ECB start 100 ball games

This is the forum for discussion of all cricketing issues and news. Here you will find frank analysis and opinion on subjects ranging from selection policies, favourite cricketers and match post-mortems right through to dressing room and cricket board fiascos.
User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 5040
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

ECB start 100 ball games

Postby Paddles » Fri Apr 20, 2018 1:35 am

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/ar ... d=12036114

The new flagship 'T20' competition being introduced by the England Cricket Board in 2020 is set to played over just 100 balls-a-side.

This will amount to 15 traditional six-ball overs plus one 10 ball over, which will radically alter the format including the type of the tournament as it no longer amounts to 20 overs.

The proposal was put to county chairman and chief executives at a meeting on Wednesday by the ECB's T20 management led by commercial director Sanjay Patel.

The idea was formed after pressure from BBC, one of the rights holders who always have scheduling complications, to limit the matches to two-and-a-half hours .

Some recent T20 internationals have been taking upto an hour longer.

ECB's Chief Executive Officer Tom Harrison said: "This is a fresh and exciting idea which will appeal to a younger audience and attract new fans to the game.

"Throughout its development, we have shown leadership, provided challenge and followed a process. We will continue to do that as the concept evolves.

"Our game has a history of innovation and we have a duty to look for future growth for the health and sustainability of the whole game.

"There are 18 First-Class Counties, playing red and white ball cricket, at our core and these Counties and competitions will be supported, promoted and benefit from the game's growth."


Well this is lame. How does the bolwing split? 5 bowlers bowl a maxium of 3 overs, and then one of them gets to bowl the 10 ball over? When is the 10 ball over? Assuming the previous, if its the 1st or 16th, then death bowlers values just went up. If it is as the fielding team election, any quality bowlers but espically Narine, Khan, et al spinners just had their vlaues increase as well.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Going South
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 26648
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:10 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
United States of America

Re: The Sun Never Sets Over the English Game - All things EWCB cricket

Postby Going South » Fri Apr 20, 2018 3:03 pm

i just puked. :puke:
You can’t make rules just for the heck of it.
They had no viewership or followers and on top of it these kind of Stupid stunts would alienate even genuine cricket fans.
it’s got doom written all over it.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 5040
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: The Sun Never Sets Over the English Game - All things EWCB cricket

Postby Paddles » Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:07 pm

It isn't for the heck of it. It is to get the games over in 2.5 hours which is what the BBC wants.

BBC is free to air - so this will reach more British fans. The comp starts in 2020.

They're calling the 10 ball over - the wildcard over.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 5040
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: The Sun Never Sets Over the English Game - All things EWCB cricket

Postby Paddles » Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:27 pm

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/ ... dred-balls

Nicholas confirms what I have been saying about the state of cricket in England.

This is an attempt to make cricket more mainstream in England.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
squarecut
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 2284
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:06 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 3
India

Re: The Sun Never Sets Over the English Game - All things EWCB cricket

Postby squarecut » Mon Apr 23, 2018 7:20 am

Five decades ago, TCCB (ECB was then known by this acronym) started limited overs cricket because popularity of cricket was going down in England. Then two decades ago, ECB began T20 cricket because popularity of cricket was going down in cricket. Now ECB is introducing 100 ball cricket because popularity of cricket is going down in England. :)

Do ECB do any introspection to find out why their earlier attempts at popularising cricket in England through Limited overs cricket and T20 cricket have failed while these forms have gained popularity elsewhere. :)

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 5040
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Overs

Postby Paddles » Mon Apr 23, 2018 7:39 am

So since the EWCB decided to do away with T20 and replace it with a 100 ball format, I thought it would be good if we compiled the history on cricket overs.

At first I thought it to limit it to limited overs cricket, but I think that the over rates and formalities introduced into test cricket are worth a mention too.

And because a lot of this was not standardised, there will be differences in each country.

I'll start, but everyone is welcome to post additional information.

The first ODI match was 40 overs each, which despite being played in Australia in 1971 prima facie matched what England has been serving up in the counties for the popular Sunday League (born1969) in over length, but instead they were 8 ball overs, being 320 balls total, and closer to the 300 balls of 50 overs.

England had of course the GIllette Cup which debuted at 65 overs each in 1963, but dropped to 60 overs in 1964 still at 13 overs max but by 1966 a standard 12 overs each. So the 20% restriction is well established early on.

The first world cup in 1975 was 60 overs each. As was the 1979 and 1983 World Cup finals. All held in England.

England then trimmed this back to a standard 55 overs for ODI at home which it kept until the 1990's.

The 1987 World Cup in India and Pakistan was only 50 overs, which was the length that WSC had promoted in Australia in its second edition (the first edition had been 40 overs as well at 8 balls). WSC had also changed something else in Australia, it reverted back from the 8 ball over to the 6 ball over to give Nine more ad break opportunities. NZ had also dabbled with 8 ball overs, but copied Australia in reverting back to the original.

The 1992 World Cup was the most significant in while being 50 overs, introduced the 30 metre cricle and fielding restrictions that were created during WSC and had been adopted by Aus and NZ. After this world cup, countries began to standardise over lengths and fielding rules - and the 3rd umpire for run outs was introduced later in 1992. From here on, I believe the rules are more universal.

In 1996, Martin Crowe's cricket max was unveiled, the first of the lets a play an entire game in one night formats designed for tv, with 4 innings of 10 overs each.

In 2002, EWCB decided not to adopt cricket max as it was, but merely play ODI type cricket, with a limit of 20 overs each.

And in 2020, EWCB will release 100 ball cricket. Whether it further rewards 6's or what fielding rules it has if different has yet to be announced.

Somewhere in test cricket, and the feared great WI team gets the blame for this, unlimited bouncers were restricted and minimum bowling rates that average to 15 an hour were introduced (WI could at times be well below this and their bowlers accussed of needing to tie too many shoe laces). While this may protect bowler stamina and combat faitgue, in the era before 1939, it would be of little advantage to nations playing timeless tests. Yet in Larwood's day, many more overs were bowled.

NZ in 1949 were given four 3 day tests in England, now we are given two 5 day tests. I am not sure which is better for the NZ cricket fan to be honest.

I am guessing that 120 overs was deemed too much for hotter environments like Australia and India, but somehow I think that the commercial broadcasters in Australia had further reasons to keep the length shorter. Packer was no fool.

So do share with fuller and further details.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 5040
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: The Sun Never Sets Over the English Game - All things EWCB cricket

Postby Paddles » Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:13 am

squarecut wrote:Five decades ago, TCCB (ECB was then known by this acronym) started limited overs cricket because popularity of cricket was going down in England. Then two decades ago, ECB began T20 cricket because popularity of cricket was going down in cricket. Now ECB is introducing 100 ball cricket because popularity of cricket is going down in England. :)

Do ECB do any introspection to find out why their earlier attempts at popularising cricket in England through Limited overs cricket and T20 cricket have failed while these forms have gained popularity elsewhere. :)


Why if they have failed, would countries elsewhere adopt these products? The products have worked, but the compounding of challenges faced by EWCB has grown.

Cricket is under attack in Anglo countries from a winter code season that gets longer and longer. It doesn't matter if its soccer in England, Rugby in NZ and SA (let alone soccer being unrivaled amongst Black African sportsfans), or AFL and Rugby League in Australia. Just 5 days after Australia finished their 2015 Ashes tour of England that the Rugby World Cup launched in England, and there had been important warm up games beforehand.

Further in England - rugby league losing to rugby union, switched to a summer based season. Ian Botham's own son went to rugby league and not cricket. Rugby Union is already bigger in the UK than cricket. Soccer is just massive. And like the Indian cricket season, it goes well beyond 6 months with its FA Cup, EPL, Champions League and Internationals, let alone its World Cup qualifiers and actual tournaments.

While cricket is under attack, multi national broadcasting of these sports bar AFL, further compounds the problem as continued global supply of these sports creates further competition for loyal fans.

But the biggest self induced threat to popularity of cricket in England, when in 2005 they took international cricket off free to air, and put it on solely on pay TV for the increased revenue. This new 100 ball product, serves to meet the BBC's request as a free to air broadcaster, of a 2.5 hour product that they will broadcast to a wider audience than pay tv.

