*Official* English Domestic Season (2004)

[chris.hinton]

Neil

So how are the Minor Counties surviving

 

[Neil Pickup]

The U17 side were in Division Three for starters, and some of them make Arjuna Ranatunga look like the epitome of a good sportsman. I'm unconvinced at best about that lot.

You won't get other counties following with enforced quotas. National sides don't have a youth quota - I can't for the life of me see why a successful side should be broken up because a couple of players become 31.

Your last post is a complete contradiction. What's the point in them playing if the result is a foregone conclusion (which in a one-off game it never is). How would the threat of financial meltdown be better?

There are reasons why it's 14 years since a non-FC side reached the last 8 of a knock-out (Combined Universities featuring Atherton and Hussain to name but two). It's because the whole structure of the professional and amateur games are different. This isn't like football where there's next to no difference between the top of the Conference and the bottom of the Third Division.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Neil

So how are the Minor Counties surviving

Because they don't have a full-time contracted set of players.

 

[PY]

This isn't like football where there's next to no difference between the top of the Conference and the bottom of the Third Division.

You wish there wasn't. Town could have been playing Exeter next year.

 

[Neil Pickup]

There isn't... Doncaster have come straight up and won (all but) the third...

 

[luckyeddie]

I dont want Derby to fold. But if they cannot keep the books in order they need to be relegated to the Minor Counties

Can someone explain this to me, please? Have I missed something?

Derbyshire are currently involved in a major redevelopment of the County Ground incorporating an indoor cricket centre, new grandstand, a hotel and numerous other add-ons.

 

[marc71178]

Not sure who topped this, but I must say I disagree with it - no other country has it's domestic competition topped.

 

[chris.hinton]

The U17 side were in Division Three for starters, and some of them make Arjuna Ranatunga look like the epitome of a good sportsman. I'm unconvinced at best about that lot.

You won't get other counties following with enforced quotas. National sides don't have a youth quota - I can't for the life of me see why a successful side should be broken up because a couple of players become 31.

Your last post is a complete contradiction. What's the point in them playing if the result is a foregone conclusion (which in a one-off game it never is). How would the threat of financial meltdown be better?

There are reasons why it's 14 years since a non-FC side reached the last 8 of a knock-out (Combined Universities featuring Atherton and Hussain to name but two). It's because the whole structure of the professional and amateur games are different. This isn't like football where there's next to no difference between the top of the Conference and the bottom of the Third Division.

Neil that is unfair they where a good side it was the under 17 of 2002 who let them down as it is every year that the division are sorted, my bro played in that side and it is not fair to call them epitome of good sportsman, one plays in the Yorks Permeir league and one plays in the Birmingham league while the rest and in the firsts in the Lincoln premier league, that not that bad

If you read my Orignal post i said that 18 th county championship vs 1st In Minor Counties would be a good idea it would not be a dead match

When have the Minor Counties been successful apart from Lincoln who PROMOTE youth....

Pro and Amateur games are Different but Minor counties can change to Pro within 5 years

 

[marc71178]

my bro played in that side

Now it all becomes clearer...

and it is not fair to call them epitome of good sportsman, one plays in the Yorks Permeir league and one plays in the Birmingham league while the rest and in the firsts in the Lincoln premier league, that not that bad

Doesn't matter where they play if they're bad losers.

 

[chris.hinton]

Now it all becomes clearer...




Doesn't matter where they play if they're bad losers.

I like evidence of Neil to prove that the under 17s (Lincolnshire) where bad losers, I not holding my Breath

 

[Neil Pickup]

Nowhere did I say "bad losers" - haven't seen any of them losing.

I'm talking about bad sportsmanship. Continually [yes, three or more an over] bowling bouncers at a team that's a) three men short, b) has three underage players in the eight that are there and c) has negligible chance of setting a competitive total in a 16-over junior league game (http://caistor.play-cricket.com/scoreboard/scorecard.asp?id=80441) is not my idea of being good sports.

