The summer of cricket 2020

First topic message reminder :

Great ton from Morgan. Came in at 44/3 - now victory looks assured for England after this partnership.

(Spoiler: It wasn't.)

England well on top now. Pakistan looking flat and Buttler taking the attack to them.

Still 13 overs away from the new ball.

Buttler taking a liking to Yasir...6 6 4. Nice clean hits

Pakistan under the cosh now. Thirteen more overs to the new ball and they seem to be running out of ideas...

Couple of wickets can change everything , of course. But a hundred partnership up now and England are - at least for now - in charge.

Soul Requiem wrote:Colin Graves on the radio trying to pitifully defend the introduction of the 100, thank god he's leaving.

I think Graves speaks well.

County crickets finances are in a simple situation. Create more revenue or cease to exist. It's a tough situation and the hundred was a decision they knew would be unpopular but did anyway as they desperately need to create a new revenue stream.

A lot of cricket fans seem to think that any move away from tradition risks destroying English cricket. The hundred wont destroy English cricket, bankruptcy of the professional game might though. Similar to when fans talk about T20 ruining Test cricket. As much as I hate to say it, if T20 hadn't come along Test cricket would already be f*****. It's acting as financial strut to the pro game.

I was chatting to my dad the other day and he had comparable experience running a golf club for the last few years. He sits in planning meetings discussing a lot of golf clubs having falling membership numbers, struggling financially, etc. The simple reality is that there's more to do now than 50 years ago so fewer retirees want to play golf just because 4 rounds can occupy 20 hours a week. Cricket is in a similar situation. Lots of people in administrative positions in both sports seem to think it's the worlds job to stop changing not their job to change with it though.

If the ECB try to run county cricket like they're pretending it's still the Sixties then county cricket will disappear.

This is an excellent partnership and still 10 overs to the second new ball. I really like the initiative from this pair looking to push on before the 80th over.

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Colin Graves on the radio trying to pitifully defend the introduction of the 100, thank god he's leaving.

I think Graves speaks well.

County crickets finances are in a simple situation. Create more revenue or cease to exist. It's a tough situation and the hundred was a decision they knew would be unpopular but did anyway as they desperately need to create a new revenue stream.

A lot of cricket fans seem to think that any move away from tradition risks destroying English cricket. The hundred wont destroy English cricket, bankruptcy of the professional game might though. Similar to when fans talk about T20 ruining Test cricket. As much as I hate to say it, if T20 hadn't come along Test cricket would already be f*****. It's acting as financial strut to the pro game.

I was chatting to my dad the other day and he had comparable experience running a golf club for the last few years. He sits in planning meetings discussing a lot of golf clubs having falling membership numbers, struggling financially, etc. The simple reality is that there's more to do now than 50 years ago so fewer retirees want to play golf just because 4 rounds can occupy 20 hours a week. Cricket is in a similar situation. Lots of people in administrative positions in both sports seem to think it's the worlds job to stop changing not their job to change with it though.

If the ECB try to run county cricket like they're pretending it's still the Sixties then county cricket will disappear.

The problem being that the Hundred is not expected to make a profit for the ECB in its five-year life cycle, though the various counties will get 'dividend' payments (basically bribe money to ensure they voted the competition through). Furthermore, the other aim of the Hundred - that of attracting a new audience to the game - seems completely flawed because there's already T20 cricket, which is barely any different to the Hundred (bar a few rule innovations and minus 40 balls). What person out there doesn't like T20, but will like the Hundred?

Squeezing more stuff into the already stuffed county cricket calendar is also ill-advised, as is demoting the importance of domestic 50-over cricket.

Good fifty for Buttler and Pakistan must be wondering whence the next wicket is coming...

Still 18 overs left today and England could be looking at a good total by close of play. Yasir probably still the main threat but he's leaking runs again.

Mindful of the two wicket rule...but at 251/4 it is looking like a good toss to win.

This is brilliant batting by Crawley. Looking for a boundary early in the over to manipulate the field then taking the singles. There is a lot to be impressed by in this innings. He's already rushed onto 136 as well. Well on his way to making what Gooch used to refer to as a 'daddy hundred' that wins matches.

Another fifty for Buttler as England cross 250. He's had a good summer with the bat, Buttler, fair play to him.

