EPL Twenty20

[zaremba]

As usual with the counties though, self preservation rules.

Quite right too. Why would, and why should, clubs with history stretching back 150 years vote for their own deletion or merger (in any format of the game)?

I'm delighted that my club, Sussex, didn't vote for it. Under the city franchise idea, Sussex fans would have had to have regarded either the Oval or the Toilet Bowl in Southampton (home grounds of their two most disliked rivals) as their "home" ground. They simply wouldn't have bought this. I certainly wouldn't have done.

And it's not just supporters from smaller counties that wouldn't buy this. If you think that people from Liverpool or Bolton or Burnely would flock to support the Manchester Cricket Franchise I think you're sadly mistaken.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Quite right too. Why would, and why should, clubs with history stretching back 150 years vote for their own deletion or merger (in any format of the game)?

I'm delighted that my club, Sussex, didn't vote for it. Under the city franchise idea, Sussex fans would have had to have regarded either the Oval or the Toilet Bowl in Southampton (home grounds of their two most disliked rivals) as their "home" ground. They simply wouldn't have bought this. I certainly wouldn't have done.

And it's not just supporters from smaller counties that wouldn't buy this. If you think that people from Liverpool or Bolton or Burnely would flock to support the Manchester Cricket Franchise I think you're sadly mistaken.

didn't they say the same thing before the IPL started? I think so.

 

[zaremba]

India and England are very different places, particularly as far as cricket is concerned.

 

[Richard]

didn't they say the same thing before the IPL started? I think so.

They did?

Not that you can attach any credence to what happened in India as far as probability prediction of what'll happen in the UK.

 

[Richard]

Reducing the amount of FC Cricket wouldn't be a bad thing IMO. As long as they played say, 10 4-day games each a season, I'd be happy.

But not if they filled the gaps with more and more Twenty20. A reduction would be good, but only if more time was allowed to rest, prepare and analyse.

And ideally play a few more one-day games too. The C&G alone is not enough. At least, not unless reserve days (x 2) are given to ALL games, which I don't think is planned.

 

[GIMH]

Quite right too. Why would, and why should, clubs with history stretching back 150 years vote for their own deletion or merger (in any format of the game)?

I'm delighted that my club, Sussex, didn't vote for it. Under the city franchise idea, Sussex fans would have had to have regarded either the Oval or the Toilet Bowl in Southampton (home grounds of their two most disliked rivals) as their "home" ground. They simply wouldn't have bought this. I certainly wouldn't have done.

And it's not just supporters from smaller counties that wouldn't buy this. If you think that people from Liverpool or Bolton or Burnely would flock to support the Manchester Cricket Franchise I think you're sadly mistaken.

Completely agree, as I said here (shameless plug )

I've said all along, stick with the current setup if you want to maintain interest levels amongst current supporters.

 

[aussie]

Quite right too. Why would, and why should, clubs with history stretching back 150 years vote for their own deletion or merger (in any format of the game)?

I'm delighted that my club, Sussex, didn't vote for it. Under the city franchise idea, Sussex fans would have had to have regarded either the Oval or the Toilet Bowl in Southampton (home grounds of their two most disliked rivals) as their "home" ground. They simply wouldn't have bought this. I certainly wouldn't have done.

And it's not just supporters from smaller counties that wouldn't buy this. If you think that people from Liverpool or Bolton or Burnely would flock to support the Manchester Cricket Franchise I think you're sadly mistaken.

This is the problem though. I personally have no problem with a Lancashire team & i'm sur other younger cricketers/fans would find it very exciting.

But old traditionalist who wouldn't want to budge. Its just 20/20 technically it aint cricket in its purest form. No way would the FC teams or 50 over teams be merged, its simply just adjusting to the 20/20 brand.

 

[GIMH]

I wouldn't find it exciting to see Lancs & Yorks paired up. I doubt many lancs fans would - hell steds is younger than me and I know for a fact he would absolutely HATE the idea

 

[Richard]

Imagine that post breaks advertising rules?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Imagine that post breaks advertising rules?

Richard, stop picking on Martyn!

 

[Richard]

Cunning post-remover, is this Camps.

 

[GIMH]

Haha, genuine WTF for a minute there

 

[Furball]

Quite right too.

It's exactly that attitude which is holding English cricket back.

Watching Durham today, I watched a high class team brimming with some of the top English talent (Mustard, Collingwood, S Harmison, Plunkett) with a couple of high class overseas players (Pollock and Chanderpaul). That's what I should be seeing everytime I tune into a T20 game.

An 8 team league would allow that - if you allow a maximum of 3 overseas players, you'd only need to find 24 overseas players to play - ensuring that the cream of both domestic and overseas talent would be represented in this league.

It would be popular with the overseas players - there would be no need to create a window as is being proposed for the IPL, due to most teams traditionally not playing international cricket during the British summer.

Instead, we'll get the same 18 teams, with the same journeymen, with the same 2nd rate Kolpaks, and the EPL will be looked upon as an annoyance, much the way Pro40 is just now. Attendances have dropped for this year's Twenty20 Cup - throw in a League, and people are going to be less interested in it, particularly as it won't aid international development, due to Twenty20 being the least played international format.

