Custom Bats Cricket Forum

General Cricket => Your Cricket => Topic started by: tim2000s on July 11, 2018, 06:45:08 AM

Title: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: tim2000s on July 11, 2018, 06:45:08 AM
Following the discussion in the "Changes due to the world cup" topic, I thought this deserved a topic of its own.

It can't have gone un-noticed that one of the fastest growing forms of cricket in the UK is Last Man Stands which offers teams the opportunity to play 20 overs a side in two hours, either after work or at some point on a weekend.

I struggle to play a 45 or 50 over match at a weekend simply due to the time commitment (starting at 1pm and not finishing till 7.30pm plus any travel doesn't fly in our household any longer).

Likewise, I really don't see the need for a 30-45 minute break between innings so that both sides can sit down and have some food.

Given some of the ideas on the other topic, what would you change in Weekend Cricket to make it more attractive given the changes in society that have taken place?
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: Seniorplayer on July 11, 2018, 07:52:26 AM
Make Divisions more localised cut down distances players travel to away games save on  on travel time 3 hour round trips are no fun.
Cut breaks between innings in  45 / 50 overs matches to 15 mins.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: iand123 on July 11, 2018, 07:59:05 AM
Earlier starts for me. Theyve made our starts 12:30 but we still end up finishing near to 7 with travel on top of that (we are in a league that isnt regionalised so can play anywhere in Kent).

I'd also make more of a punishment for over rates, its getting a joke how slow teams are. Difficult to implement as it requires umpires on both sides but currently there is no incentive for teams to get through overs in a reasonable time
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: DorsetDan on July 11, 2018, 08:07:03 AM
Time is an issue. It doesn't need to be reduced overs but stricter over rates, reduced faffing at tea/ waiting for the opposition to show etc. Earlier start times are definitely appealing. Cricket takes a full day at the moment and I'm sure there are better ways to do it to be home at a decent time.

Players attitudes are one of the major issues for me playing Saturday cricket. Even on a Sunday, cricket seems to attract hyper competitive, hyper aggressive knobbers with very little talent to back up their attitude. You wouldn't get away with it in any other sport so I don't know why it is tolerated across all levels of cricket. I can think of literally only one or two teams I've enjoyed playing against.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: t2ylo on July 11, 2018, 08:18:14 AM
I wanted to echo some of the themes already...

1) Proper pyramid structure with more localised games - often I have driven past 20+ other cricket clubs to play a fixture in the Somerset Shrubbery League. Local rivalry was one of my favourite parts of cricket growing up, playing next village/town/city each year, having friends from the opposition that you knew over the years and looking forward to a proper good hard (but sporting) game. This may also cut out some of the nonsense & sledging.
2) Shorter games at lower levels (40 overs) 1pm start and really strict on timings to bowl your overs - amazing how fast this got done with England kicking off at 3pm
3) Tighter on strict tea interval time
4) Get rid of the nonsense about switching between internal teams - if you play for that club and you can only play at home, have to finish on time to go out, work Saturday morning or have family and they like to come at watch then let people play. With one eye on 'strengthening' in last 4 games, but spirit of cricket applies on and off the field.
5) Higher levels should mirror the 50 over game but recreational cricket should be more, well, recreational
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: jjelricksmith on July 11, 2018, 08:28:31 AM
Make Divisions more localised cut down distances players travel to away games save on  on travel time 3 hour round trips are no fun.
Cut breaks between innings in  45 / 50 overs matches to 15 mins.

Agree with this in lower divisions but there are clubs near me where they have players good enough to be in our division but the swamp they play on means they aren't allowed to come up. Some pitches simply wouldnt be safe in higher divisions, pair this with the skill gap becoming far larger between a division and lowering competitiveness for a season. I dont have any issue travelling 45mins for some away days, lift sharing and allocating my summer saturdays to cricket means this really isnt an issue as you go into the middle or top divisions.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: mattw on July 11, 2018, 08:39:42 AM
I think a few changes need to be made;
- Earlier start times (based purely around food, I start at 12:30pm - so if we're playing away, breakfast in the morning but then you start at around lunch time and the next time you eat (if you're fielding) is usually around 3:30pm). I have personally struggled in relationships when I arrive back at 8:30-9pm on a Saturday evening after playing an away game (I had to reword that one), as my partner isn't happy that I'm gone for the whole of Saturday. There are a few other factors in this, mainly that I don't think as many people only work Saturday mornings these days and one of the biggest factors - whilst you can go out and have a few drinks on a Friday night, since I've hit 30 - the hangovers last longer and longer, meaning that I tend not to drink the night before a game, then you cannot really make plans on Saturday evening as you may not even get back until 8:30-9pm etc.

- Less time wasted, I agree with some that less faffing around and stricter punishments on over rate. When I played in the Worcester League there was so much faffing around (but also this can be contributed to 'leg-side wides', as sometimes teams would concede 50 or so extras, meaning that's nearly 10 extra overs bowled.). Now playing in the Warwickshire Prem, it's a lot quicker and teams take the over rate seriously.

- Only Win/Lose games - I've never been a fan of win/lose/draw - for me this does not relate to any cricket that I've ever seen play on the international/county circuit, so why do we, as amateurs play this format? There's literally nothing more boring than posting a total of 250+ batting first, to see the oppo come out and block for the draw from ball one. Whilst I enjoy the challenge of trying to get batsmen out, I feel that this promotes negative cricket from all parties and the result becomes a formality. This could mean that a lot of games finish a lot sooner, making it more enjoyable for everyone. The only positive about win/lose/draw is for the team finishing the game 9 down and scraping the draw. Maybe there needs to be a higher swing in points to promote pushing for the win. I would suggest that the winning team still gets maximum points, then the team with the losing draw gets a few additional points for not being bowled out.

- Whilst 50 overs is played at the elite level, and therefore teams up around that upper echelon would need to play that format - I don't think 45 / 50 overs is required. Since T20 has been introduced and given it's popularity - I think there should potentially be a T20 only league for people that cannot commit to playing the whole day to play cricket. Also for the batsmen out there, there's nothing worse than dedicating your day to playing cricket but you get a first-ball duck - so another format could be 2 x cumulative T20 cricket games. This then gives people a chance to redeem themselves and not feel like their Saturday is wasted if they don't perform well with the bat. I've seen too many batsman walk away from the game due to poor form, thus losing their enjoyment - so I feel that this would improve the rate of people falling away from the game. Ultimately the team could win it in one game, by posting 200+, then bowling the team out for 50 both times. So the only negative is I find is if there is a complete mismatch where it may be less enjoyable for the losing sides.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 11, 2018, 08:41:35 AM
Following the discussion in the "Changes due to the world cup" topic, I thought this deserved a topic of its own.

It can't have gone un-noticed that one of the fastest growing forms of cricket in the UK is Last Man Stands which offers teams the opportunity to play 20 overs a side in two hours, either after work or at some point on a weekend.

I struggle to play a 45 or 50 over match at a weekend simply due to the time commitment (starting at 1pm and not finishing till 7.30pm plus any travel doesn't fly in our household any longer).

Likewise, I really don't see the need for a 30-45 minute break between innings so that both sides can sit down and have some food.

Given some of the ideas on the other topic, what would you change in Weekend Cricket to make it more attractive given the changes in society that have taken place?

Promoters have been trying for years to get last man stands to take off around here, but no-one is interested, because its a stupid, (No Swearing Please) format where you have to pay a franchise fee, which is really taking the piss. Cricket belongs to the people, we shouldn't have to pay anyone for the right to play.

Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 11, 2018, 08:51:17 AM
We play 40 over win/lose cricket on a Saturday. I don't see any advantage in playing longer games than this. I do favour a bonus point system that rewards teams that bowl the opposition out or knock off the runs at a certain rate to keep a small element of the W/L/D style of play.

There are not many ways you could improve this. Starting the game earlier would lose more players than it attracts. Playing only local games would mean more mismatches because not all local teams are the same standard.

One thing I would do is scrap the tea break entirely. As soon as one team comes off the field, strap the pads on and get going. Provide a buffet for each side to graze on whilst batting.

The BIG problem we have in our league is teams defaulting. We are a small village club with 2 teams who have NEVER defaulted a game in our entire history. To do would be a betrayal of the cricketing commuting and an abrogation of the responsibility we have taken on to the league.

Other teams are less principled, and are more than happy to sack off a game at the last minute because they'd rather go down the pub than play with 10 men. Clubs like this should be kicked out of the league, full stop.


I would also give immediate one match bans for all sledging, with season-long bans for any repeat offences.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: mo_town on July 11, 2018, 10:19:24 AM
Earlier starts for sure. But I have heard enough people grumble 'Sat mornings are for kids and afternoons are for cricket', so not sure if it will ever happen. Less travel would be great as well.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: richthekeeper on July 11, 2018, 10:21:14 AM
I wanted to echo some of the themes already...

1) Proper pyramid structure with more localised games - often I have driven past 20+ other cricket clubs to play a fixture in the Somerset Shrubbery League. Local rivalry was one of my favourite parts of cricket growing up, playing next village/town/city each year, having friends from the opposition that you knew over the years and looking forward to a proper good hard (but sporting) game. This may also cut out some of the nonsense & sledging.

This is the number one reason people have been exiting my old club. We went from playing in the top division of a localised league in south east wales to playing in the 2nd division of the South Wales premier. This meant instead of 20 minute away trips, we have an hourís drive every other week. It completely took the shine off cricket for me.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: richthekeeper on July 11, 2018, 10:25:32 AM
Also I agree with @mattw on the 2xT20 format.

We played this in an inter-club friendly last season and will do again this year. Itís a fantastic format which brings the excitement of a T20 with the tactics of a test match. Rather than playing two separate games we just play a two innings game of 20 overs per side. Itís absolutely brilliant and as a batsman you get to have two goes :)
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 11, 2018, 10:35:54 AM
Also I agree with @mattw on the 2xT20 format.

We played this in an inter-club friendly last season and will do again this year. Itís a fantastic format which brings the excitement of a T20 with the tactics of a test match. Rather than playing two separate games we just play a two innings game of 20 overs per side. Itís absolutely brilliant and as a batsman you get to have two goes :)

I've never really seen the appeal. So its basically just two T20s back to back, where the aggregate score wins?

Surely the point of a T20 is that its short and sweet, so why would you want to play 2 T20s in a day? Doesn't that undermine the entire point of playing T20? Why not just play a 40 over game?

Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 11, 2018, 10:40:00 AM
I- Whilst 50 overs is played at the elite level, and therefore teams up around that upper echelon would need to play that format - I don't think 45 / 50 overs is required. Since T20 has been introduced and given it's popularity - I think there should potentially be a T20 only league for people that cannot commit to playing the whole day to play cricket.

I would be utterly incredulous if there was a single area of the country that doesn't already have an existing T20 league.

Saturday is for 40 over league cricket, Sunday is for friendlies (30 overs or declaration cricket depending on your preference), and Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday are all for 20 over cricket.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: iand123 on July 11, 2018, 11:00:17 AM
The Kent league are suggesting a restructure where outside the top 3 divisions will be regionalised. I think its a good idea in some part but do worry it will make people gravitate towards teams in those 3 divisions to play the better standard?

We currently play 46 overs but i honestly dont see why it cant be 40. Maybe premier leagues might want to play 50 overs but i dont see why others need to?
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 11, 2018, 11:22:36 AM
The Kent league are suggesting a restructure where outside the top 3 divisions will be regionalised. I think its a good idea in some part but do worry it will make people gravitate towards teams in those 3 divisions to play the better standard?