This product serves not to generate wealth for the EWCB, as Pay TV already does that, but to create a fan base that is younger than 45 and not perceived as elitist to capture a new generation of cricket fans and players. That is how lowly ranked as a sport cricket has gotten too in England (and NZ for that matter). This is to create a free to air product that hooks kids and non-existing cricket fans into being cricket fans. SA had to cancel their fancy new T20 programme. NZ's T20 programme was barely televised even on Pay TV this year despite being secuduled during the Christmas holidays as there presumably isn't sufficient fan demand for it. Both SA (since 1992) and NZ cricket (since 1998) have both long been on pay tv. It significantly hurts the critical mass of the population that is reached by the sport.

Australia is the last bastion of a healthy Anglo-based cricket set up - and they were also the last bastion of free to air Anglo-cricket. They just switched to pay tv.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Going South
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 26648
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:10 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
United States of America

Re: Overs

Postby Going South » Mon Apr 23, 2018 9:28 am

i think it’s a bad idea. cricket match need some time to get a plot & action. if you reduce balls cricket would turn into baseball as in which team can hit a 6 most. all batsmen would practice just hitting sixers nothing else. saving wickets for later carnage won’t happen as there is no later. everyone play risky every ball. nobody takes singles. All players stand near boundary.

User avatar
Going South
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 26648
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:10 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
United States of America

Re: Overs

Postby Going South » Mon Apr 23, 2018 9:51 am

split and merged all in one place.

Tinsel
CF Regular
CF Regular
Posts: 310
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:40 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
Australia

Re: aaa

Postby Tinsel » Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:44 am

Paddles wrote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12036114

The new flagship 'T20' competition being introduced by the England Cricket Board in 2020 is set to played over just 100 balls-a-side.

This will amount to 15 traditional six-ball overs plus one 10 ball over, which will radically alter the format including the type of the tournament as it no longer amounts to 20 overs.

The proposal was put to county chairman and chief executives at a meeting on Wednesday by the ECB's T20 management led by commercial director Sanjay Patel.

The idea was formed after pressure from BBC, one of the rights holders who always have scheduling complications, to limit the matches to two-and-a-half hours .

Some recent T20 internationals have been taking upto an hour longer.

ECB's Chief Executive Officer Tom Harrison said: "This is a fresh and exciting idea which will appeal to a younger audience and attract new fans to the game.

"Throughout its development, we have shown leadership, provided challenge and followed a process. We will continue to do that as the concept evolves.

"Our game has a history of innovation and we have a duty to look for future growth for the health and sustainability of the whole game.

"There are 18 First-Class Counties, playing red and white ball cricket, at our core and these Counties and competitions will be supported, promoted and benefit from the game's growth."


Well this is lame. How does the bolwing split? 5 bowlers bowl a maxium of 3 overs, and then one of them gets to bowl the 10 ball over? When is the 10 ball over? Assuming the previous, if its the 1st or 16th, then death bowlers values just went up. If it is as the fielding team election, any quality bowlers but espically Narine, Khan, et al spinners just had their vlaues increase as well.



Old news
I was told not to post,so I ignores but IPL best.because' 15 overs and Last 10 ball slog, not works well, it could be boring with 8 or more team taking part.
P

User avatar
Going South
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 26648
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:10 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
United States of America

ECB start 100 ball games

Postby Going South » Mon Apr 23, 2018 12:23 pm

oh shut up misty.
you don’t discuss. you just cut and paste. big difference.
if not, tell us in 1000 words (your own) on whether it would be the future of cricket or just a gimmick.

User avatar
Katto
CF Champion
CF Champion
Posts: 15864
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:34 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Tuvalu

Re: The Sun Never Sets Over the English Game - All things EWCB cricket

Postby Katto » Mon Apr 23, 2018 1:30 pm

Paddles wrote:It isn't for the heck of it. It is to get the games over in 2.5 hours which is what the BBC wants.

BBC is free to air - so this will reach more British fans. The comp starts in 2020.

They're calling the 10 ball over - the wildcard over.


people know cricket exists in England already

big professional sports live on payTV nowadays. F**K the BBC anyway. nothing personal.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 5040
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: The Sun Never Sets Over the English Game - All things EWCB cricket

Postby Paddles » Mon Apr 23, 2018 2:08 pm

Katto wrote:people know cricket exists in England already


The EWCB isn't trying to make people in England know that cricket exists. They're trying to make more people in England fans if not participants of the game than those merely with Pay TV.

Katto wrote:big professional sports live on payTV nowadays.


Not quite true. A lot of big sport has managed to keep a free to air presence despite Pay TV holding most of the cards to watch all preferred games. As an Australian you will be more than well aware of big sport keeping a free to air presence be it through anti-siphoning laws or large commercial broadcasters being able to simulcast some games each week at a profit. And even bigger sport like US and European professional leagues are moving to a cheap cost effective stream environment as an option. But that just retains some fans, doesn't do a lot to create them. But English cricket been on solely on Pay TV in the UK since 2005. And they're already feeling the pinch at grass roots participation and general fan numbers.

Katto wrote:F**K the BBC anyway. nothing personal.


Nothing personal taken. But this isn't a free market versus solicalism as a political debate. EWCB isn't doing this to maximise TV revenue, else they'd give that to Pay TV instead of the BBC. And the EWCB isn't socialist, else they wouldn't have sold their international and county rights to Pay TV. And Pay TV isn't presumably complaining too sternly about this comp being on the BBC, because the more cricket fans as a result of this, the more subscriptions it can sell to new customers who want to watch more cricket like the internationals. Everyone has something to gain out of this. Because Pay TV needs sport and therefore sports fans to survive*. Heck, maybe the EWCB and Sky UK will let the BBC grow this, and then sell it back to Pay TV like CA has with the BBL.

If you wanted to be really callous and cynical, this is more like a gateway analogy, expose the noobs to some domestic franchise cricket for free, and if then they develop a taste and want the good stuff - or this subsequently gets sold to Pay TV, well thats a cricket addiction that the punter needs to pay for, be it participation and playing and/or subscription viewing costs or even tickets to the games.

End of the day - cricket boards are charities and have an interest to promote cricket, not just to pay the players and coaches, but actually to spread the game as well and help it grow, from participation and fan base. This is actually quite a clever step done by the EWCB and I really hope that the NZC look to replicate it if a success, because NZ's pay tv broadcaster has very little apparent interest in widening the support base of cricket through TV in NZ despite owning free to air channels as well.

* Streaming has changed the way people digest their tv shows and movies at far less cost and more convenience. Cable News has taken a hit with 24/7 internet news websites. Sports is Pay TV's crown now. But it needs to keep a fan base for the sports, or this will also diminish.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 29173
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Re: ECB start 100 ball games

Postby raja » Tue Apr 24, 2018 5:34 am

I'm happy to support anything that helps popularise the game in the UK.
Cricket in the UK is somewhat like hockey in India.
Though there has been a bit of revival for hockey, thanks to Hockey India League and India now doing somewhat better in the game than a couple of decades ago, it still stands no chance at all when compared to cricket.
It is constantly a struggle for hockey to gain eyeballs.

Same with cricket in the UK. In fact, maybe even worse.
Cricket probably comes a distant third after football (which is 100 times more popular) and rugby.
And that is, if you don't consider athletics - which is also more popular, esp around major events.
Then you have Wimbledon which grabs all eyeballs in those two weeks. And Eastbourne before that.
The UK also hosts Snooker Championships, Darts Championships, golf (British Open) and what not.
Cricket struggles in this environment for eyeballs - and that is, if you consider only competition with other sports.'

So we need to see it from an English point of view, not an Indian point of view.

Although Indians now have kabaddi and in general are becoming more diverse in their sports interests (badminton, tennis and football have become fairly popular now), there's not a single sport that's anywhere close to cricket.

Football in England doesn't need to reinvent itself to remain popular, it happens to be popular as it is.

Cricket could do with some reinvention or innovation if it wants more eyeballs.

One can quibble about the details (wildcard over etc) but overall, any initiative to popularise the game in the UK is a step to be encouraged.

I happen to think that if it were not for the tradition of the Ashes, cricket in the UK would have lost many of its current fan base too.

England cricket fans are thankfully still passionate about the Ashes - that keeps them engaged with the game.

The large South Asian-origin population helps too, of course.

If this 100-ball game fails as a concept, so be it.

Rather try something, than sit and moan about diminishing interest in the sport.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 5040
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: ECB start 100 ball games

Postby Paddles » Tue Apr 24, 2018 5:57 am

raja wrote:I'm happy to support anything that helps popularise the game in the UK.
Cricket in the UK is somewhat like hockey in India.
Though there has been a bit of revival for hockey, thanks to Hockey India League and India now doing somewhat better in the game than a couple of decades ago, it still stands no chance at all when compared to cricket.
It is constantly a struggle for hockey to gain eyeballs.