Developing the English game, resting players, not burning them out by making them play endless cricket - who cares about any of that, as long as the parasitic counties are kept happy?

 

[zaremba]

It's exactly that attitude which is holding English cricket back.

Watching Durham today, I watched a high class team brimming with some of the top English talent (Mustard, Collingwood, S Harmison, Plunkett) with a couple of high class overseas players (Pollock and Chanderpaul). That's what I should be seeing everytime I tune into a T20 game.

Durham are indeed a "high class team brimming with some of the top English talent (Mustard, Collingwood, S Harmison, Plunkett) with a couple of high class overseas players (Pollock and Chanderpaul)." This particular county is a pretty good advert for how English counties aren't all "parasites" full of "journeymen". It would be stupid to extinguish a high-class team like Durham for 20:20 purposes, and by doing so undermining them more generally, when they are obviously doing so well.

As for the amount of cricket played: because it will have 2 divisions, the EPL as currently planned would not see the top players playing much less cricket than the 8-Franchise structure you appear to prefer. The real problem is the parallel 20:20 tournament which I think is unnecessary and which will in due course die off (this is the real Pro40 analogy).

The advantages of synthetic Franchises are imo illusory. The teams will start with a supporter-base of nil. The Indian model has been (so far) successful due to the particular circumstances of India, not least the existence of billionaire sugar-daddies who pump the required money into the system and the teams.

The main effect of the system would be divisive - to concentrate power in the hands of the few clubs based at the Category A grounds and to undermine county cricket which (like it or not) is the mainstay of cricket in England and has been for a hundred and fifty years.

 

[Richard]

It's exactly that attitude which is holding English cricket back.

Watching Durham today, I watched a high class team brimming with some of the top English talent (Mustard, Collingwood, S Harmison, Plunkett) with a couple of high class overseas players (Pollock and Chanderpaul). That's what I should be seeing everytime I tune into a T20 game.

An 8 team league would allow that - if you allow a maximum of 3 overseas players, you'd only need to find 24 overseas players to play - ensuring that the cream of both domestic and overseas talent would be represented in this league.

It would be popular with the overseas players - there would be no need to create a window as is being proposed for the IPL, due to most teams traditionally not playing international cricket during the British summer.

Instead, we'll get the same 18 teams, with the same journeymen, with the same 2nd rate Kolpaks, and the EPL will be looked upon as an annoyance, much the way Pro40 is just now. Attendances have dropped for this year's Twenty20 Cup - throw in a League, and people are going to be less interested in it, particularly as it won't aid international development, due to Twenty20 being the least played international format.

Developing the English game, resting players, not burning them out by making them play endless cricket - who cares about any of that, as long as the parasitic counties are kept happy?

Oh dear. Mustard and Plunkett some of the top English talent?

Durham are one of the weakest teams where English players are concerned. So many of their best are overseas imports - di Venuto, Benkenstein, McKenzie, Pollock, Chanderpaul. You could even add Breese, that well-known Jamaican. Had they had no imports they'd not get anywhere.

How, BTW, is a Twenty20 competition supposed to offer any help in developing the English game? It can't. Twenty20 is utterly useless where preparing players for the First-Class game is concerned. Completely, 100% useless. Indeed for some it might even prove counterproductive.

Pro-county attitudes are not what is holding English cricket back. What holds English cricket back is the reluctance of those in charge to place the international game at the top of the podium. Those seeking to strangle as many counties as they can or strangle the whole idea of playing cricket in counties are as often self-absorbed "revolutionists" who like the idea of change for the sake of change than people interested in the best interests of the game.

 

[zaremba]

Pro-county attitudes are not what is holding English cricket back. What holds English cricket back is the reluctance of those in charge to place the international game at the top of the podium. Those seeking to strangle as many counties as they can or strangle the whole idea of playing cricket in counties are as often self-absorbed "revolutionists" who like the idea of change for the sake of change than people interested in the best interests of the game.

AWTA.

However on the particular subject of Durham's development, they do play senior o/s players but do so while at the same time bringing through young talent. They have tended to play more non-English players than most counties (not sure if that's still true this season) but a higher proportion of English-qualified players under 25. And the result has been that a stream of Durham players has played for England, or been on the fringes of selection.

All of which is in stark contrast with Leics who, at present, wouldn't know an Englishman if he shoved a Melton Mowbray pork pie in their faces; likewise Northamptonkolpakshire.

 

[GIMH]

Just had a thought, how come Durham have two overseas players for the T20

 

[Richard]

Wondered that too myself.

However on the particular subject of Durham's development, they do play senior o/s players but do so while at the same time bringing through young talent. They have tended to play more non-English players than most counties (not sure if that's still true this season) but a higher proportion of English-qualified players under 25. And the result has been that a stream of Durham players has played for England, or been on the fringes of selection.