We currently play 46 overs but i honestly dont see why it cant be 40. Maybe premier leagues might want to play 50 overs but i dont see why others need to?

40 overs win or lose are the ideal format for weekend league cricket IMO, it doesn't take too long, but its plenty of time for a batsman to start patiently and still make a ton, and an 8-over spell gives plenty of chance for a 5-fer.

I'm not sure its ideal for bringing kids through, but that's why we have 6 other days in a week for them to play a shorter format.



Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: FattusCattus on July 11, 2018, 11:23:16 AM
Naked cheerleaders at club level.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: HallamKeeper on July 11, 2018, 11:42:15 AM
Our current format: 46 overs, 1.30pm start (1pm in April and Sept). 12 overs max per bowler. Usual finish is around 7.30pm. 10 team leagues and a cup that takes up 2 Saturdays for 1st and 2nd round, Sunday for a semi and an additional Saturday in Sept for a final. The cup is 40 overs and I think 8 overs per bowler.

The perfect format for me would be: 40 overs. 11am start. A delayed start means you each lose an over for every 8 minutes. Innings must be finished in 3 hours but the aim would be 2 hours 45 mins, in game punishments (i.e. for every 4 minutes past 3 hours you lose an over batting second). Slow over rates in the second innings can be punished with run penalties (i.e. twice the required rate at the start of the innings rounded up). 15 minute break in-between innings and teas left as a buffet for grazing and post match.

So you should be finished by 5.15, have a drink after and still be home by 6-6.30 so you can go out for dinner or watch some rubbish on TV with the family and those with young kids can get home before bedtime.

I would also like to see leagues making sure 5 bowlers minimum are used. So often you see people field and then bat below 7. Why would they do this for very long?

Finally, bonus points seem to me, to promote poor cricket. We are basically playing a very poor version of an ODI. Score as many as you can and then stop the other team getting them. Why do you get points for scoring 50, 60, 70, 80 and 90% of the opposition's total? Why do you get points for taking wickets when a team easily chases down your total but lose a few along the way? You weren't as good so you lost. You get nothing. How many games do you see the final few wickets being protected like the crown jewels to gain a point or deny the opposition points? A thoroughly dull end to a game.

If bonus points were scrapped I'd assume more teams would just have some fun if the game was gone and we could all get into the bar quicker. I understand if a game gets rained off, people want to award more points to the better team. But, we had games cancelled before a ball was bowled and shared the points against teams that would almost certainly have thrashed us.

Not that I have strong feelings about it.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: six and out on July 11, 2018, 11:50:23 AM
For me you just simply Pyramid everything.

As Standard decreases, so should the overs and therefore the playing time and travelling time.

For example -

ECB Premier League - should play 100+ overs w/l/d cricket - start early - all day cricket as that is the highest level of club cricket - if you are going to progress in cricket you are playing this level and need to learn how to play all day etc... travel times are longer as you need to travel to face the better clubs, but the highest level should be prepared to do this.

As the levels go down - you reduce the overs - 50, 40, 30, etc.... always playing win/lose, to finally play 20/20 at a junior club level to get and keep the colts involved.

As the levels go down you also get more regionalised, so the travel times are less - in theory as the level goes down you are playing more recreational cricket, so players don't want to travel so much, which means you have more flexibility with start times.

20/20 adult cricket is played mid-week locally.

just my two penneth.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 11, 2018, 11:56:48 AM
For me you just simply Pyramid everything.

As Standard decreases, so should the overs and therefore the playing time and travelling time.

For example -

ECB Premier League - should play 100+ overs w/l/d cricket - start early - all day cricket as that is the highest level of club cricket - if you are going to progress in cricket you are playing this level and need to learn how to play all day etc... travel times are longer as you need to travel to face the better clubs, but the highest level should be prepared to do this.

As the levels go down - you reduce the overs - 50, 40, 30, etc.... always playing win/lose, to finally play 20/20 at a junior club level to get and keep the colts involved.

As the levels go down you also get more regionalised, so the travel times are less - in theory as the level goes down you are playing more recreational cricket, so players don't want to travel so much, which means you have more flexibility with start times.

20/20 adult cricket is played mid-week locally.

just my two penneth.

Problem is, there are a lot of people who want to play league cricket but aren't good enough to play at anything higher than the lowest level, but who wouldn't have any kind of role to play in a T20 game.

The good thing about 40 over cricket is that even at the bottom rung, there is a role for an old bloke who can only nudge singles or bowl slow dobbers. If you convert low level league cricket to 20 overs, you're basically forcing those guys out of the game altogether.

Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: JTtaylor145 on July 11, 2018, 11:58:52 AM
Having read through all the comments so far I haven't noticed anyone mention cost. Anyone who has to sit on a committee will know just how expensive it is to run a cricket club. There are all the pavilion overheads and then the cost of ground/pitch equipment. The number of teams is dramatically reduced and clubs have folded due to rising costs. Could the ECB help out more with regards to covers, gang mowers etc.?

For anyone new to cricket it is also expensive (granted most things are) but why couldn't the ECB provide a couple of kit bags to clubs. Cricket clubs could then have a 'welcome to cricket' day. Every club focuses a lot of attention towards encouraging kids to play but why not adults? Cricket isn't going to be encouraged in schools.

I don't know about other clubs but sometimes our club can be a bit laddish and that doesn't encourage families and especially wives/girlfriends to come down to the ground. Make cricket as family friendly as possible and you might encourage the kids (and wives and girlfriends to play).

Please don't shorten matches too much. We have to drive an hour+ every other week and I'm not driving to Clacton for a 20 over match  :(
Make cricket fun. Reduce the idiot behavior on the pitch. Fine to laugh at my batting/fielding but you don't have to call me a **** every ball you loud mouthed, ill-educated cretin.

No to 20/20 on a Saturday. No to removing tea's. There are some traditions that should always remain (clap a batsman if he scores a 50/100 and plays well, shake the hand of the opposition, walk if you hit it and teas).

Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 11, 2018, 12:02:46 PM
Our current format: 46 overs, 1.30pm start (1pm in April and Sept). 12 overs max per bowler. Usual finish is around 7.30pm. 10 team leagues and a cup that takes up 2 Saturdays for 1st and 2nd round, Sunday for a semi and an additional Saturday in Sept for a final. The cup is 40 overs and I think 8 overs per bowler.

The perfect format for me would be: 40 overs. 11am start. A delayed start means you each lose an over for every 8 minutes. Innings must be finished in 3 hours but the aim would be 2 hours 45 mins, in game punishments (i.e. for every 4 minutes past 3 hours you lose an over batting second). Slow over rates in the second innings can be punished with run penalties (i.e. twice the required rate at the start of the innings rounded up). 15 minute break in-between innings and teas left as a buffet for grazing and post match.

So you should be finished by 5.15, have a drink after and still be home by 6-6.30 so you can go out for dinner or watch some rubbish on TV with the family and those with young kids can get home before bedtime.

I would also like to see leagues making sure 5 bowlers minimum are used. So often you see people field and then bat below 7. Why would they do this for very long?

Finally, bonus points seem to me, to promote poor cricket. We are basically playing a very poor version of an ODI. Score as many as you can and then stop the other team getting them. Why do you get points for scoring 50, 60, 70, 80 and 90% of the opposition's total? Why do you get points for taking wickets when a team easily chases down your total but lose a few along the way? You weren't as good so you lost. You get nothing. How many games do you see the final few wickets being protected like the crown jewels to gain a point or deny the opposition points? A thoroughly dull end to a game.

If bonus points were scrapped I'd assume more teams would just have some fun if the game was gone and we could all get into the bar quicker. I understand if a game gets rained off, people want to award more points to the better team. But, we had games cancelled before a ball was bowled and shared the points against teams that would almost certainly have thrashed us.

Not that I have strong feelings about it.

We've played in a league with no bonus points. Its awful. If one team racks up an unobtainable score, the team batting second have absolutely nothing to play for whatsoever. You see a lot of teams getting 20 all out as players basically kick over their stumps as they'd rather the whole miserable affair was over with as soon as possible.

This is obviously a complete embarrassment for the game, and deprives spectators and opponents of a game. At least if you give them the chance of getting some points for hitting 100 or batting through the innings, they feel like their is a purpose to their afternoon.

Obviously, the same kind of thing also happens when one team are rolled over for a lowish total that they know they can't defend and can barely be bothered to field, and deliberately bowl their non-bowlers to try and get the game over quickly.

Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 11, 2018, 12:05:31 PM
Having read through all the comments so far I haven't noticed anyone mention cost. Anyone who has to sit on a committee will know just how expensive it is to run a cricket club. There are all the pavilion overheads and then the cost of ground/pitch equipment. The number of teams is dramatically reduced and clubs have folded due to rising costs. Could the ECB help out more with regards to covers, gang mowers etc.?

For anyone new to cricket it is also expensive (granted most things are) but why couldn't the ECB provide a couple of kit bags to clubs. Cricket clubs could then have a 'welcome to cricket' day. Every club focuses a lot of attention towards encouraging kids to play but why not adults? Cricket isn't going to be encouraged in schools.

I don't know about other clubs but sometimes our club can be a bit laddish and that doesn't encourage families and especially wives/girlfriends to come down to the ground. Make cricket as family friendly as possible and you might encourage the kids (and wives and girlfriends to play).

Please don't shorten matches too much. We have to drive an hour+ every other week and I'm not driving to Clacton for a 20 over match  :(
Make cricket fun. Reduce the idiot behavior on the pitch. Fine to laugh at my batting/fielding but you don't have to call me a **** every ball you loud mouthed, ill-educated cretin.

No to 20/20 on a Saturday. No to removing tea's. There are some traditions that should always remain (clap a batsman if he scores a 50/100 and plays well, shake the hand of the opposition, walk if you hit it and teas).


I agree expensive to run but expensive as a player? No way, cricket is one of the cheapest sports I know. All you need are spikes, a white t-shirt and a jockstrap and you're all set. £5 for an afternoon's entertainment? Absolute bargain.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: HallamKeeper on July 11, 2018, 12:28:12 PM
We've played in a league with no bonus points. Its awful. If one team racks up an unobtainable score, the team batting second have absolutely nothing to play for whatsoever. You see a lot of teams getting 20 all out as players basically kick over their stumps as they'd rather the whole miserable affair was over with as soon as possible.

This is obviously a complete embarrassment for the game, and deprives spectators and opponents of a game. At least if you give them the chance of getting some points for hitting 100 or batting through the innings, they feel like their is a purpose to their afternoon.

Obviously, the same kind of thing also happens when one team are rolled over for a lowish total that they know they can't defend and can barely be bothered to field, and deliberately bowl their non-bowlers to try and get the game over quickly.

I suppose it depends on the level you play at. You rarely see a score over 230 in our league. 230 is daunting and we would always have a go and then when we get to 7 or 8 down people start working out how many for an extra point and the game dies. The bowling team know they have won but need all wickets for full points and the batsmen shut up shop and try to eek out another 10 or 20 runs for another point. It is boring to watch and boring to do.

The other thing is that a team could score 300 and the opposition knowing they won't get it start batting like they are saving a test to earn a few points and deny full points to a team who are clearly better. In two games one team could score 350 runs and their opponents could finish on 130/8. In another match a team could get 120 runs and bowl their opposition out for 119. The winners of the second match get 20% more points that the winners of the first. Which game has the most comprehensive victory?

