I think I mirror what someone said on the times comments .
I am not against 2020 but the way it is going it will kill all other cricket .
I will becoming to this seasons 2020's at Hove as there is no other cricket at Hove between the end of May and August . They are entertaining and with you guys all meeting up at the Muzza marquee it will be fun .
Possibly cynically I want to make the most of watching CC down here whilst it still exists .
I am being realistic when I say I do not think county cricket as we know it will survive much longer.We will be left with 10 city franchises and english cricket will be destroyed by money ,like english footy.
So true. This has been on the cards for years.
I too really enjoy 20/20 as an additional format but why are people so intent on it overtaking the other two formats? It seems ludicrous that people even contemplate there not being room for 3 formats in the game.
I can't stand the idea of this Royals franchise. People are saying it would be good to have a team to follow through the year but it wouldn't be the same team would it? No. Just a different side with the same nickname.
My grandad would be turning in his grave
]]>Man u are 700m in debt
Liverpool 300m in debt
Chelsea owned by a Russian crook who has never heard of cricket.
Arsenal , well they wont spend money to buy a striker or a decent goalie. And they are in debt 400m .
My money is on it being a Pompey Seaman franchise.
Unless perhaps it's Hull City and we could join up with them and become the Sussex Tigers.
The main difference as I see it is a cultural difference between our cricket and English cricket. You only have to read this forum for 5 minutes to realise that most supporters' passion in England is county over country. Ours is probably Country over State. I know that a major goal of the States is to produce Australian players. Their view is that if you do that, the results tend to come. That is... get the system/structure to produce good players and the results on the ground takes care of itself.
Yes we have had barren periods before, but they tend to be short and few and far between. Whether its because of our culture, our climate or our structure/model I'm not sure. Graham Thorpe reckons its because we only have 10 first class games a year and that we have time to prepare for those games like we would a test, rather than rushing around all over the country to fit in as many games as they have in England.
Probably a bit of everything I'd say.
]]>They also have plenty of space and parks for kids to run around, and a climate that allows them to run around most of the time. I'm not convinced that the strength of their national side is a consequence of their model; and in any case there have been periods when they have been weak. One could equally argue that the strength of their team is despite, not because of, their model. Afterall they play far less proper (first class) cricket. Maybe it's luck; there's an expression down here that Australia is 'the lucky country'. New Zealand's system is similar to Australia's, and New Zealand are pretty weak at the moment.
]]>http://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/cricket … _link_up/?
(Wasn't sure whether I should have started a new thread?)
]]>A population of 60million can and should be able support 18 full time professional clubs. I don't see franchises in this country ever working- people will drift away from cricket and as a test team we will decline.
]]>As Kim says, for England's prospects, there has to be a system that makes sure that all good youngsters get into the system. Shutting down half the counties makes no sense. Since first class cricket across all counties is unlikely, perhaps the alternative the money-makers will be thinking about, that makes sure they make money both from 20-20 and England test matches, is a second tier cricket in every county plus 8-10 city franchises with overseas players playing at test match grounds.
The 20-20 money-making is easy. Fly in the superstars. But they need to think hard about making sure we still have a good England test side (important for money making). Presumably the city franchises will also play four-day cricket with fewer overseas (or none?)? In other words, this will be the non-test match first class cricket. These franchises would then have scouts in all the counties watching the second tier stuff.
The counties would have to operate at a much smaller scale - decent facilities etc, but you wouldn't need, indeed be able to afford the upkeep of, a big ground like Hove.
And us Sussex fans will all become as knowledgeable as Sharkey on the lower tiers of Sussex cricket life. 'Hey - listen up! My boy just hit a tennis ball over the hedge into our neighbours garden!' etc
]]>Sweatysock wrote:I have always understood your argument, Dave - but surely as a Sussex supporter you must realise you are advocating the clubs death - like the turkey voting for Christmas
If the original Bradshaw city franchise competition could have been made certain to be independent of the counties, then I think county cricket could have flourished alongside it. It's people's suspicions that lead to thinking that all the money would go to the bigger counties and the little ones without the Test grounds would go to waste. It could end up that way now anyway if 8 teams sign up with the IPL.
and i think its naive to think that there wont be a natural progression from city franchises to a permanent arrangement, with the smaller counties marginalised out of existence- personally i want this resisted at all costs, but accept i may be part of a significant saddo minority who really care passionately about this
]]>KimJones wrote:I agree with every word of that but just feel we have to accept some change is inevitable - I dont see the 40 over game surviving long for example - and I'm really against any changes to the Sky deal. Im also not at all sure I see the benefits to the bigger counties of a smaller championship either. They may make a bit more money this way - Im not certain how - but what for? To get better players? From where?
Surely they'd pick up the better players from the defunct teams. I assume little of counties' income comes from the championship so they wouldn't really be losing any money from playing fewer games. England would benefit from the talent pool being smaller and playing against each other, whilst decreasing the workload on domestic cricketers and increasing coaching time
This is where the reduction of counties idea collapses in my view.
I will agree that the initial impact would be a condensing of the talent pool but that is only the case for a very few years. It would be foolish to think that disenfranchising half of them would have any effect other than to mean that these counties will stop producing players of first class standard. There will be neither the level of coaching nor the help of having a local first class county to spark the initial enthusiasm and it is no coincidence that the vast majority of English born county players were born in first class counties.
Some might put the argument that these players will be picked up by the first class counties but it doesn't happen to any great extent now, so why would it in the future. It would take a hugely dedicated parent to run junior up to Surrey from Eastbourne on a regular basis and for several years they have had a grim record in bringing through players from within their own boundaries in the past few years, so exposing the Sussex and Kent pool to their tender mercies doesn't seem too bright.
Another point is that the number of professional cricketer jobs would be reduced to probably only about 160-180 if there were 9 clubs, with some of those going to overseas players (especially with world wide franchises). With a career span of 15 years for a good player it would mean an average of only 10 professional jobs becoming available per year. Not really an incentive to pick cricket as a career. Football in this country is in a similarly precarious financial state and we haven't won anything since 1966 but nobody puts forward the idea that we should only have a handful of clubs in that sport.
The real solution is to aim to eventually make all the counties first class, though I'm sure Surrey's house magazine (aka The Wisden Cricketer) won't like the idea. Expansion worked with Durham and if they hadn't been a first class side, how many of their recent test players, all of whom were in their system well before that county's test status, would have got a chance?
]]>If its the "Super Kings" we'll sound like a cigarette.
]]>I have always understood your argument, Dave - but surely as a Sussex supporter you must realise you are advocating the clubs death - like the turkey voting for Christmas
If the original Bradshaw city franchise competition could have been made certain to be independent of the counties, then I think county cricket could have flourished alongside it. It's people's suspicions that lead to thinking that all the money would go to the bigger counties and the little ones without the Test grounds would go to waste. It could end up that way now anyway if 8 teams sign up with the IPL.
]]>