How absolutley ridiculous has it been to see Butler keeping wicket in white ball cricket when with Bairstow in the field and knowing the roles will be stupidly reversed in the Tests.
Not sure what happened with Rashid, and why he chose to only play white ball cricket. It does seem that he's more comfortable in that format, though the way he's bowling there's no reason why he couldn't be a successful Test player, and it seemed bizarre to have all the excitement about the unproven Mason Crane when we already have an experienced leggie.
Also weird that in ODIs Bairstow opens, with Buttler in the middle order, whereas in T20s Buttler opens, with Bairstow in the middle order!
I still find it curious to play Billings as a specialist batsman, when he's almost certainly the best keeper of the 3!
Agree about Billings, except he shouldn't play at all, not good enough.
I agree (though he is starting to get some form back), it just seems odd to play him as a specialist batsman, rather than picking a specialist batsman!
Also weird that in ODIs Bairstow opens, with Buttler in the middle order, whereas in T20s Buttler opens, with Bairstow in the middle order!
I still find it curious to play Billings as a specialist batsman, when he's almost certainly the best keeper of the 3!
Agree about Billings, except he shouldn't play at all, not good enough.
I agree (though he is starting to get some form back), it just seems odd to play him as a specialist batsman, rather than picking a specialist batsman!
yep don't understand that, although I think he's now behind Hales, Roy, Bairstow, Buttler, Root, Morgan, Vince and Malan so can't see him being picked for a while.
Same thing was said in the 2002 when they brought in this new fangled hit and giggles 20 over competition.
With respect I think thats rubbish. In my opinion it's a completely different situation. Every time this debate comes up all you have to say is that people are traditionalists or anti change. You never provide any points why it will be better or counter any points that people make about why they think it won't work.
2002 people were against change because it wasn't cricket etc. The change was innovative and was always going to appeal to a different audience.
This change is change for changes sake. It isn't solving the problem with cricket rather exacerbating it. T20 is not the problem with cricket it is the part that is keeping cricket going. The problem with cricket is accessibility and complexity. This changes is making it more complex (another format? Is that really what the casual cricket observer or someone looking to get into cricket wants?) And as I have explained to you before this goes no way to solving the accessibility problem. This won't attract a new audience but rather move people from watching the blast to watching this rubbish. It won't change things overall.
Every year the blast grows in popularity - attendances this year are higher than last already. Every year it gets called the best ever. Yes it needed changes to compete with the IPL/BBL and I've said before how I would have done that within the county format. The idea of franchises is simply unsuited the the UK and our cricket setup. The 100 ball rubbish is simply change for the sake of change by suits who have to be seen to be doing something but have no idea what to actually do.
As usual, some great points Canters mate. Its true ive never been able to counter any of the points- simply because i dont know what to counter them with.I'm as much in the dark as everyone else.
However, to just diss the whole scheme as 'bollocks' or 'utter utter crap' is a (wee) bit OTT to be honest. The people who run and who are involved with the ECB have a lot more cricket and marketing expertise than all of us put together. If they have spotted a 'gap' in the market for lets say 1) terrestrial coverage, or 2) optimum tv coverage or anything else- then maybe this is the way to go in the future?.Maybe in 5 years time India and Oz will be playing 5 ball overs - who knows? Stats coped with ODI's changing from 60 to 50 overs,and then t20's coming on board, then why not cope with 5 instead of 6 ball overs ? I agree it all sounds a bit odd at the moment, but there are some hefty people behind this - i know there are several heavyweight ex-players, Nasser Hussain included, saying that this new competition should have been done some years ago - in turn the ECB is sponsored by the 17 counties - the vast majority of which agreed the new format?( i'm not sure) - i know that Surrey rejected it to begin with. However, as i've always said, i'm a cricket fan of whatever format, and if it means games getting on to terrestrial TV and attracting a newer type of audience then great.
Also,as i keep on saying, if it means i can watch ABDV and Kohli and Gayle batting against Starc and Steyn and Kuldeep instead of Stevens and Cobb against Smith and Masters then i know where i'll be spending my money- and i dont give a toss if i watch 5 or 6 balls in an over- especially if one of the main concerns is adding another column into the stats !
Not sure what happened with Rashid, and why he chose to only play white ball cricket. It does seem that he's more comfortable in that format, though the way he's bowling there's no reason why he couldn't be a successful Test player, and it seemed bizarre to have all the excitement about the unproven Mason Crane when we already have an experienced leggie.
Quite simple, our senior management team of Clueless and Fartface didn't rate him as a Test bowler. Hilarious as the pair of them know as much about Test cricket as Paddington Bear.
How absolutley ridiculous has it been to see Butler keeping wicket in white ball cricket when with Bairstow in the field and knowing the roles will be stupidly reversed in the Tests.
Got to say, I don't actually mind that.
Bairstow is a much better outfielder than Buttler. In an ODI format where every run matters then I would much rather Bairstow was on the ropes than Buttler.
That said, I don't know enough about keeping to say who is better between Buttler/Bairstow. However, if Bairstow is better than Buttler then I think it's quite smart to get Bairstow out with the white ball but behind the sticks with the red ball.
Same thing was said in the 2002 when they brought in this new fangled hit and giggles 20 over competition.
With respect I think thats rubbish. In my opinion it's a completely different situation. Every time this debate comes up all you have to say is that people are traditionalists or anti change. You never provide any points why it will be better or counter any points that people make about why they think it won't work.
2002 people were against change because it wasn't cricket etc. The change was innovative and was always going to appeal to a different audience.
