***Official*** English Domestic Season 2009

[Langeveldt]

I am saddened by the standard of CC cricket. As Im sure I have mentioned previously, I was a massive advocate of playing 4-day cricket but Ive now changed my mind. It will not happen anytime soon but 3-day cricket is the best way to develop players within the County system.

Why would 3 day cricket work though? It would just be a series of draws or contrived results.. It would be a worse format than T20 for mine

 

[stumpski]

Can just see Onions being one of those bowlers who makes a good start, take a few wickets against West Indies before failing horribly in the Ashes.

Yeah, another Ed Giddins even, though I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Goughy]

Why would 3 day cricket work though? It would just be a series of draws or contrived results.. It would be a worse format than T20 for mine

3 day cricket forces good players to adapt and take control of games.

I was a strong advocate of introducing 4-day cricket into the CC. Unfortunately it has not worked (and there are some that could say 'I told you so'). Instead of closely replicating Test conditions, it has given extra time for average/poor player to grind out innings against bad bowling. It is a format where average/poor players can achieve modest success as the depth isnt in the system to expose them and they can play/bowl similar innings/spells repeatedly throughout the season.

It has lowered the urgency and the standard.

In 3 day cricket successful batsmen had to be able to play a variety of innings depending on the situation and bowlers had to be able to take wickets in bunches and be penetrative.

There was far more situational based cricket that players had to deal with and experience. 4-day cricket has become a grind where, increasingly, batmen and bowlers can just wait for success rather than force it.

There was, of course, the sometime contrived results but that is a price we would have to pay to come back from this failed experiment. For success in 3-day cricket, initiative, talent and a varied skills set is required. That is what we need to promote.

With the lack of quality depth in County cricket, 4-day cricket has allowed greater mediocrity to find success as the breadth of skills required has been reduced.

 

[Pothas]

Yeah, another Ed Giddins even, though I hope I'm wrong.

Just without the drugs and the constant injuries

 

[Pothas]

oh and the ilegal betting

 

[Penguinissimo]

3 day cricket forces good players to adapt and take control of games.

I was a strong advocate of introducing 4-day cricket into the CC. Unfortunately it has not worked (and there are some that could say 'I told you so'). Instead of closely replicating Test conditions, it has given extra time for average/poor player to grind out innings against bad bowling. It is a format where average/poor players can achieve modest success as the depth isnt in the system to expose them and they can play/bowl similar innings/spells repeatedly throughout the season.

It has lowered the urgency and the standard.

In 3 day cricket successful batsmen had to be able to play a variety of innings depending on the situation and bowlers had to be able to take wickets in bunches and be penetrative.

There was far more situational based cricket that players had to deal with and experience. 4-day cricket has become a grind where, increasingly, batmen and bowlers can just wait for success rather than force it.

There was, of course, the sometime contrived results but that is a price we would have to pay to come back from this failed experiment. For success in 3-day cricket, initiative, talent and a varied skills set is required. That is what we need to promote.

With the lack of quality depth in County cricket, 4-day cricket has allowed greater mediocrity to find success as the breadth of skills required has been reduced.

I can never shake the opinion that the problem is not the length of the game but the quality of the teams. If you condensed the 18 county teams into 8, all the journeymen and "average/poor" players would be forced out - and anyone who could succeed against the condensed teams on a regular basis would be well worth looking at at Test level.

 

[Langeveldt]

oh and the ilegal betting

and the Christmas tree business with Nadeem Shahid

 

[fredfertang]

I can never shake the opinion that the problem is not the length of the game but the quality of the teams. If you condensed the 18 county teams into 8, all the journeymen and "average/poor" players would be forced out - and anyone who could succeed against the condensed teams on a regular basis would be well worth looking at at Test level.

This would undoubtedly be the answer but it will never happen

On the assumption we're stuck with 18 I think Goughy has it spot on

 

[Langeveldt]

Not sure I agree, the Sheffield Shield has never been 3 day right?

 

[Goughy]

Not sure I agree, the Sheffield Shield has never been 3 day right?