Crawley's innings has been masterful so far. And Pakistan are forced to turn to Fawad Alam again.

This game feels like its moved on really quickly ...but I guess that's more down to how turgid some of englands innings have been and the amount of disruption in recent tests.

Evenly balanced still I'd say, thanks to Crawley in what looks like being the innings that cements his place in the side. Just goes to show that the right players can develop faster playing tests than stagnating in county cricket. He only got capped by accident and came into this summer as a very raw kid and by the selectors on admission retaining his place through Denlys failures rather than his own contributions.

350 usually wouldn't be a daunting first innings total, but in context of the summer in England wouldnt be a bad total at all and is quite achievable from here.

In regard to the County scene.. i don't hide my feelings on just how much that needs shaking up, but it doesn't mean that the 100 is the right way to go about it. The bonkers thing is that currently with so little sport on cricket is getting a bigger audience and more media attention...for tests.

Also shout out for the irony of Alam bowling more than hes batted in the last decade.

Duty281 wrote:
The problem being that the Hundred is not expected to make a profit for the ECB in its five-year life cycle, though the various counties will get 'dividend' payments (basically bribe money to ensure they voted the competition through). Furthermore, the other aim of the Hundred - that of attracting a new audience to the game - seems completely flawed because there's already T20 cricket, which is barely any different to the Hundred (bar a few rule innovations and minus 40 balls). What person out there doesn't like T20, but will like the Hundred?

Squeezing more stuff into the already stuffed county cricket calendar is also ill-advised, as is demoting the importance of domestic 50-over cricket.

The five years is a basically a trial period rather than a life cycle is it not? The longer it's there the better chance it has of becoming profitable as with all leagues.

The dividend payments are coming from the broadcasting deals are they not? That broadcasting deal came due to the broadcaster feeling it could find a new audience by my understanding.

As for new fans. The reduction to 100 balls is to reduce playing time by around hour, hence allowing families with younger children to come to a match but still get home early enough to get the kids to bed on time. Which has been a commonly cited issue by families with T20, it just finishes a bit too late during the midweek games. Impossible to know at this stage if it will draw in that audience but there's a clear thought process there. Trying to access a younger audience.

Having more overseas stars attracted to it will hopefully draw in more overseas viewers as well. Which whilst not new UK based fans it would be new revenue from counties perspectives these days.

As for the congested calendar, I agree. To me that's an issue that needs solving through having fewer fully professional counties, hence fewer games in all formats.

I can understand the skepticism towards the Hundred but I never hear those who are skeptical offer alternative solutions to the problem it's trying to solve, i.e. the county game drifting towards bankruptcy. Many of the criticisms leveled at it (why do we need a new format? Short form cricket isn't real cricket, etc) are the same ones that T20 had to contend with. As said in my first post if it weren't for the success of T20 then county crickets finances would be in a lot more trouble.

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Colin Graves on the radio trying to pitifully defend the introduction of the 100, thank god he's leaving.

I think Graves speaks well.

County crickets finances are in a simple situation. Create more revenue or cease to exist. It's a tough situation and the hundred was a decision they knew would be unpopular but did anyway as they desperately need to create a new revenue stream.

A lot of cricket fans seem to think that any move away from tradition risks destroying English cricket. The hundred wont destroy English cricket, bankruptcy of the professional game might though. Similar to when fans talk about T20 ruining Test cricket. As much as I hate to say it, if T20 hadn't come along Test cricket would already be f*****. It's acting as financial strut to the pro game.

I was chatting to my dad the other day and he had comparable experience running a golf club for the last few years. He sits in planning meetings discussing a lot of golf clubs having falling membership numbers, struggling financially, etc. The simple reality is that there's more to do now than 50 years ago so fewer retirees want to play golf just because 4 rounds can occupy 20 hours a week. Cricket is in a similar situation. Lots of people in administrative positions in both sports seem to think it's the worlds job to stop changing not their job to change with it though.

If the ECB try to run county cricket like they're pretending it's still the Sixties then county cricket will disappear.

The solution is a new format that is 20 balls shorter than T20 is? What utter drivel.

Soul Requiem wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Colin Graves on the radio trying to pitifully defend the introduction of the 100, thank god he's leaving.

