One for cricket memorabilia fans, I've just put this 'brief guide' post on my site about The Athletic News Cricket Annual (1888-1955)
There's football linkage as this was the sister publication of the football annual of the same name which became the News of the World Football Annual and latterly, since 2008, the Nationwide Football Annual;
I would have been happy having David Miller back again,both for the hit and giggle stuff and Championship matches to cover for Williamson when he's in The Caribbean. He's averaging 100 in SA this winter-but you can't argue with Finch's recent pedigree. The Boof connection has come up trumps.
Going through the BBC website ins and outs of the Counties, I noticed that for one-day cricket both Durham and Hampshire have dropped their additional names and will play as just their county names.
I wish they'd all drop the nicknames as I'm all for maximising the club's name, image etc under one name. I don't mind the coloured clothing but have always felt that the nicknames suggest that it's a different club where we know it isn't.
Do the international teams play in the World Cup with nicknames, the Australian Attackers, the Bangladeshi Bushwhackers, the England Eagles, the West Indian Warriors?
It works in American Sports as it's pretty much always been the way to attach the nickname to the name of the club, especially in College Sports where so much of the sports were developed.
In other words, this approach is part of their heritage / history.
But in our domestic cricket, I've always felt it was an almost embarrassing attempt to market the teams where we have no such affinity with nicknames.
Unfortunately, Warwickshire, it seems, will still play as the Birmingham Bears in T20, a completely daft decision, in my view.
Having recently started to take an interest in Rugby League I've noticed that all the teams now have nicknames attached to their real name........Wigan Warriors, Widnes Vikings and so on...........
I think it's a bit sad.........it reeks a bit of desperation, like admitting that the game, like county cricket, is in decline so they've turned to the marketing men to jazz it up
Had a look through the domestic fixtures to see the changes they've made and how understandable they are.
I think they are a definite improvement and I'd summarise them as follows;
If it's Sunday, it's County Championship.
If it's Friday, it's T20.
If it's school Summer holiday's, it's One-Day Cup.
For the LVCC matches, although Sunday might seem an odd day to start the matches, I think it's more improtant that there is some consistency in the start day as much as what that day actually is.
But while the Sunday start is good, it applies at the start of the season and then after a while begins to morph back into the old ways with starts beginning on all sorts of different days with 3 matches in a division starting on one day and the 4th on another) or seemingly one-off matches starting out of the blue on any day.
At the back end of the season, there are blocks of matches starting on Friday 15th August, Tuesday 9th September, Monday 15th September and Tuesday 23rd September.
Why on earth can't these blocks start on a Sunday too?
What makes the rationale work in the early and mid season now not work for the end of the season?
I'm sure there is a reason for this, my frustration with it is that I don't know what that reason is, let alone the fragmentation of the matches, making the whole thing more difficult to track.
The German Bundesliga has Matchday 1 to Matchday 38. One match is usually played on a Friday evening and the rest on Saturday afternoon.
Why can't the LVCC have Matchday 1 to Matchday 16 with all the rest of the formats' fixtures planned around it?
I think the idea of T20 on a Friday and One-Day Cup in the holidays makes great sense, especially for the younger audience.
Obviously, the approach used previously for the T20 in trying to play it as a block of matches has been transferred to the One-Day Cup and I think it's more likely that crowds would be better for T20 on a Friday from earlier in the season than for the old Pro-40 matches when they were player early / mid season.
Time will tell on this one.
Ultimately, I feel more inclined to go and watch some matches in all the formats as a result of these changes and if a few more people feel the same, then hopefully, that will be a good thing for attendances.
PS For those interested, my latest website 'brief guide' post on the programmes issued for the Sunday League from 1976 onwards;
Ah, the Sunday League, 40 overs, a home game once a fortnight, starting in the afternoon, finish early evening,, see both teams bat and bowl, and a result.
It was a family day, getting youngsters interested, and went on throughout the season.
I just don't think the pace of 4 day cricket on a Sunday will entice young families, get youngsters interested, and bring in big crowds.
Moving to 50 overs will also, in my opinion, be a backward step, with the dead overs in the middle, a longer day,and less commercial interest.
Essex have already reported they are finding it difficult to market these games, and this may affect revenue streams.
Time will tell, but us oldies will look back on the Sunday League with fondness, and give a nod to the fact that change is not always for the better.
Ah, the Sunday League, 40 overs, a home game once a fortnight, starting in the afternoon, finish early evening,, see both teams bat and bowl, and a result.
It was a family day, getting youngsters interested, and went on throughout the season.
I just don't think the pace of 4 day cricket on a Sunday will entice young families, get youngsters interested, and bring in big crowds.
Moving to 50 overs will also, in my opinion, be a backward step, with the dead overs in the middle, a longer day,and less commercial interest.
Essex have already reported they are finding it difficult to market these games, and this may affect revenue streams.
Time will tell, but us oldies will look back on the Sunday League with fondness, and give a nod to the fact that change is not always for the better.
If you could scrap the 2-division system, then the week could be Fri/Sat/Mon/Tue the CC with a 20/20 in the middle on Sunday between the same teams, and the following week Fri could be the floodlit 20/20 with Sat/Sun/Mon/Tues for the CC game. That could possibly allow for a knock-out trophy (bring back the Gillette Cup!!) on the Weds, if the CC games finished earlier on the last day to allow travelling time. So in the 4-day game, the first three days would be longer to allow an earlier finish on the last when necessaty.
