Cricket Player Manager
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: Constant tampering ruining the one-day league in England?

  1. #31
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Langeveldt
    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...?
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  2. #32
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by DanielFullard
    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".

  3. #33
    U19 Vice-Captain DanielFullard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    County Durham
    Posts
    547
    Just because Twenty20 has had success doesn't mean we should think "ah, we don't need the one-dayers any more".
    Nobody has even suggested that is the case
    Durham CCC Membership Holder
    Hartlepool CC Regular
    Peterlee CC Regular

  4. #34
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    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.


  5. #35
    U19 Vice-Captain DanielFullard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    County Durham
    Posts
    547
    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

  6. #36
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    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.

  7. #37
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,857
    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.
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  8. #38
    Soutie Langeveldt's Avatar
    Pinball Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Posts
    29,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Why'd you think Twenty20 was such a success, pal...?
    Because its a shortened game so people who don't like cricket don't have to spend so long watching it?
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    Don't like using my iPod dock. Ruins battery life too much.
    Quote Originally Posted by benchmark00 View Post
    Thanks Dick Smith. Will remember to subscribe to your newsletter for more electronic fun facts.

    ****.

  9. #39
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    An interesting view, hadn't thought about it that way...

  10. #40
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178
    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.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Aussie media mocks England
    By wahindiawah in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 09-11-2011, 03:47 PM
  2. England vs India
    By James in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 121
    Last Post: 22-10-2006, 01:16 AM
  3. England Are 2nd Best In Test Cricket
    By Shawn Badyk in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 10-07-2003, 09:52 AM
  4. The Future Champions of Test Cricket
    By Shawn Badyk in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 10-07-2003, 04:11 AM
  5. Should England go to Zimbabwe?
    By jf2001 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-01-2003, 05:04 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •