Constant tampering ruining the one-day league in England?

[Richard]

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...?

[Richard]

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".

[DanielFullard]

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

[Richard]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Langeveldt]

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?

[Richard]

An interesting view, hadn't thought about it that way...

[Richard]

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.