If you could get rid of one thing from the cricketing scene...

[Jigga988]

Chose franchise leagues, especially now Stanford is gone, can't stand IPL or ICL... also would generally like to see pitches that are a lot quicket than what they are now, give something for the quickies again...

 

[Richard]

Flat pitches for me. Rain is annoying, bad umpire decisions frustrate me, franchise leagues won't be great for the game, but at least they all give a bit of drama and something to talk about. Flat pitches just completely waste everyone's time and bore the pants off us.

Haha. You see, both lost play and bad Umpiring decisions not only alter the course and outcome of matches unfairly but also occur far more regularly than stupidly flat decks the like of which render a match virtually pointless (unless some serious batting records fall). So for me, the former two are a far larger bane than the latter one.

 

[Manee]

The lack of widespread, high level facilities in the West Indies and the Indian subcontinent - it hinders talented competition (whereas the potential is there) which is the cornerstone of any sport.

 

[Langeveldt]

Thanks, that's the word.

Pro20, yeah, fair enough. But the 45over version? No way. Tiny crowds, and only some games televised. How are you meant to follow one team's progress in the season? (Yeah, I know you can get the results and scores, but for the average cricket fan it's not worth it) And the SuperSport series is a joke. No broadcast, free tickets; our small Test crowds will decrease further (OK, this series against Aus is a bad example because its Aus and we just beat them, but I can only predict a bleak future in terms of attendance rates and cricket support in SA)
That said, I am a pessimist. Would love to be proven wrong. (By the crowds, not CW posters)

But FC cricket has never had a huge following anywhere in the world.. You should see how bleak things are in India sometimes with their FC cricket, but they still manage to produce a good test match team.. The 45 over competition here has been so under exposed I actually thought they had stopped it..

I'd rather walk into an FC game for free than for 300 bucks which is what I was charged in England.. I have no idea why people there put up with it

 

[Goughy]

I'd rather walk into an FC game for free than for 300 bucks which is what I was charged in England.. I have no idea why people there put up with it

Where is it 20 quid a ticket for a days County Championship cricket?

 

[Langeveldt]

Where is it 20 quid a ticket for a days County Championship cricket?

Somerset.. Might be 15, but definitely somewhere in that region

 

[Richard]

But FC cricket has never had a huge following anywhere in the world..

Not for the last 80 years or so, no.

You should see how bleak things are in India sometimes with their FC cricket, but they still manage to produce a good test match team..

Along with Australia; along with Pakistan until recently, along with West Indies in the '70s and '80s... along with everywhere, pretty much. Domestic-First-Class cricket is not, cannot be and has not been for many, many, many years, a spectator sport. Anywhere in The World.

 

[Bonnie Prince C]

Flat pitches. They just annoy me. Less skill in creating one and whats the point in no result pitches?

 

[Uppercut]

Haha. You see, both lost play and bad Umpiring decisions not only alter the course and outcome of matches unfairly but also occur far more regularly than stupidly flat decks the like of which render a match virtually pointless (unless some serious batting records fall). So for me, the former two are a far larger bane than the latter one.

Nah, they happen quite a bit. You get the kind of situation where the home team goes 1-0 up in a series and every ground from that point on is as flat as a pancake.

 

[Richard]

Go on then - find me some recent examples.

It was a common tactic, especially in Pakistan, in the 1980s and to a lesser extent 1990s. But of late there's been precious little of it.

I hate those sorts of series' BTW - they render the entire idea of a series completely pointless. Might as well just play one-off Tests if that's what you're going to do.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't want to open up an unnecessary can of worms with the Indian posters, so I'll decline to give examples.

 

[nightprowler10]

Flat pitches ftl.

 

[Richard]

I don't want to open up an unnecessary can of worms with the Indian posters, so I'll decline to give examples.

You know, we do have walls to post on these days.

 

[Uppercut]

You know, we do have walls to post on these days.

Haha, yeah we do, but that defeats the purpose a touch.

 

[Steulen]

Flat pitches +1.

Recent examples: Pak vs. SL 1st Test this week, most recent ARG pitches prior to its death & resurrection (and even the relatively spicy pitch on offer last week resulted in a draw) and above all the farce that Lord's has become after the '05 Ashes. It really tells a story when the spiritual Home of the game only produces draws.

