20 over cricket

[Dipper]

We've just started 20/20 cricket over here, which is basically a 20 overs each side comp designed to attract a new fan type to cricket, they're actually fitting in games after work & it seems to be getting decent crowds.

I just wondered what people thought of 20 over 'bashes', personally I'm a Test match man & I don't pay too much attention to one day cricket on the whole, it actually strikes me as pretty tedious these days as you have a blast at the start, push it around from over 16 to about 35/40 then have a crack at the end but 20 over cricket excites me a lot ore than the 50 over variety.

There's no chance for the mid innings consolidation, instead it's just hell for leather from start to finish.

Teams are managing to hit totals of about 180 in some of the games which is pretty good going & though I don't hink we've had a century yet 2 Aussies came good yesterday, Brad Hodge hit 97 off about 45 balls & Andrew Symonds was 96 not out when his side won their game after just 12 overs, which must have been pretty brutal hitting.

It must be a nightmare for the bowlers but they only have 4 overs so it's not too bad.

 

[DaveW]

Yeah I pretty much agree with your sentiments about 50 over cricket. Whenever there's a rain delay at the start of a one-dayer I'm always hopeful that it gets reduced to 25-overs a side. It rarely happens that way thought.

By the way, how many competitions do you have over there now???

Last time I checked you had the County Championship (the 4-dayers). And three one-day competitions - Cheltenham & Gloucester (knock out), National League (round robin), and the Benson & Hedges (smaller knock out?).

Is this yet another one-day competition or has it replaced one of the above?

 

[DaveW]

I'll answer my own question (after a small amount of research). It looks like the Benson and Hedges Cup has gone the way of the dodo. Good riddance.

 

[London Dave]

I went down to the Oval to watch it the other day/evening...it was a fun game. I tend to prefer tests to one dayers, but it was a bit of fun and if it get's people interested in the game, all the better. It seems to be a bit of a talking point at least, which is a start.

 

[The Passenger]

do counties post full strength teams for this competition??

I dont mind it if they want to play the competition, but it doesn't nothing for the top level players to have to play in this form of the game.

As I've said many times the problem with English Cricket comes from country cricket. There are to many teams, meaning too many players who are not FC standard, playing too many matches, meaning there is not enough intensity when they actually play. This gets carried through the test arena.

English cricket would be infinetely stronger if the County comp was reduced to 10 teams, playing 1 round robin series of FC matches followed by a final series, and 1 round robin series of 1Day cricket followed by a final series.

It would mean there is less cricket, and less players, which would increase the standard and intensity of the actual matches.

 

[jim boy]

Originally posted by London Dave
I went down to the Oval to watch it the other day/evening...it was a fun game. I tend to prefer tests to one dayers, but it was a bit of fun and if it get's people interested in the game, all the better. It seems to be a bit of a talking point at least, which is a start.

IMO it's a good idea, not real cricket of course, but pretty good if, after a day at the office, you want to go out with a few mates, watch a knock-about sort of match where you don't care who wins and drink loads of cheap booze. (3 quid a pint I believe)

 

[Dipper]

In reply to Black Thunder I agree that English cricket would be improved by fewer teams, as well as the ECB giving the counties less money so that they firstly can't afford to pay a bunch of hacks who'll never play for England(& thus clog up the system) a decent wage & secondly so that they don't waste up to £150k per year on the overseas players.

Only about 1 or 2 counties in England are self sufficient financially so it seems ludicrous to me that the ECB through Test match revenue is paying foreign cricketers to play here.

Rather than giving the counties money the ECB should subsidise a number of regional academies & coaches so that the counties can develop some decent young players-the counties that develop more players should be rewarded & those that don't have their budget slashed.

A big thing with English cricket is the number of games played, I'm just reading Justin Langer's book from Outback to Outfield when he was at Middlesex a few years back & he basically says that English players don't have a chance to celeberate winning, don't have a chance to work on their games & in the end lose their sharpness & desire due to the treadmill like nature of the English county circuit.

As far as I'm concerned the selfishness of the counties is the problem, some of them haven't produced a decent England player for donkey's years, what purpose do they serve if that's the case?The only county that can be proud of itself at the moment is Surrey with honourable mentions to Yorkshire & maybe Lancashire.


As to the question of whether the top players play in the 20/20, yes they do & I actually think there could be benefits in how the one day game is played over here.

I mean we've been crap at the one day stuff ever since the 92 WC (which we should have won), the attitude that will be required to post big scores in this competition might show players what they can achieve & raise the bar of their expectations & belief.