Trouble is, though, most of the Durham youngsters are utterly rubbish. Plunkett, Onions and Mustard should never have got anywhere near England selection, it's very questionable whether they're even county-standard players. Then there's the likes of Stoneman, Ben Harmison, Koetzer (Scottish, but still British) and Muchall. Plus Smith who's an import from elsewhere. Who are clearly far short of the required standard (though I've always quite liked the look of the first two on that list of names).

Consider the number of overseas players on their books in the last two seasons: Benkenstein, Breese, Chanderpaul, Claydon, di Venuto, Gibson, McKenzie, A Morkel, Park, Pollock, Styris, Thorp, Wiseman. That's one hell of a lot. If this was reduced to what I think is the "ideal" (one per county per season) that would be cut down massively.

Not suggesting this is all that different to many other counties, of course. Simply pointing-out that Durham are not some sort of bastion of wonderful UK\Ireland-player development, as they are sometimes painted.

All of which is in stark contrast with Leics who, at present, wouldn't know an Englishman if he shoved a Melton Mowbray pork pie in their faces; likewise Northamptonkolpakshire.

Leics vs Northants earlier this year (I forget whether you'd joined by that time but I did post about it) involved an absurd number of South Africans, plus the odd Australian here and there. It was something like 10 English (or Irish in one case) players out of 22.

 

[Furball]

Oh dear. Mustard and Plunkett some of the top English talent?

Durham are one of the weakest teams where English players are concerned. So many of their best are overseas imports - di Venuto, Benkenstein, McKenzie, Pollock, Chanderpaul. You could even add Breese, that well-known Jamaican. Had they had no imports they'd not get anywhere.

Top English talent in terms of players who have recently represented England. Rightly or wrongly, the 4 I mentioned are clearly regarded as being amongst the best English players by those whose opinions matter most - the national selectors.

How, BTW, is a Twenty20 competition supposed to offer any help in developing the English game? It can't. Twenty20 is utterly useless where preparing players for the First-Class game is concerned. Completely, 100% useless. Indeed for some it might even prove counterproductive.

Are you seriously suggesting that the presence of players of the calibre of Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne in the IPL, despite the fact that it's a Twenty20 tournament, had absolutely no positive effect on the young Indian players they shared a dressing room with for 2 months? If I was a young Indian seamer, I would have killed for the chance to play for Delhi, simply for the experience of sharing a dressing room with McGrath, and learning from one of the games all time greats. Now imagine McGrath had been signed by the London Lions in the EPL - of course that would be of enormous benefit to any young English seamers who happened to be signed by that franchise.

edit: cricinfo article on Delhi's young fast bowlers. http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/352841.html

Pro-county attitudes are not what is holding English cricket back. What holds English cricket back is the reluctance of those in charge to place the international game at the top of the podium.

And it is the counties that do this.

Those seeking to strangle as many counties as they can or strangle the whole idea of playing cricket in counties are as often self-absorbed "revolutionists" who like the idea of change for the sake of change than people interested in the best interests of the game.

Ultimately, what's in the best interests of the game is a competitive England side who is regularly winning Test series and ODIs, as it is this success which will get people interested in the game, and keep them interested, as well as providing the ECB with the maximum possible revenue. IMO, the county system at present does not do this, and needs reforming.

 

[Richard]

Top English talent in terms of players who have recently represented England. Rightly or wrongly, the 4 I mentioned are clearly regarded as being amongst the best English players by those whose opinions matter most - the national selectors.

That's debateable. Mustard has been axed, and will hopefully never return; Plunkett seems to have been dropped well out of the picture, and rightly so. Neither should ever have got near the England team.

There are at least 3, probably 4, better bowlers than Plunkett at his own county. Similar situation to Sajid Mahmood at Lancashire, where there are about 6 better than him.

Who knows what the current situation regarding Harmison is.

Are you seriously suggesting that the presence of players of the calibre of Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne in the IPL, despite the fact that it's a Twenty20 tournament, had absolutely no positive effect on the young Indian players they shared a dressing room with for 2 months? If I was a young Indian seamer, I would have killed for the chance to play for Delhi, simply for the experience of sharing a dressing room with McGrath, and learning from one of the games all time greats. Now imagine McGrath had been signed by the London Lions in the EPL - of course that would be of enormous benefit to any young English seamers who happened to be signed by that franchise.

edit: cricinfo article on Delhi's young fast bowlers. http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/352841.html

If these players want to talk to old players, nothing stops them doing so. People make too much of a deal out of playing together. It's quite possible to seek an old cricketer out and have a word, people do it all the time. You just don't hear so much about it as you do when they happen to have shared a dressing-room, because those in the press notice it more then.

And it is the counties that do this.

No it's not. "The counties" are not one person. It is the fault of those in charge, not organisations dating back centuries. What needs to change is the attitudes of those currently in charge, not the whole structure of domestic cricket.

Ultimately, what's in the best interests of the game is a competitive England side who is regularly winning Test series and ODIs, as it is this success which will get people interested in the game, and keep them interested, as well as providing the ECB with the maximum possible revenue.

Yess, I know this - it's been an open secret for about 15 years.

IMO, the county system at present does not do this, and needs reforming.

The thing doesn't need reforming in order to start to do that AFAIC.