WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
"People make me happy.. not places.. people"
"When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." - Samuel Johnson
"Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn
#408. Sixty three not out forever.
They could do it, but I think it would lose its way a bit. Having it condensed probably adds to its appeal, although it's also completely weird to have no Shield cricket for about 4 weeks in the middle of the summer.
Personally I think it's a bit long as it is itbt.
Originally Posted by Peter Mooresforever 63*
it was a bit long this season but that was because they didn't host any games during the Perth test and they couldn't schedule the final during the Adl test in case Adl was to host the final.
Brad McNamara @bbuzzmc
Will say this once and then nothing else. Defamation laws quite clear in Aus.be careful.
With Sri Lanka here next summer, they could probably safely schedule a few BBL games on the fourth and fifth evenings of the tests.
In regards to the article - I think as long as the type of cricket offered by high schools is 40 over cricket then the kids will get attracted by 20 20 and end up playing the longer forms of the game.
I first saw an ODI (turns out it was the underarm bowl game) as an eight year old and told my mother I wanted to play the next day. Ended up tuning into tests when I was ten years old. Never would have watched a test if ODIs hadn't have grabbed me.
What worries me about 20 20 isn't converting the crowds into (plunket) sheild games - it is the masses of club cricketers who are choosing to play it (heef excepted because he has injuries) instead of the two day stuff. I would just prefer it was played at the top level.
I don't know how many 20 20 teams my club has because they don't train. But a year ago at prize giving we had 4 of them and 4 regular cricket teams.
I live in fear that my team will all vote to play 20 20 next year.
Those are my concerns.
In terms of the questions you raised - I think 20 20 does feed the other longer forms of the game by creating new cricketers. Just not new bums on seats.
It's strange how different sports have different fan support at different levels. I'm looking at this purely in the context of Australian sport, by the way...
In cricket, it is virtually all focused at the international level, with very little interest in domestic or club level games.
In rugby union, international games are the pinnacle, with healthy levels of interest for the super 15s and club games ignored by the vast majority.
In rugby league, interest is predominantly at the club level, with state of origin being more popular than international games.
In AFL, there is nothing beyond the club level, unless you count playing a few games against Ireland with totally different rules.
And with soccer, people are mostly interested in internationals and European club games rather than the A-league.
I guess it comes down to two things. People want to see the best players, and they want to see a fairly even contest.
In rugby league, Australia dominates pretty much everything, so most fans don't take it too seriously. If England or NZ were to improve so they could match it with Australia on a regular basis, interest at the international level would probably rise. State of Origin gives the even contest (ignoring the fact QLD have won the last 6 series). Club level is still decent quality and the structure keeps most teams on a level basis.
It is a far more extreme case for the AFL. Australia doesn't have any competition at all on the international level, so they have to make something up with Ireland.
In rugby union, club games aren't of high enough quality (or is it just that they don't have the right marketing?). Super 15 gives good quality and a decent contest. Internationals are the best quality and give a similar contest to Super 15.
And in soccer, most don't care about the A-league because the quality of the players is nothing compared to the European games.
So after all that waffling about other sports, what is the implication for cricket???
I guess if you wanted to improve the interest in state level cricket, one day or four day contests, you need to market it right. If the BBL expanded to 16 teams, you could say that the state teams would have better quality players. Treat it like State of Origin - state against state, mate against mate...
But I don't see no crowds at Sheffield Shield games being a problem. If it makes a loss, so be it. It is an expense necessary to have a decent test team.
And if the BBL gets the kids interested in cricket, and they start playing, what are they playing? Cricket! It doesn't matter the format. It's not like you need to 12 year old kids playing 5 day games for them to develop a love of test cricket. Just get them liking cricket first, and as they mature, enough of them will also develop the taste for test matches...
However, 20:20 has seen a lot of players who had long since retired from club cricket return to the game. The obvious solution is to make 20:20 at club cricket level like the "Masters" grades in football or rugby. 8 or 9 out of 11 players have to be over 35. Allowed 2 or 3 exceptions to ensure you can fill empty slots when necessary.
Fascist Dictator of the Heath Davis Appreciation Society
Supporting Petone's Finest since the very start - Iain O'Brien
Adam Wheater - Another batsman off the Essex production line
Also Supporting the All Time #1 Batsman of All Time Ever - Jacques Kallis and the much maligned Peter Siddle.
Vimes tells it how it is:
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)