Warwickshire CCC unofficial fans forum
bearsfans.org.uk
Member
Joined:
Posts: 631

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-12022119/The-faces-chop-talks-taking-place-turning-competition-T20-event.html?ito=email_share_article-top

Think this is an important step. Key going forward is not the format but rather not to isolate the non TMG counties. Bringing minor counties back into a competitive tournament would be great and far better than just having 8 franchises and everyone else twiddling thumbs. I do hope there's still room for a 50-over or 40-over comp though perhaps a knockout comp.

One option is to invite the National Counties (formerly the Minor Counties) to join the 18 first-class teams in an expanded competition aimed at providing promising cricketers with a pathway into the professional game.

The T20 Blast might then become a two-league affair, with promotion and relegation.

I know at least one member of this board won't necessarily agree but I do still think there would be merit in holding onto some of the new team names/identities going forwards. Birmingham Phoenix could still exist as a concept for mens and women's T20 as it has definitely broadened appeal within the Greater Birmingham/West Midlands conurbation/region. Ditto for the Manchester Wales and Southampton teams. Perhaps less a need to retain Oval, Trent and Northern however. They can go back to being Surrey Notts and Yorkshire. Warwickshire could potentially then even field a second string/academy side in division two of whatever emerges and play at smaller grounds under the Warwickshire umbrella as could Lancs in Liverpool etc...

Member
Joined:
Posts: 178

At least the departure of the numpties that dreamed up The Hundred allows the ECB to admit that they got it wrong. The article, though, suggests that there is still no clear thinking about how to make money (sorry, how to run a cricket season) in future. I wonder if the ECB could be persuaded to work towards a two division County Championship with 9 teams in each division, all-play-all, and just one hit-and-giggle competition. It sounds sensible to me.

Member
Joined:
Posts: 949

The one thing that I think the ECB never acknowledged regarding franchises was that in the other big competitions of the BBL & IPL, they actually increased the number of sides. They grew the game, and have fans a greater ability to see cricket. Whereas it’s the opposite for the Hundred. They removed the premier short format tournament in this country from large swathes.

Have always thought the inclusion of minor counties would be positive, potentially even Scotland, the Netherlands and Ireland. Create some variety, some new grounds, raise the profile of the sport. You can still pump money in, insist on family friendly atmospheres, ensure that games are short enough to be on free to air telly.

Member
Joined:
Posts: 452

UrsaMinor wrote:

At least the departure of the numpties that dreamed up The Hundred allows the ECB to admit that they got it wrong. The article, though, suggests that there is still no clear thinking about how to make money (sorry, how to run a cricket season) in future. I wonder if the ECB could be persuaded to work towards a two division County Championship with 9 teams in each division, all-play-all, and just one hit-and-giggle competition. It sounds sensible to me.

Your final sentence explains why we won't see 2 division CC and 1 one day competition !

Member
Joined:
Posts: 631

The most likely new structure would see the number of teams increase from the current 10 to 18, split into two divisions, with a team running alongside, but independently of, each first-class county and with branding focused on cities.

The ambition would be for the women’s tournament to eventually use the same format, though there might not be enough teams for it to do so from the start.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/apr/28/strauss-exits-ecb-with-new-t20-format-on-table-and-hundred-on-the-rack

I'd be okay with this. My personal bug bear is the blocking up of the formats and loss of championship multiple weeks at a time but I accept the argument for blocks is a strong one and is well supported by others.

To protect the fantastic number of sides in county cricket this is fine by me. Clearly others would be concerned about the names of sides but to me this is a lesser concern than the actual format or the schedule which must help prepare England players for test and ODI cricket and enable people in all regions of England to enjoy top level cricket throughout the summer months

Administrator
Joined:
Posts: 569

I worry that running an extra competition alongside the county one will devalue the county game. Where are all the extra players going to come from?

It’s a step in the right direction though.

Member
Joined:
Posts: 631

It'll possibly be in a dedicated 4 week window so players from the counties themselves plus 3/4 overseas picks. I guess the main issue is just how independent the entities will be and whether counties will have much jurisdiction of the competition and TV deals.

There'll still be the 8 or 9 top division to market like the current hundred. Suppose the blast would then be surplus or replaced by a knockout cup. Be a shame to lose Finals Day from Edgbaston but perhaps one reason why blast off been introduced and could still have Finals Day with mens and women's involvement

Member
Joined:
Posts: 656

Why is this awful competition still referred to as 'The Hundred' and not 'The-elephant-in-the-room-that-has-to-have-free-tickets-given-away-to-get-people-to-watch-and-has-lost-almost-£60M-in-2-seasons-with-games-that-no-one-remembers-balls-up'. It does just roll off the tongue.

