Four seasons in, has your opinion on the Big Bash changed?

[The_Reaper]

If you were to have a hypothtical 8 team franchise in England

1. Lord's (London)
2. The Oval (London)
3. Old Trafford (Manchester)
4. Headingly (Leeds)
5. Edgbaston (Birmingham)
6. Sophia Gardens (Cardiff)
7. Trent Bridge (Nottingham)

And where is number 8?

Southampton?

 

[The_Reaper]

England should actually just have two divisions of 9- 8 league games each and set a side 6 weeks of the season for it. If it involves shorting the county season a bit then so be it (16 matches is too long anyway)

And get it on free to air tv

 

[eth-dog]

If you were to have a hypothtical 8 team franchise in England

1. Lord's (London)
2. The Oval (London)
3. Old Trafford (Manchester)
4. Headingly (Leeds)
5. Edgbaston (Birmingham)
6. Sophia Gardens (Cardiff)
7. Trent Bridge (Nottingham)

And where is number 8?

Southampton?

Durham? Maybe Chelmsford? You have 2 up north, 2 down south and 3 in the midlands. Would Sophia Gardens be a definite?

 

[The Speaker]

from my experience, some 25 years ago, from life in england, counties have a major ground, and 2 others that they may or may not use. they are cricket grounds.

I'm pretty sure their second grounds are in other non-metro areas for the most part as well.

If you were to have a hypothtical 8 team franchise in England

1. Lord's (London)
2. The Oval (London)
3. Old Trafford (Manchester)
4. Headingly (Leeds)
5. Edgbaston (Birmingham)
6. Sophia Gardens (Cardiff)
7. Trent Bridge (Nottingham)

And where is number 8?

Southampton?

Has to be Southampton.

If they wanted a ten team franchise, which I think is the suggestion, they'd probably also add in Riverside, as Chester-le-Street is in the Newcastle metro area, and then...don't know.

 

[The_Reaper]

I'm pretty sure their second grounds are in other non-metro areas for the most part as well.



Has to be Southampton.

If they wanted a ten team franchise, which I think is the suggestion, they'd probably also add in Riverside, as Chester-le-Street is in the Newcastle metro area, and then...don't know.

Based on the host stadiums for the 2019 world up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Cricket_World_Cup I'd suggest Bristol

 

[The Speaker]

Based on the host stadiums for the 2019 world up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Cricket_World_Cup I'd suggest Bristol

That was the one. I knew at least one of the other counties had a decent metro area...

 

[The_Reaper]

#  Stadium        Capacity  City         Metro Pop    Region        County Club
1. Lord's         28,000    London       13,709,000   London        Middlesex
2. Edgbaston      25,000    Birmingham    3,683,000   West Midlands Warwickshire
3. Rose Bowl      25,000    Southampton   1,547,000   South East    Hampshire
4. The Oval       23,500    London       13,709,000   London        Surrey
5. Old Trafford   22,000    Manchester    2,556,000   North West    Lancashire
6. Riverside      19,000    Chester-le-St 1,599,000   North East    Durham
7. Trent Bridge   17,500    Nottingham    1,543,000   East Midlands Nottinghamshire
8. Headingley     17,500    Leeds         2,302,000   Yorkshire     Yorkshire
9. County         17,000    Bristol       1,041,000   South West    Gloucestershire
10.Sophia Gardens 15,643    Cardiff       1,097,000   Wales         Glamorgan

Would have a team in 8 of the 9 'regions' of England plus a team in Wales. The East of England does not have a suitable metropolitan area or a suitable stadium. Chelmsford is not far from London anyway.

Each of the nine represented metropolitan areas have populations of over one million. Only three of the metropolitan areas in the UK with a population over a million are unrepresented - Liverpool (5), Sheffield (7) and Glasgow (10)

 

[questionable]

#  Stadium        Capacity  City         Metro Pop    Region        County Club
1. Lord's         28,000    London       13,709,000   London        Middlesex
2. Edgbaston      25,000    Birmingham    3,683,000   West Midlands Warwickshire
3. Rose Bowl      25,000    Southampton   1,547,000   South East    Hampshire
4. The Oval       23,500    London       13,709,000   London        Surrey
5. Old Trafford   22,000    Manchester    2,556,000   North West    Lancashire
6. Riverside      19,000    Chester-le-St 1,599,000   North East    Durham
7. Trent Bridge   17,500    Nottingham    1,543,000   East Midlands Nottinghamshire
8. Headingley     17,500    Leeds         2,302,000   Yorkshire     Yorkshire
9. County         17,000    Bristol       1,041,000   South West    Gloucestershire
10.Sophia Gardens 15,643    Cardiff       1,097,000   Wales         Glamorgan

Would have a team in 8 of the 9 'regions' of England plus a team in Wales. The East of England does not have a suitable metropolitan area or a suitable stadium. Chelmsford is not far from London anyway.