Same with cricket in the UK. In fact, maybe even worse.
Cricket probably comes a distant third after football (which is 100 times more popular) and rugby.
And that is, if you don't consider athletics - which is also more popular, esp around major events.
Then you have Wimbledon which grabs all eyeballs in those two weeks. And Eastbourne before that.
The UK also hosts Snooker Championships, Darts Championships, golf (British Open) and what not.
Cricket struggles in this environment for eyeballs - and that is, if you consider only competition with other sports.'

So we need to see it from an English point of view, not an Indian point of view.

Although Indians now have kabaddi and in general are becoming more diverse in their sports interests (badminton, tennis and football have become fairly popular now), there's not a single sport that's anywhere close to cricket.

Football in England doesn't need to reinvent itself to remain popular, it happens to be popular as it is.

Cricket could do with some reinvention or innovation if it wants more eyeballs.

One can quibble about the details (wildcard over etc) but overall, any initiative to popularise the game in the UK is a step to be encouraged.

I happen to think that if it were not for the tradition of the Ashes, cricket in the UK would have lost many of its current fan base too.

England cricket fans are thankfully still passionate about the Ashes - that keeps them engaged with the game.

The large South Asian-origin population helps too, of course.

If this 100-ball game fails as a concept, so be it.

Rather try something, than sit and moan about diminishing interest in the sport.


Yeps, as usual you get it. You see the big picture.

But I'm still gonna quibble over the 10 ball wildcard over.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
baggygreenmania
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3801
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 12:22 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Australia

Re: ECB start 100 ball games

Postby baggygreenmania » Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:50 am

raja wrote:I'm happy to support anything that helps popularise the game in the UK.
Cricket in the UK is somewhat like hockey in India.
Though there has been a bit of revival for hockey, thanks to Hockey India League and India now doing somewhat better in the game than a couple of decades ago, it still stands no chance at all when compared to cricket.
It is constantly a struggle for hockey to gain eyeballs.

Same with cricket in the UK. In fact, maybe even worse.
Cricket probably comes a distant third after football (which is 100 times more popular) and rugby.
And that is, if you don't consider athletics - which is also more popular, esp around major events.
Then you have Wimbledon which grabs all eyeballs in those two weeks. And Eastbourne before that.
The UK also hosts Snooker Championships, Darts Championships, golf (British Open) and what not.
Cricket struggles in this environment for eyeballs - and that is, if you consider only competition with other sports.'

So we need to see it from an English point of view, not an Indian point of view.

Although Indians now have kabaddi and in general are becoming more diverse in their sports interests (badminton, tennis and football have become fairly popular now), there's not a single sport that's anywhere close to cricket.

Football in England doesn't need to reinvent itself to remain popular, it happens to be popular as it is.

Cricket could do with some reinvention or innovation if it wants more eyeballs.

One can quibble about the details (wildcard over etc) but overall, any initiative to popularise the game in the UK is a step to be encouraged.

I happen to think that if it were not for the tradition of the Ashes, cricket in the UK would have lost many of its current fan base too.

England cricket fans are thankfully still passionate about the Ashes - that keeps them engaged with the game.

The large South Asian-origin population helps too, of course.

If this 100-ball game fails as a concept, so be it.

Rather try something, than sit and moan about diminishing interest in the sport.
Totally agree with that view raja. Cricket needs to be tweaked to keep the interest. I do not know much about English cricket nor have I played cricket there. But the ECB is innovative having introduced 50 over then 20 cricket to fill a cricket gap outside of Test cricket. Cricket has had many variations over the years with an 8over tournament, If memory serves, in Malaysia.. was it the Comm Games about two decades ago.

Then there is the annual Hong Kong Sixes with the white ball clearing the tiny boundaries with regularity. But it sure is popular attracting many fine cricketers from round the globe. I was gobsmacked a month or so back when I switched on Fox Sports and there were blokes playing T20 on ice! I kid you not. And this was not a no name match played in some far away winter location.. but big names such as retired stars Jaques Kallis, Kumar Sangakarra, think Brian Lara also had a hit. The location was a major Swiss ski resort.

So Give the 100 ball concept a go. Cricket needs to continue to reinvent itself to keep pace with its sporting competition .