This change is change for changes sake. It isn't solving the problem with cricket rather exacerbating it. T20 is not the problem with cricket it is the part that is keeping cricket going. The problem with cricket is accessibility and complexity. This changes is making it more complex (another format? Is that really what the casual cricket observer or someone looking to get into cricket wants?) And as I have explained to you before this goes no way to solving the accessibility problem. This won't attract a new audience but rather move people from watching the blast to watching this rubbish. It won't change things overall.
Every year the blast grows in popularity - attendances this year are higher than last already. Every year it gets called the best ever. Yes it needed changes to compete with the IPL/BBL and I've said before how I would have done that within the county format. The idea of franchises is simply unsuited the the UK and our cricket setup. The 100 ball rubbish is simply change for the sake of change by suits who have to be seen to be doing something but have no idea what to actually do.
As usual, some great points Canters mate. Its true ive never been able to counter any of the points- simply because i dont know what to counter them with.I'm as much in the dark as everyone else.
However, to just diss the whole scheme as 'bollocks' or 'utter utter crap' is a (wee) bit OTT to be honest. The people who run and who are involved with the ECB have a lot more cricket and marketing expertise than all of us put together. If they have spotted a 'gap' in the market for lets say 1) terrestrial coverage, or 2) optimum tv coverage or anything else- then maybe this is the way to go in the future?.Maybe in 5 years time India and Oz will be playing 5 ball overs - who knows? Stats coped with ODI's changing from 60 to 50 overs,and then t20's coming on board, then why not cope with 5 instead of 6 ball overs ? I agree it all sounds a bit odd at the moment, but there are some hefty people behind this - i know there are several heavyweight ex-players, Nasser Hussain included, saying that this new competition should have been done some years ago - in turn the ECB is sponsored by the 17 counties - the vast majority of which agreed the new format?( i'm not sure) - i know that Surrey rejected it to begin with. However, as i've always said, i'm a cricket fan of whatever format, and if it means games getting on to terrestrial TV and attracting a newer type of audience then great.
Also,as i keep on saying, if it means i can watch ABDV and Kohli and Gayle batting against Starc and Steyn and Kuldeep instead of Stevens and Cobb against Smith and Masters then i know where i'll be spending my money- and i dont give a toss if i watch 5 or 6 balls in an over- especially if one of the main concerns is adding another column into the stats !
In the blast, each county has at least a couple of big name players. Tomorrow I will see Braithwaite and Adam Milne play for Kent, with Stoinis playing in the next game. Alongside them will be internationals like Billings and Kuhn and quality players like Denly, while Surrey have the likes of Aaron Finch, Roy (if fit), Morkel and the Currans. I've seen Steyn playing for Hampshire against Kent at Lord's a month ago. The existing county setup is full of stars as it is.
How absolutley ridiculous has it been to see Butler keeping wicket in white ball cricket when with Bairstow in the field and knowing the roles will be stupidly reversed in the Tests.
Got to say, I don't actually mind that.
Bairstow is a much better outfielder than Buttler. In an ODI format where every run matters then I would much rather Bairstow was on the ropes than Buttler.
That said, I don't know enough about keeping to say who is better between Buttler/Bairstow. However, if Bairstow is better than Buttler then I think it's quite smart to get Bairstow out with the white ball but behind the sticks with the red ball.
I really don't think there is much between them as keepers. Butler bats 7 in the Test team so he should keep and Bairstow could move up to 4.
How absolutley ridiculous has it been to see Butler keeping wicket in white ball cricket when with Bairstow in the field and knowing the roles will be stupidly reversed in the Tests.
Got to say, I don't actually mind that.
Bairstow is a much better outfielder than Buttler. In an ODI format where every run matters then I would much rather Bairstow was on the ropes than Buttler.
That said, I don't know enough about keeping to say who is better between Buttler/Bairstow. However, if Bairstow is better than Buttler then I think it's quite smart to get Bairstow out with the white ball but behind the sticks with the red ball.
I really don't think there is much between them as keepers. Butler bats 7 in the Test team so he should keep and Bairstow could move up to 4.
I do agree with that in principal, however if the management believe that Bairstow is superior with the gloves then I don't mind the thought process. A boundary rider is more important than a keeper in ODI's and a keeper is more important in tests.
I do believe that it's better to have your keeper batting further down the order though, so I don't have a strong opinion either way. Was more just expressing that I can unxerstand the thought process.
How absolutley ridiculous has it been to see Butler keeping wicket in white ball cricket when with Bairstow in the field and knowing the roles will be stupidly reversed in the Tests.
Got to say, I don't actually mind that.
Bairstow is a much better outfielder than Buttler. In an ODI format where every run matters then I would much rather Bairstow was on the ropes than Buttler.
That said, I don't know enough about keeping to say who is better between Buttler/Bairstow. However, if Bairstow is better than Buttler then I think it's quite smart to get Bairstow out with the white ball but behind the sticks with the red ball.
I really don't think there is much between them as keepers. Butler bats 7 in the Test team so he should keep and Bairstow could move up to 4.
I do agree with that in principal, however if the management believe that Bairstow is superior with the gloves then I don't mind the thought process. A boundary rider is more important than a keeper in ODI's and a keeper is more important in tests.
I do believe that it's better to have your keeper batting further down the order though, so I don't have a strong opinion either way. Was more just expressing that I can unxerstand the thought process.
Bairstow is by far and away our quickest fielder and should be an outfielder in all forms of cricket for England. Buttler is god enough to keep in Tests if he is going to play in the Test team which seems to be the plan now. The management are clueless surely you can see that?
How absolutley ridiculous has it been to see Butler keeping wicket in white ball cricket when with Bairstow in the field and knowing the roles will be stupidly reversed in the Tests.
Got to say, I don't actually mind that.
