***Official*** English Domestic Season 2008

[stumpski]

Thanks for that. Third rain interruption at Chelmsford, and this looks terminal. Surrey way behind the par score anyway.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

It's in conjunction with the million dollar game. Played between England, a Super Star squad, the English Twenty20 winners (Middx) and the WI Twenty20 winners (Trinidad/Tobago)

Pretty sure it's a different tournament as GIMH thought. Would contain four international sides, one of which would be England and one of which would be Stanford's XI, played in England, Twenty20 obviously. It kind of got swept under the rug with the big announcements about the 20:20 for 20 and the EPL.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Pretty sure it's a different tournament as GIMH thought. Would contain four international sides, one of which would be England and one of which would be Stanford's XI, played in England, Twenty20 obviously. It kind of got swept under the rug with the big announcements about the 20:20 for 20 and the EPL.

Geez.

Starting to head toward Langeveldt's camp on Twenty20.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Geez.

Starting to head toward Langeveldt's camp on Twenty20.

Were my thoughts as I wrote it out...

 

[Smith108]

Nice to see somerset got hammered, and Hildreth delighted once again with the bat.

 

[TT Boy]

Oh, not sure if this is really the right place to post it, but did anyone see that Sky renewed their domestic cricket contract?

They now get Tests, ODIs and T20 from 2010-13, same deal with Championship, FP etc, the new EPL, the Stanford Quadrangular (what's that btw, is that a new international tournament being hosted in England?). BBC and Channel 4 didn't bid, shame on them, and neither did ITV who have never shown an interest in the game, nor Setanta, who have shown an interest by getting the IPL rights.

I thought Giles Clarke’s dig at the BBC was spot on. How can the Beeb justify spending £150 million of our money on Formula One whilst cricket, the far more popular and of course accessible sport in the UK, isn’t even worth having a punt upon?
The BBC in their defence cited scheduling problems as being one of the factors for why they didn’t bid (that’s despite them having four channels and **** all on during the daytime).

 

[TT Boy]

Thanks for that. Third rain interruption at Chelmsford, and this looks terminal. Surrey way behind the par score anyway.

Ramps was allowed to miss the game to attend a benefit dinner…
Alongside Stewart Walters presence and him being asked to come in at three that shows you how much Surrey value the Pro40 and getting a result.
They are a complete and utter shower at the moment; be lucky to avoid Championship relegation.

 

[superkingdave]

Pretty sure it's a different tournament as GIMH thought. Would contain four international sides, one of which would be England and one of which would be Stanford's XI, played in England, Twenty20 obviously. It kind of got swept under the rug with the big announcements about the 20:20 for 20 and the EPL.

yup

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/2300652/ECB-reach-$200m-deal-with-Sir-Allen-Stanford.html

The Stanford Quadrangular tournament, meanwhile, will begin in England in September 2010, with two from Pakistan, Sri Lanka and New Zealand joining the hosts and the Stanford All-Stars for a lightning-fast competition. Only three games will be played: two semi-finals and a final.

The prize fund for the Quadrangular will also be upwards of $20 million per year, although the ECB have yet to reveal exactly how the money will be shared out.

The Quadrangular will be held in England every year until 2012, mainly in London, where the city's cosmopolitan population should throw up support for the visiting teams. Matches have not yet been allocated, but Lord's is likely to share the spoils with The Oval, while Edgbaston will also come into contention in years when Asian teams are involved.

However, the identity of the visitors after 2009 has yet to be decided, and it remains to be seen whether Stanford will be happy to invite India - a country he recently said was throwing its weight around "like a 900lb gorilla".

Theoretically, the proposal still needs the approval of the International Cricket Council, but by inviting different countries each year, the ECB should be able to defuse any opposition. "I would be surprised if it ran into problems at our annual conference," said David Morgan, the incoming ICC president.

 

[Richard]

Masters has bowled splendidly though - 6-3-7-3 - he was awarded his cap at the interval.

He must surely be the most accurate bowler in the country currently.

 

[Richard]

I thought Giles Clarke’s dig at the BBC was spot on. How can the Beeb justify spending £150 million of our money on Formula One whilst cricket, the far more popular and of course accessible sport in the UK, isn’t even worth having a punt upon?
The BBC in their defence cited scheduling problems as being one of the factors for why they didn’t bid (that’s despite them having four channels and **** all on during the daytime).

It's absolutely ridiculous in this day-and-age. If they still had just BBC1 and BBC2 then yeah, fair enough, but we're in the digital age now and if the BBC wanted they could without any great difficulty put a new channel on air specifically for the cricket.

Can only hope that by the time the next bidding is done, with everything being 100% digital, they might re-assess.

 

[Goughy]

Frankly the cricism the ECB got with the previous contract was out of line. They certainly deserve less on this one.

BBC wouldnt even bid for the highlights last time around and are no better this time.

For all the talk that cricket should be on free to air, it doesnt mean the rights should be gifted to an organisation that treats cricket like crap and doesnt want it.

Sky has done a lot for cricket and we get to see far more than we ever used to.

BBC doesnt deserve cricket.

 

[Richard]

What I've always thought, ever since reading-up about the matter in 2004, is that the BBC should have a better attitude towards cricket. For years and years and years, the BBC did well out of the game and the game did well out of the BBC.

It deserved to lose the contract in 1999 and C4 also had great commitment and did more than you could wish for for the game. It's a great shame that they made losses on cricket, because they deserved to profit handsomely.

But those now in charge at the BBC seem to have forgotten the years and years where the two were easy bedfellows. It's disappointing, IMO.

I'm sure such people see things differently.

I do not criticise Sky Sports for the standard of their coverage, nor their commitment to giving cricket lovers just about everything you could possibly wish for. Sky's coverage is first-rate and wide-ranging. However, Sky does not and cannot ever offer the thing cricket needs most - the ability to attract, en-masse, a new audience. This was what the BBC, almost incidentally, offered.

 

[GIMH]

Frankly the cricism the ECB got with the previous contract was out of line. They certainly deserve less on this one.

BBC wouldnt even bid for the highlights last time around and are no better this time.

For all the talk that cricket should be on free to air, it doesnt mean the rights should be gifted to an organisation that treats cricket like crap and doesnt want it.

Sky has done a lot for cricket and we get to see far more than we ever used to.

BBC doesnt deserve cricket.

Excellently put. I'm struggling to think of a reason why I should continue to pay my TV licence, it's hardly worth it for Spooks 12 Tuesdays a year and **** all else. They aren't showing any proper football anymore either IIRC.

Sky's coverage is excellent; you see every single ball, there is plenty of build-up, reaction and discussion, the highlights are usually shown three times and the SkyText service updates the scores live so if you get in halfway through a ssession and what to know how many KP scored, it's really quick.

The only downside is what Richard pointed out and the fact that even if we have another Ashes as good as the one in 2005, it won't get the country going in the same way, because casual fans won't be drawn in. Cricket is the reason I have Sky Sports, but many football fans who would maybe casually flick Channel 4 on actually turn their subscription off in the summer to save a bit of cash.

As for the BBC's scheduling issues, FFS they have a red button service as such scheduling can never be an excuse

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Hick really slaughtered the Derbyshire bowling today. I *think* his 100 came up at faster than a run a ball. Finally out for 149. Davies also chipped in with a good 71. As with last week the run rate is well over 5 an over. Kind of shows the difference in Div 2 and Div 1 bowling attacks, much as id like to think its all down to the Worcs batsmen

 

[Scaly piscine]

Epic collapse from Durham against a pretty mediocre bowling attack. Presumably there's a fair bit in the wicket.

 

[Manee]

Silly question, but why isn't Vaughan playing for Yorkshire?

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Silly question, but why isn't Vaughan playing for Yorkshire?

He's taking a few weeks off before going back to playing for Yorkshire and then hopefully a winter with England.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Very much a bowlers day it seems. Very surprised by the Somerset game.

 

[stumpski]

Anyone watching Warks - Northants? Warwickshire very much on top at 129-1 in the 22nd, but Troughton's 11th domestic one-day 50? Is that all? He was playing ODIs for England what, four years ago.

 

[stumpski]

Jonathan Trott currently averaging 188 against Northants in List A matches!

95 not out with a couple of overs left.