OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't understand the "two tier system will provide more context to series" argument one bit. Lack of context is generally a major issue in odi bilaterals, but it's not a problem with tests at all.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** New Zealand Domestic Season 2015/16
- Thread starter Kippax
- Start date
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
There would be rare circumstances where it would add some extra spice - e.g. between a 6th and 7th ranked team. But yeah, in most circumstances tests really don't have this issue.
A question, would the system involve a promotion/relegation series or match? I don't think it would properly work without it. If for example, the 7th best team was clearly a better side than the 8th ranked team then it arguably wouldn't be fair or desirable for them to go down. But if there is a promotion/relegation match, that could lead to frequent mismatches between a top tier sides whose players have been exposed regularly to high quality cricket, and the bottom tier side that has had to get down in the mud with Zimbabwe and Ireland. I guess you could balance that out to some extent by giving the bottom tier side home advantage, but then you're still left with that old frustrating question: what happens in the event of a draw?
Last edited:
Yup, like it used to in the NZ NPC rugby competition. The 2nd Div side who'd been playing 2nd Div sides all year was regularly smashed to pieces by a more hardened side.
But anyway, we know that it adds zero relevance to matches involving the top sides. And the ones around 6th 7th 8th whatever, of the established nations, it's probably an undesirable dread. I wouldn't want to watch a Test with us v Bangladesh to stay up. I'd be too worried about the repercussions, and knowing if we lost that I'd not be the slightest bit interested in Test cricket going forward. It's not like the EPL, where if you go down then come up you can sign a whole bunch of PL standard players. You're taking the same guys who have been facing Steve Tikolo and such for a period of time.
God, it's just worse and worse every time I think of it. If this is the grade of cricket administrators we have, then Test cricket WILL die. But of course, that'll be society's fault not theirs right?
I can't say that NZC deserves more revenue because in this hypothetical stupid two-tier system, I don't know what crowd figures are and size of their respective media deals. If 1000 people turn up to a Test in Kabul and their viewership on Afghani TV is scant, then we deserve more revenue because we generate more. Same as the PC gone mad argument about women's and men's purses in tennis etc. If we get pushed into 2nd division (even imagining this makes me sick), then I guess we don't deserve more matches. But how quick will this fall be? If we're crap for a year because all our bowlers go down injured and we can't score a run, is that a short enough time frame to go down? Is that fair? I say no.
I can't think of one plausible argument for this system. Even for the likes of Bangladesh, Ireland etc, are they going to get better? I say not.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
Say that TV viewership for Afghani games betters that of NZ games (irrespective of where the viewers are - I don't believe that to be relevant).
And say that their cricket team performs better than NZ.
These are not scenarios out of the realms of possibility.
It's difficult for me to say that NZC deserves more money than Afghani cricket. And remember, this is in the case of Afghani cricket. If we're talking UAE cricket, per ehhhhhemple, you may have a case where tv advertisement is extremely valuable.
Don't get me wrong; NZ cricket is extremely saleable. Viewers at this point would rather watch Corey Anderson than Shahid Afridi, once we remove that bias.
But that's where we have to push - the meritocracy is good and bad for us but the good outweighs the bad. We have a good test team and we (probably) always will, so long as we stick to the ideals that we were brought up with.
We might always...we might not. Don't need too long of a memory to remember we were 8th in the world in Test cricket, what, 3-4 years ago? David White triumphantly puffing his chest out and saying we're all for the two-tier structure - it's laughable to me. No way at the start of his tenure would he have gone for it. So what, it's now a good idea because we finally have a good coach and a decent side? Sri Lanka don't want it because they're slipping away after a host of stars retired and they've struggled to replace them. The same could befall us in 4-5 years time. Our depth is okay bowling-wise but gee, where are the runs coming in 3-4 years apart from Kane and Tom (if he kicks on)?
"There's already lot of interest in New Zealand in Test cricket, but if we had a competition with promotion and relegation and a winner at the end, it would really increase interest, no doubt about that."
Is there one NZ poster here who thinks their interest will increase? I realise we are purists and would support it until its dying day, but where's the sensibility to thinking Joe Public, who prefers T20, will put up with leaving outside off stump, white clothing, 200 runs a day across 4-5 days etc just because there's some ridiculous promotion-relegation system which their country is quite possibly not threatened by anyway?
I'm all for four-day Test cricket as long as we can address things like slow over rates, bad light etc. But not this narrow minded rubbish they're coming up with.
Kippax
Cricketer Of The Year
I can see the Veitchy listener giving slightly more ****s, maybe. I can't really see him watching more full sessions of it, but it may get him following the team a bit more keenly, considering everything's then boiled down to nice clean metrics and KPIs he can understand, leading towards some indisputable placing every two years he can slap a quick hashtag of #FACT on.
David White doesn't mind a bit of dumbing down to broaden the base, obvs. He doesn't want to muse Coney-style on the quirks and vagaries of any given two-year block of cricket. He'd prefer to talk in business-style uniform metrics of success.
David White doesn't mind a bit of dumbing down to broaden the base, obvs. He doesn't want to muse Coney-style on the quirks and vagaries of any given two-year block of cricket. He'd prefer to talk in business-style uniform metrics of success.
Last edited:
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
It's not about interest of the NZ cricket fan.
It's about interest in terms of selling tv rights to fans across the world. It potentially means more meaningful matches where both home and away fans are going to care about the result.
That absolutely creates interest.
It's about interest in terms of selling tv rights to fans across the world. It potentially means more meaningful matches where both home and away fans are going to care about the result.
That absolutely creates interest.
David White's quote said interest would rise in New Zealand via the promotion/relegation system. Which is absolute horse ****. If we're playing Pakistan who are fifth and we're fourth, it gives it zero context. We're a middle of the road, 3rd to 6th type operator. Not looking likely to threaten #1, even less likely to be 9th. So why would even the dumbest, thinks CH9 provide a solid analysis sort of punter care?
It's this simple to me. It's not context, it's what's happening in-game. T20 has no context, absolutely nothing at all. In fact about the only game in history that has had context was the Stanford $1m game (of course that's being facetious, but international T20 means bugger all and gun for hire leagues are all about the Benjamins). So why does it succeed? Entertainment value. Not context. So why do we think that'll save Test cricket?
There's two tiers in English county cricket. Has that invigorated anyone's interest? No. It has not.
Get it done over 4 days, lift over rates, eliminate bad light etc. Find a way to deliver day-night Tests properly. I'll grow to love them if I have to. Provide experiences at Tests that aren't being offered at present. Use technology to make the TV offering great. Guys are developing new skills with the bat, there's entertainment value there. Allow a bit of spice in pitches every now and then. Guarantee broadcasters 5 days of viewership. If a Test ends early, you've assembled a T20 specialist squad that takes the empty day's place. I dunno. I'd find a way if I was getting paid to do so, but I'm just a guy on a forum. Get it sorted. And **** right off with this 2 Tier crap.
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
Consent at heart of cricketer Scott Kuggeleijn's rape trial | Stuff.co.nz
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11680894
Oof, here we go. From what I've read so far, I think he's probably going to be cleared. Rape convictions are hard to get even in fairly blatant cases, because usually it comes down to a "he said/she said" where reasonable doubt wins through. Throw in the heroic amounts of alcohol that were consumed and the girl's own admission that her memory of the night's events is patchy and, unless the prosecution can point to something else like a prior history of offending, then it's hard to see the jury convicting.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11680894
Oof, here we go. From what I've read so far, I think he's probably going to be cleared. Rape convictions are hard to get even in fairly blatant cases, because usually it comes down to a "he said/she said" where reasonable doubt wins through. Throw in the heroic amounts of alcohol that were consumed and the girl's own admission that her memory of the night's events is patchy and, unless the prosecution can point to something else like a prior history of offending, then it's hard to see the jury convicting.
Last edited:
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Wow what an atrociously written article.
On top of that, whether he's found guilty or not, he clearly took advantage of an absolutely smashed woman, so his character and behaviour here is hardly great. What a little turd.
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
To be fair to the journalist I think they're pretty much typing this up as it happens in court.
And yeah, taking an already hammered woman and plying her with even more alcohol in order to get her into bed is pretty squick, regardless of what subsequently happened.
Last edited:
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
Hold on a bit here.
If it's rape it's rape. No arguments there.
However, if it's not rape and consent was given, how is it "taking advantage"? At the risk of appealing-to-popularity, almost every one night stand in NZ involves alcohol.
I personally wouldn't be buying her drinks but that's because I'm cheap and drunk *** usually isn't actually that great. But alcohol isn't a defense nor a justification for actions so I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought here.
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
My point is that if a girl is so drunk that she's falling asleep and unable to use her phone properly, then giving her more booze is not exactly ethical, especially if it's with the goal in mind of spiriting her into bed (pun initially unintended, but once I saw it I was like yussssss).
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I do think there's a grey area between "too drunk to consent" and "not drunk enough to impair decision making" where it's not rape but a bit **** anyway.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
Ok, but if she still wants to have ***...?
Last edited: