addicted4444 Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 the only innovative cricketer in that team is morgan and Buttler and Morgan was out of form before he was made captain' date='the rest are drab and boring[/quote'] Bestowing captaincy onto an out of form player, who is under enough pressure already, months before the World Cup ranks as one of the stupidest decisions in International Cricket ever. Buttler looks really good, but it's only a matter of time before the ECB stamps out all that is innovative and great about his play, because it just isn't cricket, and besides, won't help them win the Ashes.
YCCC Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 Bestowing captaincy onto an out of form player, who is under enough pressure already, months before the World Cup ranks as one of the stupidest decisions in International Cricket ever. Buttler looks really good, but it's only a matter of time before the ECB stamps out all that is innovative and great about his play, because it just isn't cricket, and besides, won't help them win the Ashes. Absolutely :hatsoff:
flamy Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 Pretty much every analyst today was of the opinion that the current T20 system in England has to be done away with and something similar to IPL has to be brought in. Sweet, sweet justice!! What's different between them?
Zap_Brannigan Posted March 9, 2015 Author Posted March 9, 2015 What's different between them? I dont follow much of their T20, but the main difference is that its not a franchise system. Its just the county teams that play in the T20. There are 18 counties and often they play only on weekends. So all the best players are spread out and it is hard to get international big players for 3/4 months over which the tournaments is on. There is also not much money in the counties to hire big players. Even from my point of view, i do not want to watch no name players and its hard to keep up with the a tournament that seems to have no context.
Zelig Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 I dont follow much of their T20, but the main difference is that its not a franchise system. Its just the county teams that play in the T20. There are 18 counties and often they play only on weekends. So all the best players are spread out and it is hard to get international big players for 3/4 months over which the tournaments is on. There is also not much money in the counties to hire big players. Even from my point of view, i do not want to watch no name players and its hard to keep up with the a tournament that seems to have no context. They play T20 on weekdays too, just that the comp is spread across during their domestic season. They should change to city based franchise comp and schedule it for 1 or 1.5 months at a stretch.
flamy Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 I dont follow much of their T20, but the main difference is that its not a franchise system. Its just the county teams that play in the T20. There are 18 counties and often they play only on weekends. So all the best players are spread out and it is hard to get international big players for 3/4 months over which the tournaments is on. There is also not much money in the counties to hire big players. Even from my point of view, i do not want to watch no name players and its hard to keep up with the a tournament that seems to have no context. Ah ok. This is some pwnage :desiwoman:
YCCC Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 They play T20 on weekdays too, just that the comp is spread across during their domestic season. They should change to city based franchise comp and schedule it for 1 or 1.5 months at a stretch. Not sure where I stand on this. T20 is made for city based teams I think but I doubt it would attract many more through the gates than the counties do. We're very parochial here and people from Bradford, Sheffield, Huddersfield and Hull would not support the "Leeds Lions" and Liverpool residents would not travel 30 miles to watch the "Manchester Maniacs" (football rivalries you see). It would also be one less competition that Yorkshire could win, although we're crap at it anyway
Zap_Brannigan Posted March 9, 2015 Author Posted March 9, 2015 Not sure where I stand on this. T20 is made for city based teams I think but I doubt it would attract many more through the gates than the counties do. We're very parochial here and people from Bradford' date=' Sheffield, Huddersfield and Hull would not support the "Leeds Lions" and Liverpool residents would not travel 30 miles to watch the "Manchester Maniacs" (football rivalries you see). It would also be one less competition that Yorkshire could win, although we're crap at it anyway[/quote'] A similar argument was used when IPL was announced. It doesn't have to match the fanatical following that football enjoys but bring more quality into the tournament.
Sachinism Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 Its an answer to their dilemma, unfortunately its the wrong answer.
YCCC Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 A similar argument was used when IPL was announced. It doesn't have to match the fanatical following that football enjoys but bring more quality into the tournament. Fair enough. I was going to argue that India and Aus have a few large cities spread quite far apart from each other, whereas we have a lot of smallish cities (compared to India and Aus) close to each other (the perils of being a small island nation :--D ) Thus making it more difficult to create six to nine teams to represent everyone, especially as we'd have to use the biggest cricket grounds we have available, which would be Lords, the Oval, Headingley, OT, Edgbaston, the Rose Bowl, Trent Bridge, Durham and Cardiff
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now