The innings that Symonds played was 96* off of 35 balls, now theoretically there's no reason why he can't do the same in a 50 over match, once batsmen realise what's possible it can change the whole one day culture over here.
A few years ago no one would have believed that teams would be rattling along at 4 runs an over reguallry in Test cricket but Steve Waugh set the ball rolling with Australia & to some degre the rest of world cricket has followed suit.

Who knows maybe we'll end up with a 20 over WC a bit like Sevens Rugby.

 

[Dipper]

Originally posted by Jim Boy
about sort of match where you don't care who wins and drink loads of cheap booze. (3 quid a pint I believe)

A pint of what?It can't be beer cos I wouldn't call £3 a pint cheap , maybe you're man of taste & it's champers you're talking about.

 

[The Passenger]

Yes it is possible that players realize what they can do when they're put into a situation when they just have to go for it.


But on the English System, it just needs to be COMPLETELY overhauled and started from scratch.


- 10 teams (all in one division)
- 2 competitions, 9 games in each plus finals
- Minimum 18 players players per county, maximum 24.
- That would make around 200-220 players (how many FC contracted players would there be now?? at least 350 if not closer to 450. there is 18 counties)
- no overseas players
- national academy
- regional academys - one per three or four conties (three across the country)
- grade style amatuer competition of about 12-14 teams per county

hmmm thats about all I can think off for now.

 

[DaveW]

Has the two tier system in the county championship helped to strengthen the standard of first-class cricket in England?

I know Mark Ramprakash switched from a second division club to a first division club. Have there been more cases of this? Do the top players flee a newly demoted club? (I think that happens in English football) Do you have to play in the top division to play Test cricket for England?

Put simply, will all the best players eventually be in the one division? I ask this as I think that Black Thunder's solution may be a bit cavalier, especially if the current system has its desired effect.

 

[The Passenger]

Originally posted by DaveW
Has the two tier system in the county championship helped to strengthen the standard of first-class cricket in England?

I know Mark Ramprakash switched from a second division club to a first division club. Have there been more cases of this? Do the top players flee a newly demoted club? (I think that happens in English football) Do you have to play in the top division to play Test cricket for England?

Put simply, will all the best players eventually be in the one division? I ask this as I think that Black Thunder's solution may be a bit cavalier, especially if the current system has its desired effect.

I honestly dont' see how having FC players split into two divisions can help.

How can national selectors possibly tell how good a player really is when he's kicking ass in the second division.

They've tried to make it into a Soccer style competiton with divisions and promotion and relegation.

Another problem is the Poms will never change. Can you imagine what the tea-drinkers at Lords would do if someone proposed to them a 10-team competition and getting rid of all the current counties and starting fresh. There'd be a riot!!

but its the only way they'll improve.

To many cricketers = to many cricketers not upto the standard with to many games being played = cricket being played at a low intensity and lower standard = test players don't come up against the best week-in week-out = weak test team.

Australian cricket has the perfect system at the moment, and it's no wonder we are so strong. I know its been this way for ages, but its never been properly harnessed till recently, due to alot of pettiness and incredible bias in selection policies over the years, plus the emergence of the National Academy was the icing on the cake for Australian cricket.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Black Thunder
I honestly dont' see how having FC players split into two divisions can help.

How can national selectors possibly tell how good a player really is when he's kicking ass in the second division.

That's exactly my point. That player kicking arse should go to a first division county.

They've tried to make it into a Soccer style competiton with divisions and promotion and relegation.

It works for soccer, doesn't it?

Another problem is the Poms will never change. Can you imagine what the tea-drinkers at Lords would do if someone proposed to them a 10-team competition and getting rid of all the current counties and starting fresh. There'd be a riot!!

Again that emphasises my point that the move to two divisions a few years ago is arguably better - certainly safer - than the radical changes you're proposing.

 

[The Passenger]

Originally posted by DaveW
Again that emphasises my point that the move to two divisions a few years ago is arguably better - certainly safer - than the radical changes you're proposing.

how is it safer?? if it were England would be doing well on the international scene.

if they selectors are going to be reluctant to pick players from a second division side into the national team, then what is the point of that competition. It's not like soccer where there is oodles and oodles of money coming in, and there are so many players.

Wouldn't it be smarter just to have one division of 10 teams, with less players taking up resources, less games being played meaning those games that are played are at a higher intensity. Plus less players, means less spots available meaning players need to work harder to get those spots.

