Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

T20 Franchise Cricket

1246711

Comments

  • And Mullaney bowling seam at 59 mph - yawn....yeah he's really gonna make it into the England squad ay????????

    Pase off the ball is an accepted technique in limited overs cricket especially in English conditions. Look at Morris for Surrey this year steamed in bowled fast and got smashed around. Every team will want a trundeler whether it is the current system or franchise.
    So, Mullaney for England then ??!!!!!
    Nope of course not. But will he get a franchise gig. Of course.
  • Those people using Football as the example as to why they don't believe it would benefit Englnad are missing one HUGE point.... That most clubs in the Prem play with very few English players nowadays, whereas in T20 Franchise teams there would be a minimum of 7 English-qualified players playing.

    Yes a minimum of 7, which is 2 less per team than currently, plus less teams which means less English players.
    but Canters, you miss the point, about 7 more than a Prem team. You cant seriouslt tell me that if they cant get into a 7 of a 10 (lets say) Franchise team that they could be challenging for England ??!!! (thats 70 players btw)
    Not but the counterfactual should not be premier league football. It should be the t20 system as it is..

    So to use your example that's 70 players in 10 teams. So 2 less per team than under current rules and 4 less teams than the current system that's 36. So a total of 56 less English players playing in the English t20..

    Good for English cricket.
    Of course its good for England cricket !! - notice i say England cricket - because we have already said that we want the new Franshise tourno to improve England. Having the likes of the 'trundlers and nurdlers' not playing means we discard the dross and raise the level one notch. It cant improve English cricket by having the trundlers keep coming in 67 mph - how can it ??
  • edited August 2016

    Those people using Football as the example as to why they don't believe it would benefit Englnad are missing one HUGE point.... That most clubs in the Prem play with very few English players nowadays, whereas in T20 Franchise teams there would be a minimum of 7 English-qualified players playing.

    Yes a minimum of 7, which is 2 less per team than currently, plus less teams which means less English players.
    but Canters, you miss the point, about 7 more than a Prem team. You cant seriouslt tell me that if they cant get into a 7 of a 10 (lets say) Franchise team that they could be challenging for England ??!!! (thats 70 players btw)
    Not but the counterfactual should not be premier league football. It should be the t20 system as it is..

    So to use your example that's 70 players in 10 teams. So 2 less per team than under current rules that's 20 and 8 less teams than the current system that's 72. So a total of 92 less English players playing in the English t20..

    Good for English cricket.
    It's not just the number that concerns me. It's the make up of that number. Contracts will go to decent experienced county pros that will never play for England and the young players will miss out.
  • And Mullaney bowling seam at 59 mph - yawn....yeah he's really gonna make it into the England squad ay????????

    Pase off the ball is an accepted technique in limited overs cricket especially in English conditions. Look at Morris for Surrey this year steamed in bowled fast and got smashed around. Every team will want a trundeler whether it is the current system or franchise.
    So, Mullaney for England then ??!!!!!
    Nope of course not. But will he get a franchise gig. Of course.
    Maybe, but he'd have to be one of the better trundlers - and for sure, he'll get deposited out of the ground by the likes of Kohli, Gayle,ABDV.
  • Those people using Football as the example as to why they don't believe it would benefit Englnad are missing one HUGE point.... That most clubs in the Prem play with very few English players nowadays, whereas in T20 Franchise teams there would be a minimum of 7 English-qualified players playing.

    Yes a minimum of 7, which is 2 less per team than currently, plus less teams which means less English players.
    but Canters, you miss the point, about 7 more than a Prem team. You cant seriouslt tell me that if they cant get into a 7 of a 10 (lets say) Franchise team that they could be challenging for England ??!!! (thats 70 players btw)
    Not but the counterfactual should not be premier league football. It should be the t20 system as it is..

    So to use your example that's 70 players in 10 teams. So 2 less per team than under current rules and 4 less teams than the current system that's 36. So a total of 56 less English players playing in the English t20..

    Good for English cricket.
    It's not just the number that concerns me. It's the make up of that number. Contracts will go to decent experienced county pros that will never play for England and the young players will miss out.
    Absolute not - can you imagine the likes of Currans not being picked for Stevens and Masters? - of course not.
  • oh well , the good news is that Notts beat the cheating Essex, but it was a poor,poor game played by 2 poor teams in front of a very enthusiastic crowd. Nuff said.
  • Those people using Football as the example as to why they don't believe it would benefit Englnad are missing one HUGE point.... That most clubs in the Prem play with very few English players nowadays, whereas in T20 Franchise teams there would be a minimum of 7 English-qualified players playing.