Each of the nine represented metropolitan areas have populations of over one million. Only three of the metropolitan areas in the UK with a population over a million are unrepresented - Liverpool (5), Sheffield (7) and Glasgow (10)

yep, that'd be the way to do it. but to have a season anything like the big bash they'd have to install lights (permanent or temporary) at many of those grounds.

 

[The Speaker]

yep, that'd be the way to do it. but to have a season anything like the big bash they'd have to install lights (permanent or temporary) at many of those grounds.

I would've thought all of those grounds would have lights, except maybe Bristol. Pretty sure you need lights to be a Test ground.

 

[questionable]

I would've thought all of those grounds would have lights, except maybe Bristol. Pretty sure you need lights to be a Test ground.

nah. remember bellerive only got lights 5 years ago.

i looked it up though and it's not as bad as i thought. only bristol, headingley and riverside without lights.

trent bridge, lord's, the oval, old trafford and edgbaston have all had lights installed in the last six years.

 

[holybishop]

Why would a Test ground need lights

 

[The_Reaper]

Why would a Test ground need lights

ODI grounds would and if you host tests you host ODIs

 

[djrossie16]

yeah i'm loving the big bash. especially when you get back home it's a great way to unwind. Some really thrilling matches of late which doesn't hurt.

 

[holybishop]

ODI grounds would and if you host tests you host ODIs

Bellerive still hosted ODIs before it got lights. There are such things at day ODIs in contrast to the day/night ODIs.

 

[eth-dog]

Bellerive still hosted ODIs before it got lights. There are such things at day ODIs in contrast to the day/night ODIs.

Not anymore. That's why they got lights.

 

[Sauras]

Yep, prime time tv has got shitter by the year every year big bash has been on my tv. *en get rid of this s**t, no one cares, players don't care (except for their pay packet) just * it off already

 

[The_Reaper]

Bellerive still hosted ODIs before it got lights. There are such things at day ODIs in contrast to the day/night ODIs.

Well yeah but in a place like England most of the stadiums would have lights.

And the ones that don't can get lights

 

[madmug]

Well yeah but in a place like England most of the stadiums would have lights.

And the ones that don't can get lights

In the middle of the English summer it stays light until 10pm. Maybe start at 1pm finish by 9pm? Or get lights.

BBL04 has been good to watch. A bit of hit & giggle in the evening has been, well, good!

 

[BACCS]

Why? Because I don't like things that cater for imbeciles?

Is every fan of T20 an imbecile?

 

[eth-dog]

Is every fan of T20 an imbecile?

Yes, because we don't sip on Grange everyday in the Barossa .

 

[BACCS]

Yes, because we don't sip on Grange everyday in the Barossa .

Nah mate, we aren't cricket purists

 

[questionable]

Well yeah but in a place like England most of the stadiums would have lights.

And the ones that don't can get lights

just six years ago, virtually none of them had lights.

 

[Damon_3388]

In the middle of the English summer it stays light until 10pm.

You wouldn't know it from watching those mid-year Ashes series, we're there's danger of going off for bad light just after tea time on seemingly nearly every day's play...

 

[Damon_3388]

I'm a traditionalist, and Test cricket will always be my first love. That said, I've never objected to the T20 format, just the way the game is packaged. Way too much emphasis on fireworks, dancers, guys on trampolines, confetti and crap like that. IMHO, far greater emphasis should be placed on raising the standard of cricket, and promoting the game on it's own merits.

Unless you're at the game (and the majority of us aren't, but rather we're watching it on tele), you don't even see or really notice that stuff, though. They might do a quick two second cut to a couple of cheerleaders when someone hits a boundary, but that's about it.

 

[madmug]

Nah mate, we aren't cricket purists

Speak for yourself .
I like T20 for the innovation, the crowds & general excitement it generates. I also like the traditional game. I go to watch Shield games at BRO. I also go a watch a bit of local grade cricket with a mate who is on a club committee. All when I can. If anything, I've lost interest in the 50 over game.