I'll us a 15 year old kid we have at my club playing first grade. He's the youngest guy playing first grade cricket in Sydney for 2002/03. He's a left handed batsmen, absolute gun. He got robbed off a spot in the Australian Under 17 this year, but will definetaly get in this year. Now he is talent to the core. If he was a Pom, he could sit back on the talent and virtually cruise into a county contract with no worries at all, and live the life of a profesional cricketer. But he is Australian, there are only 25 spots available in NSW (around 140-150 spots in the country), so if he just rests back on his laurels he will never become a FC cricketer.

It's a fine line between having enough spots available that people realize its possible, and not having too many spots available that any hack can get in.

I would've thought two divisions was quite radical considering it isn't done anywhere else in the cricketing world.

It works in soccer because the best all get attracted to the same clubs, and there is clear flow of which clubs stand where. In the county it isn't as clear cut and some players have loyalties to certain counties.

 

[Unwritten_Law]

They used to, maybe still do, play international 6's and 8's every year in Asia. Hong Kong Sixes were 5 overs a side and Malaysian Super 8's were 15 overs I think.

how is it safer?? if it were England would be doing well on the international scene.

Prior to getting thrased by Australia I think they were going alright, well in comparison to some other England teams anyway. Hussein was being talked up as the best skipper for a long while.

 

[The Passenger]

English test record:

1st Jan 1993 to end of 1999/2000 season: 18 wins, 35 losses, 27 draws from 80 tests
2000 season to current day: 16 wins, 14 losses, 10 draws from 40 tests

They're record in terms of series since 2000 is 6 wins, 3 draws, 3 losses.

Definetaly improving but a still a fair way of the mark for mine. 3 of those wins came against Zimabwbe (2) and against a fledging West Indies team in England.

Whilst they beat Sri Lanka twice and Pakistan once.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Black Thunder
how is it safer?? if it were England would be doing well on the international scene.

It's safer because it retains all the counties, most of which have been around for a very long time. And England are doing better on the Test scene as your stats show. I'd say they're in the top five Test teams. (with Aus, SAf, NZ, SL)

if they selectors are going to be reluctant to pick players from a second division side into the national team, then what is the point of that competition. It's not like soccer where there is oodles and oodles of money coming in, and there are so many players.

It becomes a second tier competition as a stepping stone to the big league. Much like the ACB Cup in Australia.

Wouldn't it be smarter just to have one division of 10 teams, with less players taking up resources, less games being played meaning those games that are played are at a higher intensity. Plus less players, means less spots available meaning players need to work harder to get those spots.

If the only meaningful division has nine teams, then that achieves the same effect. That's why I ask if its having that effect. If it is, great. If it isn't, then look at other solutions.

 

[The Passenger]

The problem I have is the players are paid to play second division cricket. This means they are taking up resources.

I dont mind a second tier competition, as you say Australia has one, but it should be a second XI competition for the remaining squad members not good enough to make the 1st XI's of the 1st division counties. Not a completely new set of paid players.

Also, they do pick players from the second division - their own One Day captain and one of the best batsmen in teh world Michael Vaughan comes from Yorkshire, who are in the second division for the county competition. Marcus Trescothick is from the the second division. Richard Johnson, who ran through Zimbabwe, was picked from the second division.

They also need to get rid of that knockout one day competition they have. It was an attempt to have an FA Cup style cricket competition, but just adds to an already draining schedule.

They play 18 games for the FC competition as well don't they?? That should be reduced to 9. It may already be, i'm not 100 per cent sure, but i'm pretty sure its 18.

 

[Dipper]

Originally posted by Black Thunder
I honestly
Another problem is the Poms will never change. Can you imagine what the tea-drinkers at Lords would do if someone proposed to them a 10-team competition and getting rid of all the current counties and starting fresh. There'd be a riot!!

The accusation of a deep rooted conservatism in English cricket is one that I used to make but I'm not so sure now, as you say having a 2 tier comp was pretty radical & the original subject of this thread the 20/20 competition I would have thought is a pretty radical step & one that would be gauranteed to have the traditionalists spluttering into their cups of tea.You just have to look at the new media centre at Lord's that looks like a spcae ship to see that there must be more than a few forward thinkers there.


The actual people that really hold back English cricket are the those at the counties rather than those at the ECB, it's case of the tail wagging the dog sometimes, the nature of cricket is that the FC comps in every country are there as a vehicle to produce good Test cricketers, every country that is except England where the Counties see there place as important within itself.They have never grasped that cricket isn't like football where the support is huge & the clubs are self financing.

