Bears/Pears/Domestic Cricket Thread

[Whiney MacWhineface]

Henry Brookes, that's the lad. Such a shame.

Thanks to Richard and Paul.

[paul_e]

I knew very few of the Warwickshire players the other day. I've lost almost all contact (except Mo coming home).

Question: a few years back (5 or 6?) there was a Bears teenager making waves in the game. He was pretty fast and Rob Key was impressed, and mentioned him several times that year. The last time I heard anything about him was a back injury.

Does anyone remember him?

Henry Brookes maybe? Now at Middlesex. He's no longer that good!

Has he moved, I must've missed that, oops.

[Rory]

It's a good job I don't give a shit about The Hundred. Birmingham batting disgracefully.

[paul_e]

It's a good job I don't give a shit about The Hundred. Birmingham batting disgracefully.

Turned it around a bit now, Bethell and Patel did a very decent job to get things settled a bit and then an aggressive knock from Howell who's just gone.

Should be aiming for 120-130 now which is still a bit light but gives us something to bowl at. That said this is a very good bowling attack.

[dubont]

89 all out.

[paul_e]

fell apart again once Patel got out but the damage was done at the top, the middle order and tail had an impossible task really. I reckon they embarrass us and knock them off in about 45 balls.

[DaveD]

Well I watched both games today and I think that will be it for me for the season. Exactly same problems for Phoenix as last year (top order losing clusters of early wickets) and the format and breathless hype irritate me more every year. I'd much rather watch the Blast than this nonsense.

Also Issy Wong can't buy any luck - desperately needs to find rhythm, but bowled one ball, then stood around for twenty minutes while they pissed about with the pitch in slow motion - and Liam Livingstone is stealing a living again, same as he does for England.

[Rory]

Well I watched both games today and I think that will be it for me for the season. Exactly same problems for Phoenix as last year (top order losing clusters of early wickets) and the format and breathless hype irritate me more every year. I'd much rather watch the Blast than this nonsense.

Also Issy Wong can't buy any luck - desperately needs to find rhythm, but bowled one ball, then stood around for twenty minutes while they pissed about with the pitch in slow motion - and Liam Livingstone is stealing a living again, same as he does for England.

Yep, fuck the county system, fuck the rules of the game, fuck any sense of dignity with the vulgar colours and ridiculous names, where you identify the sides by their KP logo.

And what are you left with? A (men's) game that took three hours to deliver 30 proper overs, and where the result was decided after about 15 balls.

All the while with the media - totally biased in favour of the Oval twats with their Windows '95 Clip Art badge - trying to big it up as a contest of some kind, with their bullshit scoring and graphics.

And why the fuck does it take about 90 minutes to switch between the women's and men's matches? Just take the boundary out a bit, let the men have a warm-up on the turf, and go. Don't spend an hour and a half talking bollocks and giving us a mini-concert.

[edgysatsuma89]

I only have a passing interest in cricket and predominantly only watch us in big internationals (and I much prefer test cricket). This question has most probably been answered before so I apologise in advance, but why was a 100 ball format invented when a 120 ball format exists? It seems pointless as an outsider looking in. Is it played much differently?

[Rory]

I only have a passing interest in cricket and predominantly only watch us in big internationals (and I much prefer test cricket). This question has most probably been answered before so I apologise in advance, but why was a 100 ball format invented when a 120 ball format exists? It seems pointless as an outsider looking in. Is it played much differently?

They decided to reformat the most popular and accessible form of the game (t20).

Nobody quite knows why, given t20 is already incredibly popular, but somebody thought it was a good idea to change the rules (which non-cricket fans already found confusing) and the scoring (which non-cricket fans also found confusing) so that it doesn't fit with any other form of the game.

This didn't happen worldwide; they decided to do this only in England.

They also decided to make it so that the number of changes between overs remains the same, so the game doesn't actually flow any quicker. Also, the players must wear disgusting kits, represent 'franchises' that are entirely artificial and with stupid names, and there should be fireworks and live music.

The media all support one franchise (Oval Invincibles) and nobody who follows domestic cricket is arsed because it's a brand new outfit and not the side they actually support (eg Warwickshire Bears vs Birmingham Phoenix).

So to answer your question, no. It was a shit idea, mate.

Test cricket remains the best form of the game, and the finest sport ever devised.

[paul_e]

I only have a passing interest in cricket and predominantly only watch us in big internationals (and I much prefer test cricket). This question has most probably been answered before so I apologise in advance, but why was a 100 ball format invented when a 120 ball format exists? It seems pointless as an outsider looking in. Is it played much differently?

The ECB gives a bunch of nonsense reasons (some of which Rory has touched on) like making the game simpler and faster and adding more tactical choice.

The real reason is they wanted an IPL -style franchise league but t20 was fully embedded into the county system which means too many teams and the whole auction concept doesn't work because counties just stick with what they have. A new format and completely new teams bsaed around the test match grounds was their fiddle to get it through without upsetting anyone and it's a bit shit really.

[Rotterdam]

The ECB also want (ed) to franchise the 100 out to bring in more cash. It hasn't worked.
I've never watched a game and I don't intend to.

[Gareth]

The ECB also want (ed) to franchise the 100 out to bring in more cash. It hasn't worked.
I've never watched a game and I don't intend to.

Exactly this! & I am the same as regards watching it

The utter idiots in suits that run the ECB thought ‘inventing’ a format would make them gazillions selling it around the world…. Imbeciles :-)

[Gareth]

So Worcs have got 370 off 48 overs but now Middlesex turn and the Worcs attack has little to no first class experience….could be a very interesting chase

Pollock 180, so frustrating 300 runs in 3 days and next to nothing elsewhere this season.  So good to watch in flow though

Brookes got Brookes out too…brotherly love

[edgysatsuma89]

Thanks for the detailed responses, I've always wondered.