    Yes a minimum of 7, which is 2 less per team than currently, plus less teams which means less English players.
    but Canters, you miss the point, about 7 more than a Prem team. You cant seriouslt tell me that if they cant get into a 7 of a 10 (lets say) Franchise team that they could be challenging for England ??!!! (thats 70 players btw)
    Not but the counterfactual should not be premier league football. It should be the t20 system as it is..

    So to use your example that's 70 players in 10 teams. So 2 less per team than under current rules and 4 less teams than the current system that's 36. So a total of 56 less English players playing in the English t20..

    Good for English cricket.
    It's not just the number that concerns me. It's the make up of that number. Contracts will go to decent experienced county pros that will never play for England and the young players will miss out.
    Absolute not - can you imagine the likes of Currans not being picked for Stevens and Masters? - of course not.
    But 2/3 years ago before they had made a first team appearance would a franchise have picked them? No chance. Yet they both made their debut in that tournament and their performances were so good that they forced their way into all formats and are now established county players. You are taking out that route into first team cricket. I think it will be damaging.

    I think the best thing is all t20 in a block in the middle of the summer, the international team to have a break at the same so England players are available and chuck in finals day at the Olympic stadium if you want. But keep it as the county system.
  • Pres we are never gonna agree on this so I am gonna leave it there. I have said my piece as have you, we are both cricket fans and both want the best for cricket but see it happening in different ways.

    You many think I am sticking my head in the sand or getting in the way of progress. Personally I think change is needed but not that change.

    I like you (on here at least) you seem like a good guy. I'd like to have a drink with you one match this season. But there is no point rehashing the same stuff over and over.
  • Pres we are never gonna agree on this so I am gonna leave it there. I have said my piece as have you, we are both cricket fans and both want the best for cricket but see it happening in different ways.

    You many think I am sticking my head in the sand or getting in the way of progress. Personally I think change is needed but not that change.

    I like you (on here at least) you seem like a good guy. I'd like to have a drink with you one match this season. But there is no point rehashing the same stuff over and over.

    Agree mate - we'll have a beer at The Oval this season - lets make sure of it. Or even a Charlton away game.
  • Pres we are never gonna agree on this so I am gonna leave it there. I have said my piece as have you, we are both cricket fans and both want the best for cricket but see it happening in different ways.

    You many think I am sticking my head in the sand or getting in the way of progress. Personally I think change is needed but not that change.

    I like you (on here at least) you seem like a good guy. I'd like to have a drink with you one match this season. But there is no point rehashing the same stuff over and over.

    Agree mate - we'll have a beer at The Oval this season - lets make sure of it. Or even a Charlton away game.
    Absolutely looking forward to it.
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited August 2016
    This debate reminds me of the one that Rugby had about going professional a few years ago. The people who complain about the lack of County involvement will quickly reflect the numbers who think rugby players should go back to working the 9-5.
  • T20 finals day at Edgbaston - first game is Northants v Notts - Northants were 15-3, but Ben Ducket made a brilinat 84 of 46 balls and ended up on 161 - Notts currently 107-7 need 55 off 34 balls.
  • 2nd semi is Yorks v DUr - should be acracker as all the ENglnad players are playing - Stokes,Wood,Root,Baristow,Ballance,Plunkett
  • 2nd semi is Yorks v DUr - should be acracker as all the ENglnad players are playing - Stokes,Wood,Root,Baristow,Ballance,Plunkett

    Surely Ballance won't play? He was turgid on Thursday in the 50 over match, but at least that's a format where you don't have to slog at everything
  • Notts 147-9 need 15 off 8 balls
  • Northants win by 8 runs
  • Has anyone seen such a fat side as Northants ?
  • They are a bit porky - assume thats why Bumble calls them the 'bigguns' - but its only Levi and Kleinveldt that are that shape.
  • Rossington too, surely
  • Dur get 156 off their 20 - Ben Stokes hitting a very good 50.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Mark Wood beat Joe Root with 3 consecutive balls - not many bowlers get to do that.
  • Joe Root out for 7 - a real strange,patchy innings- wanted to slog everything.
  • 122-7 - need 35 off 16 balls.
    Mark Wood has bowled beautifully.
  • 23 off 12 balls needed
  • Plunkett nicks Wood for a streaky four and then gets bowled next ball.
    19 now needed off 10
  • 139-9 Bresnan bowled Wood
    Wood has been fantastic.
    18 off 8 needed
  • 4 wickets for Wood so far
  • Wood 4 overs 4 for 25
  • 15 to win off last over 1 wicket left
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!