Maybe it is just me but I would prefer to end a game quickly if you are getting a hiding. Not many people playing a game of football 8-0 down want to play the last 10 minutes.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 11, 2018, 12:44:19 PM
I suppose it depends on the level you play at. You rarely see a score over 230 in our league. 230 is daunting and we would always have a go and then when we get to 7 or 8 down people start working out how many for an extra point and the game dies. The bowling team know they have won but need all wickets for full points and the batsmen shut up shop and try to eek out another 10 or 20 runs for another point. It is boring to watch and boring to do.

The other thing is that a team could score 300 and the opposition knowing they won't get it start batting like they are saving a test to earn a few points and deny full points to a team who are clearly better. In two games one team could score 350 runs and their opponents could finish on 130/8. In another match a team could get 120 runs and bowl their opposition out for 119. The winners of the second match get 20% more points that the winners of the first. Which game has the most comprehensive victory?

Maybe it is just me but I would prefer to end a game quickly if you are getting a hiding. Not many people playing a game of football 8-0 down want to play the last 10 minutes.


But I don't see how that would be any better if there were no bonus points. If you score 300 you've already won the match, now you've got 40 overs (or whatever) to bowl the oppo out and claim full bonus points, so stick everyone round the bat, and see what you can make happen. Get the spinners on, have a bloke bowling bouncers with 3 short legs. Try stuff. Be creative.

 I don't know about you, but I think that that challenge is far more exciting than just spending the next 2 1/2 hours going through the motions for 40 overs with a ring field, dibbly dobblers bowling dots, with nothing to achieve.


If you think being in a game where the batsmen are playing for a draw is boring, try being in a game where neither side is playing for any purpose whatsoever.  Now THAT is boring.
 
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 11, 2018, 12:52:46 PM
Best bonus points system I've found, after many years of playing in different leagues:

40 overs:

15 points for a win (most runs)
1 bonus point for every 2 wickets
1 bonus point per runs/over achieved (up to max of 5).


20 over cricket:
3 points for win
1 point for bowling oppo out
1 point for a run rate over 6/over


Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: InternalTraining on July 11, 2018, 01:14:27 PM
Wow! I read some of the rules and find them unnecessarily arduous.

Here is what we do and it works:

- 40 overs per inning one-day game, 8 overs max per bowler.
- All games are win/lose. No draws
- Start time is noon. Some people are interested in an even earlier start time to open up the rest of the day. Games end between 6 and 7.
- League local to the state. There is some travel but less than an hour one way.
- Every club hosts roughly same number of games.
- Umpires provided by the league.

Change that people are clamoring about: move the start time earlier to 10-ish.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: JTtaylor145 on July 11, 2018, 01:21:38 PM

I agree expensive to run but expensive as a player? No way, cricket is one of the cheapest sports I know. All you need are spikes, a white t-shirt and a jockstrap and you're all set. £5 for an afternoon's entertainment? Absolute bargain.
Clearly you haven't been on CBF long enough  :) When you have about 20 bats, 10 pairs of pads, 12 pairs of gloves and 6 helmets you'll find the cost does add up. Plus subs are £100 and £9 where I play and then travel costs...you see it does add up.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: WalkingWicket37 on July 11, 2018, 01:33:15 PM
Wow! I read some of the rules and find them unnecessarily arduous.

Here is what we do and it works:

- 40 overs per inning one-day game, 8 overs max per bowler.
- All games are win/lose. No draws
- Start time is noon. Some people are interested in an even earlier start time to open up the rest of the day. Games end between 6 and 7.
- League local to the state. There is some travel but less than an hour one way.
- Every club hosts roughly same number of games.
- Umpires provided by the league.

Change that people are clamoring about: move the start time earlier to 10-ish.

That would be great, but the Hampshire league has had 5 panel umpires resign since the start of the season! Finding people to actually do it would be the biggest challenge.

As far as earlier starts go our games have been bought forward from 14.00 to 13.00 this year. That caused uproar among those who have to work Saturday mornings, and has resulted in the loss of a few players. Strangely the games are starting an hour earlier but finishing the same time as last year
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: WalkingWicket37 on July 11, 2018, 01:40:49 PM

I agree expensive to run but expensive as a player? No way, cricket is one of the cheapest sports I know. All you need are spikes, a white t-shirt and a jockstrap and you're all set. £5 for an afternoon's entertainment? Absolute bargain.

A white t-shirt? That would be village!  ;)

I'm more curious where you can pay £5 a game match fees on a Saturday, all the clubs down my way are 2 or 3 times that!

While not as expensive as say joining a golf club, cricket isn't what I'd describe as cheap.

We have to pay:
Membership - £75 a year
Club shirt - £40
Match fee - £10 a week 

I don't want to add up how much I spend on cricket a year
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: tim2000s on July 11, 2018, 01:41:04 PM
This is obviously a complete embarrassment for the game, and deprives spectators and opponents of a game. At least if you give them the chance of getting some points for hitting 100 or batting through the innings, they feel like their is a purpose to their afternoon.

With the best will in the world, I can count on one hand the number of times I've played Saturday league matches and had spectators who were there for the cricket and not because the beer at the clubhouse is the cheapest locally, and they're a member...
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: HallamKeeper on July 11, 2018, 01:41:47 PM

But I don't see how that would be any better if there were no bonus points. If you score 300 you've already won the match, now you've got 40 overs (or whatever) to bowl the oppo out and claim full bonus points, so stick everyone round the bat, and see what you can make happen. Get the spinners on, have a bloke bowling bouncers with 3 short legs. Try stuff. Be creative.

 I don't know about you, but I think that that challenge is far more exciting than just spending the next 2 1/2 hours going through the motions for 40 overs with a ring field, dibbly dobblers bowling dots, with nothing to achieve.


If you think being in a game where the batsmen are playing for a draw is boring, try being in a game where neither side is playing for any purpose whatsoever.  Now THAT is boring.

I understand what you're saying but if a team posts 300 you know you have to go at 6.5 an over (46 over game). So if you know the only way to get any points is to go fairly hard then you either win the game with a very good performance or you lose wickets regularly playing positive, expansive cricket and maybe you only bat 30 overs. I'd far rather be part of that scenario than a team saying 'we can't get 300 so we have set our own target of 225'.

I'm not familiar with the history of bonus points but what other sport has them to this degree? Rugby has one additional point to encourage try scoring and to keep a the contest going as long as possible with a losing bonus point. The county championship has them, I'm assuming to encourage positive play and to make a 4-day draw actually mean something. But what professional one-day competition awards points for losing well? Net run rate makes sense in separating teams on the same points.

I suppose I start a game of cricket wanting to win. If you can't win, a bonus point or two doesn't make a difference, I've still lost. I don't want to win a league because the team below won more games but didn't bowl out a number 11 on a few occasions. I play cricket despite the long hours not because of them.

I'll give you an example of why I hate them so much. A few weeks ago we played the reigning champions. It rained half way through which delayed the start of our innings. They scored 190-odd. Our batsmen went off like a rocket and despite only having about 30 overs to actually chase them, we needed 9 off the final over with 1 wicket left. So did we go for a great win against the best team in the league? No, we blocked out and got a draw and bonus points. We battled hard all day and I felt like we had lost. We are currently bottom of the league, well done us.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 11, 2018, 01:44:34 PM
Clearly you haven't been on CBF long enough  :) When you have about 20 bats, 10 pairs of pads, 12 pairs of gloves and 6 helmets you'll find the cost does add up. Plus subs are £100 and £9 where I play and then travel costs...you see it does add up.

What's wrong with just sticking on some old mismatched pads from the kitbag and then borrowing the bat and gloves of the batsman you are replacing?


£100? Ouch. I play for 2 clubs, one is £30 (compulsory) and the other is £20 (voluntary).
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: HallamKeeper on July 11, 2018, 01:47:01 PM
A white t-shirt? That would be village!  ;)

I'm more curious where you can pay £5 a game match fees on a Saturday, all the clubs down my way are 2 or 3 times that!

While not as expensive as say joining a golf club, cricket isn't what I'd describe as cheap.

We have to pay:
Membership - £75 a year
Club shirt - £40
Match fee - £10 a week 

I don't want to add up how much I spend on cricket a year

To give you an idea of what hockey costs for a full season at my club (we aren't the cheapest locally but we are northern so still cheap):
£375 subs - no match fees.
£60 on kit but only every couple of seasons.
£150-£350 average on equipment each year (shoes, sticks, other bits of kit).

Not dissimilar but I'd say cricket is fairly cheap. What is football and rugby like? Anyone?
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: WalkingWicket37 on July 11, 2018, 01:48:09 PM
What's wrong with just sticking on some old mismatched pads from the kitbag and then borrowing the bat and gloves of the batsman you are replacing?

Literally everything...  :(
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 11, 2018, 01:54:38 PM
A white t-shirt? That would be village!  ;)

I'm more curious where you can pay £5 a game match fees on a Saturday, all the clubs down my way are 2 or 3 times that!

While not as expensive as say joining a golf club, cricket isn't what I'd describe as cheap.

We have to pay:
Membership - £75 a year
Club shirt - £40
Match fee - £10 a week 

I don't want to add up how much I spend on cricket a year


Ours is £30 membership and £5 subs, and we're in one of the most expensive areas of the country. Club t-shirts are £10, polo shirts are £20, cricket shirts £25, you can play in any of these, or in just any old white thing you can find. No-one is going to stop you.

Obviously you can splash the cash and buy all your own kit if you like, but its far from compulsory.  The stuff you actually need for cricket is very cheap.

Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 11, 2018, 01:59:30 PM


I'll give you an example of why I hate them so much. A few weeks ago we played the reigning champions. It rained half way through which delayed the start of our innings. They scored 190-odd. Our batsmen went off like a rocket and despite only having about 30 overs to actually chase them, we needed 9 off the final over with 1 wicket left. So did we go for a great win against the best team in the league? No, we blocked out and got a draw and bonus points. We battled hard all day and I felt like we had lost. We are currently bottom of the league, well done us.


Well either your bonus points system is poorly conceived, with far too many points given for the draw, or your club is extremely cowardly.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: HallamKeeper on July 11, 2018, 02:06:37 PM

Well either your bonus points system is poorly conceived, with far too many points given for the draw, or your club is extremely cowardly.

Both. We got 15 points (8 for the draw plus 7 for getting close). They got 16 points (8 for the draw and 8 for taking 9 wickets). We would have got 20 for the win. We wouldn't get the full 25 because we didn't bowl them out in their first innings. Another load of rubbish that I didn't mention. A team can turn up and bat defensively to deny the opposition 5 points for not bowling them out. You could literally not score a run but the winning team lose 5 points for not getting 10 wickets.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 11, 2018, 02:10:50 PM
The Kent league are suggesting a restructure where outside the top 3 divisions will be regionalised. I think its a good idea in some part but do worry it will make people gravitate towards teams in those 3 divisions to play the better standard?

We currently play 46 overs but i honestly dont see why it cant be 40. Maybe premier leagues might want to play 50 overs but i dont see why others need to?

So to give you a comparison, in East Angular, we have

The East Anglia Prem, which feeds from 3 cricket boards: Cambs&Hunts, Norfolk Alliance, and the two counties (which covers Suffolk & northern Essex).

There are 2 Cambs&Hunts premier leagues below the EAPL.

Then below that Cambs and Hunts split; in Cambridgeshire, the top 3 divisions that are county wide, then 2 leagues that are split into North and South, then 3 leagues that are split into North, South and West (not sure what happened to east)


The problem our 2nds have in the smaller divisions is that if 2 or 3 of the clubs are struggling, they often go a whole month without actually getting a game.





Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 11, 2018, 02:13:02 PM
Both. We got 15 points (8 for the draw plus 7 for getting close). They got 16 points (8 for the draw and 8 for taking 9 wickets). We would have got 20 for the win. We wouldn't get the full 25 because we didn't bowl them out in their first innings. Another load of rubbish that I didn't mention. A team can turn up and bat defensively to deny the opposition 5 points for not bowling them out. You could literally not score a run but the winning team lose 5 points for not getting 10 wickets.

Well, that's a ridiculous system. The majority of points on offer should just be for the win. Any bonus points should incentivise attacking cricket from both sides - batting teams should get points for scoring quickly, bowling teams for getting wickets.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: HallamKeeper on July 11, 2018, 02:19:53 PM
We are in Sheffield. Our 3/4/5s play in the Yorkshire and Derbyshire league. That is basically a Sheffield league with quite a few teams from Derbyshire within 5-10 miles of Sheffield. Not many games where you travel for more than 20 minutes. Quite a few clubs are leaving to join either the Derbyshire league or the South Yorkshire league. I think because of the standard being poor more than anything, some teams furthest north/south do have to travel a bit more.

The top league isn't a great standard, not bad but still basically village cricket.

Our 1/2s play in the Yorkshire Prem South and South Yorkshire Prem leagues, it seems like a lot of travel but the standard is very good.

I know I mention hockey a lot, but by comparison the lowest standard of hockey will still travel 1h45m to away games. Obviously a shorter game but that is the expectation of another sport.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: HallamKeeper on July 11, 2018, 02:20:45 PM
Well, that's a ridiculous system. The majority of points on offer should just be for the win. Any bonus points should incentivise attacking cricket from both sides - batting teams should get points for scoring quickly, bowling teams for getting wickets.

Maybe my hatred of bonus points is because of our stupid league not so much in general.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 11, 2018, 02:33:53 PM
We are in Sheffield. Our 3/4/5s play in the Yorkshire and Derbyshire league. That is basically a Sheffield league with quite a few teams from Derbyshire within 5-10 miles of Sheffield. Not many games where you travel for more than 20 minutes. Quite a few clubs are leaving to join either the Derbyshire league or the South Yorkshire league. I think because of the standard being poor more than anything, some teams furthest north/south do have to travel a bit more.

The top league isn't a great standard, not bad but still basically village cricket.

Our 1/2s play in the Yorkshire Prem South and South Yorkshire Prem leagues, it seems like a lot of travel but the standard is very good.

I know I mention hockey a lot, but by comparison the lowest standard of hockey will still travel 1h45m to away games. Obviously a shorter game but that is the expectation of another sport.

Yeah, I used to play league baseball - one of the big problems there is the distance between clubs of similar standards. 2 hours drive was not unusual. One of the reasons I gave it up (that and getting bored of having a sore arm).
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 11, 2018, 02:39:07 PM
Maybe my hatred of bonus points is because of our stupid league not so much in general.

Yeah, if you play in a win/lose league where 70% of the points available are just for winning, then teams never really think about bonus points until the result is a foregone conclusion anyway. They just add a little bit of extra motivation for both sides to finish strong when getting pumped/pumping your oppo rather than giving up/going through the motions.


Like in a 40 over game, if team A scores 280 and team B is 130-7 after 30 overs, then the result isn't in doubt, but you've at least got a mini game where team B want to score 30 more runs to get to 160 to get a 4rpo bonus point and team A want 3 more wickets.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: smilley792 on July 11, 2018, 02:54:51 PM
Maybe my hatred of bonus points is because of our stupid league not so much in general.

The game against us was a freak occurrence, and we only both ended up with such huge points as the game was technically incomplete(you never finished your innings)

If you was 9 runs short with 1 wicket left on a full game. Youíd have only got 8 bonus points and weíd have took 20 for the win.


Normal game is 20 for win if you donít bowl oppo out, 25 for winning if you do bowl them out.

Dependant on what the losing side do in the second innings depends on what bonus points they get. The closer percentage wise they get to first innings score the more points they get(encourages teams to not block and keep trying to score runs).
The more wickets they take the more bonus points  they get, so even if the oppo need ten of 20 overs, youíll still try to get a wicket or two more to up your points.


They also have a rule to stop opposition blocking up, if the oppo donít get 50% of the first innings score, they get nothing and the winning side get the extra 5 bowling points even if they donít bowl them out.



Regardless you should have won. Your openers innings was the best Iíve seen in a long time. Shame he didnít get a ton.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: InternalTraining on July 11, 2018, 03:04:24 PM
That would be great, but the Hampshire league has had 5 panel umpires resign since the start of the season! Finding people to actually do it would be the biggest challenge.

We were short on umpires last year. The league made a rule that each club would provide a number of leg umpires for (leg umpire) training, this is mandatory (compulsory). Now, this year, we have one regular umpire standing at the non-striker end and a leg umpire who belong to a neutral club officiating the game. This has alleviated the problem of umpire shortage.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: DorsetDan on July 11, 2018, 03:18:35 PM
What this also goes to highlight is variation in rules in cricket. Heaven forbid everyone actually plays the same game across the country like ever other sport
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 11, 2018, 03:42:26 PM
What this also goes to highlight is variation in rules in cricket. Heaven forbid everyone actually plays the same game across the country like ever other sport

TBF most sports have different versions, there are 5-aside vs 11-aside football and sometimes the rules are slightly different
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SD on July 11, 2018, 03:52:20 PM
The obvious ones for me are:

Earlier start times resulting in earlier finishes

Penalties for slow over rates

A quick turn around with no break for food

More T20 leagues for those unable to commit to giving up a whole day to play
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SD on July 11, 2018, 03:54:47 PM
Another way of speeding up the game in corporate games is to bowl all the overs from one end. Not sure where the idea of bowling overs from alternate ends came in but a good deal of time is spend with the fielders switching ends after each over
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: richthekeeper on July 11, 2018, 03:55:22 PM
We were short on umpires last year. The league made a rule that each club would provide a number of leg umpires for (leg umpire) training, this is mandatory (compulsory). Now, this year, we have one regular umpire standing at the non-striker end and a leg umpire who belong to a neutral club officiating the game. This has alleviated the problem of umpire shortage.

so the leg umpire doesn't get to play that day because he's stood at square leg at another game for 80 overs?!
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 11, 2018, 04:00:07 PM
Another way of speeding up the game in corporate games is to bowl all the overs from one end. Not sure where the idea of bowling overs from alternate ends came in but a good deal of time is spend with the fielders switching ends after each over


Hmmm... I think too much strategic nuance would be lost. Half the tactical battle is working out how to deal with/take advantage of different boundaries sizes, slopes, wind directions etc.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: InternalTraining on July 11, 2018, 04:01:50 PM
so the leg umpire doesn't get to play that day because he's stood at square leg at another game for 80 overs?!

Matches are held on both Saturday and Sunday. I have not heard of any complaints from leg umps re: missing games. Also, the regular umpires also play but in different divisions so technically the system accommodates umpiring duties and match availability.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: DorsetDan on July 11, 2018, 04:04:27 PM
TBF most sports have different versions, there are 5-aside vs 11-aside football and sometimes the rules are slightly different

You don't need a PhD to try and work out what you are playing for or if you can be arsed to play on a given day switching 11 to 5 football. That analogy is more akin to 50 vs 20 over cricket. The million permutations of rules, restrictions, bonus points, overs, overs per bowler, etc, etc between "one day" amateur leagues and matches is quite unique
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: HallamKeeper on July 11, 2018, 04:19:54 PM
The game against us was a freak occurrence, and we only both ended up with such huge points as the game was technically incomplete(you never finished your innings)

If you was 9 runs short with 1 wicket left on a full game. Youíd have only got 8 bonus points and weíd have took 20 for the win.


Normal game is 20 for win if you donít bowl oppo out, 25 for winning if you do bowl them out.

Dependant on what the losing side do in the second innings depends on what bonus points they get. The closer percentage wise they get to first innings score the more points they get(encourages teams to not block and keep trying to score runs).
The more wickets they take the more bonus points  they get, so even if the oppo need ten of 20 overs, youíll still try to get a wicket or two more to up your points.


They also have a rule to stop opposition blocking up, if the oppo donít get 50% of the first innings score, they get nothing and the winning side get the extra 5 bowling points even if they donít bowl them out.



Regardless you should have won. Your openers innings was the best Iíve seen in a long time. Shame he didnít get a ton.

Sorry, I forgot to mention that it was an incomplete game. I still can't believe we didn't go for it. I doubt we will ever get a chance to beat you again!!

I hate it when I go in at 8 or 9 and someone tells me I have to bat sensibly to get another 20 runs. Everyone else gets to bat how they want but then you have to bore yourself to get a few points in a league where the top teams have 300 plus points at the end of the season.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: WalkingWicket37 on July 11, 2018, 04:21:17 PM
Matches are held on both Saturday and Sunday. I have not heard of any complaints from leg umps re: missing games. Also, the regular umpires also play but in different divisions so technically the system accommodates umpiring duties and match availability.

We have enough issues getting sides out one day a week.
There's no way we'd be able to get people give up half their weekend to stand at square leg for 80 overs in a game they have no connection to!
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 11, 2018, 04:40:09 PM
You don't need a PhD to try and work out what you are playing for or if you can be arsed to play on a given day switching 11 to 5 football. That analogy is more akin to 50 vs 20 over cricket. The million permutations of rules, restrictions, bonus points, overs, overs per bowler, etc, etc between "one day" amateur leagues and matches is quite unique

As long as the skipper understands, the players can be safely oblivious. I've gone out to field before now not knowing how many overs I was going to be out there for.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: InternalTraining on July 11, 2018, 05:05:03 PM
We have enough issues getting sides out one day a week.
There's no way we'd be able to get people give up half their weekend to stand at square leg for 80 overs in a game they have no connection to!

That is unfortunate.

I have an ex-club mate who plays in a higher division and I see him ump in 2-3 of my games every season. There is no cricket here and people do this for the love of the game. Basically, we accept that we won't have any cricket if people don't make some sacrifices and the leg umpire policy spreads out the burden across all clubs in the league.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: RPC/Blueroom Cricket - Adie on July 11, 2018, 05:29:36 PM
Also I agree with @mattw on the 2xT20 format.

We played this in an inter-club friendly last season and will do again this year. Itís a fantastic format which brings the excitement of a T20 with the tactics of a test match. Rather than playing two separate games we just play a two innings game of 20 overs per side. Itís absolutely brilliant and as a batsman you get to have two goes :)

We play that format in the 2020 county cup final and none of our team like it. One bad innings either way still decides it so usually the second dig is a formality for one team or another.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: RPC/Blueroom Cricket - Adie on July 11, 2018, 05:52:12 PM
I suppose it depends on the level you play at. You rarely see a score over 230 in our league. 230 is daunting and we would always have a go and then when we get to 7 or 8 down people start working out how many for an extra point and the game dies. The bowling team know they have won but need all wickets for full points and the batsmen shut up shop and try to eek out another 10 or 20 runs for another point. It is boring to watch and boring to do.

The other thing is that a team could score 300 and the opposition knowing they won't get it start batting like they are saving a test to earn a few points and deny full points to a team who are clearly better. In two games one team could score 350 runs and their opponents could finish on 130/8. In another match a team could get 120 runs and bowl their opposition out for 119. The winners of the second match get 20% more points that the winners of the first. Which game has the most comprehensive victory?

Maybe it is just me but I would prefer to end a game quickly if you are getting a hiding. Not many people playing a game of football 8-0 down want to play the last 10 minutes.

If you canít TAKE ten wickets youíre not Ďobviously betterí.. you just batted better.. this is the funny thing with win lose.. itís gone from being a bat and bowling all round team to simply Ďif we smash 300+ more often and not the oppos will more often than not fail to chase so we are obviously betterí.. if you allow a team to decide Ďactually, we arenít good enough to get 300 but youíre also mot good enough to take my wicketí.. actually, both sides deserve the draw

After all.. itís all fun if youíre the team who slaps runs for fun . Itís not fun if a team racks up a monster score but you know they arenít good enough to take your wicket..simply rely on you giving it away slogging.. thatís also just as Boring..

This Ďhave a bit of fun, hit outí isnít what some players play for so itís not fun to go out hitting . The game is there so all types of players have a role.. what we have now is a generation who want to have a format purely for one style of player then we wonder why people are walking away
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: RPC/Blueroom Cricket - Adie on July 11, 2018, 06:11:08 PM
Iíd have two league structures on a saturday

1
2020 pyramid system , starting in local areas and generally ending in counties. Then maybe have a regional knockout in Aug/sept for higher quality and longer travel. Use coloured kit etc etc

2) top 5 div of a system will be 50 over Cricket. No Ďdrawí in the traditional sence as people donít like the word draw.. however, Iíd balance the bonus points so you have to TAKE wickets to win as many points as simply battering a side. Remove defensive economy bowling which is what the current win lose promotes.

So you get 5 pts for scoring more runs
1 point per 2 wickets taken
Bonus 5 for taking 10 wickets
Not losing all your wickets batting first 0 pts
Not losing all your wickets second dig, 1pt per wicket

This would mean there is more reward for taking wickets than mashing runs. Add in a few bonus pts for skittling a team for say 120 or less and maybe a bonus for declaring and then winning (say bonus 5 for each).. oppos get any unused overs

Min 5 Bowlers to be used with min 7 overs per bowler ..

No tea break, 10min turnaround
Over rates of say 17 overs an hour (one umpire per game, club umpire or player at square leg to spread more neutral umpires) .. punish with big run penalties and capt bans for offending

Zero tolerance on sledging .. itís more of a turn off than benefit now so get rid. You wouldnít say that abuse to my face at work so why at a hobby.. get reported.. ban.. repeat offence .. double.. keep going until you learn

Zero tolerance on abuse towards umpires..  instant 10 game ban for anything said at , to or about the umpire.

Sledging in this would be anything, at, to or about the batsmen or their team. Keep it about your own team only.

Start at 11 and finish about 1730 give or take

Lower than 5 divs.. 40over Cricket but same pts.. bowler parts down to 6 overs min
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: t2ylo on July 11, 2018, 06:19:14 PM
Free to air cricket - surely India series this summer is a 'crown jewel' event - people can't play what they don't see

ECB to instruct top down structure not wait for leagues to reform & restructure.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: edge on July 12, 2018, 06:24:26 AM
Spreading umpires out is a good idea if maybe not one that would help participation - playing with no neutral umpires does my head in at times. Would be a big improvement to a league to have more games covered.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: enlightened on July 12, 2018, 06:51:43 AM
I don't know the answer but some random opinions......
- I love batting out for a draw when the opposition has the upper hand, almost feels like a win and gives some purpose to batting second when you're facing a huge total or have had an early collapse
- Earlier starts make sense but some people do still work on Saturday mornings
- Two innings 20:20 probably means that some people get a decent chance to bat every week whilst others have to go in for 2 overs and swing at everything ..... twice (not my idea of fun)
- Cricket needs to be on terrestrial TV
- 30 x 8 ball overs (rather than 40 x 6) might speed things up a little
- Having a pyramid where overs increase as standard increases is difficult..... players start playing 20:20 which requires significantly different approach to a 40 over game .... how do they transition?
- Based upon the people that I know that play cricket (and I'm at the older end of the spectrum) reducing the number of overs would, in the short term, lead to many players leaving the game
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: HallamKeeper on July 12, 2018, 08:30:34 AM
If you canít TAKE ten wickets youíre not Ďobviously betterí.. you just batted better.. this is the funny thing with win lose.. itís gone from being a bat and bowling all round team to simply Ďif we smash 300+ more often and not the oppos will more often than not fail to chase so we are obviously betterí.. if you allow a team to decide Ďactually, we arenít good enough to get 300 but youíre also mot good enough to take my wicketí.. actually, both sides deserve the draw

After all.. itís all fun if youíre the team who slaps runs for fun . Itís not fun if a team racks up a monster score but you know they arenít good enough to take your wicket..simply rely on you giving it away slogging.. thatís also just as Boring..

This Ďhave a bit of fun, hit outí isnít what some players play for so itís not fun to go out hitting . The game is there so all types of players have a role.. what we have now is a generation who want to have a format purely for one style of player then we wonder why people are walking away

I should point out that 300 is not something that happens very often at all. It is usually scores between 130 and 230. You will often have teams bowled out in the first innings or 8 or 9 wickets down. Then what happens is a team will chase, say 180 and lose early wickets, so decide whether to keep going knowing they will probably lose or they can block out for 15 overs. I would argue that if you concede 300 runs, bowlers aren't very good. We play on very helpful wickets on the whole with slow outfields. Most teams at our standard are far better bowling teams than batting.

Ultimately, for me, sport is a contest to find out who is best. I don't think a bonus point system can accurately judge how close a game is, conditions can change making it easier or harder for the second innings. I don't have a huge problem with bonus points for getting within 90-95% of the target or getting a team 8 or 9 down in a chase but if someone scores 100 runs, you shouldn't be rewarded for getting 50-80 runs.

My point in relation to this topic is that the current game lasts too long. A lot of time is wasted. Watching a team block out for 15 overs is not enjoyable, even your own team, because the tiny reward of a point isn't really worth it. Blocking out and all of that is fine in a multi-day game but not a 40 over match. I'm not sure I'd like to see a football team who are 3-0 down take the ball into the corner for the last 10 minutes so they don't concede more goals.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: Boondougal on July 12, 2018, 12:28:58 PM
Some great points in all of this and it just shows how hard it is to get a universal approach that works... even just for the majority.

One thing that seems to crop up a lot in peoples thinking is to regionalise the leagues... personally i really donít see how this works... yes you might travel a bit less for games but the likelihood of a fair contest is surely greatly reduced? I play in a developement league and they are talking about regionalising the bottom 2 divisions... but all that will happen is the 5/6 teams that are genuine developement sides will end up being split up and instead of having at least half their games a season where they have a genuine competitive chance it will be reduced to 2/3 games a year.. with the other games just ending up in a runs fest for the opposition.  A good game of cricket is about a competitive match (no matter what the length), involvement with Bat and ball and a team spirit. We need to focus on those things... especially in the lower divisions. I am an advocate of 40 over games att he level i play (maybe even 35) i would back a midday start (we start at 1 and play 45) but more over i would support 8/10 over maximum overs for bowlers to ensure you always use 5, i would ditch whites and introduce a more colourful approach to the kit.... get the flashing stumps and bails out there and try and find ways of rewarding teams for promoting youth... not penalisingthem for not having a youth system.... Find ways of providing club assistance when X% of games played had a 20% under 18 presence... i am sure we could do a more carrot than stick approach in order to promote the inclusion of youth.... it might not have to be youth, it could be players who are new to the game even.

Iím also a fan of win/loose cricket.... i much prefer it and at the standard i play at it tends to work out like that anyway...the other thing i would also welcome is a more mixed season when it came to the format on a Sat, iím Not too sure on the 2xt20 innings format, but i would welcome splitting the season between a short form and a long form, smaller divisions could play the same person 3 times, larger leagues could play each other twice across 2 formats.... i think a week in week out leave the house at 11 get back at 8/9 is not sustainable for people, if every second week you knew you would be finished for 5/6 participation (or availability at least) over the entirety of the season would be improved... it would also be a great way of getting people to ďtryĒ the game on a sat... just play in the short form.

Just an idea.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SD on July 12, 2018, 03:14:40 PM
I don't support regionalising leagues.  From experience, it leads to far too many mismatches and far too few competitive games of cricket which doesn't encourage people to want to turn out on a Saturday
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: RPC/Blueroom Cricket - Adie on July 12, 2018, 06:13:53 PM
I should point out that 300 is not something that happens very often at all. It is usually scores between 130 and 230. You will often have teams bowled out in the first innings or 8 or 9 wickets down. Then what happens is a team will chase, say 180 and lose early wickets, so decide whether to keep going knowing they will probably lose or they can block out for 15 overs. I would argue that if you concede 300 runs, bowlers aren't very good. We play on very helpful wickets on the whole with slow outfields. Most teams at our standard are far better bowling teams than batting.

Ultimately, for me, sport is a contest to find out who is best. I don't think a bonus point system can accurately judge how close a game is, conditions can change making it easier or harder for the second innings. I don't have a huge problem with bonus points for getting within 90-95% of the target or getting a team 8 or 9 down in a chase but if someone scores 100 runs, you shouldn't be rewarded for getting 50-80 runs.

My point in relation to this topic is that the current game lasts too long. A lot of time is wasted. Watching a team block out for 15 overs is not enjoyable, even your own team, because the tiny reward of a point isn't really worth it. Blocking out and all of that is fine in a multi-day game but not a 40 over match. I'm not sure I'd like to see a football team who are 3-0 down take the ball into the corner for the last 10 minutes so they don't concede more goals.

But itís just as boring if you know you canít get the total and gifting your wicket away ?!?! Remember itís a game for 22 players not just the 11 who biff the most runs. If you canít take ten wickets you donít deserve to win and your not Ďthe bestí . Youíre just the best batting side
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: richthekeeper on July 12, 2018, 08:36:26 PM
I should point out that 300 is not something that happens very often at all. It is usually scores between 130 and 230. You will often have teams bowled out in the first innings or 8 or 9 wickets down. Then what happens is a team will chase, say 180 and lose early wickets, so decide whether to keep going knowing they will probably lose or they can block out for 15 overs. I would argue that if you concede 300 runs, bowlers aren't very good. We play on very helpful wickets on the whole with slow outfields. Most teams at our standard are far better bowling teams than batting.

Ultimately, for me, sport is a contest to find out who is best. I don't think a bonus point system can accurately judge how close a game is, conditions can change making it easier or harder for the second innings. I don't have a huge problem with bonus points for getting within 90-95% of the target or getting a team 8 or 9 down in a chase but if someone scores 100 runs, you shouldn't be rewarded for getting 50-80 runs.

My point in relation to this topic is that the current game lasts too long. A lot of time is wasted. Watching a team block out for 15 overs is not enjoyable, even your own team, because the tiny reward of a point isn't really worth it. Blocking out and all of that is fine in a multi-day game but not a 40 over match. I'm not sure I'd like to see a football team who are 3-0 down take the ball into the corner for the last 10 minutes so they don't concede more goals.

This is my league down to a tee
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: edge on July 13, 2018, 05:21:29 AM
Re. win/lose cricket - earlier this season a new player at our club looked surprisingly confused and disappointed after we defended our score with about 10 to spare in a high scoring game, wondering why we were all so happy when he was gutted we could only get the draw after putting on a big score! Cheered him up no end when we explained we'd won haha.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 13, 2018, 08:26:05 AM
Free to air cricket - surely India series this summer is a 'crown jewel' event - people can't play what they don't see

ECB to instruct top down structure not wait for leagues to reform & restructure.

FTA cricket is the elephant in the room. The big problem most clubs face is the lack of players between 14 (when they start to drop off) and 25 (the last cohort to remember cricket on FTA tv).


The ECB should (No Swearing Please) off. The last thing we need is those money-hungry morons sticking their oar in. I strongly recommend all leagues disaffiliating from the ECB and starting their own organisation.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: HallamKeeper on July 13, 2018, 11:43:44 AM
But itís just as boring if you know you canít get the total and gifting your wicket away ?!?! Remember itís a game for 22 players not just the 11 who biff the most runs. If you canít take ten wickets you donít deserve to win and your not Ďthe bestí . Youíre just the best batting side

Surely if your bowlers are better they can restrict the opposition's batsmen to a lower score by getting them out or just bowling tight? If you want to scratch around and not go for a total go ahead but I don't see why you should get any points. In our league you still win the game if you score more runs, you just enter a complex bonus point system afterwards. You can score 300 and bowl a team out but they still get points if they score a certain percentage of the runs. How have they earnt them?

If you remove the chance of points for scoring fewer runs, then the opposition have a choice of how they want to bat all game. If you want to get your moneys worth and go at 1 an over that's fine or if you want to play some shots you can, without getting told off by your captain for missing out on a bonus point if you get out.

It's clear we aren't going to agree on this. Maybe our leagues are different. In my experience the bonus points only come into people's thoughts when the result is all but certain and then people change how they play, negatively in most cases. Maybe in leagues with more capable captains and thoughtful teams bonus points add an extra layer of interest to dull games.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: RPC/Blueroom Cricket - Adie on July 13, 2018, 12:35:35 PM
Surely if your bowlers are better they can restrict the opposition's batsmen to a lower score by getting them out or just bowling tight? If you want to scratch around and not go for a total go ahead but I don't see why you should get any points. In our league you still win the game if you score more runs, you just enter a complex bonus point system afterwards. You can score 300 and bowl a team out but they still get points if they score a certain percentage of the runs. How have they earnt them?

If you remove the chance of points for scoring fewer runs, then the opposition have a choice of how they want to bat all game. If you want to get your moneys worth and go at 1 an over that's fine or if you want to play some shots you can, without getting told off by your captain for missing out on a bonus point if you get out.

It's clear we aren't going to agree on this. Maybe our leagues are different. In my experience the bonus points only come into people's thoughts when the result is all but certain and then people change how they play, negatively in most cases. Maybe in leagues with more capable captains and thoughtful teams bonus points add an extra layer of interest to dull games.

Itís more about providing a game which enables different playing styles (both batting and bowling) to take part. Your theory rewards hitters and economy dry bowling. Where will the more technical players bat ? Where will the erratic but more wicket taking players or attacking spinners bowl ? Where will skippers and Bowlers learn the arts of Ďtakingí a wicket rather Han just sitting back waiting for the batter to give it away.

Your game will literally remove players from the game as not every can or wants to just hit and not every bowler can or wants to bowl dry. You also remove many tactical layers to the game which is part of what makes Cricket enjoyable. Otherwise, just play baseball where itís smash as many balls as you can.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: stevat on July 13, 2018, 01:02:32 PM
There's a guy on my team that averages about 80 this season, about 50 per innings with the odd red inker thrown in.  I'd guess he hits one or two boundaries per innings, is always rotating the strike with nudges and nurdles.  His strike rate is above a run a ball despite the lack of boundaries to negate the dots - just there is virtually no dots when he bats, very good at finding gaps, but pushes the ball into them rather than hits it.  He's absolute proof that there is more than one way to do it, but he's great to watch bat, technically brilliant against all bowlers - indeed his boundaries tend to come against quicks where he doesn't need to put pace onto the ball.

Has to be room in the game for players like that.  Should be room in the game for all types of players.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: HallamKeeper on July 13, 2018, 01:16:02 PM
Itís more about providing a game which enables different playing styles (both batting and bowling) to take part. Your theory rewards hitters and economy dry bowling. Where will the more technical players bat ? Where will the erratic but more wicket taking players or attacking spinners bowl ? Where will skippers and Bowlers learn the arts of Ďtakingí a wicket rather Han just sitting back waiting for the batter to give it away.

Your game will literally remove players from the game as not every can or wants to just hit and not every bowler can or wants to bowl dry. You also remove many tactical layers to the game which is part of what makes Cricket enjoyable. Otherwise, just play baseball where itís smash as many balls as you can.

How do you win a game? By stopping a team scoring as many runs as you can manage.

How do you get a decent total or chase one? By batting well.

How do you bat well? Many ways. Big hitting, classy stroke play, hard running, patient play.

How do you restrict a total or chase? By bowling well.

How do you bowl well? By being accurate and forcing the run rate up which induces mistakes or by bowling aggressively and taking early wickets removing the opposition's best batsmen.

Cricket is a battle between bat and ball and ultimately if you aren't better than the other team when you combine the two you should lose. Personal pride should be enough for a player when there is nothing to lose in a match. It is their choice how they play. If they want to score enough to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat that is great. It would feature during a lunch break on sky if it was a pro game. If they want to play in a more conservative way to reach a smaller total that's fine too, but it isn't trying to win and it isn't brave or worthy of anything other than a small moral victory that you didn't get bowled out.

If you aren't good enough to beat the opposition, by all means enjoy your day in your own way but your team shouldn't be rewarded for not being as good as the other.

Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 13, 2018, 02:44:32 PM
Bonus points are:

1) a good way to separate teams in the league with the same win/loss record in a fair and transparent manner
2) a good way to incentivise and reward attacking cricket (taking wickets, scoring runs)
3) a good way to add interest to the end of one-sided games once the result is effectively decided


Bonus points should not:
1) make up be the majority of points on offer
2) incentivise teams to play negative cricket or give up on trying to win
3) be a factor in whether to bat or bowl first


Can we all agree on that?
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: RPC/Blueroom Cricket - Adie on July 13, 2018, 03:18:42 PM
How do you win a game? By stopping a team scoring as many runs as you can manage.

How do you get a decent total or chase one? By batting well.

How do you bat well? Many ways. Big hitting, classy stroke play, hard running, patient play.

How do you restrict a total or chase? By bowling well.

How do you bowl well? By being accurate and forcing the run rate up which induces mistakes or by bowling aggressively and taking early wickets removing the opposition's best batsmen.

Cricket is a battle between bat and ball and ultimately if you aren't better than the other team when you combine the two you should lose. Personal pride should be enough for a player when there is nothing to lose in a match. It is their choice how they play. If they want to score enough to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat that is great. It would feature during a lunch break on sky if it was a pro game. If they want to play in a more conservative way to reach a smaller total that's fine too, but it isn't trying to win and it isn't brave or worthy of anything other than a small moral victory that you didn't get bowled out.

If you aren't good enough to beat the opposition, by all means enjoy your day in your own way but your team shouldn't be rewarded for not being as good as the other.

Sigh

Enjoy playing 2020 In a few years with fewer people playing and one trip pony teams
You miss the point of having different things available. Sure, so youíve hit your way to a large total.. you come out and bowl nice and tidy outside off stump .. great.. run rate at 8 an over.. youíre not taking 10wixkets to win the game .. youíre simply restricting runs knowing theyíll have to go for it. There is immense skill in economy bowing but there is also skill in having to actually take wickets .. attacking bowling and fielding etc

If you simply go towards what we are heading towards you will lose all those variations in games, the different skills needed and catered for. Depends how simplistic you like your Cricket I suppose but your way will see the end of a load of players and youngsters arenít all happy hitters.. a lot canít and donít and so drop out the game as there is no place for them.. same with bowlers.. if they canít bowl tight theyíll be dropped and os leave the game

So, you end up still having participation issues .. and end up with a shorter or simpler game .. there is 2020 for pure hitting  at the amateur level, all we have is Saturday Cricket to replicate the longer form skills
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 13, 2018, 03:41:35 PM
Sigh

Enjoy playing 2020 In a few years with fewer people playing and one trip pony teams
You miss the point of having different things available. Sure, so youíve hit your way to a large total.. you come out and bowl nice and tidy outside off stump .. great.. run rate at 8 an over.. youíre not taking 10wixkets to win the game .. youíre simply restricting runs knowing theyíll have to go for it. There is immense skill in economy bowing but there is also skill in having to actually take wickets .. attacking bowling and fielding etc

If you simply go towards what we are heading towards you will lose all those variations in games, the different skills needed and catered for. Depends how simplistic you like your Cricket I suppose but your way will see the end of a load of players and youngsters arenít all happy hitters.. a lot canít and donít and so drop out the game as there is no place for them.. same with bowlers.. if they canít bowl tight theyíll be dropped and os leave the game

So, you end up still having participation issues .. and end up with a shorter or simpler game .. there is 2020 for pure hitting  at the amateur level, all we have is Saturday Cricket to replicate the longer form skills


Even in win/lose cricket, there is still clearly a place for the defensive batsman or the wicket-taking but uneconomical bowler. As a worst case scenario, maybe they need to drop a couple of leagues for their skills to be appreciated. Its not unusual in lower-league cricket for a 40* or a 5-60 to be the defining match-winning contribution.



We play amateur T20, and its a fantastic game. Its definitely not a game of "pure hitting". You see occasional 6's, but mostly its a game of orthodox strokeplay and aggressive running.

Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: RPC/Blueroom Cricket - Adie on July 13, 2018, 03:47:55 PM

Even in win/lose cricket, there is still clearly a place for the defensive batsman or the wicket-taking but uneconomical bowler. As a worst case scenario, maybe they need to drop a couple of leagues for their skills to be appreciated. Its not unusual in lower-league cricket for a 40* or a 5-60 to be the defining match-winning contribution.



We play amateur T20, and its a fantastic game. Its definitely not a game of "pure hitting". You see occasional 6's, but mostly its a game of orthodox strokeplay and aggressive running.

2020is the game for hitting . Itís what is there for. Hence why a certain type of player is rarely seen playing it as they just donít fit in. If league Saturday stuff goes the same way those same players (young and old) will fall out the game. Hence, why this belief that everyone loves attacking st all costs Cricket isnít quite accurate and that style will not get more in or keep people in the game . Having different formats with different skill sets will keep everyone happy as there is a place for all then
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 13, 2018, 04:10:17 PM
2020is the game for hitting . Itís what is there for. Hence why a certain type of player is rarely seen playing it as they just donít fit in. If league Saturday stuff goes the same way those same players (young and old) will fall out the game. Hence, why this belief that everyone loves attacking st all costs Cricket isnít quite accurate and that style will not get more in or keep people in the game . Having different formats with different skill sets will keep everyone happy as there is a place for all then

Do you actually play T20 cricket or are these just ideas you've heard on the telly?
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: RPC/Blueroom Cricket - Adie on July 13, 2018, 04:34:06 PM
Do you actually play T20 cricket or are these just ideas you've heard on the telly?

Sadly I do, generally only when required rather than wanting to play regularly so yeah, I know 2020 thanks

170-200 is becoming regular

Also, youíre still missing the point that you want a format and system that allows different types of players to pay the game. If you donít, the game WIlL continue to lose players as there wonít be a place for them. If thatís what we want then fine, but Iíd hope we want as many people playing as we can and cater for different styles within the format. Hey, it wonít bother me either way as Iím 35 so my time is done (after only 7 years but I started late) but there are a lot of kids out there who canít play or are dropped from their clubs because they arenít hitters
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 13, 2018, 04:48:38 PM
Not round here its not, and this is probably the T20 capital of the country with up to 30 games being played within 5 miles of the city centre on an average summer evening. You must play on pitches with very short boundaries or something.