The trouble is that the counties vote in the top man at the ECB & so they wouldn't vote in someone who wanted to get rid of some of them, the phrase that's used here is that it would be like 'Turkeys voting for Christmas'.


Where the 2 tier system falls down a bit is that there's 9 counties in each division with promotion & relegation for 3 each, so it can be hard for countiesd to build stability, undoubtably you get countiede being promoted that aren't good enough for the higher division & counties being relegated that probably don't deserve it.It's different to relegating the bottom 3 form a 20 team league, the difference between finishing 3rd from bottom & third form top isn't very great.


I don't think that you can say that a 10 team league has to be best, you need to keep irt so that each area of the country has reprsentation, there are certain counties that could go it a lone & some that should be forced into merging, it may be that 10 is the best number but it might be less.

The number of games is ridiculous, players have no real chance to work on their games & iron out faults.Having 1 knock out competitionj isn't a bad idea in my mind, it has intensity & reaches a climax with a Lord's final, what there is no real justification for is having 2 of them (which we did have) & having what used to be the Sunday league, which still exists but isn't always played on a Sunday now, this competition really needs to go but it's a big money spinner for them & this leads to the real big problem we have to move away from the idea that you should eb able to make a decent livijg as a county cricketer, county cricket shoudl just pay enough money that a young bloke can survive but realsie that to make a good living he must be playing interenational cricket, the money should not be enough that a 30 year old married man can support his family on it.

As you say that 15 year old kid knows that to make it he has to be tough on himself, over here young cricketers on the whole are lazy & as weak as p1ss.

The coaching over here is shoddy as well, I noticed when i lived in Australia that the coach was highly respected in sport in general, it seemed that your coaches were strongly schooled in everything technical & were open to new ideas.In sport over here in general coaches are little more than organisers with often a worryingly little undersatnding of the technical side of things.

Obviously cricket is about as technical game as you'll find, it still concerns me that even last winter James Anderson went over to the Academy & they looked at his action on that computer thing they have there & they informed him that if he kept bowling like that he'd get injured so he spent a couple of months re-grooving his action to iron out this point, it struck me that if he hadn't made the trip to Australia & had an Australian coach who understood what the computer was showing & understood the biomechanics of fast bowling then this fault would never have been noticed & we'd hve ended up with another semi-permanently injured English fast bowler being sent for physio & surgery every month.

Basically here's what I'd do given one of my dream jobs as dictator of English cricket with a mandate to do 'Whatever it Takes to Beat the Aussies Regularly'


1.Set up a programme to coach the coaches (properly!)
2.Cut Down the Counties to a Reasonable Number (maybe 10)
3.Provide the new clubs with the money/coaches/infrastructure for an academy each.
4.One National Academy for the Best young players with access to the best coaches, basically flood the whole system with good coaches.
5.Make it hard for county cricketers to earn good money, revue the whole idea of overseas players-maybe 1 each per club to start with but banning them altogether after a few years when standards have improved
6.Taking the preparation of pitches out of the hands of the Counties to prevent the crappy pitches that stop us producing decent spinners & real quicks.
7.Use the money that's saved by not letting the Counties waste it on wages to be used to help/subsidise state schools to play more cricket & provide the kids with a reasonable level of coaching.
8.One knock out one day competition plus the 20/20 to stand alongside the FC comp, (players will play a lot less matches).
9.No one can be dropped & re-called by the national side more than 4 times, once you've been axed for the 4th time that's it no coming back you're history.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by DIPPER
9.No one can be dropped & re-called by the national side more than 4 times, once you've been axed for the 4th time that's it no coming back you're history.

You're not a Graeme Hick fan, are you?

 

[Dipper]

Originally posted by DaveW
You're not a Graeme Hick fan, are you?

Hehe well I did have both Hick & Ramprakash in mind wehn I came out with that, it's bloody ridiculous if a bloke hasn't learned the mental toughness by 30 then he never will so why waste time on him, having said that Hick did show signs of becoming a reasonable Test batsman, after years of ineptitude he was actually averaging about 40 for the last yera or so when they finally dropped him, so work that one out.

As for Ramprakash we was just temperamentally unsuited to Test match cricket-too nervous, too wound up, too afraid-they wasted too much time & too many caps on him.

He needed a near death experience to find some sense of perspective.