Id argue that the Sheffield Shield doesnt have the problem of diluted talent that I explained was the reason for 4-day being a failure in England.

You have to remember that 4-day cricket is a recent addition to the County Championship. It is not like 3-day was without success.

It had its problems and people like myself really thought that 4-day cricket would help prepared better cricketers for Test cricket. Unfortunately it has not worked.

 

[Woodster]

3 day cricket forces good players to adapt and take control of games.

I was a strong advocate of introducing 4-day cricket into the CC. Unfortunately it has not worked (and there are some that could say 'I told you so'). Instead of closely replicating Test conditions, it has given extra time for average/poor player to grind out innings against bad bowling. It is a format where average/poor players can achieve modest success as the depth isnt in the system to expose them and they can play/bowl similar innings/spells repeatedly throughout the season.

It has lowered the urgency and the standard.

In 3 day cricket successful batsmen had to be able to play a variety of innings depending on the situation and bowlers had to be able to take wickets in bunches and be penetrative.

There was far more situational based cricket that players had to deal with and experience. 4-day cricket has become a grind where, increasingly, batmen and bowlers can just wait for success rather than force it.

There was, of course, the sometime contrived results but that is a price we would have to pay to come back from this failed experiment. For success in 3-day cricket, initiative, talent and a varied skills set is required. That is what we need to promote.

With the lack of quality depth in County cricket, 4-day cricket has allowed greater mediocrity to find success as the breadth of skills required has been reduced.

I understand the points you make, but County Championship cricket is about trying to prepare cricketers for the next step up, which inevitably is Test cricket. Therefore to jump from 3 day to 5 day cricket would be massive, not necessarily in technical terms, more so on the mental side. Not having to rush an innings, not needing to bowl a wicket-taking ball every other delivery etc.

I personally don't agree with reverting back to 3 day cricket. I think it's more to do with how teams approach the 4 day game. A more positive approach would be most welcome and beneficial, look to win the game first and foremost, be prepared to lose a game in order to win it, lose the conservative approach and attack. This is not something that will happen overnight, but needs captains to address their players with the importance of positive cricket. The points system may be remodified.

As for the general standard of County cricket, I don't think it's as bad as you're suggesting, by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe within a few of the sides the depth of quality is lacking, but on the whole I think there's some pretty competitve cricket teams out there.

 

[Goughy]

I understand the points you make, but County Championship cricket is about trying to prepare cricketers for the next step up, which inevitably is Test cricket. Therefore to jump from 3 day to 5 day cricket would be massive, not necessarily in technical terms, more so on the mental side.

Having witnessed both 3-day and 4-day, I believe 3-day CC games would increasingly prepare cricketers for 5 day cricket.

It is a higher pressure game and exposes the players to far more varied situations and experiences despite the game being shorter. It also allows the creme to rise to the top and doesnt allow 3rd rate talent to be successful.

3 to 5 days isnt really an issue compared to the skills development they lose .

The '4 days is closer to 5 so 4 day prepares for Test cricket better' logic is theoretical. I subscribed to it but I now the think the theory is flawed with regards to English cricket and there is nothing to substantiate the theory.

 

[Woodster]

On another note, I've spent a lovely day (in the sunshine!!) at Old Trafford today, unfortunately witnessing Lancashire crumble to a below par total of 189, of which I have no doubts Notts will pass with ease, it's just a case of how big a lead they get.

Andre Adams bowled wonderfully well on an O.T. pitch that was not probably not at its quickest, but had enough pace for those that bent their back. Siddy was pretty accurate throughout, easing himself back into bowling, and Luke Fletcher (playing his first CC game) was economical, if not particularly threatening. His first spell was relatively sharp but failed to make the Lancs batsmen play enough, and his spells thereafter were delivered seemingly within himself but found a decent-ish length just back of a good one for a big fella.

Ashwell Prince showed what could be achieved with a bit of discipline, patience, and very good shot selection. Looked a class above really. Was looking forward to seeing Steven Croft bat, and he played a couple of glorious strokes but became a little impatient prior to tea and fell to some clever bowling from Swann.