140 is par (our average score batting first over the past 5 years is 139, and we defend that 67% of the time). Hit 160 and you've won the game 99 times out of 100 (we've chased down 160+ once, and it was 9 years ago now and in a game with no retirements. which is non-standard). If you bowl really well, you might be able to defend 120-130.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 13, 2018, 04:51:44 PM
Sadly I do, generally only when required rather than wanting to play regularly so yeah, I know 2020 thanks

170-200 is becoming regular

Also, youíre still missing the point that you want a format and system that allows different types of players to pay the game. If you donít, the game WIlL continue to lose players as there wonít be a place for them. If thatís what we want then fine, but Iíd hope we want as many people playing as we can and cater for different styles within the format. Hey, it wonít bother me either way as Iím 35 so my time is done (after only 7 years but I started late) but there are a lot of kids out there who canít play or are dropped from their clubs because they arenít hitters


"Also, you�re still missing the point that you want a format and system that allows different types of players to pay the game"

I'm not missing the point at all. A mixture of 20 and 40 over win/lose cricket offers opportunities for literally every type of player from blockers to bashers, from military medium to mystery spinners.

I enjoy declaration games as much as the next man, but not everyone has time for them nowadays.

Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: thecord on July 13, 2018, 05:17:27 PM
@SLA who do you play for?
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: HallamKeeper on July 14, 2018, 07:56:54 AM
Bonus points are:

1) a good way to separate teams in the league with the same win/loss record in a fair and transparent manner
2) a good way to incentivise and reward attacking cricket (taking wickets, scoring runs)
3) a good way to add interest to the end of one-sided games once the result is effectively decided


Bonus points should not:
1) make up be the majority of points on offer
2) incentivise teams to play negative cricket or give up on trying to win
3) be a factor in whether to bat or bowl first


Can we all agree on that?

I'm sorry but I don't agree. In some games they might do in others (most, in our league) they do not.

If you want to know who is the better team between one who took 7 wickets in a game vs a team who only got 6 wickets in another is not fair or transparent. A team who were easily winning might shove their 9, 10, 11 in to have a net as it doesn't make a different to their points total, but the losing team pick up cheap bonus points. A better way to separate teams would be head to head results and then net run rate.

I'd love to know which teams think taking fewer wickets or scoring fewer runs is an advantage. Yes you can bowl wide outside of off to a packed off-side field but that is still a legitimate way to take wickets when you have scoreboard pressure. You can't bowl down leg or use too much short stuff anyway.

If you really want that them, have a single point for taking all 10 wickets in either innings. 1 point for get 90% of the runs or getting the runs with 4 overs to spare (40 over cricket). 20 points for a win and 10 for a draw/tie/cancellation. Maximum 2 bonus points available per team.

Some people seem convinced that scrapping bonus points will suddenly enable teams to score a huge amount of runs. I'm pretty sure everyone is trying to do that but usually fail. The bonus point system in our league means that a team can block out to deny a comfortably better team 5 points, which is 20% of the total available. That is usually a motivation for some players. They don't actually try to score many runs to gain points. They like to spoil someone's day rather than achieve something positive for themselves.

I think bonus points add an unnecessary layer of complexity in an already complex game. They promote stodgy, back-to-the-wall batting at the end where the emphasis is on denying to opposition points rather than gaining your own. They draw out an already long day (which discourages participation) and they often mean lower order batsmen lose the freedom to play how they want. They are pressured into blocking and scraping a few extra runs instead of having a go at playing some nice cricket. Not everyone of course can or does want to do that but the choice is there.

Using net run rate as a separator in the league standings is enough to encourage a team not to jack it in too early. If you get thrashed, it will significantly harm your NRR. The point of NRR is that it doesn't come into play until two teams are on the same points from the results of their games. A team can just aim to get their bonus points without ever really trying to win a game and end up higher in the league that a team who actually wants to participate in a contest.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: six and out on July 14, 2018, 08:29:09 AM
Surely the key here is that it has to be the right bonus point structure whether you are playing win lose or draw cricket. If the structure is wrong then they promote bad cricket, if it is correct then it can be a good wag of keeping a game going and differiantiating between teams.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: RPC/Blueroom Cricket - Adie on July 14, 2018, 10:52:42 PM
I'm sorry but I don't agree. In some games they might do in others (most, in our league) they do not.

If you want to know who is the better team between one who took 7 wickets in a game vs a team who only got 6 wickets in another is not fair or transparent. A team who were easily winning might shove their 9, 10, 11 in to have a net as it doesn't make a different to their points total, but the losing team pick up cheap bonus points. A better way to separate teams would be head to head results and then net run rate.

I'd love to know which teams think taking fewer wickets or scoring fewer runs is an advantage. Yes you can bowl wide outside of off to a packed off-side field but that is still a legitimate way to take wickets when you have scoreboard pressure. You can't bowl down leg or use too much short stuff anyway.

If you really want that them, have a single point for taking all 10 wickets in either innings. 1 point for get 90% of the runs or getting the runs with 4 overs to spare (40 over cricket). 20 points for a win and 10 for a draw/tie/cancellation. Maximum 2 bonus points available per team.

Some people seem convinced that scrapping bonus points will suddenly enable teams to score a huge amount of runs. I'm pretty sure everyone is trying to do that but usually fail. The bonus point system in our league means that a team can block out to deny a comfortably better team 5 points, which is 20% of the total available. That is usually a motivation for some players. They don't actually try to score many runs to gain points. They like to spoil someone's day rather than achieve something positive for themselves.

I think bonus points add an unnecessary layer of complexity in an already complex game. They promote stodgy, back-to-the-wall batting at the end where the emphasis is on denying to opposition points rather than gaining your own. They draw out an already long day (which discourages participation) and they often mean lower order batsmen lose the freedom to play how they want. They are pressured into blocking and scraping a few extra runs instead of having a go at playing some nice cricket. Not everyone of course can or does want to do that but the choice is there.

Using net run rate as a separator in the league standings is enough to encourage a team not to jack it in too early. If you get thrashed, it will significantly harm your NRR. The point of NRR is that it doesn't come into play until two teams are on the same points from the results of their games. A team can just aim to get their bonus points without ever really trying to win a game and end up higher in the league that a team who actually wants to participate in a contest.

Your way harms participation just as much as youíve just alienated a whole section of batter and bowlers . Not everyone wants to biff

Remember, a balanced team can TAKE 10 wickets to win!! Not Just bowl dry and rely on run rate. If you ca t take wickets you donít deserve to win as youíre not the Better team . You e just batted better
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: HallamKeeper on July 15, 2018, 09:31:10 PM
Why do you have to biff to get a good score? How does a good bowling attack get smashed around the park routinely? A balanced team will have different types of batsmen and bowlers. Together with good captaincy and fielding they should beat a team of biffers only interested in scoring lots of runs with no interstate in taking wickets (for some unknown reason).

We tied our game at the weekend against a team, like ours with a good range of different batting styles. It was a great game as we both went for the win. The only time bonus points were mentioned was when they lost a few wickets and thought theyíd fall short. Thankfully they carried on playing PROPER CRICKET SHOTS and scored 11 in the last over. They earned far more points by tying. If they had blocked out for bonus points I wouldnít be able to describe it as anything other than cowardice.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: FattusCattus on July 15, 2018, 09:44:28 PM
I think Zinger Boxes would bring the crowds back. Imagine the light show every time you got hit in the nuts!!!
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: InternalTraining on July 16, 2018, 12:16:05 AM
hehehee
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: enlightened on July 16, 2018, 06:26:01 AM
My favourite form of cricket is Test cricket - if that ever dies then cricket will be a poorer game because of it - there should be some form of club cricket that mirrors the outcomes that are possible from a Test match. Win / lose cricket would dramatically reduce my enjoyment of the game.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 16, 2018, 09:11:21 AM
I'm sorry but I don't agree. In some games they might do in others (most, in our league) they do not.

If you want to know who is the better team between one who took 7 wickets in a game vs a team who only got 6 wickets in another is not fair or transparent. A team who were easily winning might shove their 9, 10, 11 in to have a net as it doesn't make a different to their points total, but the losing team pick up cheap bonus points. A better way to separate teams would be head to head results and then net run rate.

I'd love to know which teams think taking fewer wickets or scoring fewer runs is an advantage. Yes you can bowl wide outside of off to a packed off-side field but that is still a legitimate way to take wickets when you have scoreboard pressure. You can't bowl down leg or use too much short stuff anyway.

If you really want that them, have a single point for taking all 10 wickets in either innings. 1 point for get 90% of the runs or getting the runs with 4 overs to spare (40 over cricket). 20 points for a win and 10 for a draw/tie/cancellation. Maximum 2 bonus points available per team.

Some people seem convinced that scrapping bonus points will suddenly enable teams to score a huge amount of runs. I'm pretty sure everyone is trying to do that but usually fail. The bonus point system in our league means that a team can block out to deny a comfortably better team 5 points, which is 20% of the total available. That is usually a motivation for some players. They don't actually try to score many runs to gain points. They like to spoil someone's day rather than achieve something positive for themselves.

I think bonus points add an unnecessary layer of complexity in an already complex game. They promote stodgy, back-to-the-wall batting at the end where the emphasis is on denying to opposition points rather than gaining your own. They draw out an already long day (which discourages participation) and they often mean lower order batsmen lose the freedom to play how they want. They are pressured into blocking and scraping a few extra runs instead of having a go at playing some nice cricket. Not everyone of course can or does want to do that but the choice is there.

Using net run rate as a separator in the league standings is enough to encourage a team not to jack it in too early. If you get thrashed, it will significantly harm your NRR. The point of NRR is that it doesn't come into play until two teams are on the same points from the results of their games. A team can just aim to get their bonus points without ever really trying to win a game and end up higher in the league that a team who actually wants to participate in a contest.



We seem to be talking at cross-purposes. You are arguing against a specific type of bonus point system that rewards defensive batting, but that is not the type of bonus points system I am arguing in favour of.


Ironically, NRR is a negative measure because it encourages defensive bowling rather than attacking bowling because it rewards economy rather than wickets. Bonus points for runs and wickets work better!


PS: I've never known a cricket team to even consider how many points the opposition are getting. Most are purely concerned about their own points, which means they need to attack, both with ball and bat.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: DorsetDan on July 16, 2018, 10:44:23 AM
The game we play should reflect the game you watch on television, be it 20-20 or one day, and it shouldn't be any more complicate wrt bonus points etc than that IMO
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 16, 2018, 11:05:22 AM
The game we play should reflect the game you watch on television, be it 20-20 or one day, and it shouldn't be any more complicate wrt bonus points etc than that IMO


Surely it should be the other way round? Professional cricket is funded by recreational cricketers as a means of providing an advert for our sport and to attract new players. So professional cricket should reflect recreational cricket and not the other way round.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: HallamKeeper on July 16, 2018, 11:22:04 AM
Yeah it does seem so.

We don't play at a high standard so everyone initially wants to score as many as possible or stop the opposition scoring as many as possible. Most teams have one or two decent bats but usually 3 decent bowlers who dominate games. The second half will nearly always start with teams going for the win. Then, when they don't look like winning they can often play very negative cricket to deny points to the winning team and also scrape a few themselves. They wouldn't bat like this if they were close to winning.

I guess in better leagues the batting is much better and deeper so allowing a team to just score 180-5 would be beneficial if you wanted to bowl very negatively.

