50 overs comp to replace CB40??

A review of English domestic cricket has recommended a return to the 50-over format to help boost the national side's chances in World Cups. Will this make much difference to the national team? England have always been inconsistent in the format and the counties only changed to the 40 over game in 2009.
I really can not see that this will make much difference.

the counties never seem to know quite what to do with the LO format: we used to have the Natwest Trophy (60 overs) the BH Cup (50) and the Axa League (40). Then the League switched to 45, the BH was scrapped and Natwest was 50 (I think), and then with T20 the knock-out tournaments were scrapped altogether and the League became the CB40. All a bit muddling.

Anyway I think this is a good move personally, I mean what's the point of having a domestic competition which is never represented at international level? Very little IMO.

Correct, 50 over competition makes a heck of a lot more sense.

I agree with both you guy's, it does make sense and can not hurt to do so. I am just not sure if it will make that much difference to England's chances at a WC.

It just familiarises the batsmen with how to pace a innings really, given that 40 overs is completely different in where to accelerate etc.

BRING BACK 50 OVER CRICKET!


(that will be all)

Hi guys,

I'm very happy with the propsed return to 50 over games - better preparation for ODIs and a truer challenge for the players.

However, I don't know if any of you have seen that the proposals also include:

1. At least 14 t20 games per season for all sides.
I'm not convinced such games will be that well attended. This goose that appeared to lay golden eggs didn't seem too well at times last season. Do the casual watching public have the inclination and the cash for so much of this type of cricket?

2. The County Championship being reduced from 16 to 14 matches per season.
As an active follower of the Championship, I am very disappointed by this. It clearly devalues the County Championship itself as well as being ultimately harmful for future test cricketers by giving them less opportunities to play the four day game. Also, taking two matches out of the County Championship season will seriously threaten the historic and delightful Cricket Festival (normally a CC game followed by a one day game) held at many 'secondary' grounds, such as Guildford and Whitgift in the case of Surrey.

i think its pathetic that they want to make the county championship shorter..

1.keep 16 county games

2.make it 50 over instead of 40 over

3.Trim the t20 games to 10 group games.

I know it makes more sense to have a 50 over competition rather than a 40 over competition due to 50 overs being the form played at International level, but is it just me or is 40 over cricket just more interesting? I tend, in general, to prefer to 50 over stuff. Just a thought.

As for the T20, for me the best format would be 3 groups of 6 which means each side gets 5 home games a season minimum, which would maintain interest in T20 whilst the counties still get some decent revenue from it.

And I agree with Guildford. I will be very disappointed if the CC is decreased to 14 games. It should be the pinnacle of the County game, above T20, and looking and Lancs reaction when they finally won it I think it still is.

how on earth do they figure making 14 County Championship matches a season is going to work? Are they knocking two teams out or what? confused by this one.

As for the T20 it seems a bit like overkill to me, while I think T20 makes for a great evening out, it's not something you'd do 14 times a year really.

Pretty much 100% agree with what CF said. Three groups of 6 in the T20, each team plays each other twice (home and away) and have the top three and the best second-placed team through to the semis. Simple.

It is of course pure common sense to have a 50 over tournament rather than 40, 45, 60, 57.2 and any other formulae that have been tried over the years. I believe Mark Robinson was quoted as saying (I paraphrase) that England don't do well abroad in ODIs but do well at home. I believe he's talking out of the wrong location on his body England's home one-day record ain't all that good.

On T20. It may not be doing as well as it was when it first came in, but it's still more popular than the other forms of the first class game. However 14 games is too many, I agree with the general suggestion of 10 plus knock-outs.

On the county championship: I like watching games, I really do, but IMHO it serves very little purpose in its current format. Too many games lead to not enough intensity and competition IMHO. I've watched a fair few, and am occasionally struck by how players look like they're going through the motions. Talking to some ex-players and coaches, there seems to be a mentality that "it doesn't matter that much what happens today because we'll be playing tomorrow, next week, next month without an end in sight". There is a sort of weariness there (read the excellent autobiography by Simon Hughes which puts this across very well).

My solution: 3 divisions of 6, which brings it in line with other domestic competitions around the world. Relegation/promotion for 1 side (with 2nd playing in play-off match, side-seeking promotion plays at home but has to win to get promoted). Another option is to return to the 3-day game: shorter, sharper, hopefully more intensive. Apart from Bell and Tremlett there aren't many players playing in the current England side who I would say were "county championship products".

JDizzle wrote:I know it makes more sense to have a 50 over competition rather than a 40 over competition due to 50 overs being the form played at International level, but is it just me or is 40 over cricket just more interesting? I tend, in general, to prefer to 50 over stuff. Just a thought.
........
And I agree with Guildford. I will be very disappointed if the CC is decreased to 14 games. It should be the pinnacle of the County game, above T20, and looking and Lancs reaction when they finally won it I think it still is.

I agree strongly with both these points. I would reluctantly support/accept 50 overs on account of comparability with ODIs. But as I've posted before, there is often something tedious and formulaic about parts of 50 over matches where everyone is going through the motions. That period of tedium is largely absent from 40 over games as the batting side is looking to press on more or less throughout the innings.

Corporal - I entirely take your point and that made by J ''wise beyond his years'' Dizzle.

However, to me, part of the enjoyment of a 50 over game is how both sides assess the state of play during ''that period of tedium'' and react to it. To use Churchy's words, albeit in a different context, ''mental chess''.

I agree with Graeme Swann. Let's scrap the 50 over/ 40 over game.

There is far too much cricket and like it or not T20 is the future.

I don't know who does these 'reviews' not doubt it is old men in grey suits.

If I were to suggest something, I would look at a domestic T20 league along the lines of the MLB in the US.

that would be a ridiclous thing to do

like it or not, 50 over cricket will stay in international cricket as the world cup is liked across the world, and is a very good tournament

40 over cricket shouldnt be played at domestic level, if 50 over cricket is being played at international level. Domestic cricket should mirror international cricket

t20 is overplayed enough as it is, we should lower the amount of t20 played to 10 games

the players prefer the longer form of the game at domestic level as most have said

County Championship should be 34 three-day games. Like the old days, plus Durham. Nowt else.

All joking aside, they need to ensure the County Championship is the highlight of the season.

How on earth does Swann get away with some of his statements. Is he suggesting we scrap the World Cup?. If not, then surely you need 50 over Internationals for practice.

IMO they should simply reduce the amount played, only play 3 ODI's per Test series. Money should not always take precedence over quality.

The seven game ODI series should definitely be scrapped.

Maybe Swann should also think of the fact that no England player has ever played more than 200 ODI's. Many others have played well over 300, and two over 400.