Advertise on CBF

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

Author Topic: Changes to cricket games that you think would encourage more participation  (Read 7216 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RPC/Blueroom Cricket - Adie

  • Forum Sponsor
  • Forum Legend
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6971
  • Trade Count: (0)


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 . Its what is there for. Hence why a certain type of player is rarely seen playing it as they just dont 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 isnt 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
Logged

SLA

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 613
  • Trade Count: (0)

2020is the game for hitting . Its what is there for. Hence why a certain type of player is rarely seen playing it as they just dont 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 isnt 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?
Logged
T20 cricket 1995-present, Saturday league cricket 1997-present.
L3 Cricket Coach, L2 Baseball Coach.
Running total: Countries played cricket in: 7. Counties played cricket in: 14

RPC/Blueroom Cricket - Adie

  • Forum Sponsor
  • Forum Legend
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6971
  • Trade Count: (0)

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, youre still missing the point that you want a format and system that allows different types of players to pay the game. If you dont, the game WIlL continue to lose players as there wont be a place for them. If thats what we want then fine, but Id hope we want as many people playing as we can and cater for different styles within the format. Hey, it wont bother me either way as Im 35 so my time is done (after only 7 years but I started late) but there are a lot of kids out there who cant play or are dropped from their clubs because they arent hitters
« Last Edit: July 13, 2018, 04:44:15 PM by RPC/Blueroom Cricket - Adie »
Logged

SLA

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 613
  • Trade Count: (0)

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.
Logged
T20 cricket 1995-present, Saturday league cricket 1997-present.
L3 Cricket Coach, L2 Baseball Coach.
Running total: Countries played cricket in: 7. Counties played cricket in: 14

SLA

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 613
  • Trade Count: (0)

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

Logged
T20 cricket 1995-present, Saturday league cricket 1997-present.
L3 Cricket Coach, L2 Baseball Coach.
Running total: Countries played cricket in: 7. Counties played cricket in: 14

thecord

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1939
  • Trade Count: (+3)

@SLA who do you play for?
Logged

HallamKeeper

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

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.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2018, 08:00:07 AM by HallamKeeper »
Logged
The artist formerly known as CalverKeeper

six and out

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1599
  • Trade Count: (0)
    • MKCC website

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.
Logged

RPC/Blueroom Cricket - Adie

  • Forum Sponsor
  • Forum Legend
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6971
  • Trade Count: (0)

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 youve 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 dont deserve to win as youre not the Better team . You e just batted better
Logged

HallamKeeper

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

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 theyd 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 wouldnt be able to describe it as anything other than cowardice.
Logged
The artist formerly known as CalverKeeper

FattusCattus

  • Forum Legend
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9400
  • Trade Count: (+30)
  • Bend it like Fattus!!

I think Zinger Boxes would bring the crowds back. Imagine the light show every time you got hit in the nuts!!!
Logged
If you tolerate this, then your baked goods will be next.

InternalTraining

  • World Cup Winner
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4232
  • Trade Count: (0)

hehehee
Logged

enlightened

  • Club Cricketer
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 112
  • Trade Count: (0)

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.
Logged

SLA

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 613
  • Trade Count: (0)

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.
Logged
T20 cricket 1995-present, Saturday league cricket 1997-present.
L3 Cricket Coach, L2 Baseball Coach.
Running total: Countries played cricket in: 7. Counties played cricket in: 14

SLA

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 613
  • Trade Count: (0)

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.
Logged
T20 cricket 1995-present, Saturday league cricket 1997-present.
L3 Cricket Coach, L2 Baseball Coach.
Running total: Countries played cricket in: 7. Counties played cricket in: 14
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8
 

Advertise on CBF