Cricket, But Not As We Know It: Thoughts on the ECB’s Revolution

addCustomPlayer(‘bx8e519cs8io1nxqdbuhjyo2l’, ‘1fsd6rngrh98e1j4bg5dt0ngtj’, ‘fzsx69x6dpqj1l140djxl4bgp’, 400, 305, ‘perfbx8e519cs8io1nxqdbuhjyo2l-fzsx69x6dpqj1l140djxl4bgp’, ‘eplayer15’, {age:1423655784000});

 

When I initially saw the changes proposed in the ECB’s Strategy Conversation Summary my eyes nearly popped out of their sockets. English cricket hasn’t been this brave since, well, ever.

Furthermore, many of the proposals being discussed seem as nonsensical as getting into bed with a dodgy American tycoon. We live in strange times my friends, strange times.

However, once I recovered from the initial shock – as surely only a complete moron would advocate a return to three-day first class cricket and a single-division county championship – I actually think it’s great news that Colin Graves is prepared to think outside of the box.

Sure, some of the proposals seem a little radical, but isn’t ‘radical’ exactly what English cricket needs? Let’s look at the main changes being discussed:

 

A cut in the number of test matches each summer from seven to five

A Big Bash style EPL (English Premier League)

An FA Cup style knock out tournament

A TV deal that balances satellite and terrestrial audiences

A rebranding ECB (which might become Cricket England & Wales)

The county championship to become one division with fewer games of 3 days each

World Cup matches to be become 40 overs per side.

 

Other than the bit about scrapping two divisions in the championship (and reverting to three-day matches) I would probably support all these proposals.

Stop the Press. Full Toss Writer Actually Supports ECB.

England’s test match schedule for 2015 is absolutely insane. We’ve been pleading with the authorities to reduce the number of test matches for years so we can hardly complain when it actually happens.

If we reduce the schedule from seven tests per summer to five then our bowlers might actually stay fit. What’s more, if tests in early May were scrapped, our best ODI players might be encouraged to play in the IPL.

In the good old days when I were a lad, knee-high to a grasshopper (a young pup on the threshold of life etc) we always used to play five Cornhill test matches per year. It worked fine. Cutting the number of tests might make them more special.

When it comes to the EPL, I’m all in favour of a franchise system. As long as the smaller counties are compensated in some way, there’s no reason why it shouldn’t work. I doubt many of you need to be persuaded on this one. Let’s give it a try.

A good old-fashioned knock-out tournament also gets the TFT thumbs up. Remember the glory days of the NatWest trophy, when semi finals were televised nationally on BBC? County cricket actually meant something back then.

Straight knockout tournaments are also refreshing in this day and age. The odd giant killing in this era of monotonous European Champions League football would be brilliantly refreshing for cricket.

Bringing live cricket back to terrestrial television would also be extremely welcome. Maxie has long argued in favour of a terrestrial / satellite mix. Doesn’t the poor sod finally deserve a little happiness?!

A rebranded ECB also seems like a no brainer. I’m sick of crossed wires when my father in law comes for dinner. You’d be amazed how often I start talking about cricket only to end up discussing the European Central Bank.

I’m not going to discuss the County Championship at length here because I really don’t see a return to a single division. Who would support it? The backlash would be swift and decisive.

My instinct tells me this has only been included to pave the way for less radical reforms. Perhaps, like Nikita Khrushchev, Colin Graves wants to keep his adversaries on their toes by pretending he’s insane.

Finally we come to the ECB’s proposals for the World Cup. I appreciate I may be in the minority here – and please feel free to shoot me down like rebel scum – but I’ve always been a fan of 40 over cricket in principle.

I know many people fear for the 50 over format. The middle overs can still be a little dull and I’m not convinced that PowerPlays have solved the problem.

40 over cricket has considerable advantages: it meanders less and it can be played in its entirely in a single afternoon. Remember the old Sunday league? I remember it fondly. I’m not sure an additional ten overs add anything to be honest.

What’s more, as T20 is here to stay, doesn’t it make sense to play a format that’s double the length of cricket’s money-spinner? Fifty overs seems a little arbitrary to cricket’s newcomers.

I realise many of you will disagree with the points I’ve made above – particularly the bit about Maxie deserving happiness – but these issues are bound to be polarising. English cricket needs to do a lot of soul-searching and there are probably no perfect solutions.

Personally I’m just delighted that Graves and Co are asking searching questions. English cricket has buried its head in the sand for ages so I’m encouraged all options are on the table. Conservatism has hamstrung our beloved game for far too long. I think we can all agree on that.

James Morgan

@DoctorCopy

21 comments

  • tbh I don’t care overly what they do with the pro game as long as they get more on tv and get rid of the countless current ‘pro’s’ who aren’t really good enough.

    I’m very very worried for the grass roots game though, I can see them totally destroying it

  • You forgot the proposal for 4-Day Tests. Which conveniently cuts operational costs for grounds, things like pesky Day 5 refunds etc etc, whilst preserving the lucrative first 4 days of ticket sales. It’s a recipe for more draws, if you ask me, at the expense of our wallets.

    • Yes I should’ve mentioned that. It’s a terrible idea and I really can’t see it happening. Pitches would have to change dramatically to ensure a result too.

  • I don’t think that the proposal for a four day test match is actually anything new, I believe that the likes of Steve Waugh have suggested it before given how many games don’t go as far as the 5th day.

    However I don’t agree with it and far prefer the idea of a 5/6 test summer with the games spread out a little more and the end of the early May tests. Anyway perhaps its just a range of negotiating options like James says to be negotiated over as the status quo isn’t working.

  • “I actually think it’s great news that Colin Graves is prepared to think outside of the box.”

    That’s my position too. I don’t agree with all of what they are suggesting, but am glad they are open to all ideas.

    Re. Test schedule. England currently play 2 series a summer and 2 in the winter. Would five summer Tests work? 2+3 seems not enough – 2+4 is probably right, with 2+5 for Ashes summers. Unless you cut down to 1 series a summer? But then we’d end up just playing Australia, India, South Africa on repeat.

    I was wondering whether it would be possible to merge the summer ODIs/T20Is into a tri series – e.g. start with Tests against Opponents A, then ODI tri-series with Opponents A+B followed by the same with T20Is, then Tests against Opponents B. Would reduce the number of LO games without reducing series to a pointless 3 games, adds some variety as 5-7 ODIs gets repetitive. But I’m not sure it would work practically – it would mean the Tests bookend the summer – so clashing with the IPL in May and push Tests into September.

    The volume is a problem. I keep thinking an extra T20 league (with England players playing) would be great, as would be getting Ireland or Afghanistan involved in tri-series – but that just adds games. Leaving a window of some sort for the IPL would mean more games for a shorter time frame.

    I think the key thing is getting the scheduling right across domestic and international games. But as I’m finding out, you can tie yourself in knots trying to come up with a solution.

  • James:

    Just on the “five Tests used to be normal” thing. There have been seven every year since 2000, except in 2012 when there were six (do NOT get me started on that), and in 2010 when there were eight (due to Australia v Pakistan). So far so good. I think we should appreciate that this is the new normal for the generation after ours.

    1981 was my first summer of cricket. Between 1981 and 1999 there were six Tests every year, except in 1983 and 1999, when England hosted the World Cup (4 Tests v NZ) and 1992 (5 v Pakistan). I should mention 1987 separately, when we played 5 v Pakistan and then the MCC v Rest of World bicentennial match was played at the end of the summer. All Ashes series in this period had six matches. Other years were split 5:1 or 3:3, except when WI played six Tests in 1995.

    I do not want the ECB to get away with telling people 5 Tests is normal or even acceptable. Tests still sell out here: why on earth should there be fewer? OK, I don’t mind six as long as there are no two-Test series v major opponents, but I see no compelling argument for going from seven to five.

