posted Mar 29, 2008

So a top player might be expected to play the most important competition - county cricket (4-day and one day, plus the 20/20 cup between counties), plus play for an English city in the EPL, then play for an Indian city in the IPL, then hopefully when the ICL go to court to destroy the BCCI and let players freely play in it, play for a ICL city too! (unlike the IPL, the ICL does not clash and its rules specifically says int. cricket comes first)

So you could play for Yorkshire, London, Mumbai and Hyderabad in the same season, then get called up for England!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 29, 2008

city based teams would now work, it would case a huge loss in revenue, besides the conty set up shold remain as it is.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 31, 2008

There are already city-based teams: Two in London, Birmingham, Leeds, Southampton, Manchester, Nottingham, Leicester, Derby, Bristol, Cardiff, Worcester, Canterbury and several based in large towns: Northampton, Durham, Brighton, Chelmsford, Taunton.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 31, 2008

of course butcher is right! - will they do anything about it - no!. Here's why it makes sense:-

1. We don't have enough quality players to keep an 18 county system and make the leap to test cricket - butcher said as much.
2. One poster suggested we already have a city franchise in place - but who on earth would have canterbury, northamption, worcester!. If you asked the marketing boffins to redraw the map based on population and potential markets areas like reading/slough - luton/watford/st albans would comes miles ahead in terms of population and business sponsorship. The county system was based on the 1890's/1900's ideals not on modern day markets.

3. Finally, How can we expected to produce skilled crickets and them flog them in 18 county games plus 3 one day competitions over 5 months. Most other countries have less teams and cricket but don't fair any worse!

Nick

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 31, 2008

I have said for year's that we should have a regional base cricket league running along side the county game.

The South East could pick players from Kent, Essex, Surrey, Middlesex.

The South West, Sussex, Hampshire, Gloucestershire, Somerset, Glamorgan.

Central, Worcestershire, Nottinghamshire, Warwickshire, Northants, Leicestershire

The North, Lancashire, Yorkshire, Durham, Derbyshire.

Each team would pick 12 English players and go head to head. Whilst the county game should carry on and take equal profits from the regional fixture's e.g. television and sponsorship revenue. The England fixture's should be arranged around these games so a Test player would come away from a regional match and back into theTest arena and then back to the regional games.

No overseas or Kalpak players should be allowed to play in the competition. This should be an England development league.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 31, 2008

The franchise system has worked in Australia.It has worked im making them the dominant team in world cricket. It jas worked in New Zealand Australia and South African rugby producing the most dominant teams. So if the ECB want to compete, they need to cut the player, and make the standard higher. Simple Economics. Less places, more choice = higher standard. Better domestic cricket = Better International players.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 31, 2008

I don't really see how having loads more Twenty20 in an 'ECL' is going to improve the level of test cricket - they're different ball games, if you'll excuse the pun. With test cricket a batsman has to build an innings, with Twenty20 you try to score as quickly as possible. The art of bowling as shown in test seems to be doomed in the Twenty20 format.

It's a moot point whether the Australian recent level is due to the lucky chance of a group of excellent players maturing at the same time, or whether it's due to franchising alone....... I don't really see the up and coming players having the same level of talent as Gilchrist and co.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 1, 2008

The County Championship is outdated.Its quantity not quality.The professional game needs to be restructured.18 Counties is far too many.There should be a restructuring bringing the numbers of counties down to no more than 6 regional sides.What happens below that is open to discussion but I believe it should be club cricket that becomes the next tier.If you go round the counties you will see that players have come from the Birmingham ,Cenral Lancs,Yorkshire,Surry and Middlesex Leagues.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 1, 2008

Not sure about the franchise system, but there needs to be another level between County and Test. Regional maybe the way to go – there are currently 18 counties – so have 3 counties making up a regional side giving 6 Regions. Easy;

The North : Lancashire, Yorkshire, Durham. NIGHTMARES
The West: Somerset, Gloucs, Glamorgan. YOKELS
East Midlands: Notts, Leics, Derbyshire. MINERS
Midlands: Worcs, Warks, Northants. MARAUDERS
London: Essex, Surrey, Middlesex. EMPIRES
The South Coast: Hampshire, Kent, Sussex. SEASIDERS

Play each other home and away, meaning 10 high intensity games, what more d’you want?

add comment | complain about this comment