White v Red ball cricket

Foley

Foley

Level: Colin Harrington
(260 Apps, 30 Gls)
L1: Reaction Apprentice
Season Ticket
Yes
Stand
South Lower
Row Letter(s)
ZZ
So Rachid and Hales will only play White ball cricket for their counties.

I have a horrible feeling that in 10 years time Test matches/ the four day game will be totally marginalised.
 
Rashid played one county championship game last season (I believe), plus with Crane on the scene, he won't get a sniff of a test place. Hales tried test match cricket and didn't quite get there - a shame, but I can understand it from a career earnings POV. If it was Joe Root, I'd be more surprised.
 
SteMerritt said:
Can't remember the last time Morgan played red ball for Middx, pretty sure he was on the beach when we got relegated last season.
Click to expand...

July 2015 I think was the last time he turned up for a Middlesex County game.

There’s such a difference between the formats nowadays and specialist players for each side are needed. However, this hasn’t informed the ECB to consider two coaches for England. I’d keep Bayliss on for the short form and have a Test specialist lead the Test side.

If players can choose their format based on their skill set, why not coaches?
 
unification said:
July 2015 I think was the last time he turned up for a Middlesex County game.

There’s such a difference between the formats nowadays and specialist players for each side are needed. However, this hasn’t informed the ECB to consider two coaches for England. I’d keep Bayliss on for the short form and have a Test specialist lead the Test side.

If players can choose their format based on their skill set, why not coaches?
Click to expand...
England did have split coaches for a while a few years ago didn't they? I thought Giles took over the short form when Flower had the test side, or did I dream that? Don't think it lasted very long however...
 
Bayliss said at the weekend that he thought the ECB should employ a specialist T20 coach to reduce workloads and keep it fresh
 
Why are the ECB trying to market cricket to people who don't watch cricket, but at the same time infuriating people who do! Obviously financial reasons but it's a kin joke!!
 
Unfortunately they've been doing it for 20 years so now I guess a large number of people who, like me, played and went to grounds to watch 3, 4 and 5 day cricket, have ceased to have any interest.

It's reached the point where I no longer look at the (albeit minimal) newspaper coverage even of test matches. Cricket has been fucked since the Sky deal, when it sold out it's fan-base in favour of a non-existent mass-market audience of day-trippers.

Might as well bury the game now.
 
pooshooter said:
Why are the ECB trying to market cricket to people who don't watch cricket, but at the same time infuriating people who do! Obviously financial reasons but it's a kin joke!!
Click to expand...

Agree. The ECB’s meddling and tweaking and scrambling around for new ideas shows that they don’t have a clue how to evolve the game. 100 ball innings are not the way and the feeble excuses about young people not being interested are simply grating..
  • If you want the youth to be involved, get some cricket back on free-to-watch TV. The Ashes in 2005 was watched by thousands if not millions. A load of people I know who hadn’t even bothered to think about cricket were gripped by it. Make it easily accessible on TV.
  • You have a readymade tournament to attract the youth and non-cricket fans – the T20 Blast. It’s bells, whistles crash-bang-wallop cricket that’s done and dusted in three hours. Sure, the purists don’t like it, but the post-work crowd do. Try getting a ticket for Middlesex v Surrey on a Thursday night! It’s the best medium for attracting the uninitiated as there’s plenty of action. The IPL works, the Big Bash works, even Pakistan and the Windies are developing their own versions? Why abandon or at best side-line an already functioning tournament?
 
unification said:
Agree. The ECB’s meddling and tweaking and scrambling around for new ideas shows that they don’t have a clue how to evolve the game. 100 ball innings are not the way and the feeble excuses about young people not being interested are simply grating..
  • If you want the youth to be involved, get some cricket back on free-to-watch TV. The Ashes in 2005 was watched by thousands if not millions. A load of people I know who hadn’t even bothered to think about cricket were gripped by it. Make it easily accessible on TV.
  • You have a readymade tournament to attract the youth and non-cricket fans – the T20 Blast. It’s bells, whistles crash-bang-wallop cricket that’s done and dusted in three hours. Sure, the purists don’t like it, but the post-work crowd do. Try getting a ticket for Middlesex v Surrey on a Thursday night! It’s the best medium for attracting the uninitiated as there’s plenty of action. The IPL works, the Big Bash works, even Pakistan and the Windies are developing their own versions? Why abandon or at best side-line an already functioning tournament?
Click to expand...
believe that practice in all sport is known as (Shaun) Harvey-ing ?:unsure:
 
The ECB want to right a wrong over Twenty20 - in that they didn't take the IPL seriously and let it be the premier T20 tournament. The 100 ball thing is a joke and reeks of desperation to be the first to do it while not thinking about how it materially differentiates from T20 other than being 20 balls shorter.
 
I have not heard one single coherent reason why the 100 ball thing should be introduced - normally with this sort of thing there is a reason (however flawed it may be - eg U23s in Checkatrade to help England), but this doesn't appear to offer anything new or helpful to anyone!!
 
mooro said:
I have not heard one single coherent reason why the 100 ball thing should be introduced - normally with this sort of thing there is a reason (however flawed it may be - eg U23s in Checkatrade to help England), but this doesn't appear to offer anything new or helpful to anyone!!
Click to expand...

It’s pathetic honestly. Scrabbling around for ideas is exactly it. Why would 100 ball crikkit appeal to folk that 120 ball crikkit doesn’t. They should focus on getting bums on seats in the T20 Blast. Or expanding it somehow.
 
What we could have is a two innings per side at ten overs per innings - for those with no attention span...
 
Maybe each player could bowl one over each and batsmen come out in pairs and bat for two overs and then retire.
Instead of being out, wickets could be scored as a minus penalty to the total score instead
How about basketball type hoops located in the outfield with extra bonus runs for hitting them?
 
mooro said:
Maybe each player could bowl one over each and batsmen come out in pairs and bat for two overs and then retire.
Instead of being out, wickets could be scored as a minus penalty to the total score instead
How about basketball type hoops located in the outfield with extra bonus runs for hitting them?
Click to expand...
I'd patent that...
 
makv said:
It’s pathetic honestly. Scrabbling around for ideas is exactly it. Why would 100 ball crikkit appeal to folk that 120 ball crikkit doesn’t. They should focus on getting bums on seats in the T20 Blast. Or expanding it somehow.
Click to expand...

If they were strict (batting and bowling side) with fiddling about timewise then T20 would get done in the time required for a 100 ball cricket match. But that would be too easy though for the ECB to do, instead they go for a stupid idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar Threads

Paul Cannell
Stoneground WHITE flour available in South Oxfordshire
2
Replies
39
Views
8K
carefreeoufc
carefreeoufc
Back
Top Bottom