Bairstow is a much better outfielder than Buttler. In an ODI format where every run matters then I would much rather Bairstow was on the ropes than Buttler.
That said, I don't know enough about keeping to say who is better between Buttler/Bairstow. However, if Bairstow is better than Buttler then I think it's quite smart to get Bairstow out with the white ball but behind the sticks with the red ball.
I really don't think there is much between them as keepers. Butler bats 7 in the Test team so he should keep and Bairstow could move up to 4.
I do agree with that in principal, however if the management believe that Bairstow is superior with the gloves then I don't mind the thought process. A boundary rider is more important than a keeper in ODI's and a keeper is more important in tests.
I do believe that it's better to have your keeper batting further down the order though, so I don't have a strong opinion either way. Was more just expressing that I can unxerstand the thought process.
Bairstow is by far and away our quickest fielder and should be an outfielder in all forms of cricket for England. Buttler is god enough to keep in Tests if he is going to play in the Test team which seems to be the plan now. The management are clueless surely you can see that?
I'll agree our managenent is clueless in the Test format, but it is unrivalled bar none with the white ball. The radical change between the last world cup and next years is nothing short of a miracle!
As I've said, if they believe that Bairstow is superior with the gloves then I can understand how he's got the red ball gig but is on the ropes with the white ball.
I'm not saying I agree with it as I would prefer consistency, but I can understand the thought process.
How absolutley ridiculous has it been to see Butler keeping wicket in white ball cricket when with Bairstow in the field and knowing the roles will be stupidly reversed in the Tests.
Got to say, I don't actually mind that.
Bairstow is a much better outfielder than Buttler. In an ODI format where every run matters then I would much rather Bairstow was on the ropes than Buttler.
That said, I don't know enough about keeping to say who is better between Buttler/Bairstow. However, if Bairstow is better than Buttler then I think it's quite smart to get Bairstow out with the white ball but behind the sticks with the red ball.
I really don't think there is much between them as keepers. Butler bats 7 in the Test team so he should keep and Bairstow could move up to 4.
I do agree with that in principal, however if the management believe that Bairstow is superior with the gloves then I don't mind the thought process. A boundary rider is more important than a keeper in ODI's and a keeper is more important in tests.
I do believe that it's better to have your keeper batting further down the order though, so I don't have a strong opinion either way. Was more just expressing that I can unxerstand the thought process.
Bairstow is by far and away our quickest fielder and should be an outfielder in all forms of cricket for England. Buttler is god enough to keep in Tests if he is going to play in the Test team which seems to be the plan now. The management are clueless surely you can see that?
I'll agree our managenent is clueless in the Test format, but it is unrivalled bar none with the white ball. The radical change between the last world cup and next years is nothing short of a miracle!
As I've said, if they believe that Bairstow is superior with the gloves then I can understand how he's got the red ball gig but is on the ropes with the white ball.
I'm not saying I agree with it as I would prefer consistency, but I can understand the thought process.
Mate I think you are really getting confused! If Buttler plays in the Test team then he keeps and Bairstow bats higher than 6. I don't know why you keep going round the houses. Bairstow is a better outfielder than he is keeper.
From what I've seen from last winters Ashes series to this summer's Test matches & the recent ODI's he's the best spinner by far. I understand that not all spinners are the same (off, leggie, right arm, left arm etc) but surely taking wickets is the key, not run saving or keeping an end tied down.
Same thing was said in the 2002 when they brought in this new fangled hit and giggles 20 over competition.
With respect I think thats rubbish. In my opinion it's a completely different situation. Every time this debate comes up all you have to say is that people are traditionalists or anti change. You never provide any points why it will be better or counter any points that people make about why they think it won't work.
2002 people were against change because it wasn't cricket etc. The change was innovative and was always going to appeal to a different audience.
This change is change for changes sake. It isn't solving the problem with cricket rather exacerbating it. T20 is not the problem with cricket it is the part that is keeping cricket going. The problem with cricket is accessibility and complexity. This changes is making it more complex (another format? Is that really what the casual cricket observer or someone looking to get into cricket wants?) And as I have explained to you before this goes no way to solving the accessibility problem. This won't attract a new audience but rather move people from watching the blast to watching this rubbish. It won't change things overall.
Every year the blast grows in popularity - attendances this year are higher than last already. Every year it gets called the best ever. Yes it needed changes to compete with the IPL/BBL and I've said before how I would have done that within the county format. The idea of franchises is simply unsuited the the UK and our cricket setup. The 100 ball rubbish is simply change for the sake of change by suits who have to be seen to be doing something but have no idea what to actually do.
As usual, some great points Canters mate. Its true ive never been able to counter any of the points- simply because i dont know what to counter them with.I'm as much in the dark as everyone else.
However, to just diss the whole scheme as 'bollocks' or 'utter utter crap' is a (wee) bit OTT to be honest. The people who run and who are involved with the ECB have a lot more cricket and marketing expertise than all of us put together. If they have spotted a 'gap' in the market for lets say 1) terrestrial coverage, or 2) optimum tv coverage or anything else- then maybe this is the way to go in the future?.Maybe in 5 years time India and Oz will be playing 5 ball overs - who knows? Stats coped with ODI's changing from 60 to 50 overs,and then t20's coming on board, then why not cope with 5 instead of 6 ball overs ? I agree it all sounds a bit odd at the moment, but there are some hefty people behind this - i know there are several heavyweight ex-players, Nasser Hussain included, saying that this new competition should have been done some years ago - in turn the ECB is sponsored by the 17 counties - the vast majority of which agreed the new format?( i'm not sure) - i know that Surrey rejected it to begin with. However, as i've always said, i'm a cricket fan of whatever format, and if it means games getting on to terrestrial TV and attracting a newer type of audience then great.
Also,as i keep on saying, if it means i can watch ABDV and Kohli and Gayle batting against Starc and Steyn and Kuldeep instead of Stevens and Cobb against Smith and Masters then i know where i'll be spending my money- and i dont give a toss if i watch 5 or 6 balls in an over- especially if one of the main concerns is adding another column into the stats !
I get your point about not caring about 5 or 6 ball overs. I’ve assumed that the main reason for 100 balls was so that records could be broken more regularly.
From a marketing perspective, it’s all about exposure on TV. Whether that will work is open to question. The TV companies will soon be controlling the sport if it does take off. My concern is that the T20 Blast, a tournament that doesn’t interest me much, but has clearly grown, might wither.
As for wanting to see the world stars on the same pitch, I would rather see my county team’s lesser talented players, to be honest. We have Test matches, T20 internationals etc. where we can see the best.
As for 17 of 18 counties supporting the 100, I think that’s misleading. The counties were split badly. The lesser counties which will not be hosting 100 games were split between ‘we are desperate for money so let’s take what’s offered’ and threats from the ECB of being excluded if they didn’t support it. Sussex, Surrey and one other county (I’ve forgotten which) stood against to the last minute but only Surrey had the clout to keep standing.
The way I see it, the 100, whether it’s successful or not, has dodgy financial forecasts and is likely to kill off some aspect of domestic cricket.
Same thing was said in the 2002 when they brought in this new fangled hit and giggles 20 over competition.
With respect I think thats rubbish. In my opinion it's a completely different situation. Every time this debate comes up all you have to say is that people are traditionalists or anti change. You never provide any points why it will be better or counter any points that people make about why they think it won't work.
2002 people were against change because it wasn't cricket etc. The change was innovative and was always going to appeal to a different audience.
This change is change for changes sake. It isn't solving the problem with cricket rather exacerbating it. T20 is not the problem with cricket it is the part that is keeping cricket going. The problem with cricket is accessibility and complexity. This changes is making it more complex (another format? Is that really what the casual cricket observer or someone looking to get into cricket wants?) And as I have explained to you before this goes no way to solving the accessibility problem. This won't attract a new audience but rather move people from watching the blast to watching this rubbish. It won't change things overall.
Every year the blast grows in popularity - attendances this year are higher than last already. Every year it gets called the best ever. Yes it needed changes to compete with the IPL/BBL and I've said before how I would have done that within the county format. The idea of franchises is simply unsuited the the UK and our cricket setup. The 100 ball rubbish is simply change for the sake of change by suits who have to be seen to be doing something but have no idea what to actually do.
As usual, some great points Canters mate. Its true ive never been able to counter any of the points- simply because i dont know what to counter them with.I'm as much in the dark as everyone else.
However, to just diss the whole scheme as 'bollocks' or 'utter utter crap' is a (wee) bit OTT to be honest. The people who run and who are involved with the ECB have a lot more cricket and marketing expertise than all of us put together. If they have spotted a 'gap' in the market for lets say 1) terrestrial coverage, or 2) optimum tv coverage or anything else- then maybe this is the way to go in the future?.Maybe in 5 years time India and Oz will be playing 5 ball overs - who knows? Stats coped with ODI's changing from 60 to 50 overs,and then t20's coming on board, then why not cope with 5 instead of 6 ball overs ? I agree it all sounds a bit odd at the moment, but there are some hefty people behind this - i know there are several heavyweight ex-players, Nasser Hussain included, saying that this new competition should have been done some years ago - in turn the ECB is sponsored by the 17 counties - the vast majority of which agreed the new format?( i'm not sure) - i know that Surrey rejected it to begin with. However, as i've always said, i'm a cricket fan of whatever format, and if it means games getting on to terrestrial TV and attracting a newer type of audience then great.
Also,as i keep on saying, if it means i can watch ABDV and Kohli and Gayle batting against Starc and Steyn and Kuldeep instead of Stevens and Cobb against Smith and Masters then i know where i'll be spending my money- and i dont give a toss if i watch 5 or 6 balls in an over- especially if one of the main concerns is adding another column into the stats !
Thanks for the reply. I agree about all being in the dark - I think that is largely because the idiots at the ECB have no clue what they are gonna do so how the hell is anyone else gonna have any clue. All I will say is the more that comes out the more uncomfortable I feel about it.
Again I agree it's all about marketing but I don't think they have done anything that could not have been achieved by a rebrand of the blast - and putting it ALL on free to air TV.
As for the counties agreeing to it - more than half of them had their votes 'decided for them by the ECB because they are in debt to the ECB. The rest were bribed but also blackmailed that if they voted against it and it still went ahead they woukdnt bot receive annual payments that other counties would. This removes the prospect of a county voting against it on principal (even though the vote is already decided) pointless. So even counties like Surrey who have publicly been against it the whole time voted for it reluctantly in order to receive the same payout as other counties. There was no proper consultation by the ECB and the vote was on city franchises rather than on this hundred ball rubbish. Which was kept under wraps until it was already decided.
The PCA and chairman Daryl Mitchell have been publicly against the hundred ball concept and rather quiet on the whole city franchises thing which suggests the players are at best sceptical.
On your last few points - having it on terrestrial tv, attracting a new audience (which I don't think exists as they already go to the blast) and seeing the best players in the world could all have been achieved through a revamped county format.
How absolutley ridiculous has it been to see Butler keeping wicket in white ball cricket when with Bairstow in the field and knowing the roles will be stupidly reversed in the Tests.
Got to say, I don't actually mind that.