 

[Precambrian]

Add to that the pitches in Australia (though due to Aus being extremely good over the last years, and bad in the last summer, produced results)

 

[Richard]

Flat pitches +1.

Recent examples: Pak vs. SL 1st Test this week, most recent ARG ptiches prior to its death & resurrection and above all the farce that Lord's has become after the '05 Ashes. It really tells a story when the spiritual Home of the game only produces draws.

If lost play could be made-up until 450 overs were bowled in a Test, it's very probable there'd have been just 2 draws at Lord's in the last 6 Tests. What's more, the reason there was no result in 2006 (as well as the loss of playing time) was England's inability to catch, not the pitch.

There is absolutely no way Lord's has a problem with farcially flat pitches. No way. The only ridiculously flat, slow surface we've had there of late has been the one in the most recent game - which was caused not by the inherant soil but by the fact there was about a week's worth of rain before the game, resulting in minimal preparation.

 

[Steulen]

If lost play could be made-up until 450 overs were bowled in a Test, it's very probable there'd have been just 2 draws at Lord's in the last 6 Tests. What's more, the reason there was no result in 2006 (as well as the loss of playing time) was England's inability to catch, not the pitch.

There is absolutely no way Lord's has a problem with farcially flat pitches. No way. The only ridiculously flat, slow surface we've had there of late has been the one in the most recent game - which was caused not by the inherant soil but by the fact there was about a week's worth of rain before the game, resulting in minimal preparation.

Loss of playing time in England is a given.

The argument could equally be that if Lord's would produce pitches designed to last 250-300 overs you would get the most exciting 4- and 5-day Tests, taking weather more or less out of the equation. Instead, the focus is on guaranteeing full TV time through pitches that will last. I don't want pitches that last, I want exciting cricket with batsmen pushed to their limits and a clear result at the end, either on Sunday or Monday.

 

[Richard]

That's been the aim since 2001. The first time the realisation dawned that we couldn't be doing with these three-day Tests regular like was the opening Test in 2001, which was a three-day game and meant that 13 days' play had been lost to early finishes and\or rain out of the last

For the rest of that summer, pitches - at all Test grounds, not just Lord's - offered progressively less to bowlers, culminating in the flattest surface seen in this country for many, many years at The Oval. And from 2002 onwards, pitches at virtually all grounds - Headingley sometimes excepted and very occasionally other grounds as well - have been flat, flat and more flat.

Because much as us cricket affectionados would indeed prefer three days of riveting cricket to five days of torpor, unfortunately TV executives (not all of whom care greatly for cricket) don't - they want their schedules to be filled as per guides. And the reality is that without TV, cricket would be crippled, so it's only fair that we try to be accommodating to TV.

This excess of flat pitches hasn't precluded a decent few results, because despite the fact batting has been far easier now than from 2000 backwards, England's batsmen have gotten worse and opposition's aren't always as good as they used to be. But it's utterly unfair to single Lord's out, because the disease spreads everywhere. Lord's has simply suffered from lost play at the wrong times.

And yes, ideally we'd eliminate lost play entirely. Even if this means we don't get every ball telecast live on the additional days.

 

[Uppercut]

That's been the aim since 2001. The first time the realisation dawned that we couldn't be doing with these three-day Tests regular like was the opening Test in 2001, which was a three-day game and meant that 13 days' play had been lost to early finishes and\or rain out of the last

For the rest of that summer, pitches - at all Test grounds, not just Lord's - offered progressively less to bowlers, culminating in the flattest surface seen in this country for many, many years at The Oval. And from 2002 onwards, pitches at virtually all grounds - Headingley sometimes excepted and very occasionally other grounds as well - have been flat, flat and more flat.

Because much as us cricket affectionados would indeed prefer three days of riveting cricket to five days of torpor, unfortunately TV executives (not all of whom care greatly for cricket) don't - they want their schedules to be filled as per guides. And the reality is that without TV, cricket would be crippled, so it's only fair that we try to be accommodating to TV.

I want to know though- who actually watched the fifth day in Karachi today that made it so appealing to TV executives?