![]() |
Comments on this story Comments have now been closed for this article
Posted by hermithead on June 05 2008, 09:53 AM GMT I think a 4 month tournament is a very positive step for cricket. Look how successful the EPL, NFL, NBA and Major League Baseball have become. One gripe about the recent IPL is that it was too intense. Too many games over a short period of time - no one had the time to discuss, watch, criticise ie digest the games. International Players will not be available for the whole 4 months but as we have seen in the IPL (and other sports) as top-class players become unavailable new top-class (or developing ie Shaun Marsh) players come into the side. A minimum 4 month tournament also makes a statement to the sporting world, one that says cricket now has a product they are proud to showcase non-stop for a whole season - rather than a tour here or a series there. Posted by B_Grade_Superstar on June 05 2008, 03:32 AM GMT I am slightly confused as to how the proposed Champions Trophy tournament could work. What would happen should a player be in two or even three teams that qualify for the Champions League? Andrew Symonds for example plays for Queensland Bulls, Deccan Chargers and Gloucestershire (I think), what happens if two or all of his teams qualify? Does money win out? Posted by NindianZ on June 05 2008, 02:56 AM GMT It's not about racism and all that nonsense people - its about the arrogance of CMJ to assume that the players would automatically go to whoever pays the most. It's like saying Ryan Giggs would go play for Liverpool because they offered him a few thousand quid more. Or asking John Terry/Patrick Vieira to play for Man U. I'm not saying that it may be the case, but try and consider that some sort of loyalty may exist. Another example is when Wasim and Waqar were reverse swinging the ball - every single Charles, William and Harry said it was because of ball tampering. Once Simon Jones and Andrew Flintoff learnt how to do it, it suddenly became this "wonder ball" - no mention of ball tampering there. So typical, if the English can't do it, then its wrong. Posted by SummerofGeorge on June 04 2008, 21:41 PM GMT Poor old KP cant go and earn a million for six weeks work...oh boo hoo, he can however make a more than acceptable living, and by acceptable we mean way beyond the dreams of almost anyone who watches him and his millionaire partner, with his watch sponsorship, his jewellery adverts and ham fisted references to Dubai getaways in interviews. If he is so desperate to "earn another million" then let him go, ban him and move on.Playing for your country is an honour, some seem to grasp that, some, let's use them and let the whining cash seekers go their way. I'd happily step in at number four, i can't play for hell, but I'd be free. A short career they cry, all these sports people do, well here's a challenge, i am happy to take a million pounds and try to live the rest of my life on it. It's a short career because you spend money like a petulant brat and lose touch with reality and become a tiresome grasping bag of toss who thinks purchasing Fabergé eggs and sports cars is a g Posted by SummerofGeorge on June 04 2008, 21:40 PM GMT To lurch around and panic about the future of the game is playing into their hands. If some insufferable corporate cretin needs to be catered to in order to make ends meet, while he brings his guests to a late night T20 game, then i suggest we all take a shower and investigate curling or rounders. As far as England is concerned, after the Ashes win, if it was money you wanted, the ECB were on a wave of popularity and attention i have never seen in my life, so what did they do?..short term gambit for the dough and take the coverage off Terrestrial TV. That was akin to taking a blunderbuss and aiming at your right boot and saying yes....i fancy a hop. As for the players, these people are not low paid cocklers struggling on beaches in Morecambe. Posted by SummerofGeorge on June 04 2008, 21:38 PM GMT Nice, so what...the entire endeavour is based around grubbing into spindly hands more and more cash. None of which we will be liberally dispersed amongst the seers in the crowd who were first to spot the fact that some bowler getting repeatedly hammered out of a miniature ground by a bloke with a bat like a plank, whilst Oasis play, is quality entertainment. Frankly, i have watched it and it's not, it's dull and essentially pointless. Yes, it's Entertainment, for a few, but it's got precious little to do with a game we all thought was perfectly enthralling in 2005 when the Aussies called, or whenever the last captivating test series for you was. Tip by the way, can't remember the last test series you got engrossed in?..I'd suggest you aren't in a position to comment about the sport. Let's not be fooled, this is ceaseless "blue sky" knackers and "envelope pushing" rubbish by business men who are out of the blocks and looking for a fast buck. . Posted by SummerofGeorge on June 04 2008, 21:36 PM GMT Let's be honest and say this entire debate regarding T20has just become an insufferable bore. Of course one quakes and trembles at the prospect of being labelled "old fashioned", or " a traditionalist", or some other sneered put down in the face of jack booted cash reaping commerce robot, which is all these things are. Now before some vacuous tiresome clown leaps about screaming about "market share", i am neither particularly old or indeed even a fan of the already existing limited overs formats. For me, it's all practically Beach Cricket anyway, yes some innovations have arrived from it, some batting changes, the ability of bowlers to bowl at "the death". Posted by jalps on June 04 2008, 18:56 PM GMT From a cricket fans point of view, making the season more regular makes a lot of sense. As it stands if I miss a couple of matches in any competition I completely lose track of where things stand. For me the obvious layout would be to have a 20 over match on the Friday or Saturday, a 50 over match on the Sunday and four day Championship matches during the week (it seems a waste to have the grounds empty on a Saturday). Having a regular Twenty20 slot in your week will help to build a more sustained fan base and, therefore, greater financial stability. Posted by crikketfan on June 04 2008, 16:10 PM GMT Playing 2020 cricket is seriously detrimental to batting performance in 4 day cricket. (Hell going from ODI cricket to first class causes enough problems at the top level). Much better to keep the two separate. Posted by danue on June 04 2008, 13:24 PM GMT Retain 4-day championship, but intensify competition. Dump all 40/50-over games. Expand 20/20 format. 1st half of season: 3 regional conferences of 6 (or 7, if the ECB helps Ireland, Scotland & another Associate). 4-day matches, maybe spare 5th day in case of bad weather. Pura Cup-like points structure. Intensity from day one! Top 2 counties in each conference form Division 1 for season's 2nd half. Six 3rd- & 4th-placed counties form Div 2 and the six finishing 5th or 6th form Div 3. Only points from game between each pair carry forward. 2nd half: 4 (or 9) more 4-day matches for each county. (Poss. semi-finals 1st v 4th & 2nd v 3rd.) Top 2 teams contest respective divisional 5-day grand finals. Two Twenty/20 competitions: 1) League running throughout the season, starting with 'regional' games before or after each 4-day conference game. 2) Current Twenty20 Cup, but fully extended - 4 regional leagues, incl. Associates, home & away matches, last 16, QFs, SFs and Finals (best-of-3?).
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||
|