My whole point is that it is a very long day (we finished at 8pm on Saturday). A lot of people are leaving the game because they want a Saturday night free. Or they don't want to commit over 8 hours door-to-door to something. In our league you sometimes get a chance to finish early if a game is one-sided (a rare treat) but then someone decides to drag it out.

I'm questioning if I will play next season. I might do but I am getting sick of missing friends' birthday meals, bbqs, or just general socialising. If I could restrict cricket to 6 hours 11am-5pm then I can go for breakfast or dinner. My other option is to play occasionally but I've never been able to do that, I think you need to commit to a league.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 16, 2018, 12:20:21 PM
Yeah it does seem so.

We don't play at a high standard so everyone initially wants to score as many as possible or stop the opposition scoring as many as possible. Most teams have one or two decent bats but usually 3 decent bowlers who dominate games. The second half will nearly always start with teams going for the win. Then, when they don't look like winning they can often play very negative cricket to deny points to the winning team and also scrape a few themselves. They wouldn't bat like this if they were close to winning.

I guess in better leagues the batting is much better and deeper so allowing a team to just score 180-5 would be beneficial if you wanted to bowl very negatively.

My whole point is that it is a very long day (we finished at 8pm on Saturday). A lot of people are leaving the game because they want a Saturday night free. Or they don't want to commit over 8 hours door-to-door to something. In our league you sometimes get a chance to finish early if a game is one-sided (a rare treat) but then someone decides to drag it out.

I'm questioning if I will play next season. I might do but I am getting sick of missing friends' birthday meals, bbqs, or just general socialising. If I could restrict cricket to 6 hours 11am-5pm then I can go for breakfast or dinner. My other option is to play occasionally but I've never been able to do that, I think you need to commit to a league.


I am barely playing weekend this season for similar reasons. I have a young family now and I cannot justify being out of the house from 12noon to 9pm every Saturday, as much as I enjoy Saturday cricket. Last year I tried playing alternate games, but it really didn't work at all, I never found any kind of form, and I didn't enjoy it.

This year I am throwing myself into midweek T20 cricket instead, which is less of a time commitment. It seems to be working better as I am actually enjoying the games I get to play.


The MAJOR problem we have as a club is that the league we are in is very badly organised, and its letting our players down badly. For some reason the league decided on small leagues with only 12 fixtures, and with some clubs having consecutive bye weeks in the middle of the summer. The problem is that they are also very lax on letting teams default without penalty. The upshot of this is that our 2nd XI have gone 7 weeks now without playing a game. 7 weeks in the middle of the summer, with all this sun!

and guess what is happening -  a lot of our players have had enough and have said there is no point being in a cricket club if you never get to play a game so they will take up golf instead.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: HallamKeeper on July 16, 2018, 12:51:29 PM
Our league ask for feedback each year, I always respond with fewer overs, earlier starts and encourage quick over rates (bonus points for over rates would be good).

Either people don't bother to give feedback or there is a very silent majority saying everything is fine. More likely the people who run the league don't want to change it. 6 more teams are leaving this season for county leagues.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: DorsetDan on July 16, 2018, 02:21:22 PM

Surely it should be the other way round? Professional cricket is funded by recreational cricketers as a means of providing an advert for our sport and to attract new players. So professional cricket should reflect recreational cricket and not the other way round.

Slight semantics, but the point was to standardise cricket formats/ rules to aid participation.

I can't imagine turning up to play rugby across a county border to be told "the way we play here is 2 points for a try and 5 for a tackle because we want to give everyone a chance, even the teams that don't see the ball all day".

If you really believe professional cricket would be better served by the disorganised approach of amateur cricket that changes its mind every two seconds with no relationship to what players actually want then crack on... no, scrap that I just described the ECB. As you were :)
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 16, 2018, 02:55:50 PM
Our league ask for feedback each year, I always respond with fewer overs, earlier starts and encourage quick over rates (bonus points for over rates would be good).

Either people don't bother to give feedback or there is a very silent majority saying everything is fine. More likely the people who run the league don't want to change it. 6 more teams are leaving this season for county leagues.

I answer similar polls, I have also run a poll within our club in the past.

Honestly, most people responded that they didn't want shorter games and they didn't want earlier starts. They liked 40 overs and they were fine with 1:30pm starts. They thought the travel times were generally fine. They did want quicker over-rates but there isn't much you can do about that.

Every year our league has a vote on various issues from number of overs to bonus points system. Mostly things are the way they are because that's what the majority of players want to do.

Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: HallamKeeper on July 16, 2018, 05:21:16 PM
I answer similar polls, I have also run a poll within our club in the past.

Honestly, most people responded that they didn't want shorter games and they didn't want earlier starts. They liked 40 overs and they were fine with 1:30pm starts. They thought the travel times were generally fine. They did want quicker over-rates but there isn't much you can do about that.

Every year our league has a vote on various issues from number of overs to bonus points system. Mostly things are the way they are because that's what the majority of players want to do.

Sorry, forgot to be more clear. We currently play 46 overs from 1.30pm. I suggest we play 40 overs from 12 or earlier if teams agree.

I think you could introduce a bonus point for bowling overs on time. You should be able to bowl 40 in 2.5 hours. Lost balls seems to hamper this at smaller grounds but I don't see why you can't have 4 or 5 spare balls ready and the batting team go look for them (which they should do anyway).
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: smilley792 on July 16, 2018, 06:27:56 PM
Sorry, forgot to be more clear. We currently play 46 overs from 1.30pm. I suggest we play 40 overs from 12 or earlier if teams agree.

I think you could introduce a bonus point for bowling overs on time. You should be able to bowl 40 in 2.5 hours. Lost balls seems to hamper this at smaller grounds but I don't see why you can't have 4 or 5 spare balls ready and the batting team go look for them (which they should do anyway).

Thereís a rule in our league that after the first 3 balls The bowling side supply, after that the batting side has to supply them

Iíd lost 3 of hathersage balls in the first 3 overs and our skipper was not happy!
We did have most of our players looking for them though.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: six and out on July 16, 2018, 06:35:52 PM
Sorry, forgot to be more clear. We currently play 46 overs from 1.30pm. I suggest we play 40 overs from 12 or earlier if teams agree.

I think you could introduce a bonus point for bowling overs on time. You should be able to bowl 40 in 2.5 hours. Lost balls seems to hamper this at smaller grounds but I don't see why you can't have 4 or 5 spare balls ready and the batting team go look for them (which they should do anyway).

We play exactly that mate... 40 overs in 2.5 hours. And you get penalised 6 runs for every over you are short! It soon speeds the game/people up.

We start at 1.30pm for the majority of the year and are still done by 7pm most games.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: HallamKeeper on July 16, 2018, 07:40:51 PM
We play exactly that mate... 40 overs in 2.5 hours. And you get penalised 6 runs for every over you are short! It soon speeds the game/people up.

We start at 1.30pm for the majority of the year and are still done by 7pm most games.

That seems more sensible. I'd just like to be done for 5.30ish so I can have a beer with the team and still make it home to go out with my girlfriend for food or something. Would make my life so much easier.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: six and out on July 16, 2018, 08:29:28 PM
That seems more sensible. I'd just like to be done for 5.30ish so I can have a beer with the team and still make it home to go out with my girlfriend for food or something. Would make my life so much easier.

Haha.... Yep I think that's a common theme.

I actually think we may go to 12.30pm starts next season, as there is a rumour going round at the moment that it will be put forward at the league AGM.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SD on July 16, 2018, 08:45:08 PM
We play exactly that mate... 40 overs in 2.5 hours. And you get penalised 6 runs for every over you are short! It soon speeds the game/people up.

We start at 1.30pm for the majority of the year and are still done by 7pm most games.

Slow over rates are endemic all the way from test level to the lowest of the amateur leagues.  That rule sounds entirely sensible to me.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: Manormanic on July 16, 2018, 11:48:02 PM

he MAJOR problem we have as a club is that the league we are in is very badly organised, and its letting our players down badly. For some reason the league decided on small leagues with only 12 fixtures, and with some clubs having consecutive bye weeks in the middle of the summer. The problem is that they are also very lax on letting teams default without penalty. The upshot of this is that our 2nd XI have gone 7 weeks now without playing a game. 7 weeks in the middle of the summer, with all this sun!
Wow, which league is that?
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: InternalTraining on July 17, 2018, 01:52:06 AM
Wow! Horror stories.

I feel the game of cricket at the grass roots level deserves better stewardship.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: six and out on July 17, 2018, 05:41:16 AM
Slow over rates are endemic all the way from test level to the lowest of the amateur leagues.  That rule sounds entirely sensible to me.

It is definitely the way forward,  however the only problem is it is only enforceable in our top 2 divisions (we are in div 1) because there are no league umpires below that.

When you don't have any umpires major arguements can ensue because it takes very strict governence during the game, even in div 1 and 2.

Teams are always asking for more time for lost balls etc... then it's down to the umpire to decide how much time to add on. So it doesn't work when you don't have umpires unfortunately.

We won a game earlier in the season from penalty runs. We were chasing and the oppo were miles behind the rate and it came down to the last wicket. In theory we would of needed 24 but they we penalised 3 overs so 18 runs, so we only needed 6 ! Got them easy. Of course oppo kicked off massively, but it was a league umpire who told them so nothing they could do.

Can you imagine that happening in Div 7 with a player umpireing! There would be riots.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: SLA on July 17, 2018, 08:15:26 AM
Wow, which league is that?


Cambs League. For some daft reason they decided to abolish fines for forfeited games in the lower divisions. As any fool could have predicted, the result has been absolute carnage, with teams deciding on the morning of the game that they don't fancy their chances and so just don't bother turning up. At this rate the entre league is a few years away from collapse. I've heard several clubs talking about starting a breakaway league.
Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: beaver5 on July 31, 2018, 06:32:01 PM
Massive changes have been recommended for the Worcester County League for next season. The Birmingham League is to reduce to 24 teams from 48 and if the 2nd teams are included in this then that's a further 48 teams leaving the Birmingham League as it is now! This would result in my current team going down from Div 2 to about Div 4, while the 2nd's would go from Div 3 of the 2nd's league to Div 8 or 9. This would result in a reduction to 45 overs for the 1st and 40 overs for the 2nd's, which would be fine. However, they are proposing only 8 teams in the lower leagues, so just 14 games. We already don't play for nearly 8 months of the year, so less cricket would be crap! It says possible T20 games to extend the season. This would be ok if its a league, but if its a knock out cup your seasons over pretty quickly if you go out in the first round. Why do the think that lower league players want to play less cricket? Less time - yes, less games - no! Many lower league players were once the higher league players that are just older who still want to play. I agree things need to change and some would be good for me as I can't play as often anymore due to a young family. Less games is not the way forward!

http://www.worcscl.org/forms/WCL%20Possible%20League%20Structure%202019.pdf (http://www.worcscl.org/forms/WCL%20Possible%20League%20Structure%202019.pdf)



Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: Seniorplayer on July 31, 2018, 08:30:22 PM
Could be wrong this is what I was told  proposal  2 extra divisions in 2019  Div 2 to 7 ten or 12 teams two up two down
Div 8 to 10 Worcester  north south and central to consist of 8 teams plus T 20 or Saturday cup same as 2018.

Title: Re: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation
Post by: enlightened on September 09, 2018, 08:40:13 AM
Complete washout yesterday in the Cheshire Cricket League Division C South yesterday apart from at one ground. At this ground the club's 1's and 2's are in the same league and the 1's are in contention form promotion - this weekend they were scheduled to play each other. Funnily enough at this ground rather than the game being cancelled due to weather the 2's conceded the game awarding maximum points to the 1's. How cowardly can you get!