Member
Joined:
Posts: 452

paulbear wrote:

Why is this awful competition still referred to as 'The Hundred' and not 'The-elephant-in-the-room-that-has-to-have-free-tickets-given-away-to-get-people-to-watch-and-has-lost-almost-£60M-in-2-seasons-with-games-that-no-one-remembers-balls-up'. It does just roll off the tongue.

That has to be the best and most accurate title for that competition. Now,Paul, perhaps you could tell us how you really feel !!!!

Member
Joined:
Posts: 452

paulbear wrote:

Why is this awful competition still referred to as 'The Hundred' and not 'The-elephant-in-the-room-that-has-to-have-free-tickets-given-away-to-get-people-to-watch-and-has-lost-almost-£60M-in-2-seasons-with-games-that-no-one-remembers-balls-up'. It does just roll off the tongue.

That has to be the best and most accurate title for that competition. Now,Paul, perhaps you could tell us how you really feel !!!!

Super Moderator
Joined:
Posts: 1550

According to The Telegraph, a wide range of changes to the domestic season is being considered:
"Major changes to the county schedule are being discussed, with a mooted shake-up of the Hundred set to have a huge knock-on effect on the rest of the domestic game.

Options being considered by county chief executives include major changes to all three domestic competitions:

Beginning the season with a one-day competition, which would be moved from its August slot. The one-day cup could feature three groups of six or seven teams, before knockout stages. 
Changing the format of the County Championship to three divisions of six, with play-offs to determine the winners, and promotion and relegation between divisions. This would entail reducing the championship schedule from 14 games per county to 10-12 each.  
Playing the Twenty20 Blast in three groups of six, with quarter-finals. 
More championship cricket in August, so moving the Hundred – or what the tournament becomes – to earlier in the summer.

The Hundred could be converted to a T20 competition, but with the teams – city-based, outside the traditional county structure – retained and the new tournament expanded to 18 sides, which would allow all county venues to host a team. The structure would also open the door to potential private investment in the competition. "

Member
Joined:
Posts: 631

Any reduction of the County Championship has to be a joke unless they are all going to be scheduled in June, July and August. Even then I'm not biting. Just look at this season. We've chewed up 3 of our allotment of 14 games so far this season we've had games barely limping into the 3rd day of actual play. Extrapolate that across a season if there were only 10 games that's 2 days worthwhile play to watch per game, a family fortune of 20 days cricket (across a season that currently stretches over 180 days!!!) is your job lot with only 10 at home. 2/3 of those you're on holiday or at some wedding event which leaves you with 7 or 8 days cricket for your membership. They'd have to reduce membership to about £99 to justify the up front outlay. And that's for anyone who isn't still in employment.

This type of weather is not exactly unexpected in April and in fact can set in at any time during the summer, granted not every season but let's get real this could be the case for 2-3 years in a row before we get some golden summers again.

The One Day Cup in April sounds like a disaster waiting to happen to me. The better ODI players jetting off to IPL and other random comps or being rested for England duty. It'd end up like the Graham Williamson Trophy and get axed pretty soon after it was brought in.

Also after a long and dreary winter to then be told you have to wait until mid-May for proper red ball championship cricket to watch would be slightly galling.

Appointment to view is the way to go IMHO with a One Day Cup game or T20's bolted onto/sandwiched within each round of Championship cricket. 2 divisions of 9 and 16 rounds and away you go.

Super Moderator
Joined:
Posts: 1550

mad wrote:

Any reduction of the County Championship has to be a joke unless they are all going to be scheduled in June, July and August. Even then I'm not biting. Just look at this season. We've chewed up 3 of our allotment of 14 games so far this season we've had games barely limping into the 3rd day of actual play. Extrapolate that across a season if there were only 10 games that's 2 days worthwhile play to watch per game, a family fortune of 20 days cricket (across a season that currently stretches over 180 days!!!) is your job lot with only 10 at home. 2/3 of those you're on holiday or at some wedding event which leaves you with 7 or 8 days cricket for your membership. They'd have to reduce membership to about £99 to justify the up front outlay. And that's for anyone who isn't still in employment.

This type of weather is not exactly unexpected in April and in fact can set in at any time during the summer, granted not every season but let's get real this could be the case for 2-3 years in a row before we get some golden summers again.

The One Day Cup in April sounds like a disaster waiting to happen to me. The better ODI players jetting off to IPL and other random comps or being rested for England duty. It'd end up like the Graham Williamson Trophy and get axed pretty soon after it was brought in.

Also after a long and dreary winter to then be told you have to wait until mid-May for proper red ball championship cricket to watch would be slightly galling.

Appointment to view is the way to go IMHO with a One Day Cup game or T20's bolted onto/sandwiched within each round of Championship cricket. 2 divisions of 9 and 16 rounds and away you go.

So apart from that, can we put you down as broadly in favour?

Member
Joined:
Posts: 631

Well we know exactly which county clubs (and which one in particular ;-)) are spoon feeding certain sections of the media this claptrap don't we!

It's all part of the big media war between the empires for cricket's soul. Sky, Torygraph, Daily Mail, Cricinfo they're all compromised in some way. There'll be loads of this all summer. Maybe the 'sacking off' of Strauss was a bit of a decoy to throw everyone off the scent

Could really do with a summer without all this nonsense too. Just to be able to enjoy what's in front of us safe in the knowledge that it'll be more or less the same in 2-3 seasons if not the next 10. Constant flux over the past 6 seasons either side of Covid has been quite tiresome. Yes we had our gripes about the schedule during the 2000's and most of the 2010's but nothing like this crap we are forced to endure now

Member
Joined:
Posts: 631

Also part of the 'argument' for smaller divisions instead of one big 18 team league (or two 9's which worked blooming fine till they meddled with it) is it reduces the likelihood of dead rubber matches towards the end of the season. The trouble with play off's is it removes some (although by no means all) of the dead rubber matches from the end of the season and all of a sudden you have these fairly meaningless games at the beginning of the season instead.

No need for Surrey to get off to the rollicking start they have. Teams instead can just rock up with a few new signings in August, gatecrash the play-offs and win the County flipping Championship (FFS!!!) that way

Ruination

Member
Joined:
Posts: 656

At some point a lot of people who are still having to work in full-time employment, will have to have a good look at what they are paying for a membership and could decide with little cricket to watch and not knowing if it will rain at weekends, that enough is enough and just not bother with the game. I feel as though if I did give up my membership after 34 consecutive seasons, that I would just not bother with it any longer. A lot might feel like this, if the weather looks like it could give you a 50/50 chance of seeing any cricket, why would you bother to risk it if you had to pay at the gate. I can see about 20-25 days cricket a year and that just about justifies the price of membership but if the fixtures are messed about with and we are forced to endure 'The Hundread' as part of the season, then we could have a situation where the membership dwindles and on an on/off day due to weather, we could have as little as 50 people watching. As such, I think ALL games whatever format, would suffer. I only watch T20 because it is part of my membership and I still regard that awful name of Birmingham Bears, as Warwickshire but paying to come and watch without a membership and all the hassle of rushing from work on a Friday night and trying to get somewhere to park, would just make me feel, "What's the point...".

Member
Joined:
Posts: 631

Absolutely Paul.

A playoff situation will attract virtually no new fans - long form cricket is still long form cricket - all it does is aggravate the existing fans (current members, lapsed members and casual supporters alike) further who want their 8 county championship games back but have been made to settle for 7

Plus unless they schedule these play offs at the very beginning of September (not sure how they could and if they did what goes in the rest of September?) when there's a decent chance of weather kindly enough to make it a) a good contest and b) a good occasion; these play-offs will be like that Bob Willis Final at Lord's the other year finishing in October - an absolute farce.

How can you decide a county champion in such ridiculous circumstances?

Member
Joined:
Posts: 631

What we now need from the ECB is a bit of honesty. What is the aim? All we seem to get when we question the county CEOs is "the counties all have differing priorities'. At forums last year we saw a few barbed comments (not necessarily from Warks but a few I saw online) about smaller counties and their place in the decision process.

If the priority is to shoehorn the CC between all the other formats then I'm sorry you can't expect folks to believe they seriously think equal home and away games (the integrity of the competition) is all that much of a priority.

If the priority is a thriving CC with integrity maintained then they'd go out of their way to ensure it was 2 divisions of 9+9, 16 fixtures with 2 up 2 down like it was between 2000 and 2016. A period of relative calm to which (despite some gripes re: lack of bank holiday/weekend fixtures/absence of local derbies/too much blocking some seasons) we'd benefit from returning to pretty darn quickly

These are questions the two Richards Gould and Thompson need to square. We are led to believe that the counties are more happy with the direction of travel and yet we keep being fed these stories like the Strauss grim reaper reappearing

Member
Joined:
Posts: 949

The most prevalent argument I saw against 9+9 was there’s always one team in each league sat out.
But apart from the first and last week of the season. There’s always at least 2 teams sat out in each league anyway. So why is that an issue? There were only 4 sides playing in Div 1 this weekend with 6 sat out. So I can’t understand why that’s an issue at all.

I completely agree about the honesty. It’s time to admit the purpose and what the long term plan is. Then allow people to judge its success using relevant criteria. Whereas currently you’ve got people defending or attacking it using everything from revenue, attendance, tv deals, future investment, protection from IPL, keeping English players in England, basically anything.

Member
Joined:
Posts: 631

Honesty so important. The reason we've not had any yet maybe a legacy of previous ECB regime but also counties covering themselves hedging their bets.

Play offs ideas need discarding into the bin. They are just not suitable for long form cricket. Why should members at Leicestershire for example have to put up with their season finishing perhaps 2 or 3 weeks before the members of Surrey?