There's a lot to consider, but the main conclusions seem to be a reduction in the number of Championship games from 16 to 14, a return to 50 over cricket and Twenty20 games played more regularly on Thursdays/Fridays and Saturdays. I'll take each in turn.
I would vehemently oppose a reduction in the number of Championship games for two main reasons. First, I think it is the most complete test of a batsman's or bowler's skills, and therefore it is the best way to prepare England's players for the pinnacle (or at least what I consider to be the pinnacle) of international cricket: tests. The second reason is that it would invariably mean the creation of a more complex structure than that which we have at the moment. David Hopps of the Guardian suggests that this would mean a first division of eight counties and the 'lower ten' would be split into two "notional regional groups" - Hopps speculates that this would "remove the competition's credibility" for some. You can count me amongst that "some".
So what would I do instead? Well since a reduction in the number of counties is off the table, as I see it we should continue with the current structure. And I might point out that it seems to be working pretty well for the side currently number one in the world. I would also try and ensure, in conjunction with the rest of the fixtures, that as much cricket is played at the weekend as possible. Four day cricket is never going to attract big or even medium sized crowds during the week because everyone is at work, so I'd like to see a few more games with play on a Saturday and Sunday.
The logic behind the return to 50 over cricket seems sound. I personally prefer 40 over cricket, but accept that the ICC isn't about to change the international game to that format. Therefore it makes more sense for the English limited overs game to mirror that of the ICC precisely.
As for the Twenty20, I have gone on record as saying I think a city-based franchise system is at least worth proper exploration as one of very few models which could be self-supporting financially. But since that seems beyond the pale for most people, we have the current structure for the time being. The proposal to have more games played on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays seems sensible. Big crowds at Twenty20s relies on more than just a particular day of the week though. The ECB needs to do more to make sure England's top players are available to their counties, games need to be meaningful (the reduction in games from 2012 onwards should help in this regard) and unfortunately for us English, the weather plays its part as well - not much any of us can do about that last one.
The structure of the four day domestic game ain't fundamentally broke, so does it need fixing? I don't think so. There are many issues around how the domestic game is financed, but I'm not sure reducing the number of games in the Championship solves that. I don't claim to have all the answers - but I don't think David Morgan's report does either. I would really like to hear what everyone thinks about this!
Source: http://surreycricketblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/david-morgans-report-good-or-bad.html
book books online Books My Sports Books book for book free Best Online Sports Fishing Book Horse books
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق