New t20 proposals: the Pros and Cons

Moderator: Assistant Moderator

Joined: October 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm

July 28th, 2016, 6:25 pm #41

More on this from today's Daily Mail :-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricke ... s-war.html
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: May 24th, 2016, 9:00 pm

July 28th, 2016, 6:52 pm #42

I don't want to see us as persuadable, its a very selfish attitude to agree to this just because we're allowed to be called Yorkshire. Colin Graves is a bully, i just hope there is enough backbone in the game to bully him back.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: August 20th, 2013, 11:26 am

July 29th, 2016, 4:43 pm #43

I think Colin Graves will get his way with any t20 changes, and we will end up with exactly what he has proposed, with or without the counties consent. He just strikes me as being that type of person - determined, forceful and he does not let anyone get in his way.

Reply
Like
Share

Joined: October 21st, 2013, 1:37 pm

July 29th, 2016, 11:05 pm #44

is Colin Gravea the yorkshire Donald Trump. Moneybags rides roughshod over everything, determined to get his own way.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: August 20th, 2013, 11:26 am

July 30th, 2016, 8:33 am #45

Could be, he has already removed one of his fiercest critics - the Surrey Chairman Richard Thompson.


" The fall-out has already started, with Graves taking exception to an interview Surrey chairman Richard Thompson gave to Sportsmail earlier this summer in which he outlined the case against franchises.

The resulting fracas meant that, as revealed by Charles Sale in Sports Agenda last Saturday, Thompson had no option but to resign as chairman of the board's commercial committee. Instead Graves will do the job himself."

Reply
Like
Share

Joined: May 24th, 2016, 9:00 pm

August 9th, 2016, 9:47 am #46

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2016 ... must-be-f/

Twenty20 is the future of English cricket and all else must be fitted around it - why I have made a complete U-turn to save our game

STEVE JAMES

SUNDAY TELEGRAPH RUGBY CORRESPONDENT Steve James 8 AUGUST 2016 • 12:38PM

Difficult piece to write this, not least because it involves a huge bouleversement in standpoint.

It will also probably send my dear late father spinning in his grave, but, with deepest apologies to him and all those other well-intentioned cricket traditionalists, here goes anyway in explaining my altered stance on county cricket.

Twenty20 must rule.

There, I’ve said it. And by that I mean that having the most profitable Twenty20 configuration must become the primary consideration when solving the always-impossible schedule conundrum, and then all else must be fitted around it.

So if that means two Twenty20 competitions, as revealed in this parish recently, one comprising fewer city-based teams, and the other with all 18 counties as now, then so be it.

These are dangerous times, with more counties lurching on the precipice of financial extinction than many would care to admit, and the truth is that Twenty20 is the only real route to significant money being made at domestic level, as well as being already proven as the easiest passage to attracting new participants and spectators.

In the past I would always have argued that cricketing concerns, especially the sanctity of first-class cricket, must come first, because a T20 argument is always a fiscal one, but sometimes some detachment can bring more clarity, and maybe the majority of my time now being spent covering rugby has brought that, especially the utter futility of the constant tiny fiddling with the schedule, as the county game so obviously gets pushed more and more to the margins.

Now a reduction in the number of County Championship matches, one fewer home Test a summer and even the abandoning of 50-over cricket altogether (is there much difference in attitude between 50 and 20 overs any more?) seem piffling inconveniences and will probably not produce the catastrophic cricketing consequences so many envisage.

Would, say, just 10 Championship matches in a three-divisional structure be that bad? It is still a lot of cricket, and poor weather does not keep players off the field for as long these days, with better drainage systems and fewer pluviophiles amongst players and umpires.

Sorting Twenty20 could not just save the county game; it could even allow it to stand on its own feet at last.

A new competition with new teams will not spell the end for the counties. The teams will not be franchises because that would mean money going unnecessarily out of the game, but instead the counties will be stakeholders and will benefit enormously from an enhanced television deal.

But for this to happen we need something different. We need something without any restrictions in terms of scheduling and personnel involved. We need something involving all the top overseas players, and more importantly, all the current England players.

I will be summarising on Glamorgan’s quarter-final against Yorkshire on Thursday and, while the absence of the likes of Joe Root and Jonny Bairstow will undoubtedly benefit my former county, it is a travesty that such players are not performing.

One caveat to all of this is that support for contrived teams is unproven in these parts. Parochialism is too often too huge a hurdle.

English rugby once experimented with regional sides, to resounding failure. Welsh rugby’s regional set up has hardly been a roaring success, even if the dire state of club rugby just beforehand is often conveniently forgotten.

But this is worth a go. Make it top notch and see how the public respond.

A small example might be Wasps rugby and their recent move from London to Coventry. They have brought in big names - South Africa’s Willie le Roux the latest last week - and have succeeded on the field, and so crowds have come, many supporting a new team.

Twenty20 will not kill first-class cricket, Test cricket or the 18-county structure, but narrow-mindedness and stuck-in-the-mud traditionalism might.

It is time to change. We are getting left behind.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: July 2nd, 2014, 7:18 pm

August 9th, 2016, 10:00 am #47

Interesting to see someone do a 180 and come out in support of 20/20. I think there is one central point that the clubs would have more financial independence if they had more money through the gate.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: June 4th, 2015, 6:32 pm

August 9th, 2016, 10:07 am #48

He would have more credibility with his views on cricket if he was not shown as their rugby correspondent!
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: October 7th, 2014, 11:05 am

August 9th, 2016, 11:20 am #49

At a time when cricket coverage in the national & local press is on the decline can I suggest that the owner & moderators of this site discourage posters from quoting articles in their entirety? A link with summary would better direct traffic towards the article itself & perhaps help show newspapers that there is a readership out here for cricket?
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: May 24th, 2016, 9:00 pm

August 9th, 2016, 11:38 am #50

My apologies, i'll just post a direct link in future. I think the sport has bigger problems than a few less online article clicks.
Reply
Like
Share