Any cricket lovers on here?
Comments
-
I was wondering if the super short format means no one has time to actually get themselves in...
Your reason sounds more likely though.
0 -
Well, some of the games have been fairly high scoring - the one I went to at OT was 164 which is equivalent to just about 200 in a t20. 200 in a t20 is a pretty big score - it's only really the IPL where we've had these absolutely massive scores, and that's just down to the pitches they've prepared. But yeah most of them have been around the equivalent of sort of 140-160 in a t20.
0 -
It's the only form of the game my parents watch. I think that's the whole point - bringing in a new crowd. Also, it was county cricket teams and ECB that created T20 in the first place, so I'm prepared to cut them some slack.
0 -
What channel do they watch it on, or do you mean in person?
0 -
BBC, so clearly that helps with accessibility, but I don't think they would watch a county T20 on BBC.
I think of T20s like penalty shoot-outs in football. They shouldn't really be part of the game, but I will still watch and still be entertained. Due to that I'm not particularly precious about the format of the short variations of the game. I'd happily see further changes. For example, I would replace no ball free hits, with two successive six free hits.
0 -
Southern Braves got smashed all over the pitch by Welsh Fire in the final league match. 181 was a really big score. These scores were the exceptions.
Lower scoring this season was brought up by commentators and the lacquer on the ball theory for the excessive swing was theirs.
I am just repeating their conversations as I have felt there have been a lot of sub par scores.
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Yeah for sure, there have been a lot of lower scoring games. I assume they'll rethink for next year as I think you want scores that are routinely above sort of 130-140 ideally, where 140 is equivalent to about 170 in a t20 (which is defendable, but not massive), so it's still a decent contest for the bowlers but the scoring rates are still reasonable for the crowd.
I'm actually looking back at this years IPL scores now and there were quite a few lower scoring games as well (the final was only 114), it's just those massive ones that stick in the memory. Sunrisers seemed to have a proper road, they got 266, 277 and 287, which would be roughly 220 to 245 in the Hundred (i.e., bonkers). Although in theory the Hundred being slightly shorter should mean you can be a bit more aggressive which should lead to slightly higher relative run rates.
I know people like a lot of boundaries but I think those IPL scores are a bit silly, as it means there's nothing in it for the bowlers so it's not really a contest between bat and ball any more.
0 -
Anyway I listened to this this morning which was actually pretty balanced on the topic: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0jjv9v7
Saying what we all know really- the women's comp is genuinely world class but the men's is a bit lacking in top players due to the competition from other leagues. But that fact it's all run as double headers should be really attractive for investors compared to other leagues - the women's hundred is much better spectated than most of the other women's leagues by virtue of the fact they play in bigger venues. The equivalent would be more like the Big Bash where the women's is to all intents and purposes a separate franchise entirely, playing in different venues on different days.
Also suggesting international windows, locking players into the franchise for the duration (so they can't play one game then disappear to another franchise and play the next day, etc.), which seems fairly reasonable.
0 -
Possibly heresy, but I thought the slightly lower scores were better.
0 -
I don't mind a low scoring T20 either, if it's close - but a lot of them weren't close at all. I think the sweetspot for the hundred would be like I said, around 130ish and up, so then there's still something for the defending team to bowl at and the chasing team can't just nurdle it around to make the total. Once it goes towards a run a ball I think it takes a lot of the jeopardy out of the chase, as there's no pressure.
The final yesterday was probably a decent example, it wasn't super high scoring but there was quite a bit in it. I see the game on Saturday went to a super 5 off 126 tie as well, which is exactly what you want to see - not a really high score, but defendable. Apart from that, the lowest defended total this year (except DLS) was 129 from what I can see, which I think supports what I am saying - a lot of the really low scoring games look to just have been one sided, you want the total to be high enough that there's some jeopardy in the chase.