 

[DaveW]

I was disappointed that Hick never made it at Test level. He could be such an exciting hard-hitting batsman. A formidable sight in full flight. A guy with a brilliant first-class record like his really should have taken the next step.

Is another recall still within the realms of possibility?

 

[wagstaff]

Originally posted by DaveW
It's safer because it retains all the counties, most of which have been around for a very long time. And England are doing better on the Test scene as your stats show. I'd say they're in the top five Test teams. (with Aus, SAf, NZ, SL)

With the routine English bashing that goes on whenever England lose to Australia, it's easily forgotten that their Test performances in the 2000s are immeasurably better then they were in the 1990s and mid to late 1980s.

Hussain must be commended for at least making England a generally tough adversary at Test level. They've been found out by Australia twice but which country hasn't been found out by Australia in recent years? Let's not forget that England are the only side to have won a Test in Australia (twice) since February 1997.

And no other side apart from Australia could say they are clearly better then England at this point in time. South Africa are probably a better side then them but that will only be proven definitively by the series the two sides will play later this year.

As for the two-tier County championship, the main benefit its seen to have brought is that there are significantly less dead matches then there used to be. As three sides are promoted/relegated each season, virtually every side has something to play for right until the final few matches (unless they're right down the bottom of Division 2). The general consensus seems to be that it has increased the intensity that County Cricket so badly needs.

 

[London Dave]

I agree with Wagstaff, the English have a much improved side over the last couple of seasons, and are blooding a few young blokes who look like they might have a bit of ticker.

As for the 'divisions', I'd reckon it's there to prevent 'dead' games at seasons end. The difference in 'quality' between divisions would be minute.

On the number of counties, I see no reason why 17 wouldnt work. I recall many moons ago Shield cricket being compared unfavourably to the county game, mainly because the Aussies were losing to the poms. Swings and roundabouts kiddies.

If you want to know what has ailed the English game, read Simon Hughes' book, A Lot of Hard Yakka. t's all there, in black and white.

 

[Dipper]

Originally posted by London Dave
. I recall many moons ago Shield cricket being compared unfavourably to the county game, mainly because the Aussies were losing to the poms. Swings and roundabouts kiddies.

I don't agree with 'swings & roundabouts' at all, there's still people that says it's all cyclical & that give it time & England will get some players coming through & we'll win our fair share of Ashes series.

It's this sort of attitude that has held us back for donkey's years, historically Australia has been stronger than us but the Australian dominance of the last 14 years is like nothing previous really, we've been thoroughly outlcassed in every series, let's face it even when we won in 1985 & 86/87 it wasn't anything to get excited about, we a terrible side(worse than now) we'd got done 5-0 twice by the Windies (& lost at home to both India & NZ for the first time in 86) it was just that Australia were fielding their worst sides ever, this came I guess largely from the that whole post Packer thing & the players lost on the rebel tour to South Africa.
Australia pulled themsleves together & now look at them, I look at England & I definitely feel that we've improved over the sides we put out in the mid 90s, it's coming from the way that we deal with players in the England set up though, the county system is still not giving us much, we're having to get players who look like they have talent & then totally take them away from the mediocrity of county cricket & almost beat out what they've learnt there.Vaughn & Trescothick both averaged about 30(at county level) but showed a bit of promise so we took them out of & worked on them before it ground all their promise out of them.

As much as we're improving it has to be said that the sides who once looked likely to give Australia a run for their money have got worse, South Africa have got worse, whether it's too do with the quota system I don't know but they're not what they were & the same goes for Pakistan who've lost that real devil that they had.Everyone is just in that similar level of averageness & it wouldn't take much for one side to break out & stake a claim as undisputed no2.


I'm optimistic about how things are going with the England set up but let's be fair the county system hasn't produced a real world class talent for a long time, you have to go back to Botham Gooch & Gower in the 70's & even the 2 G's records pale into insignificance compared with many of the great batsmen that other countries produce.
It's a fact that we haven't produced a Test bastman who averages over 50(let's see how Vaughn goes over a longer period than one stellar year) for ages & we haven't produced a bowler with an average under 25 for about as long.

The county system doesn't give us an sort of Test class spin bolwer, let alone a top notch wrist spinner & we haven't had an express pace bowler (a half decent one) for ages.

Hopefully the acadmeny & Rod Marsh will start producing a few real gems but as things stand I don't believe that county cricket does the job that first class cricket is meant to do in every other country & that is to provide Test match cricketers for the national side.