and to pretend it isn't is disingenuous at best, English cricket will gain nothing from this change and it's being forced through for the benefit of the few at the cost of the rest, and eventually to the cost of the game as a whole.
I dont agree. Surrey's attendances might have gone up by 20% - but i dont believe any were full houses (could be wrong) - so there's room for further expansion.And i beleieve they are looking to expand The Oval too. Condensing talent *has* to improve England - no 2 ways about it - coz, put simply, you just wont have the also-rans who wont ever get near an England spot cluttering up playing time - players will have to get better because they will have better bowlers bowling at them and better batters to bowl at.If you are bowling at ABDV or Kohli or Gayle, then you are going to have to improve else you wont survive - simply survival of the fittest - in the same way, that if you are a batter and you've got Malinga or Starc bowling at you , then you are going to have to improve, coz it wont be the same as batting against Darren Stevens or Tom Smith as examples. Anyone with any talent will come through in the same way that they come through in India and Australia- and it has to be accelerated. If you are a young kid and the big money is in City T20, then thats what you are going to try to achieve - we cant just sit still and let the trundlers weigh everyone else down - like in everything, we have to move forward.
BTW i didnt say it was about money - but i did say it was about progress. If progress brings money then ...great.
As Barry Hearn just said on SSN ... 'you cant stand still in sport' when talking about the 5 leagues proposal (he wasnt agreeing BTW).
Also, if they intend to use the Olympic stadium then it could well be a West London and East London team - with one team at Stratford and the other at Lord's.
We should completely reverse our order - that way when we inevitably start badly, it's not a real problem.. as the ball gets a bit used we can pull away with our better batsman........
One of the main problems of our T20 competition, is that not only does it have fewer of the international stars, it also has fewer of the England players as well
Essex have signed Wahab Riaz and Adam Milne. I'm not having this chat about B list overseas players
Wow, thats some pace duo .
Not exactly huge names, but they are very, very quick. I'm looking forward to seeing them tomorrow, briefly, through the hood of my raincoat. funnily enough our most effective bowlers of recent years have been David Masters and last season Jesse Ryder. The conditions and small ground suit trundlers.
Comments
Hales 51 no.
The rain has come down and the covers are on at Headingley and the start of the evening session will be delayed.
I don't think condensing talent will improve England, if anything it'll mean less chances for English players as there will be fewer teams, and those teams will have more money to bring in big name foreign players instead of playing their own young players. What you will see in fact is a massive drop in the number of English players playing in our own T20 competion. You currently have 18 counties with 8-10 of their 11 being English, so 144-180 English players playing every round. If we move to a 10 or 12 team franchise system, with more big name players coming in, then that number will halve. Yes the cream will rise to the top, but anybody borderline, who may develop into a decent player given the opportunity will automatically lose that opportunity. We'll be casting aside dozens of decent cricketers because they weren't in the top few of their county (or assuming london has 2 franchise team, the top 15-20 players across 4 or more counties) at the time the franchises started.
It's all about the money and to pretend it isn't is disingenuous at best, English cricket will gain nothing from this change and it's being forced through for the benefit of the few at the cost of the rest, and eventually to the cost of the game as a whole.
I would expect Essex to become part of North London Legends in the same way that Kent would become part of South London Lions.
There is also the option of playing the North London games at a drop-in pitch at the Olympic Stadium which was in the news recently - so maybe there might not a team based at Lord's ?.
Surrey's attendances might have gone up by 20% - but i dont believe any were full houses (could be wrong) - so there's room for further expansion.And i beleieve they are looking to expand The Oval too.
Condensing talent *has* to improve England - no 2 ways about it - coz, put simply, you just wont have the also-rans who wont ever get near an England spot cluttering up playing time - players will have to get better because they will have better bowlers bowling at them and better batters to bowl at.If you are bowling at ABDV or Kohli or Gayle, then you are going to have to improve else you wont survive - simply survival of the fittest - in the same way, that if you are a batter and you've got Malinga or Starc bowling at you , then you are going to have to improve, coz it wont be the same as batting against Darren Stevens or Tom Smith as examples. Anyone with any talent will come through in the same way that they come through in India and Australia- and it has to be accelerated. If you are a young kid and the big money is in City T20, then thats what you are going to try to achieve - we cant just sit still and let the trundlers weigh everyone else down - like in everything, we have to move forward.
If progress brings money then ...great.
As Barry Hearn just said on SSN ... 'you cant stand still in sport' when talking about the 5 leagues proposal (he wasnt agreeing BTW).
Also, if they intend to use the Olympic stadium then it could well be a West London and East London team - with one team at Stratford and the other at Lord's.
:- )))
I would have though , having lost an entire session yesterday, that that would be the case.
But I don't get why we would risk bad light etc, when we could go out at 10:30 when we know it's fine.
Seems strange - hey ho.