I think Graves speaks well.

County crickets finances are in a simple situation. Create more revenue or cease to exist. It's a tough situation and the hundred was a decision they knew would be unpopular but did anyway as they desperately need to create a new revenue stream.

A lot of cricket fans seem to think that any move away from tradition risks destroying English cricket. The hundred wont destroy English cricket, bankruptcy of the professional game might though. Similar to when fans talk about T20 ruining Test cricket. As much as I hate to say it, if T20 hadn't come along Test cricket would already be f*****. It's acting as financial strut to the pro game.

I was chatting to my dad the other day and he had comparable experience running a golf club for the last few years. He sits in planning meetings discussing a lot of golf clubs having falling membership numbers, struggling financially, etc. The simple reality is that there's more to do now than 50 years ago so fewer retirees want to play golf just because 4 rounds can occupy 20 hours a week. Cricket is in a similar situation. Lots of people in administrative positions in both sports seem to think it's the worlds job to stop changing not their job to change with it though.

If the ECB try to run county cricket like they're pretending it's still the Sixties then county cricket will disappear.

The solution is a new format that is 20 balls shorter than T20 is? What utter drivel.

Are you going to offer an alternative suggestion? Or anything vaguely constructive in any way shape or form?

Or just offer the usual stream of negativity towards everything that passes in front of you?

As someone who has stated several times they only watch white ball cricket "due to the unfortunate effect it has on the Test game" it wouldn't seem you have the most rounded view of the sport Soul.

Gooseberry wrote:Also shout out for the irony of Alam bowling more than hes batted in the last decade.

Alam seems to have done a bit of a Joe Denly by bowling more as he's got into his thirties. After so long plugging away in first-class cricket he probably started bowling due to being bored of fielding!

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Colin Graves on the radio trying to pitifully defend the introduction of the 100, thank god he's leaving.

I think Graves speaks well.

County crickets finances are in a simple situation. Create more revenue or cease to exist. It's a tough situation and the hundred was a decision they knew would be unpopular but did anyway as they desperately need to create a new revenue stream.

A lot of cricket fans seem to think that any move away from tradition risks destroying English cricket. The hundred wont destroy English cricket, bankruptcy of the professional game might though. Similar to when fans talk about T20 ruining Test cricket. As much as I hate to say it, if T20 hadn't come along Test cricket would already be f*****. It's acting as financial strut to the pro game.

I was chatting to my dad the other day and he had comparable experience running a golf club for the last few years. He sits in planning meetings discussing a lot of golf clubs having falling membership numbers, struggling financially, etc. The simple reality is that there's more to do now than 50 years ago so fewer retirees want to play golf just because 4 rounds can occupy 20 hours a week. Cricket is in a similar situation. Lots of people in administrative positions in both sports seem to think it's the worlds job to stop changing not their job to change with it though.

If the ECB try to run county cricket like they're pretending it's still the Sixties then county cricket will disappear.

The solution is a new format that is 20 balls shorter than T20 is? What utter drivel.

Are you going to offer an alternative suggestion? Or anything vaguely constructive in any way shape or form?

Or just offer the usual stream of negativity towards everything that passes in front of you?

As someone who has stated several times they only watch white ball cricket "due to the unfortunate effect it has on the Test game" it wouldn't seem you have the most rounded view of the sport Soul.

I don't have a rounded view of the sport because I realise that hundred is a waste of time and will inhibit the progress of cricket not further it?

There hasn't been a solution since the ECB followed the easy money and signed television deals with Sky, there was a window of opportunity back in 2005 and they didn't take it, it is that simple. I don't watch white ball cricket at all in fairness aside from what was a home world cup.

I'd question whether county cricket as it stands is even that useful for test cricket

Clearly the selectors don't value county performances that highly, and England's best players play at most 1-2 county games a year.

If the 100 can attract quality players to play amongst upcoming young local talent that can hardly be a bad thing.

It hasn't harmed Australia or India much to have the bash or the ipl

Anyway Pakistan look desperate for the close. Could be some entertainment

New ball taken ...but thanks to the excellent run rate today England are already closing on 300.

These two have made sure to get through to face it , while still keeping the runs ticking over : no crazy stuff even against the vanilla offerings of Fawad ...Pakistan really paying for not picking a fifth bowler.

Get through this new ball and they could be looking at 450 in very good time...wheels coming off the tourists as no balls and misfields are piling up...

I'm with you GSC I just also agree that the 100 isn't the fix in and of itself.

Anyway new ball...this is make or break for Pakistan.

Soul Requiem wrote:
I don't have a rounded view of the sport because I realise that hundred is a waste of time and will inhibit the progress of cricket not further it?

There hasn't been a solution since the ECB followed the easy money and signed television deals with Sky, there was a window of opportunity back in 2005 and they didn't take it, it is that simple. I don't watch white ball cricket at all in fairness aside from what was a home world cup.

If you don't watch any white ball cricket you probably don't have the most rounded view of the modern game as whole soul, no.

Graves job wasn't to feel sad about a decision in 2005. His job was to try to improve County Crickets finances in 2020. If the Hundred is garbage then what's your alternative solution? I've had these discussions with countless fellow fans and have yet to hear a single alternative suggestion.

I'm no fan of international cricket moving off terrestrial TV but there are two caveats to that decision back then. Firstly, if it weren't for the broadcasting money the ECB wouldn't have been able to prop up many counties for a decade and a half. Secondly, none of the terrestrial channels were bidding that competitively. When the rights first went to Sky, Channel 4 bid something like £13m a year for 4 home Tests at the back end of the summer.

I dont need to watch a lot of white ball cricket to understand the effect it has on test cricket which is ultimately what brings the money in in this country not a pathetic bashathon.

king_carlos wrote:

Duty281 wrote:
The problem being that the Hundred is not expected to make a profit for the ECB in its five-year life cycle, though the various counties will get 'dividend' payments (basically bribe money to ensure they voted the competition through). Furthermore, the other aim of the Hundred - that of attracting a new audience to the game - seems completely flawed because there's already T20 cricket, which is barely any different to the Hundred (bar a few rule innovations and minus 40 balls). What person out there doesn't like T20, but will like the Hundred?

Squeezing more stuff into the already stuffed county cricket calendar is also ill-advised, as is demoting the importance of domestic 50-over cricket.

The five years is a basically a trial period rather than a life cycle is it not? The longer it's there the better chance it has of becoming profitable as with all leagues.

The dividend payments are coming from the broadcasting deals are they not? That broadcasting deal came due to the broadcaster feeling it could find a new audience by my understanding.

As for new fans. The reduction to 100 balls is to reduce playing time by around hour, hence allowing families with younger children to come to a match but still get home early enough to get the kids to bed on time. Which has been a commonly cited issue by families with T20, it just finishes a bit too late during the midweek games. Impossible to know at this stage if it will draw in that audience but there's a clear thought process there. Trying to access a younger audience.

Having more overseas stars attracted to it will hopefully draw in more overseas viewers as well. Which whilst not new UK based fans it would be new revenue from counties perspectives these days.

As for the congested calendar, I agree. To me that's an issue that needs solving through having fewer fully professional counties, hence fewer games in all formats.

I can understand the skepticism towards the Hundred but I never hear those who are skeptical offer alternative solutions to the problem it's trying to solve, i.e. the county game drifting towards bankruptcy. Many of the criticisms leveled at it (why do we need a new format? Short form cricket isn't real cricket, etc) are the same ones that T20 had to contend with. As said in my first post if it weren't for the success of T20 then county crickets finances would be in a lot more trouble.

Well the ECB are taking in about £40m from broadcasting, which is the majority part of the projected £51m revenue stream. Out of that, they'll dole the money out to the various counties. When you take it all into consideration, the ECB will lose £12m from the Hundred in its first year. And that's if the tournament is done on budget; if set-up costs are higher, the ECB will lose more money. And if the Hundred is a failure through the five years, which I expect it will be, it could represent a big loss of money for the ECB.

T20 succeeded because it was different enough to forms of the game that already existed. The Hundred will struggle to attract anyone new because it isn't different. If there is an issue with families saying that T20 games finish too late, then start them an hour or so earlier.

I'm no expert on what can be done to revive the financial health of the county game, but I certainly don't think this event is it. Fewer professional counties, as you mentioned, could be one option.