I agree that the really high scores can also be a bit boring, as the chasing team has to come out all guns blazing and then when they lose early wickets the game can be over very quickly. To be fair I thought that was going to happen when I took my work lot to the Manchester game where they had to chase 164 - they managed to take that to the last ball, which I wasn't expecting at all, I thought 164 was going to be too much.
0 -
Pretty much this. Almost all the best games I've watched (in most of the franchise leagues) have been on the lower scoring side. Not the very low scores, but the ones that have been 20-50 runs below par have more often been nailbiters than the record breaking scoring matches.
There are exceptions, there always are, but the standard commentators comment of "people want to watch 6's hit" annoys the crap out of me. I want to watch a contest.
0 -
I think this is a shorter and more eloquent way of saying what I said above
0 -
It seems like reverting to a more traditional t20 format is probably being discussed, alongside the upcoming investments.
I assume, it would be more attractive to the IPL teams if it was a t20...
0 -
Potts in for Stokes - no batting cover then. Lawrence opening with Smith moving up to six and Woakes at seven, which feels like quite a long tail to me...
0 -
I think that without bringing someone like Curran in, it was always how it would go. I think if it was Australia or India it would be different but they're confident in their ability to turn over the Sri Lankans
0 -
Probably, although there was talk of having Lawrence and Root cover the spin, but that always seemed a bit silly given Old Trafford is usually good for spinners.
Sri Lanka could be a bit better than West Indies - they beat India 2-0 (and tied the 3rd) in an ODI series just before this... They lost to England Lions in the warm up game, but that was mainly due to a poor 1st innings score (139) - they made 306 second innings. Suggests they might not be a complete walkover...
I am at OT on Friday, based on the current forecast we might lose quite a bit of Thursday to rain although it looks clear from maybe 3ish. Wednesday and Friday - Sunday looks pretty similar, sun/cloud and patchy showers, but windy so nothing should hang around.
0 -
Just switch the franchises to the current T20 format (and bring in the joint women's and men's games). That probably won't be popular with the Counties though as they'll lose out on the T20 income that I suspect is one of their better revenue streams.
0 -
The current County set is unsustainable. Too many teams, too many players. Our talent pool has become a puddle.
The Aussies seem to manage to produce reasonable test teams with a whole 6 sides in the Sheffield Shield.
0 -
I think the trouble with T20 is that double headers become a bit too long.
I'm not sure that the extra 20 balls that each side face in a T20 significantly improve or change the spectacle, but having a double header is obviously great for the women's game, but also doubles the chance of seeing a close (and therefore exciting) game.
0 -
Yeah unfortunately I think suggesting to get rid of any County sides is taboo. Although was mentioned on that TMS podcast I linked above. A two tier league structure for the Blast might work.
0 -
I think the extra 20 balls makes a difference to a t20 - you have more time for a bad start and a rebuild in a t20, compared to the Hundred which is getting down towards a t10-like affair where you just have to slog it from the start.
t20 is a bit more recognised and might be easier to attract investors and players as well.
0 -
Just put the test match on - 6-3???
Ball moving a lot.
0 -
Brute of a ball from Wood for the 4th wicket. Fast and into the body, came off a hand already strapped up. Ouch
0 -
Ball wasn't doing much, just enough but bowling has been good. That ball from Wood was just nasty. Beautiful to watch him in full flow.
0 -
Potts taking some tap, allowing SL to make some sort of a recovery.
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Bashir with the 5th wicket. Absolute daisy cutter. No chance for the batsman
0 -
That was horrid, would have got anyone out.
0 -
Will of worried all the batsmen to come. Never seen a ball bounce so little before lunch on day 1of a test in England
1 -
A "wormshagger" as a guy in my club calls them. We were also debating whether the company that looks after our pitch has been doing Old Trafford, since our pitch tends to do that too...
Shame about all those early wickets as they have dug in pretty well subsequently.
0 -
Love a club wicket where it can go past your nose or ankle from essentially the same spot
0
