tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37251922.post2380881018583557942..comments2024-02-11T10:15:25.794+00:00Comments on Third Umpire: Does it need fixing?Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09215417891130654291noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37251922.post-52904141728977327362008-05-23T16:45:00.000+01:002008-05-23T16:45:00.000+01:00Some great thoughts there Richard: play-offs are i...Some great thoughts there Richard: play-offs are intriguing. I think the best compromise is to ditch the Pro40 and replace it with an extra Twenty20 BUT played in September-October (it is possible) after the end of the CC.<BR/><BR/>More money for counties? Yes<BR/>More time for rest and preparation between matches? Yes<BR/>More cricket at watcheable times (hopefully incorporating my previous suggestion!)? YesTimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09215417891130654291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37251922.post-10195126662570308472008-05-23T10:50:00.000+01:002008-05-23T10:50:00.000+01:00I agree with you about the rewarding of geography....I agree with you about the rewarding of geography. It is quite rediculous that four teams face Scotland and four Ireland, when there is a Southern Group of Middlesex, Sussex, Essex, Kent and Surrey! Similarly when it comes to T20, yet again Hants will not have a chance in the group of Essex, Middlesex, Surrey, Kent and Sussex. The T20 should be expanded and made into a league format, possibly in two tiers to aide competitiveness throughout the season and avoid the nothing to play for syndrome. As for the FP Trophy I think culling the geographical unfairness, but retaining the knockout stage would make for the best of both worlds and would be a sort of hybrid Pro50, FP Trophy competition. <BR/><BR/>Two groups of 10 based on the current Pro40 leagues plus Scot and Ire (one group of from div 1; 1,3,5,7,9 and from div 2; 2,4,6,8,10 and the other group of 2,4,6,8,10 from div 1 and 1,3,5,7,9 from div 2. Then each year the groups could be reconstructed with odd placed finishes in one group and even placed finishes in the other - this to be decided by play offs between the matching finished teams in each group (ie 5th vs 5th), bar obviously the finalists (1 and 2) and losing semi-finalists who would play each other (3 and 4)).<BR/><BR/>As for kolpaks I don't mind the odd one, but when you are facing a bowling attack made up exclusively of ex South African Internationals you have to wonder what that is doing for English bowlers. And my big problem with Hants at the moment is that they keep on picking Greg Lamb, a Zimbabwean kolpak, over the U19 spinner Liam Dawson. Lamb is a one day bowler, nothing more, whereas Dawson could be a very good bowler for years to come. Lamb is essentially blocking Dawson's progress. I have less of a problem because he is Zimbabwean and it is good that they get to play their cricket over here.<BR/><BR/>But do we really need half of the South African side, past, present and future clogging up the ranks? I doubt it. Northants and Leics take it into overkill territory. I think each side should take to the field with at least 8 English players. Whether they do that by allowing one, two or three overseas players I don't mind, but we need sides to be playing young English talent against these quality overseas signings in order for them to progress, not sitting in the stands watching them and wondering what might have been.Chrispyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17116768172493122694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37251922.post-68488259866662727512008-05-23T08:32:00.000+01:002008-05-23T08:32:00.000+01:00Chris - thanks for the responseMy system would rem...Chris - thanks for the response<BR/><BR/>My system would remove some of the inherent unfairness of play-offs by giving the highest placed team home advantage and the win in the event of a draw. Thus teams finishing lower in the table would have to play imaginative cricket to usurp the team that played better than them over the season.<BR/><BR/>The lost revenue from one CC home match I would guess pales into insignificance in comparison to the 20:20 revenue. And the ECB could easily compensate to ensure that teams don't lose out. Indeed, having one less game, but the other games more meaningful may lead to similar numbers of spectators, albeit with one game less.<BR/><BR/>I agree about Pro-40, which I would make Pro-50 at the drop of a hat. And I prefer that system to the FP trophy as it rewards merit rather than geography.<BR/><BR/>I disagree with you about Kolpaks, but will come back to that on a later postRichard Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12305428361656401297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37251922.post-8856961334138242042008-05-22T14:49:00.000+01:002008-05-22T14:49:00.000+01:00Those are some really good and well thought out su...Those are some really good and well thought out suggestions. The idea of having playoffs would not even have occurred to me. I think you are right that two divisions has increased the interest of more clubs for longer and that this is the problem at the bottom of div 2. I personally hate the idea of having playoffs in football, whereby the side that finishes one point off of 2nd ends up losing out to the 6th placed side which amassed 15 points less than them over the course of the season. It is inherently unfair and purely designed for financial benefit.<BR/><BR/>The idea of having ten teams in the top division does have merit and would balance out the play offs in div 2. However, what of the sides who lose a home game each season and the associated revenue? It may cause the richer in div 1 to become richer while the poor remain poor (as there is a two home game inbalance), a problem well evidenced by the FA Premier League. It would though allow three teams to be promoted instead of two (as happened a few years ago), which would make the play off idea seam less unfair as the third promotion slot essentially would not exhist without the play offs (which negates the unfairness argument somewhat). <BR/><BR/>I have to disagree about cutting the FP Trophy back to a pure knockout cup again whilst the 50 over game still exhists internationally as the new system is about right now and gives players, especially youngsters, good sustained exposure to the ODI format, which was not always true in the past. T20 needs to be expanded, though only slightly to match demand. The obvious cutting competition is the Pro40 which is bringing nothing to the party in terms of development. It's exciting and draws crowds, but if we were to rebrand 50 over and Championship cricket and stage matches at weekends and in the evenings (later start times with floodlights) then more people would show up to these matches.<BR/><BR/>Overall some good thoughts on what is a difficult subject. My thoughts on kolpaks remain the same, there are too many of them blocking English kids from getting a chance. A change must be made, financial rewards and penalties may be the only soluion.Chrispyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17116768172493122694noreply@blogger.com