Oh look - the ECB have just voted in T20 overkill in England

its about 'hit and giggle' cricket isnt it? i thought pure cricket fans (read county fans) dont give a shit about it. afaik the 9 team proposal was only for the epl, not county cricket

since the teams are franchised what the ecb earns in licensing and tv fees goes to a central pool that is divided amongst the existing counties. the blueprint is there in the ipl, its not terribly complicated. it leads to more money for everyone, better quality of matches and more interest in cricket. a win-win. unless you are an old fogey at a county club who cant think beyond the next lunch of course

what i also wonder if if the winners of the epl go to the champions league what happens if the winner is one of the international teams? what if one of the county players is also contracted to an international team? whats the point of inviting international teams?

Ask the BCCI dude. They know all.

I know I'll be a lonely voice but what's so bad about 40 over cricket? Shorter than 50 over stuff and so the action's bit more concentrated and less formulaic (10 overs less of nurdling) but still long enough for Batsmen to build meaningful innings and bowlers to bowl proper spells.

I often play 35/40 over cricket and I find it a very happy medium. I think 40 over cricket should be the one being overkilled and not 20 20. If I was a mad texan billionaire I'd be ploughing my dollars into 40 40.

Eric Air Emu wrote:I know I'll be a lonely voice but what's so bad about 40 over cricket? Shorter than 50 over stuff and so the action's bit more concentrated and less formulaic (10 overs less of nurdling) but still long enough for Batsmen to build meaningful innings and bowlers to bowl proper spells.

I often play 35/40 over cricket and I find it a very happy medium. I think 40 over cricket should be the one being overkilled and not 20 20. If I was a mad texan billionaire I'd be ploughing my dollars into 40 40.

It's a bit nothingish though, IMO. Neither here nor there. It doesn't stand players in good stead, particularly, for the longer competition. The single 50-over comp has given it a little more meaning IMO. It's the only internationally reflected competetion in our domestic season. If I were Clarke, I'd be pushing for a bit more 50over stuff and 9 5-day FC matches to decide the championship. There're still too many rain affected draws with skewed batting and bowling points. With slightly better pitches, a good proportion of matches would go the 5 days.

I'm for 9 five day games too.

The argument against is that several teams don't have the quality to bat for that long and most games won't see the 5th day played.

Tough IMO, they'll have to learn it.

If 40 over cricket was played at international level would it be more appealing?

JKLever wrote:I'm for 9 five day games too.

The argument against is that several teams don't have the quality to bat for that long and most games won't see the 5th day played.

Tough IMO, they'll have to learn it.

Yeah, definitely. You can't account for shitness. You create the format and the teams play to it. I expect the argument would also be 'revenue', which is damned moot if you visit a county during one of these matches. Most there haven't even paid, for whatever reason and there's a scant amount anyway.

It would make sense.

Eric Air Emu wrote:If 40 over cricket was played at international level would it be more appealing?

Not really. They're both becoming moribund and defunkt. I just think that if you're going to have a longer OD tournament, it may as well reflect the international format.

Eric Air Emu wrote:If 40 over cricket was played at international level would it be more appealing?

I don't think anything can be changed until,the next TV rights for the World Cup are discussed - and that won't be until 2019. So we are left with a potentially moribund form of the game for at least 11 years.

Brass Monkey wrote:....
India! IndiA! IndIA! INDIA!!! Oh India, you're so fine - you're so fine you blow my mind hey India. Hey India!

Please don't wear a cheerleaders' skirt when singing that.

5 day championship? God no!

Eric Air Emu wrote:I know I'll be a lonely voice but what's so bad about 40 over cricket? Shorter than 50 over stuff and so the action's bit more concentrated and less formulaic (10 overs less of nurdling) but still long enough for Batsmen to build meaningful innings and bowlers to bowl proper spells.

I often play 35/40 over cricket and I find it a very happy medium. I think 40 over cricket should be the one being overkilled and not 20 20. If I was a mad texan billionaire I'd be ploughing my dollars into 40 40.

Agree wholeheartedly with the first part of this.

I'll miss the 40 over cricket, though perhaps this is partly due to being brought up on a diet of the John Player League, both at sundry grounds around the East Midlands, and of course on a Sunday on BBC2.

The trouble is that the mass market just isn't there for this - T20 can be crammed into the attention span of your standard ned around the world, something that 40/40 can't.

T20 has been good fun whilst it was a few weeks spanning the period around the longest day of the year allowing an amble down after work and a couple of beers with the lads during the long evenings of daylight, but not sure I am going to retain an interest in the format with this increased diet.

I'm not sure the alternatives were really any more palatable either, but I certainly don't like the idea of two T20 competitions. Confusing and yeeeeuccch.

Remmer.

Oh look - the ECB have just voted in T20 overkill in England

I don't know if I said this already, but on the off chance I haven't.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA.

It's not all bad though, English fans.

Worcestershire are actually trying to recruit Ajit FFS Agarkar. FFS!

Ban Furriner!

Nah, furri's way down the list...

Another exhibit for the prosecution, m'lud.

More t20 for English players to qualify for. Enjoy the money lads, we'll have the Ashes TYVM.