• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Constant tampering ruining the one-day league in England?

open365

International Vice-Captain
GeraintIsMyHero said:
The National League is hugely devalued IMO, not necessarily by having 5 less overs, but by the fact that it's only 8 games, and you only play each team once, which brings in a random element - the purpose of a league is surely to show which side can prevail in all conditions? Just off the top of my head a side could get very lucky by being a batsman friendly side and playing teams whose strength lies in their attacks, on flat tracks. It's a farce, if I was a Durham fan i'd be peeved as well

And a straight knockout for the Cup is obviously the best idea. You have the National League for your league, and the Twenty20 has a group stage anyway, and as Neil said, Devon don't get to play, neither do Shropshire, Cheshire, etc. Stupid, I can't help but think this season the league and cup winners would both have justifiable claims to being the best one-day side in the country, yet it should always be the league winners who get to make that claim.

Alas, bigger crowds means more money for the counties, which means better development, and it's better for the national side in the long run. I just feel that they could bring in the crowds differently.

More money does not equal a better national side, or a better county system, players playing in an effectively challenging and meaningfull domestic format does.
 

DanielFullard

U19 Vice-Captain
20/20 is where the money is.....leave the rest of the domestic game to keep going as it always has done. Its survived this long so why tamper
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
DanielFullard said:
Indeed. The 5 overs reduction would have been much more tolerable without the laughable 8-game season
How many games a season do the Aussies have? And bear in mind that this is just 1 of 3 OD Tournaments...

DanielFullard said:
But I dont see the logic behind this. Fair enough CGT reform means more games but taking 8 games away from the NL league sort of balances it out. And whilst every game in the NL means something, because it should be the OD domestic game, the CGT will be over for any side that looses 3-4 of the first 4 matches.

ECB once again showing that logic doesn't come into their decision making
But surely logic dictates that in the league it'll also be over for any side that starts as badly?

If it were 16 and they lot the first 4 that's the season gone.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
When I read the thread title I thought that Javed Miandad was having a go at David Constant again.
 

DanielFullard

U19 Vice-Captain
If it were 16 and they lot the first 4 that's the season gone
Not True. a) there is the fight for relegation in NL1 and b) Warwickshire lost 6 last year and got promoted.

Plus the monetary incentives for higher placings are greater in the NL than in the CGT
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I think that most of the problems stem from the cup that thinks it's a league. I can't believe they lost the FA Cup giant-killing element and the non-professional sides (tho it's pretty rare in cricket to have a giant-killing) so they could come with this stupid league system with a cup element tacked on at the end. Twenty20 can get away with the groups because it's massively popular, it doesn't drain players much and it's 3 groups anyway (tho they changed that to a weird 8 games v 5 teams - dunno if that's been changed again this season as I can't be bothered to check).
 

DanielFullard

U19 Vice-Captain
this stupid league system with a cup element tacked on at the end
Whats more absolutely stupid is the fact that only one team qualifies from it. If they had four teams from each and then made it into QF, SF the Final it would have made it a little more understandable. But its still daft. Just daft
 

Autobahn

State 12th Man
Well if you're worried about the lack of competitive games, lets say that the first four games of the C&G Trophy will have teams trying their hardest, then add on the 8 national league games which will all be competitive because of the number of games and because a few wins or losses, coupled with other results could see you in pole position or in a relegation spot.

So you have 12 competitve OD games in which teams will be unlikely to rest their top players unless they have to, and compare that with India where a domestic side can play as little as 4 games and 8 games max if they make it all the way to final, and Aus where the State teams play 10 OD games each.
 

DanielFullard

U19 Vice-Captain
I know the comparisons people are making with other nations domestic games are useful points, but bare in mind thats not the debate here. We may play more than other nations but at the end of the day the point being made is that changing the format of the CGt and NL is a laughably bad move by the ECB because it takes away the biggest attraction of the CGT, the knockout format, and diminishes the NL to a lowe status
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
DanielFullard said:
But that is foolish logic by the ECB. 40 over cricket is not anymore attractive than 50 over cricket. Going to a match or watching it on Tv still consumes most of your day. 40 over Cricket isn’t going to attract a bigger crowd. That is what 20/20 is for.

A 50 over, 18 game league with a 40-45 over cup competitions is the best solution all round

The National League is a joke and it makes all that promotion celebraiton seem worthless. The CGT format is horribly ill-conceived. If they want to pull people through the gates what is the point in devising a competition that will result countless matches of irrelevance. Face it, a team plays 9 games, they loose the first 3-4 and the last 5-6 will be rendered irrelevant. Heck, the league could be won early and we could be left with a situation of 2 weeks of nothing fixtures. Having only one qualify for the final is a horrible near idiotc idea
It's not the idea of anyone on the ECB Board - it's a general consensus from pretty much all the counties, based presumably on reliable information (ie gate-figures).
I can't really see why anyone would find 80 overs different to 90 or 100, either - but apparently they do.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Langeveldt said:
So why don't we reduce every game to one over a side? And then this "crowd" we've suddenly had to cater for can get home in time for watching football or big brother..
Why'd you think Twenty20 was such a success, pal...?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
DanielFullard said:
20/20 is where the money is.....leave the rest of the domestic game to keep going as it always has done. Its survived this long so why tamper
Because even 20 years ago, things weren't the way they are today.
As I've said many times - there certainly is money to be made in the domestic-one-day game, it has potential anywhere in The World, unlike the First-Class stuff.
Just because Twenty20 has had success doesn't mean we should think "ah, we don't need the one-dayers any more".
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Well... you seemed to be doing so by saying that Twenty20 was where the money was, so therefore it didn't matter whether the one-dayers were crowd-friendly.
 

DanielFullard

U19 Vice-Captain
You seemed to say I inferred that we didn't need the one-day game now that we have 20/20. And I didn't at all. I said that because 20/20 has been such a success then why bother tampering with the one-day format? I didn't say scrap it. I said leave it as it was last year
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
What I meant (and I think I expressed it pretty reasonably) was that you seemed to be saying the crowds for one-dayers didn't matter - not that the game itself didn't.
And as I say - I think both are important.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Another thing I've just realised about this supposed problem with the restructure.

Players now get at least 9 50 over games a season, as supposed to what used to be 1 or 2.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
Another thing I've just realised about this supposed problem with the restructure.

Players now get at least 9 50 over games a season, as supposed to what used to be 1 or 2.
Well - in terms of ODI development, that will probably be a benefit, though only a very small one (good players will be good players regardless of whether it's 40 or 50 overs).
That, presumably (as Mr. Atherton pointed-out this morning), was the idea along with playing as many as possible before the home ODIs, giving as many players as possible the chance to put-in the performances.
 

Top