Warnie's six point plan

article

I actually have to agree with Warnie on alot of this article, which I am not sure if I should feel dirty about :

1. Umpires - If these guys are to be the elite panel then we should be paying them the money they deserve and make sure we do get the very best of the umpires around the world. I would also add, that if the best 10 umpires in the world happen to come from one country at any particular time, then who cares. I would suggest the day of a country biased umpire in the main, bar some horrid bleating from fans has passed.

2. ODI - I can take or leave this idea - however his ideas of streamlining and refining the county game by eliminating this would work quite nicely for me.

3. World Test Championship - I am not sure this would work for me. I like the idea, however with the fact there are only 10 major nations at present, how are the Windies or NZ going to try and promote graass roots and inspire kids, if they don't get to play against the Aussies and Saf's in the gmae, and just get a rolling tournament against the Bangles and I would suggest England at present.

4. Switch hit - fine by me

5. The pitch - all for this as well, roady roads are just very dull indeed

6. Meh, wouldn't bother me either really.


Thoughts?

Interesting thoughts about our domestic game. Unlike most Aussies, he wouldn't rip it up and start again.

The 50 over format is going to be with us for a while, because TV contracts have been agreed until 2019.

Not surprising he's bigging up the IPL - they are his paymasters now

I prefer his six pint plan . . .

All valid points but re number 6 - Isn't the NFL the highest grossing league? I don't watch that sh!t either.

Think it is, JK - but Warny said he thought IPL was 4th highest gross tourney. We may as well give it the room in the calendar now, as it isn't going to go away.

It is amazing that someone capable of such intelligence has done so many idioitic things in the past

G.Wood wrote:It is amazing that someone capable of such intelligence has done so many idioitic things in the past

phurt! It's ghost written by his mum. oh, no wait ..........

JKLever wrote:All valid points but re number 6 - Isn't the NFL the highest grossing league? I don't watch that sh!t either.

I happily watch NFL, but t20? It's shit. End of.

Mick Sawyer wrote:

G.Wood wrote:It is amazing that someone capable of such intelligence has done so many idioitic things in the past

phurt! It's ghost written by his mum. oh, no wait ..........

"banjo an' Joh" and thick spiv...warnie's ancestry as a proud victorian overcomes his odd lapse of judgement

G.Wood wrote:It is amazing that someone capable of such intelligence has done so many idioitic things in the past

I would have thought his six point plan would have somewhere included a packet of winnie blue, some playboy undies and a mobile phone.

tac wrote:I prefer his six pint plan . . .

Or his six bint plan...

I don't think we need to scrap one-day cricket, but we do need to stop treating one-day games and Twenty20 matches as though they are in totally different spheres.

Before the marketing men carved out a niche for "Twenty20" we had:

60-over cricket in the the first three World Cups
55-over cricket in England
50-over cricket in other countries
40-over cricket in the English domestic scene
Rain-reduced matches lasting as little as 15 overs a side

All of these forms were considered "one-day" games and were united under the banner "Limited Overs Cricket".

We don't need three forms of cricket. We just need two. First-class and limited overs.

First-class matches can run over three days, four days or five days, but we don't give them all different names and classes as a result.

Let's have "limited-overs" tournaments, or a "limited-overs" world series, mixing up the number of overs to keep things fresh.

Hass wrote:
Let's have "limited-overs" tournaments, or a "limited-overs" world series, mixing up the number of overs to keep things fresh.

How would you select a squad given that you have both T50 and T20 specialists.

Shaun Pollock disagrees with him regarding ODIs.

http://www.supersport.com/cricket/article.aspx?headline=ODIs%20still%20tops%20-%20Pollock%20&id=312157

taipan wrote:

Hass wrote:
Let's have "limited-overs" tournaments, or a "limited-overs" world series, mixing up the number of overs to keep things fresh.

How would you select a squad given that you have both T50 and T20 specialists.

You'd have to start selecting squads that were a little less "specialist". It's as simple as that.

Interesting article. Some good points.

Please come back, Warnie.

He said that Darrell Harper is too much like a school teacher and isn't friendly with the players, so therefore the players don't like him. I think he means Darryl Hair.

The players don't like Harper because he is a shit umpire.

Sir Richard disagrees with Warnie re. T20 and ODIs. He thinks that T20 is consuming the game and in danger of spoiling it and undermining the other forms of the game. He also believes that when people tire of it, it will affect their overall interest in cricket.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/twenty20-will-destroy-the-game-says-hadlee-1773696.html