Bairstow is a much better outfielder than Buttler. In an ODI format where every run matters then I would much rather Bairstow was on the ropes than Buttler.
That said, I don't know enough about keeping to say who is better between Buttler/Bairstow. However, if Bairstow is better than Buttler then I think it's quite smart to get Bairstow out with the white ball but behind the sticks with the red ball.
I really don't think there is much between them as keepers. Butler bats 7 in the Test team so he should keep and Bairstow could move up to 4.
I do agree with that in principal, however if the management believe that Bairstow is superior with the gloves then I don't mind the thought process. A boundary rider is more important than a keeper in ODI's and a keeper is more important in tests.
I do believe that it's better to have your keeper batting further down the order though, so I don't have a strong opinion either way. Was more just expressing that I can unxerstand the thought process.
Being a good keeper has become more important in white ball cricket, not so much for keeping to the seamers, but to the spinners where it pleases me that stumpings have become a major sources of wickets again. 10 years ago spinners "fired it in", now it's the turning ball which is once again valued, as it's so much harder to hit.
This is a classic case of the suits at the ECB working out that change is needed and looking at what other countries have done and copying that. But instead of tailoring it to us and making it work for us they have gone headfirst into what I think will be a disaster. They haven't worked out what made the IPL and big bash and success. In fact they have done the exact opposite.
Those leagues moving from state to city cricket meant:
More teams. We have less (10 less) More games. We have less (not sure how many but significantly less) More locations. We have 10 less locations. Theirs are solely on terrestrial TV. Ours will be 1/4 on terrestrial TV for the first year. After that it's subject to the ECB and the pull of sky money. They weren't selling out grounds for T20 before. We are already selling out most grounds for most games.
All these things for them make the cricket more accessible. For us the opposite. Less people watching less cricket and having to travel further to do so.
That is the fundamental reason those leagues were a success and the fundamental reason ours won't be.
Other problems I can spot with it. Less English players playing in the English league. With 10 less teams that's minimum 90 less English players. Plus with say 2 extra over seas players that's 16 less in the teams that do play. So over 100 less English players in our T20 competition!
Who will get a contract? Stevens because he is bloody effective on English pitches and is experienced. Likewise Cook Bell Trott Compton Balance etc will all get contracts on name even though they will never play t20 for England again. At what cost? Young up and coming players are going to miss out. The players that are known to county coaches as they have been in the system for years. So those coachs would give them all chance. A franchise? No chance.
I keep harking back to the Currans. But 3 years ago when neither of them had made any county appearances only those who followed academy cricket closely were aware of them. If there was a bidding process for franchises would either of them have been bought? No chance. Yet they both were given their debuts by Surrey that year in the T20 and both excelled and became regulars. That is the route through for young players. Why ruin it?
If you think the 'lesser' T20 competition will continue more than a year then you're crazy.
The argument it will make England better at T20/ODI cricket is null and void. A change of coach and approach has changed our side around. We reached the final of the T20 world cup we have shot up the rankings we have some of the best players in the world and some of the most expensive in the IPL auction. We are favourites for next year's world cup. We have depth in this format like never before. Could name 2 T20i teams who I would be confident they could compete internationally.
The argument it will drive interest in cricket. If you think that franchise cricket will pull in different people to watch than the blast did. It certainly wont/can't have more people watch it as there are less games, less grounds less accessible etc. So if we are working on the assumption that it won't attract the people that usually watch the blast and are already cricket fans but will attract an entirely new audience (in itself a ridiculous assumption) then are we really sure that this people will go on to have any meaningful interest in cricket going forwards. Are they going to choose a county to support or start following test matches? Don't think so. The blast was already pulling these people in and it gave them a natural progression to following other forms of the game.
As said change was needed but they've gone around it the wrong way.
What should have happened: Keep the counties. 3 groups rather than 2 to reduce no of games slightly. Play it all in one 4 week block in the summer holidays. Complete international break - we want our own best players to be playing in this competition. Stokes/Root/Morgan etc are as much of a pull as any overseas star. 4 overseas players per team. But no Kolpak all must be current internationals. Have it All on Terrestrial TV. Have all the cheerleaders/stump mic/whatever franchise type stuff you want. Finals day at the Olympic stadium. Make as much song and dance out of it as you like. Keep the established set up that works but build on making it better.
Solution= higher quality competition to compete with IPL/BBC, best players in the world including our own. As much song and dance as you want. Within the county format allowing counties to thrive and make more money. Whatever new audience there is are free to come along. Crickets accessibilty improves and popularity grows.
Same thing was said in the 2002 when they brought in this new fangled hit and giggles 20 over competition.
With respect I think thats rubbish. In my opinion it's a completely different situation. Every time this debate comes up all you have to say is that people are traditionalists or anti change. You never provide any points why it will be better or counter any points that people make about why they think it won't work.
2002 people were against change because it wasn't cricket etc. The change was innovative and was always going to appeal to a different audience.
This change is change for changes sake. It isn't solving the problem with cricket rather exacerbating it. T20 is not the problem with cricket it is the part that is keeping cricket going. The problem with cricket is accessibility and complexity. This changes is making it more complex (another format? Is that really what the casual cricket observer or someone looking to get into cricket wants?) And as I have explained to you before this goes no way to solving the accessibility problem. This won't attract a new audience but rather move people from watching the blast to watching this rubbish. It won't change things overall.
Every year the blast grows in popularity - attendances this year are higher than last already. Every year it gets called the best ever. Yes it needed changes to compete with the IPL/BBL and I've said before how I would have done that within the county format. The idea of franchises is simply unsuited the the UK and our cricket setup. The 100 ball rubbish is simply change for the sake of change by suits who have to be seen to be doing something but have no idea what to actually do.
As usual, some great points Canters mate. Its true ive never been able to counter any of the points- simply because i dont know what to counter them with.I'm as much in the dark as everyone else.
However, to just diss the whole scheme as 'bollocks' or 'utter utter crap' is a (wee) bit OTT to be honest. The people who run and who are involved with the ECB have a lot more cricket and marketing expertise than all of us put together. If they have spotted a 'gap' in the market for lets say 1) terrestrial coverage, or 2) optimum tv coverage or anything else- then maybe this is the way to go in the future?.Maybe in 5 years time India and Oz will be playing 5 ball overs - who knows? Stats coped with ODI's changing from 60 to 50 overs,and then t20's coming on board, then why not cope with 5 instead of 6 ball overs ? I agree it all sounds a bit odd at the moment, but there are some hefty people behind this - i know there are several heavyweight ex-players, Nasser Hussain included, saying that this new competition should have been done some years ago - in turn the ECB is sponsored by the 17 counties - the vast majority of which agreed the new format?( i'm not sure) - i know that Surrey rejected it to begin with. However, as i've always said, i'm a cricket fan of whatever format, and if it means games getting on to terrestrial TV and attracting a newer type of audience then great.
Also,as i keep on saying, if it means i can watch ABDV and Kohli and Gayle batting against Starc and Steyn and Kuldeep instead of Stevens and Cobb against Smith and Masters then i know where i'll be spending my money- and i dont give a toss if i watch 5 or 6 balls in an over- especially if one of the main concerns is adding another column into the stats !
In the blast, each county has at least a couple of big name players. Tomorrow I will see Braithwaite and Adam Milne play for Kent, with Stoinis playing in the next game. Alongside them will be internationals like Billings and Kuhn and quality players like Denly, while Surrey have the likes of Aaron Finch, Roy (if fit), Morkel and the Currans. I've seen Steyn playing for Hampshire against Kent at Lord's a month ago. The existing county setup is full of stars as it is.
But , consistently. So, instead of having Brathwaite and Milne, opening the bowling for Kent then first change will be Stevens and say, Podmore, both of whom will never be good enough to play for England. In the new competition, then you are likely to see 5 Test class (or T20 interntional) standard bowlers bowling at you - this *has* to improve the quality of any emerging or current England batters and bowlers alike.
How absolutley ridiculous has it been to see Butler keeping wicket in white ball cricket when with Bairstow in the field and knowing the roles will be stupidly reversed in the Tests.
Got to say, I don't actually mind that.
Bairstow is a much better outfielder than Buttler. In an ODI format where every run matters then I would much rather Bairstow was on the ropes than Buttler.
That said, I don't know enough about keeping to say who is better between Buttler/Bairstow. However, if Bairstow is better than Buttler then I think it's quite smart to get Bairstow out with the white ball but behind the sticks with the red ball.
I really don't think there is much between them as keepers. Butler bats 7 in the Test team so he should keep and Bairstow could move up to 4.
I do agree with that in principal, however if the management believe that Bairstow is superior with the gloves then I don't mind the thought process. A boundary rider is more important than a keeper in ODI's and a keeper is more important in tests.
I do believe that it's better to have your keeper batting further down the order though, so I don't have a strong opinion either way. Was more just expressing that I can unxerstand the thought process.
Bairstow is by far and away our quickest fielder and should be an outfielder in all forms of cricket for England. Buttler is god enough to keep in Tests if he is going to play in the Test team which seems to be the plan now. The management are clueless surely you can see that?
I like Buttler as much as the next man but that might be taking it too far
Pres, I agree with those views of the ex pros from two years ago. I'd love to know what their opinions are of 'The Hundred'.
IMO we have to try franchises but have to also leave the format alone. If you start changing the length of overs, why not have overs where runs count double etc.
I remember when Twenty 20 was introduced by the ECB in 2003. The key point then was that it was just a shorter 50 over match, an easy to follow format. There was strictly no gimmicks like special overs or double run shots.
re Rashid ...fundamentally he has to be backed if selected and bowled
no point in selecting him for 2 games and shoving him back in the wilderness but id have my concerns about someone who hasnt been playing the longer format anyway
Same thing was said in the 2002 when they brought in this new fangled hit and giggles 20 over competition.
With respect I think thats rubbish. In my opinion it's a completely different situation. Every time this debate comes up all you have to say is that people are traditionalists or anti change. You never provide any points why it will be better or counter any points that people make about why they think it won't work.
2002 people were against change because it wasn't cricket etc. The change was innovative and was always going to appeal to a different audience.
This change is change for changes sake. It isn't solving the problem with cricket rather exacerbating it. T20 is not the problem with cricket it is the part that is keeping cricket going. The problem with cricket is accessibility and complexity. This changes is making it more complex (another format? Is that really what the casual cricket observer or someone looking to get into cricket wants?) And as I have explained to you before this goes no way to solving the accessibility problem. This won't attract a new audience but rather move people from watching the blast to watching this rubbish. It won't change things overall.
Every year the blast grows in popularity - attendances this year are higher than last already. Every year it gets called the best ever. Yes it needed changes to compete with the IPL/BBL and I've said before how I would have done that within the county format. The idea of franchises is simply unsuited the the UK and our cricket setup. The 100 ball rubbish is simply change for the sake of change by suits who have to be seen to be doing something but have no idea what to actually do.
As usual, some great points Canters mate. Its true ive never been able to counter any of the points- simply because i dont know what to counter them with.I'm as much in the dark as everyone else.
However, to just diss the whole scheme as 'bollocks' or 'utter utter crap' is a (wee) bit OTT to be honest. The people who run and who are involved with the ECB have a lot more cricket and marketing expertise than all of us put together. If they have spotted a 'gap' in the market for lets say 1) terrestrial coverage, or 2) optimum tv coverage or anything else- then maybe this is the way to go in the future?.Maybe in 5 years time India and Oz will be playing 5 ball overs - who knows? Stats coped with ODI's changing from 60 to 50 overs,and then t20's coming on board, then why not cope with 5 instead of 6 ball overs ? I agree it all sounds a bit odd at the moment, but there are some hefty people behind this - i know there are several heavyweight ex-players, Nasser Hussain included, saying that this new competition should have been done some years ago - in turn the ECB is sponsored by the 17 counties - the vast majority of which agreed the new format?( i'm not sure) - i know that Surrey rejected it to begin with. However, as i've always said, i'm a cricket fan of whatever format, and if it means games getting on to terrestrial TV and attracting a newer type of audience then great.
Also,as i keep on saying, if it means i can watch ABDV and Kohli and Gayle batting against Starc and Steyn and Kuldeep instead of Stevens and Cobb against Smith and Masters then i know where i'll be spending my money- and i dont give a toss if i watch 5 or 6 balls in an over- especially if one of the main concerns is adding another column into the stats !
In the blast, each county has at least a couple of big name players. Tomorrow I will see Braithwaite and Adam Milne play for Kent, with Stoinis playing in the next game. Alongside them will be internationals like Billings and Kuhn and quality players like Denly, while Surrey have the likes of Aaron Finch, Roy (if fit), Morkel and the Currans. I've seen Steyn playing for Hampshire against Kent at Lord's a month ago. The existing county setup is full of stars as it is.
But , consistently. So, instead of having Brathwaite and Milne, opening the bowling for Kent then first change will be Stevens and say, Podmore, both of whom will never be good enough to play for England. In the new competition, then you are likely to see 5 Test class (or T20 interntional) standard bowlers bowling at you - this *has* to improve the quality of any emerging or current England batters and bowlers alike.
But Podmore might become international class, it's too early to decide but we'll only find out of he gets games and is able to bowl at the likes of Roy and Finch.
Would Joe Denly have turned himself into an all rounder without playing regularly for Kent ?
I think just as important as the overseas issue is the England players issue. What the he'll is the point in trying to promote our tournament when our beat 15 players are away playing (or not playing in Sam and Tom's case) with England.
Why take our 15 best players out if the competition. Make them available and not only does it improve the quality but it benefits our own players.
Comments
How absolutley ridiculous has it been to see Butler keeping wicket in white ball cricket when with Bairstow in the field and knowing the roles will be stupidly reversed in the Tests.
I still find it curious to play Billings as a specialist batsman, when he's almost certainly the best keeper of the 3!
Its true ive never been able to counter any of the points- simply because i dont know what to counter them with.I'm as much in the dark as everyone else.
However, to just diss the whole scheme as 'bollocks' or 'utter utter crap' is a (wee) bit OTT to be honest. The people who run and who are involved with the ECB have a lot more cricket and marketing expertise than all of us put together. If they have spotted a 'gap' in the market for lets say 1) terrestrial coverage, or 2) optimum tv coverage or anything else- then maybe this is the way to go in the future?.Maybe in 5 years time India and Oz will be playing 5 ball overs - who knows? Stats coped with ODI's changing from 60 to 50 overs,and then t20's coming on board, then why not cope with 5 instead of 6 ball overs ? I agree it all sounds a bit odd at the moment, but there are some hefty people behind this - i know there are several heavyweight ex-players, Nasser Hussain included, saying that this new competition should have been done some years ago - in turn the ECB is sponsored by the 17 counties - the vast majority of which agreed the new format?( i'm not sure) - i know that Surrey rejected it to begin with.
However, as i've always said, i'm a cricket fan of whatever format, and if it means games getting on to terrestrial TV and attracting a newer type of audience then great.
Also,as i keep on saying, if it means i can watch ABDV and Kohli and Gayle batting against Starc and Steyn and Kuldeep instead of Stevens and Cobb against Smith and Masters then i know where i'll be spending my money- and i dont give a toss if i watch 5 or 6 balls in an over- especially if one of the main concerns is adding another column into the stats !
Bairstow is a much better outfielder than Buttler. In an ODI format where every run matters then I would much rather Bairstow was on the ropes than Buttler.
That said, I don't know enough about keeping to say who is better between Buttler/Bairstow. However, if Bairstow is better than Buttler then I think it's quite smart to get Bairstow out with the white ball but behind the sticks with the red ball.
I do believe that it's better to have your keeper batting further down the order though, so I don't have a strong opinion either way. Was more just expressing that I can unxerstand the thought process.
As I've said, if they believe that Bairstow is superior with the gloves then I can understand how he's got the red ball gig but is on the ropes with the white ball.
I'm not saying I agree with it as I would prefer consistency, but I can understand the thought process.
If Buttler plays in the Test team then he keeps and Bairstow bats higher than 6. I don't know why you keep going round the houses. Bairstow is a better outfielder than he is keeper.
From a marketing perspective, it’s all about exposure on TV. Whether that will work is open to question. The TV companies will soon be controlling the sport if it does take off. My concern is that the T20 Blast, a tournament that doesn’t interest me much, but has clearly grown, might wither.
As for wanting to see the world stars on the same pitch, I would rather see my county team’s lesser talented players, to be honest. We have Test matches, T20 internationals etc. where we can see the best.
As for 17 of 18 counties supporting the 100, I think that’s misleading. The counties were split badly. The lesser counties which will not be hosting 100 games were split between ‘we are desperate for money so let’s take what’s offered’ and threats from the ECB of being excluded if they didn’t support it. Sussex, Surrey and one other county (I’ve forgotten which) stood against to the last minute but only Surrey had the clout to keep standing.
The way I see it, the 100, whether it’s successful or not, has dodgy financial forecasts and is likely to kill off some aspect of domestic cricket.
Again I agree it's all about marketing but I don't think they have done anything that could not have been achieved by a rebrand of the blast - and putting it ALL on free to air TV.
As for the counties agreeing to it - more than half of them had their votes 'decided for them by the ECB because they are in debt to the ECB. The rest were bribed but also blackmailed that if they voted against it and it still went ahead they woukdnt bot receive annual payments that other counties would. This removes the prospect of a county voting against it on principal (even though the vote is already decided) pointless. So even counties like Surrey who have publicly been against it the whole time voted for it reluctantly in order to receive the same payout as other counties. There was no proper consultation by the ECB and the vote was on city franchises rather than on this hundred ball rubbish. Which was kept under wraps until it was already decided.
The PCA and chairman Daryl Mitchell have been publicly against the hundred ball concept and rather quiet on the whole city franchises thing which suggests the players are at best sceptical.
On your last few points - having it on terrestrial tv, attracting a new audience (which I don't think exists as they already go to the blast) and seeing the best players in the world could all have been achieved through a revamped county format.
Those leagues moving from state to city cricket meant:
More teams. We have less (10 less)
More games. We have less (not sure how many but significantly less)
More locations. We have 10 less locations.
Theirs are solely on terrestrial TV. Ours will be 1/4 on terrestrial TV for the first year. After that it's subject to the ECB and the pull of sky money.
They weren't selling out grounds for T20 before. We are already selling out most grounds for most games.
All these things for them make the cricket more accessible. For us the opposite. Less people watching less cricket and having to travel further to do so.
That is the fundamental reason those leagues were a success and the fundamental reason ours won't be.
Other problems I can spot with it. Less English players playing in the English league. With 10 less teams that's minimum 90 less English players. Plus with say 2 extra over seas players that's 16 less in the teams that do play. So over 100 less English players in our T20 competition!
Who will get a contract? Stevens because he is bloody effective on English pitches and is experienced. Likewise Cook Bell Trott Compton Balance etc will all get contracts on name even though they will never play t20 for England again. At what cost? Young up and coming players are going to miss out. The players that are known to county coaches as they have been in the system for years. So those coachs would give them all chance. A franchise? No chance.
I keep harking back to the Currans. But 3 years ago when neither of them had made any county appearances only those who followed academy cricket closely were aware of them. If there was a bidding process for franchises would either of them have been bought? No chance. Yet they both were given their debuts by Surrey that year in the T20 and both excelled and became regulars. That is the route through for young players. Why ruin it?
If you think the 'lesser' T20 competition will continue more than a year then you're crazy.
The argument it will make England better at T20/ODI cricket is null and void. A change of coach and approach has changed our side around. We reached the final of the T20 world cup we have shot up the rankings we have some of the best players in the world and some of the most expensive in the IPL auction. We are favourites for next year's world cup. We have depth in this format like never before. Could name 2 T20i teams who I would be confident they could compete internationally.
The argument it will drive interest in cricket. If you think that franchise cricket will pull in different people to watch than the blast did. It certainly wont/can't have more people watch it as there are less games, less grounds less accessible etc. So if we are working on the assumption that it won't attract the people that usually watch the blast and are already cricket fans but will attract an entirely new audience (in itself a ridiculous assumption) then are we really sure that this people will go on to have any meaningful interest in cricket going forwards. Are they going to choose a county to support or start following test matches? Don't think so. The blast was already pulling these people in and it gave them a natural progression to following other forms of the game.
As said change was needed but they've gone around it the wrong way.
What should have happened:
Keep the counties.
3 groups rather than 2 to reduce no of games slightly.
Play it all in one 4 week block in the summer holidays.
Complete international break - we want our own best players to be playing in this competition. Stokes/Root/Morgan etc are as much of a pull as any overseas star.
4 overseas players per team. But no Kolpak all must be current internationals.
Have it All on Terrestrial TV.
Have all the cheerleaders/stump mic/whatever franchise type stuff you want.
Finals day at the Olympic stadium. Make as much song and dance out of it as you like.
Keep the established set up that works but build on making it better.
Solution= higher quality competition to compete with IPL/BBC, best players in the world including our own. As much song and dance as you want. Within the county format allowing counties to thrive and make more money. Whatever new audience there is are free to come along. Crickets accessibilty improves and popularity grows.
Evolution not revolution.
any emerging or current England batters and bowlers alike.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/nasser-hussain-believes-english-cricket-must-adopt-the-franchise-format-a7234651.html
http://www.skysports.com/cricket/news/12172/9828653/the-t20-debate-michael-vaughan-and-dominic-cork-argue-for-ipl-style-tournament-in-england
All high profile ex England players who believe the franchise format is the way forward.
IMO we have to try franchises but have to also leave the format alone. If you start changing the length of overs, why not have overs where runs count double etc.
I remember when Twenty 20 was introduced by the ECB in 2003. The key point then was that it was just a shorter 50 over match, an easy to follow format. There was strictly no gimmicks like special overs or double run shots.
What's changed since 15 years ago?
no point in selecting him for 2 games and shoving him back in the wilderness but id have my concerns about someone who hasnt been playing the longer format anyway
Would Joe Denly have turned himself into an all rounder without playing regularly for Kent ?
Why take our 15 best players out if the competition. Make them available and not only does it improve the quality but it benefits our own players.