New t20 proposals: the Pros and Cons

Joined: 17 Oct 2013, 18:36

23 Jul 2016, 18:24 #31

Looks like Colin Graves wants his own way at the ECB :-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricke ... t-ECB.html
Reply
Like

Joined: 14 Apr 2015, 09:15

27 Jul 2016, 09:57 #32



More on this in today's Torygraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2016 ... th-t20-co/

Includes:

"The counties will be shareholders in the new tournament to be played in a short four week block over high summer, and income ring fenced so it cannot be spent on the England team or other areas of the ECB’s operation...The counties are keen to retain their own Twenty20 competition played on Friday nights that continue to be popular and make money and could run alongside the new tournament. It means England will be the only country with two Twenty20 competitions in its domestic calendar...Many counties are happy with the current set up and believe playing the tournament in a block at high summer next year will help. Also Surrey, the most powerful and richest club in the country, are leading opposition to a city based tournament. They will only support a competition in which they can compete as Surrey, Yorkshire have said something similar. Ticket sales for this year’s Natwest Blast have been pretty good despite the wet early summer and competition from the Euro 2016 competition...The counties that are struggling are the Test match grounds outside London. Warwickshire have only sold 31percent of tickets, Durham 24, Glamorgan 29, Hampshire 27 and Yorkshire 42 percent. These are the grounds that will be in the market to host a city team in the new tournament."
Reply
Like

Joined: 30 Jun 2016, 07:30

27 Jul 2016, 10:29 #33

Really interesting piece that. It's pretty clear that cricket needs greater exposure and terrestrial channels showing matches is a pretty obvious way forward...but 2 t20 competitions in the year? I don't know, will people go to matches for both? It feels like this is in danger of killing the golden goose unless the county t20 tournament is reduced significantly
Reply
Like

Joined: 14 Aug 2007, 12:51

27 Jul 2016, 10:30 #34

I follow the NFL quite closely (cue the booing), and they have 32 teams each playing 16 games a season. The teams are arranged in regional Divisions of 4, these all play each other home and away each season. Then they make up the other games against teams out of the Division.


If the Division 1 of the CC is 8 teams playing 14 matches, then 10 teams would be in Division 2. Obviously 18 matches would be impossible, and unfair as it would afford no rest compared to Division 1.
I propose splitting Division 2 into North and South groups of 5 teams, these teams play each other home and away, and then also play the teams in the other group home or away (alternating each season as you would either have 2 or 3 home games). This would give a total of 13 games in the season.

This would ensure every team plays each other. All the local teams play home and away. As the teams are likely to stay mostly the same (probably only 1 team promoted) the home/away schedules will be fair in the long run.
The statistics at the bottom of the Telegraph article are misleading and inaccurate.

The proposal,as described, represents the thin edge of a wedge which threatens to diislodge the domestic game.
It needs to be vigorously opposed and I hope Yorkshire will be in the vanguard of such opposition.
Reply
Like

Joined: 02 Apr 2014, 17:47

27 Jul 2016, 22:28 #35


More on this in today's Torygraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2016 ... th-t20-co/

Includes:

"The counties will be shareholders in the new tournament to be played in a short four week block over high summer, and income ring fenced so it cannot be spent on the England team or other areas of the ECB’s operation...The counties are keen to retain their own Twenty20 competition played on Friday nights that continue to be popular and make money and could run alongside the new tournament. It means England will be the only country with two Twenty20 competitions in its domestic calendar...Many counties are happy with the current set up and believe playing the tournament in a block at high summer next year will help. Also Surrey, the most powerful and richest club in the country, are leading opposition to a city based tournament. They will only support a competition in which they can compete as Surrey, Yorkshire have said something similar. Ticket sales for this year’s Natwest Blast have been pretty good despite the wet early summer and competition from the Euro 2016 competition...The counties that are struggling are the Test match grounds outside London. Warwickshire have only sold 31percent of tickets, Durham 24, Glamorgan 29, Hampshire 27 and Yorkshire 42 percent. These are the grounds that will be in the market to host a city team in the new tournament."
The statistics quoted in the Telegraph (percentage of tickets sold) don't prove anything as Test match grounds have a higher capacity than others. It would be far more useful to be given the actual attendances. What point is the author of the article trying to make with the assertion that the test match counties are struggling?
Reply
Like

Joined: 24 May 2016, 21:00

28 Jul 2016, 09:13 #36

Martyn Moxon has questioned the strength of the proposals, he mentioned to sky sports that its yet to be established whether England players will be made available for the tournament and whether the plans are in place to secure enough quality overseas players given we have had problems with this in the past.
Reply
Like

Joined: 03 Jun 2014, 20:54

28 Jul 2016, 09:27 #37

The statistics quoted in the Telegraph (percentage of tickets sold) don't prove anything as Test match grounds have a higher capacity than others. It would be far more useful to be given the actual attendances. What point is the author of the article trying to make with the assertion that the test match counties are struggling?
If I was a county boss I would, in principle, be inclined to say, "OK, Mr Graves and Harrison, have your little circus in the first part of the school holidays (3 weeks max)". There is enough time for everything else in a near six months season (trim the other T20 a little and make the one-day cup 3 groups of 6 prior to the QFs, if needed). I don't mind compromise and the city-based circus idea is not totally without merit.

BUT ... the problem (seen already over the past two years) is that Graves and Harrison will just keep coming back for more until they believe the cricket season is 'profit maximising', with the demise of one, two or all of the counties simply considered a part of their 'creative destruction'.

There is a case for thinking imaginatively about cricket's future, but it cannot be done with these zealots at the helm.

The hypocrisy that Graves/Harrison employ populist language ('bringing cricket to the people'), while at the same time fiercely resisting any exposure on terrestrial TV, is all of a piece with their machinations. Everything they do or say is political, like the messages being pushed through the media that T20 is failing.

All rather sad.

Reply
Like

Joined: 21 Jan 2004, 19:13

28 Jul 2016, 11:58 #38

City teams will limit potential market. Calling a team Leeds will alienate the rest of Yorkshire. Manchester will alienate Liverpool. What would they call Durham???
Reply
Like

Joined: 24 May 2016, 21:00

28 Jul 2016, 17:51 #39

There's currently a very one sided franchise cricket debate on sky sports 2 right now, they have yet to mention broadcasting it on the bbc or itv, i wonder why.
Reply
Like

Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 19:23

28 Jul 2016, 18:14 #40

I thought it was amusing when, as one of his reasons for being in favour, Trescothick said that Gayle's 2 big 100's last year were unavailable to the general public because the games weren't televised.

Are Sky going to allow free access to the franchise T20 games then?
Reply
Like