    My other concern, raised in detail here last year, is the geographical allocation of Test matches. The ECB are already displaying a bias against the north most years, even with seven Tests to allocate. With five I dread to think what they’ll come up with.

    • Thanks Arron. My memory is obviously a bit hazy as I could’ve sworn it used to be 5 every summer. In hindsight I think you’re right. We either played the same team in six tests, two series of three tests each against different opposition, or 5 tests against major opposition with a cheeky one-off match against Sri Lanka (when SL were still finding their way).

      One thing I didn’t mention was the glut of ODIs these days. Ideally I’d love to cut them dramatically as add a couple more T20s instead, but it’s hard when the rest of the world keep playing ODIs non stop. We’re always at a disadvantage experience wise when World Cups come along.

  • franchise system will be a complete and unmitigated disaster. surely anyone can see that, you only have to think about it for about 30 seconds to see all the holes in the plan.

    a move to free tv would be a huge improvement though.

  • 14 tests a year is really no big deal. The problem is when those same players are forced to play in multiple pointless ODIs.

    Keep 14 tests, scrap all bilateral ODIs. Simple effective solution.

  • I just think about all the great Test matches that have ended on day 5? Headingly 1981. The Oval 2005. Edgebaston 2005, Old Trafford 2005. Cardiff 2009.Brian Lara beating Australia on the last day with only a couple of wickets left at the other end. I could go on and on but you know what I mean.

    On the batsman friendly wickets they play on today you will get endless draws. They obviously want to do it (probably demanded by tv companies who want more ODIs) My guess is the report has bean leaked deliberately to test the water. If enough people shout it down they will put it away for another 10 years.

    As for 40 over cricket this is a vampire that won’t die. Old County members just love it. Those living near the ground can have Sunday lunch and then wander over and watch some cricket before being home in time for Antiques roadshow. (At least in the days when it was on at 7pm) 50 over ODIs have to be started before lunch, and the members have always hated it on Sundays.

  • “40 over cricket has considerable advantages: it meanders less and it can be played in its entirely in a single afternoon. Remember the old Sunday league? I remember it fondly. I’m not sure an additional ten overs add anything to be honest.

    “What’s more, as T20 is here to stay, doesn’t it make sense to play a format that’s double the length of cricket’s money-spinner? Fifty overs seems a little arbitrary to cricket’s newcomers.”

    Why does cricket have to be reshaped for people who don’t know anything about it?

    • because we need their money to survive?

      But lets be honest, T20 games are infinitely more convenient for all of us, whether you’re an avid test fan or not. I can get on the train to London after work on a Friday, watch a game, and come home again on the last train.

      I can take a minibus load of 12 year olds who have never seen cricket before to a T20 game and I know they won’t get bored and will enjoy the experience. I can’t honestly say that about a 40/50 over game.

      • And T20 has its place as a cash cow.

        So why do we then need to also shorten the 50-over game to 40 overs?

        You use the example of a ‘bus of 12-year-olds who have never seen cricket before’. Why is that the demographic we should have in mind when we manage the game? What about the people who have spent decades watching the game because they like it?

        Why are the illiterate 12-year-olds more important than people who actually have some frame of reference for what they’re watching?

        • because they are the ones who will be playing, watching and financing the game in 20 years when you’re dead.

          or not, if you continue to belittle and ostracise them.

  • I see this morning the “leak” is not written in stone says Mr Graves. He wants a transparent ECB and one that wants to give the punters what they want? Well who’d have thunk it? Well get rid of Downtown and Moores and the selectors and start again! Howzat?

  • A few years ago Barry Richards mooted 3 + 3 +3 for each touring side. They play 3 tests, 3 ODIs and 3 T20s. I thought this had merit with two equal tours in this country each summer. 2 Test “series” are a joke and an insult to the less prominent countries. No wonder they lose interest in test cricket.

    I suppose there are variations where the ODIs and T20s become a three nation tournament as the two touring nations swap over. Sadly, it may not be viable in marketing terms if the host nation always gets knocked out. At the moment we’d be lucky to come third in a two-horse race.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting