Advertise on CBF

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8

Author Topic: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation  (Read 3264 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RPC/Blueroom Cricket - Adie

  • Forum Sponsor
  • Forum Legend
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6363
  • Trade Count: (0)

Id 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 draw in the traditional sence as people dont like the word draw.. however, Id 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 .. its more of a turn off than benefit now so get rid. You wouldnt 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
Logged

t2ylo

  • County 2nd XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 453
  • Trade Count: (0)

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.
Logged
Cricket is battle and service and sport and art

Douglas Jardine

edge

  • World Cup Winner
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3526
  • Trade Count: (0)

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.
Logged
HS: 126, BB: 7-20

enlightened

  • Club Cricketer
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 76
  • Trade Count: (0)

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
Logged

HallamKeeper

  • County 2nd XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 363
  • Trade Count: (0)

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

After all.. its all fun if youre the team who slaps runs for fun . Its not fun if a team racks up a monster score but you know they arent good enough to take your wicket..simply rely on you giving it away slogging.. thats also just as Boring..

This have a bit of fun, hit out isnt what some players play for so its 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.
Logged
The artist formerly known as CalverKeeper

Boondougal

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 876
  • Trade Count: (0)

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 dont 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.

Im 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, im 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 try the game on a sat... just play in the short form.

Just an idea.
Logged

SD

  • First XI Captain
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 246
  • Trade Count: (0)

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
Logged

RPC/Blueroom Cricket - Adie

  • Forum Sponsor
  • Forum Legend
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6363
  • Trade Count: (0)

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 its just as boring if you know you cant get the total and gifting your wicket away ?!?! Remember its a game for 22 players not just the 11 who biff the most runs. If you cant take ten wickets you dont deserve to win and your not the best . Youre just the best batting side
Logged

richthekeeper

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 848
  • Trade Count: (+2)

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
Logged

edge

  • World Cup Winner
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3526
  • Trade Count: (0)

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.
Logged
HS: 126, BB: 7-20

SLA

  • First XI Captain
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 253
  • Trade Count: (0)

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.
Logged
40-over Cricket: 150* off 108, 8-3-19-7
T20 Cricket: 127* off 64, 4-1-12-6
Countries played cricket in so far: 6

HallamKeeper

  • County 2nd XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 363
  • Trade Count: (0)

But its just as boring if you know you cant get the total and gifting your wicket away ?!?! Remember its a game for 22 players not just the 11 who biff the most runs. If you cant take ten wickets you dont deserve to win and your not the best . Youre 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.
Logged
The artist formerly known as CalverKeeper

RPC/Blueroom Cricket - Adie

  • Forum Sponsor
  • Forum Legend
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6363
  • Trade Count: (0)

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.

Its 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 taking 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 its smash as many balls as you can.
Logged

stevat

  • County 2nd XI
  • ***
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 480
  • Trade Count: (0)

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.
Logged

HallamKeeper

  • County 2nd XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 363
  • Trade Count: (0)

Its 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 taking 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 its 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.

Logged
The artist formerly known as CalverKeeper
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8
 

Advertise on CBF