I was sat side on to the pitch so could not see clearly how much movement was about, Chris Read was not his usual tidy self which suggested that there was movement around and plenty after it passed through past the batter.

 

[four_or_six]

Having witnessed both 3-day and 4-day, I believe 3-day CC games would increasingly prepare cricketers for 5 day cricket.

It is a higher pressure game and exposes the players to far more varied situations and experiences despite the game being shorter. It also allows the creme to rise to the top and doesnt allow 3rd rate talent to be successful.

3 to 5 days isnt really an issue compared to the skills development they lose .

The '4 days is closer to 5 so 4 day prepares for Test cricket better' logic is theoretical. I subscribed to it but I now the think the theory is flawed with regards to English cricket and there is nothing to substantiate the theory.

Would we not get too many rain-draws with three day cricket?

 

[TT Boy]

Would we not get too many rain-draws with three day cricket?

Yes.

 

[Woodster]

Having witnessed both 3-day and 4-day, I believe 3-day CC games would increasingly prepare cricketers for 5 day cricket.

It is a higher pressure game and exposes the players to far more varied situations and experiences despite the game being shorter. It also allows the creme to rise to the top and doesnt allow 3rd rate talent to be successful.

3 to 5 days isnt really an issue compared to the skills development they lose .

The '4 days is closer to 5 so 4 day prepares for Test cricket better' logic is theoretical. I subscribed to it but I now the think the theory is flawed with regards to English cricket and there is nothing to substantiate the theory.

In the times of condensed cricket, a return to 3 day cricket would be the next step. But I disagree that it would prepare players better for the Test arena. I appreciate that there would be more varied situations more frequently, but it would all become a little rushed which we all know is not exactly what Test cricket is about. It's more about realising the important stages within a long battle, it's switching gears from sedately moving along to then finding that bit extra, that fifth gear, and influencing the match.

We will lose far more by returning to 3 day cricket than what we are gaining with 4 day matches. The building of an innings to result in a big innings, hours spent in the middle working exceptionally hard on the concentration, is just one of the things that will suffer, and is crucial at the highest level.

Not sure I agree that it would mean mediocre talent would have lesser chance of succedding than they do now. In fact little cameos may become even more valuable, where as now they are not considered too meaningful to a sides outcome.

I am old enough to remember 3 day cricket, and hope it remains a thing of the past.

 

[Goughy]

Would we not get too many rain-draws with three day cricket?

There would be an increase and there would also be an increase in contrived results. Too many? Thats not for me to say.

However, 3-day cricket was the staple for the vast majority of the County Championship. 4-day cricket was introduced only recently and not because there were too many draws.

It was introduced with the objective to improve standards and the Test team. That clearly has not happened and people (including myself) didnt realize the impact 3 day cricket (in a diluted system) has on skills development.

I think 4 day cricket is a better format for natural results. I also think it is a far inferior format for developing a varied skills set and actually produces a lower level of cricket with less changes in pace and situations.

 

[Woodster]

Would we not get too many rain-draws with three day cricket?

I would suspect so, and rain affected games that would result in more limited-overs style cricket than first-class cricket, or pointless days of cricket where neither side are willing to risk it as there is highly unlikely to be enough time in the game. Teams will just be playing for bonus points.

 

[Goughy]

I am old enough to remember 3 day cricket, and hope it remains a thing of the past.

Fair enough, but you must admit that the move to a full 4-day schedule was an exciting time with high hopes and the results have been disappointing?

I dont expect you to change your opinion on the topic, but Im interested on how you view the success of the 4-day calander with regards to the expected benefits.

 

[Woodster]

I think 4 day cricket is a better format for natural results. I also think it is a far inferior format for developing a varied skills set and actually produces a lower level of cricket with less changes in pace and situations.

Like in a Test match! It is sensing the big moments in a match and making your contribution count, of which 4 day cricket gives us the best opportunity to hone these senses.