The problem really sits with the counties. The 100 exists because they needed a competition that concentrates the talent in smaller number of teams, but the counties have always stood in the way of that. They weren't going to give up T20 so we ended up with a bastardised format instead.

Greater consolidation of country cricket is a plus imo, though it doesn't really fully acknowledge the problem of a lack of star power. Crickets international schedule pretty much kills that prospect off for most domestic competitions

Soul Requiem wrote:I dont need to watch a lot of white ball cricket to understand the effect it has on test cricket which is ultimately what brings the money in in this country not a pathetic bashathon.

Test cricket is still making money in England though. It simply isn't making enough to prop up county cricket, hence new revenue streams being needed. The only way it can make more is:

1. Playing more home Tests - 2 series already each summer and many fans feel the calendar is congested
2. Charging more for tickets - they are already pretty expensive and fans rile against the ECB when they go up
3. Getting more out the broadcasting deal - fans want cricket back on terrestrial TV with no suggestion of where the revenue from the Sky deals would be replaced

You're still completely avoiding the question at hand Soul. If the Hundrew is pointless, a pathetic bashathon, ruining Test cricket, etc etc, then what is your alternative suggestion?

I did think this might be a good day for batting - and it's certainly looking easy at the moment. Good scoring rate so they've maximised their opportunities once they got on top.

England may not find it all that easy bowling on this , mind. Doesn't seem to be a lot there for the seamers once the ball got a bit worn. But I think they'll likely keep better control...and they have five proper bowlers , plus Root , rather than Fawad.

This partnership is absolutely knocking the stuffing out of Pakistan. Its going to take a hell of a team talk tonight to get them back in the game. Time again we have seem teams worn down by away series and it really does look like going rhat way for Pakistan as it did the west indies. Good start for them destroyed by an epic from Crawley and Butlers continued resurgence. Paksitans gamble on 4 proper bowling and knocking england over quickly hasnt payed off.
Maybe a bit premature to be calling a test before day ones done but this stand has fundamentaly shifted things in englands favour. Well played Crawley!

Hard for Pakistan to start thinking about forcing a result now. Gonna take a big morning session

alfie wrote:I did think this might be a good day for batting - and it's certainly looking easy at the moment.  Good scoring rate so they've maximised their opportunities once they got on top.

England may not find it all that easy bowling on this , mind. Doesn't seem to be a lot there for the seamers once the ball got a bit worn. But I think they'll likely keep better control...and they have five proper bowlers , plus Root , rather than Fawad.

England wont have quite the same problems with the wind, and can keep their seamers fresher. Plus they have Bess who Warne thinks is good
It might not be a walk in the park but topping 400 first up is a winning position for most tests in england.

There doesn't have to be an alternative solution to dismiss the hundred for the waste of time that it is, what part of that are you failing to understand?

Also seeing a greater maturation of Buttlers batting that went under the radar last year.

With a shortened batting lineup, he's delivered as a batsmen

With the rain forecast for Monday/Tuesday (especially Tuesday), the draw's favourite from here, particularly if Pakistan bat sensibly on this pretty inoffensive pitch.

But maybe scoreboard pressure can do something?

And I'm agnostic re The Hundred. It's a gimmick , really ...but that doesn't mean it won't have value in this modern world of short attention spans and lots of alternative pastimes.
If the pandemic ever allows it to actually start I am prepared to postpone judgement until we see the results.

Soul Requiem wrote:There doesn't have to be an alternative solution to dismiss the hundred for the waste of time that it is, what part of that are you failing to understand?

If you can't acknowledge why extra revenue streams are needed and suggest alternative approaches, then it's not much of a contribution.

Easy to say I don't like something, harder to suggest a resolution

Duty281 wrote:
Well the ECB are taking in about £40m from broadcasting, which is the majority part of the projected £51m revenue stream. Out of that, they'll dole the money out to the various counties. When you take it all into consideration, the ECB will lose £12m from the Hundred in its first year. And that's if the tournament is done on budget; if set-up costs are higher, the ECB will lose more money. And if the Hundred is a failure through the five years, which I expect it will be, it could represent a big loss of money for the ECB.

T20 succeeded because it was different enough to forms of the game that already existed. The Hundred will struggle to attract anyone new because it isn't different. If there is an issue with families saying that T20 games finish too late, then start them an hour or so earlier.

I'm no expert on what can be done to revive the financial health of the county game, but I certainly don't think this event is it. Fewer professional counties, as you mentioned, could be one option.

I may be wrong but is the hope not that the dividend being paid to the counties from the broadcasting deal can allow them to build to being more financially viable longer term. Hence the hope is the ECB will have to put less in to propping up the counties with struggling finances in the long run. In essence the ECB taking a hit to make an investment across the board now in the hope it can secure more stability and save money longer term.

When parents who cite the late finish times are asked about earlier start times the response has been that if games start earlier they will struggle to frequently make it due to work. That gives a short window in the evening which the Hundred was designed to fit it.

I've never argued the Hundred will definitely work. It is similar to T20. The games being an hour shorter could solve a significant problem for families of young children however and trying to reach a younger audience is the most obvious way to secure new fans and hence revenue longer term. The 10 ball 'overs' also aimed at keeping play going more continuously with less frequent breaks. The stop start nature of cricket has often been an issue for engaging young new fans.

I agree that fewer counties is likely the significant change that needs to come though.

GSC wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:There doesn't have to be an alternative solution to dismiss the hundred for the waste of time that it is, what part of that are you failing to understand?

If you can't acknowledge why extra revenue streams are needed and suggest alternative approaches, then it's not much of a contribution.

Easy to say I don't like something, harder to suggest a resolution

Precisely. If your only intention is to criticise anything new, ignore the fact cricket needs to evolve to survive and make banal observations with nothing more than a surface veneer of understanding then you might as well put mittens on and just angrily mash your fist against the keyboard. The resulting posts would add just as much to the discussion and there's no chance they could display less comprehension of the issues at hand.

200 partnership at around four an over.

Very well done to Crawley and Buttler, When they came together England were in bother; since then Pakistan have barely had a chance.

And that's made it emphatically England's day, though in the afternoon it was looking like it would be Yasir's day.

(Incidentally, Crawley exceeded his previous highest FC score today)

I don’t know whether I should give credit to the selectors for sticking with Buttler or whether they have been rewarded despite themselves, but it’s a period weathered that has worked.

Credit to him too, he’s been down in the dumps in both parts of his game but has bounced back with both. A very good sign of his character

Duty281 wrote:With the rain forecast for Monday/Tuesday (especially Tuesday), the draw's favourite from here, particularly if Pakistan bat sensibly on this pretty inoffensive pitch.

But maybe scoreboard pressure can do something?

It may well require a spectacular collapse from one side to provide a result given the weather forecast. Hopefully England can put on a big enough total from here to ensure it isn't them!

200 partnership up. Both batsman under a bit of pressure and both have played very well. Given the next Tests England play (if they go ahead) will be on turning wickets it will take a bit of pressure of the selectors and coaches for two of England's better players of spin to be scoring runs.

Two hundred stand

Hard to see Pakistan coming back from this. Might get wickets in the morning ; but even with a bit of a tail you can see England topping 400 anyway and that will leave them with a mountain to climb.

332/4 Crawley 171 , Buttler 87

The Crawley knock has a good claim to be the best innings we've seen from an England batsman this year

king_carlos wrote:

GSC wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:There doesn't have to be an alternative solution to dismiss the hundred for the waste of time that it is, what part of that are you failing to understand?

If you can't acknowledge why extra revenue streams are needed and suggest alternative approaches, then it's not much of a contribution.

Easy to say I don't like something, harder to suggest a resolution

Precisely. If your only intention is to criticise anything new, ignore the fact cricket needs to evolve to survive and make banal observations with nothing more than a surface veneer of understanding then you might as well put mittens on and just angrily mash your fist against the keyboard. The resulting posts would add just as much to the discussion and there's no chance they could display less comprehension of the issues at hand.

Oooh that's me told, you've helped me see the light and now understand the hundred is not a monumental waste of time but is the saviour of all cricket. I'm interested to know what you think the hundred will add that T20 doesn't? A new revenue stream but a diluted product, all hail Colin.

-------

https://www.606v2.com/viewtopic.php?t=69706