I'm waiting for any decent proof that losing an FC county could ever be good for the game. Lincolnshire have an excellent crop of younger players at the moment - why should other counties pick young players who aren't up to it for the sake of it?

 

[badgerhair]

I'm waiting for any decent proof that losing an FC county could ever be good for the game.

I doubt it could ever be good for the game. What it might be is less bad for the game than some alternatives.

If, for instance, an FC county's organisation were to deteriorate so badly that it depended on ECB handout for 99% of its revenue, in other words the county club effectively only existed as an ECB project, and the game was in financial strife all over the shop, then closing off a pipe through which they are just pouring money to almost no effect might well be better than leaving things as they are.

I'd rather have 14 teams which are financially viable than 18 which aren't. The game has been in financial crisis for at least 80 years, so I'm pretty sceptical about claims that English cricket is about to go belly-up, but I can at least estimate that there are combinations of numbers which make it very advisable to prune the number of fc counties in order to save the rest.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[chris.hinton]

Would you welcome more team into the first class counties

 

[Neil Pickup]

I doubt it could ever be good for the game. What it might be is less bad for the game than some alternatives.

If, for instance, an FC county's organisation were to deteriorate so badly that it depended on ECB handout for 99% of its revenue, in other words the county club effectively only existed as an ECB project, and the game was in financial strife all over the shop, then closing off a pipe through which they are just pouring money to almost no effect might well be better than leaving things as they are.

I'd rather have 14 teams which are financially viable than 18 which aren't. The game has been in financial crisis for at least 80 years, so I'm pretty sceptical about claims that English cricket is about to go belly-up, but I can at least estimate that there are combinations of numbers which make it very advisable to prune the number of fc counties in order to save the rest.

Cheers,

Mike

Agree - I was looking at it from an immediate viewpoint wrt Chris' desire for regular relegation out of Division Two.

 

[chris.hinton]

Agree - I was looking at it from an immediate viewpoint wrt Chris' desire for regular relegation out of Division Two.

not Division two but Division three if there was one

 

[chris.hinton]

if my plan came in in the 2004 season here would be the divisions


1st Division

Sussex, Lancashire, Surrey, Warwickshire, Kent, Worcestershire

2nd Division

Middlesex,Essex, Noots, Leicester, Northants, Glouester

3rd Division

Yorkshire :0 , Glamorgan, Durham, Somerset, Hampshire, Derby


Minor Counties

Premier

Lincolnshire, Staffordshire, Bedford, Devon, Cornwall, Berkshire, Wlitshire

Div 1

Cambridgeshire, Suffolk, Cumberland, Shropshire, Cheshire, Herefordshire, Norfolk

Div 2

Wales, Dorest, Oxfordshire, Northumberland, Buckinghamshire, Heatforshire, Huntingdon

 

[marc71178]

Would you welcome more team into the first class counties

And adding more matches with a weaker player base?!

 

[marc71178]

if my plan came in in the 2004 season here would be the divisions

1st Division

Sussex, Lancashire, Surrey, Warwickshire, Kent, Worcestershire

And on what basis do you relegate one of the top 6 from last season?

 

[badgerhair]

Would you welcome more team into the first class counties

No. It's quite apparent that a structure based on 18 teams isn't ideal and that if we were designing a system from scratch we'd have about ten. In the ideal world, we'd certainly not be expanding and we'd definitely be shrinking in terms of number of teams. So it would be illogical in the extreme to make a sub-optimal position worse by expanding the number of teams from 18.

The most obvious reason why it would an extremely bad idea is that its main effect would be to reduce the other 18 counties' income as the ECB pot has to be shared out between more parties. The other question which any prospective new team is going to have to answer is where it is going to get the £20 million it would need to upgrade their facilities to first-class standard and set up the kind of infrastructure necessary for a full-time business - and why that £20 million, if available, couldn't be better spent.


Cheers,

Mike

 

[Neil Pickup]

And on what basis do you relegate one of the top 6 from last season?

Duh. They're not called "Worcestershire".