England Cricket Board is run by buffoons - conclusive proof!

[sandeep]

https://www.ecb.co.uk/news/668162

 

Quote

ECB presents 100-ball domestic game for men and women

Each team will face 15 traditional six-ball overs with an additional ten balls that add a fresh tactical dimension

 

[sandeep]

Why are they so desperate to "differentiate" themselves from the other leagues.  This is pathetic.

 

For better or worse, T20 has emerged as a new standardized format of the game.  The ECB is probably pissed that "they" were the first board to hold a T20 game, and have been left way behind by other cricket boards.  

 

@YCCC @Stumped  How do you guys feel about this "exciting" innovation?

[sourab10forever]

Hell bent on fcuking cricket

[Sachinism]

Next time someone mention IPL is killing cricket...

[LordPrabhzy]

ECB are morons... expect empty stadiums when this kicks off.

[chewy]

Do they still play that 40 over one day tournament? 

[Khota]

all this talk about holy grail of cricket .i.e. tests etc are the ultimate why are they dicking around with other formats.

This is their subtle way of acknowledgeing that Test cricket is bleeding pretty bad and is terminal.

[Jimmy Cliff]

4 hours ago, BeardedAladdin said:

They've given up on test cricket. They won't admit it, and the pasty old f***s on the internet will insist on test cricket staying alive, but its true.

Is that why they're playing more Test cricket than any other member in the next FTP cycle?

[Straight Drive]

9 hours ago, chewy said:

Do they still play that 40 over one day tournament? 

It was scrapped around 2 years back. Suddenly they realized that 50 over format will help the cricketers to prepare much better for ODI.

[YCCC]

17 hours ago, sandeep said:

Why are they so desperate to "differentiate" themselves from the other leagues.  This is pathetic.

 

For better or worse, T20 has emerged as a new standardized format of the game.  The ECB is probably pissed that "they" were the first board to hold a T20 game, and have been left way behind by other cricket boards.  

 

@YCCC @Stumped  How do you guys feel about this "exciting" innovation?

Well the ECB say it isn't for me anyway so it's irrelevant what I think (it's shite by the way) I'm absolutely against this new competition whatever format it's in. It could be five days and it wouldn't interest me if franchise were involved.

Edited April 20, 2018 by YCCC

[NameGoesHere]

This is perfectly fine and in fact we should encourage it.  Here's why.

 

In 1963 England started the world's first one day domestic competition, and in 1971 England played the first ODI. Forty years later India had taken over as the financial powerhouse of the ODI world.

 

In 2002, England started the first domestic 20:20 competition.  In 2008 came the IPL and, well, we all know where we are today, eh?

 

England doesn't realise it, but they working (unpaid) for us as our free cricket laboratory.  Let the poor buggers experiment away, we'll just take over when the time is ripe, Bosedk!

Edited April 20, 2018 by NameGoesHere

[YCCC]

2 hours ago, BeardedAladdin said:

Do English cricket fans care about seeing the game grow, or are you happy just to play your ashes series, county cricket and occasional test tour?

 

 

Not a clue what you're on about. I like county and test cricket and want these to grow. Not sure if that answers your question or what it has to do with this shite proposed by FTECB.

[sandeep]

4 hours ago, BeardedAladdin said:

Do English cricket fans care about seeing the game grow, or are you happy just to play your ashes series, county cricket and occasional test tour?

 

 

Leave YCCC alone.  So what if he's an old school old fart ?  His steadfast love for our sport - although limited to test and county cricket - is worthy of respect and affection.  And he's honest enough to recognize and call out the ECB's buffoonery early and often!

[YCCC]

46 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Leave YCCC alone.  So what if he's an old school old fart ?  His steadfast love for our sport - although limited to test and county cricket - is worthy of respect and affection.  And he's honest enough to recognize and call out the ECB's buffoonery early and often!

Seriously anyone who cares about English cricket despises the ECB. I'm not alone. And I'm not old ;) 

 

I genuinely love other franchise leagues. Just don't think we need one. As I keep saying cricket is a niche sport here and should stick to it's traditions. Our county T20 tournament is very popular with people who love the game and the ECB should forget about trying to attract people who don't know a thing about cricket and never will. In the UK you're either a cricket fan or not through family ties andnothing will change that.

Edited April 20, 2018 by YCCC

[sandeep]

14 minutes ago, YCCC said:

Seriously anyone who cares about English cricket despises the ECB. I'm not alone. And I'm not old ;) 

 

I genuinely love other franchise leagues. Just don't think we need one. As I keep saying cricket is a niche sport here and should stick to it's traditions. Our county T20 tournament is very popular with people who love the game and the ECB should forget about trying to attract people who don't know a thing about cricket and never will. In the UK you're either a cricket fan or not through family ties andnothing will change that.

IMHO England needs a viable T20 league - whether its the existing one or the new one is a separate question.  The problem with the existing one is that they have too many teams.  I actually think they should have created a play-off style tournament on top of the existing one.  You need a smaller tournament, because you need to create a league where you can pay your top 100 players a decent chunk of money - with 18 teams it would be too expensive to do so.  And unless the ECB have their own league that offers players outside of the squad of the 15-20 national players top drawer compensation, they are going to start losing their players. 

 

But this silliness of T16.4 is just beyond dumb.   

[sandeep]

16 minutes ago, Stumped said:

Bit confused with it to begin with but can see why they've gone down that route if their primary aim is to get people into cricket that have had very little interest in it previously. In the end that type of market is not going to be particularly bothered if it's T20 or this odd T16.4 (I assume there's a slightly more catchy name in the working featuring 100 in there somewhere). Because of that if the loss of overs was vital to getting the games on free to air TV as the papers are suggesting then I think it's a worthy trade-off. Sure there'll be more details/decisions released soon which should make it all a bit clearer.

 

Not sure I agree with @YCCCs belief that there shouldn't be any effort made to get new people into the games and we should continue to rely on families simply passing an interest for the game onto their kids. Participation numbers have been decreasing for a while now and if absolutely nothing is done that's only going to continue, some kind of efforts got to be made to stop that

Surely, pursuing a "new" audience shouldn't be the be-all end-all of it.   You do want to take along the existing audience as well.  Such shitty perversion of the sport, just to suit broadcasting demands is quite foolish.  If you wanted to shorten the game, there is no reason why you couldn't fit 40 overs of cricket in about 3 hours.  This move smacks heavily of a desperate desire to differentiate themselves from other leagues that have left England in the dust.  In spite of England being one of the so-called early adopters of T20.

[sandeep]

13 minutes ago, Stumped said:

Shouldn't necessarily be the be-all end-all but it's clearly what's deservedly a major focus in English cricket right now. I guess the argument would be that by retaining the old tournaments the existing audience is still getting what they are now.

 

We can debate whether broadcasters should have such a large influence but unfortunately that's just the way modern cricket is. They input a huge proportion of the money nowadays although I'd guess the money isn't the focus with appeasing the BBC but instead the draw factor of getting cricket back on free to air TV. The suggestion seems to be to start the games around 18.30 and finish them up within about 2 and a half hours so something else can be broadcast from 21.00. There was an article going around recently with the average time of a t20 innings by country and the English t20 already had the lowest at something like 85 minutes (and there's run penalties in place for slow over rates). Given that it's safe to assume it would be a major struggle to reduce that by any kind of notable amount.

You are contradicting your own argument.  If the T20 innings are done in 85 minutes each, then why make the silly cut to 16.4 to fit under 3 hours?  

 

And lost in all this chaos is the fact that if you keep the existing T20 tournament, and add this circus, where's the room on the calendar for FC cricket - 4 day or 50 overs?   Maybe the ECB thinks that its team can't compete in the existing 3 formats of the game, and decided to invent a new one where they can declare the winning team "world champions", American style.

[Nikhil_cric]

Quite a dumb innovation imo right up there with the 4 day test idea. They should just get a proper T20 league and it should attract youth. As it is we have too many formats now and it's taking it's toll on players.

[putrevus]

By wanting to be different , ECB have become weird and idiotic. What is the big deal 120 vs 100,how are guys from Sky calling this nonsense as "Fresh, bold, innovative." 

[sandeep]

10 minutes ago, putrevus said:

By wanting to be different , ECB have become weird and idiotic. What is the big deal 120 vs 100,how are guys from Sky calling this nonsense as "Fresh, bold, innovative." 

This is what happens when a bunch of old farts get in a room, don't have a clue, and are under pressure to come up with "exciting" changes.  Each oldie is afraid to say no to new ideas, afraid that he's going to be seen as the one who's out of touch and not gutsy enough.  Road to $hitty decisions is paved with cowardice.