Ah, the Sunday League, 40 overs, a home game once a fortnight, starting in the afternoon, finish early evening,, see both teams bat and bowl, and a result.
It was a family day, getting youngsters interested, and went on throughout the season.
I just don't think the pace of 4 day cricket on a Sunday will entice young families, get youngsters interested, and bring in big crowds.
Moving to 50 overs will also, in my opinion, be a backward step, with the dead overs in the middle, a longer day,and less commercial interest.
Essex have already reported they are finding it difficult to market these games, and this may affect revenue streams.
Time will tell, but us oldies will look back on the Sunday League with fondness, and give a nod to the fact that change is not always for the better.
hatpeg, I think they are trying to re-create some of that old Sunday League feeling again, it's just that they're doing it on Fridays with the T20.
On the issue of a Sunday LVCC start day, I don't think this was chosen with even a secondary aim of attracting a younger audience (i.e. old Sunday League gets replaced by LVCC to replicate experience).
If anything, they have chosen Sunday start dates as this placates county members who want at least some cricket and preferably LVCC cricket at the weekend. In the initial proposals a few months back, the LVCC start day was a Monday, I think.
As for 50 over cricket, I have always been in favour of it.
I disagree with the dead overs argument and always have. This area of an innings, to me, is the time the innings is being built; it's part of the format where there is the opportunity for momentum shifts.
Much as I enjoy all formats, the problem for me, the shorter the overs become is that bit by bit, over reduction by over reduction, another slice of opportunity to create nuance / momentum is lost.
In T20 cricket, there is very little nuance despite all the endless commentaries on IPL which debate an innings down to every ball almost.
The best matches I've ever watched are often not even One-Day ones where a side is trying to save a match or creep towards a low target on a difficult track.
I think there is way too much emphasis on the 'wham, bam, thank you mam' nature of one-day cricket and especially T20 cricket. The sport is fundamentally so much more than 4's and 6's (irritatingly called maximums in the IPL).
Also, the balance in both formats of One-Day cricket is way too far in favour of batsmen but that's for another day.
I've never got why we should be so different to the rest of the world as far as ODI overs are concerned. Is it any wonder that we have palpably failed to become a power in One-Day cricket at ODI level when our domestic version is a different length?
Also, I don't understand the commercial argument. How can a difference of 90 minutes (20 additional overs) make so much difference? Commercial managers get on here and explain.
As an ex corporate marketing person, I'd politely suggets they come up with different packages or position the ones they've got differently or better.
Despite my marketing background, even because of it, I say get the product right for the sport and then market that to the spectators. Often what is right for the sport makes a better spectacle for the fans too. It can often be a circular argument.
That's why I'm glad they don't break up a County match with a one-day one anymore like they did back in the early Sunday League days.
As I said above, I hope it works better; it's certainly easier to understand and therefore to track and enjoy and I think that's a good thing.
I enjoy and attend more 4 day cricket than one day games, and rarely go (about one a season) to the T/20 pub crawl.
The Sunday League was often the first introduction to children going to cricket, and in many cases got them hooked and eventually interested in the longer form of the game.
I'm not sure T/20 will do the same, and an introduction to Championship cricket (probably on a Sunday) which will be the first day, may be rather slow and could put them off for life!
I've never bought into the fact that playing 40 overs hampers our International chances because they play 50 overs.
How many contracted England players ever turn out in 40 over games?
A 40 over game is 80% of the International game, just as 4 Day cricket is 80% of Test matches.
Players should be able to adapt.
i attend more 4 day matches too, and for them to start it on a sunday, their trying to get more people to attend, as no one is at school,uni and unless you work on public transport or retail, most people have it off...
Harry Gurney seems to have had a good work out in the MCC game. A very important month or so for him. If he can grab a few wickets in the early season he could well be in line for a Test debut, as he is very much in the selectors minds. He does have a very modest first class record, so a big improvement will be required . The fact he is a leftie should help him though.
Sidebottom was also a late developer, but had a very good , if brief England career.
Commentator Marty's observation that wickets fell in the evening turned out right so lucky I only had time to listen to 15 mins commentary at mid morning.
On the subject of commentary I was surprised how good Gatting was as a pundit. He brought some astute observation to the drama.
The later championship rounds can't all start on Sundays because they may be needed as reserve days after finals. I think the have the ECB have the overall balance right but the 50 over group games should be played in May and early June with the T20 running mid June to mid August.
As I scrape the frost off my windscreen, sweep the snow off the drive, and lay out hot water bottles in the hope that the daffodils will make an appearance before mid-summers day, I have to pinch myself that the Mighty Lancashire start their CC campaign later today. It's sodding the first week in April, which is an anagram for "We've Only Just Started Winter".
Blackpool Hockey Festival is usually in April and that's well known for carting players off in ambulances, 10% due to injuries, 90% severe hypothermia that even Jagermiester can't cure.
Comments
There's football linkage as this was the sister publication of the football annual of the same name which became the News of the World Football Annual and latterly, since 2008, the Nationwide Football Annual;
http://www.goalsandwickets.co.uk/cricket/cricket-annuals/the-first-and-oldest-pocket-cricket-annual-a-brief-guide-to-the-athletic-news-cricket-annual/
The imbibed in the Western Stand better watch out!!!
That is insulting and completely inaccurate, I ask you to withdraw that remark and correct it right NOW
It's the imbibed in the Western Terrace
I wish they'd all drop the nicknames as I'm all for maximising the club's name, image etc under one name. I don't mind the coloured clothing but have always felt that the nicknames suggest that it's a different club where we know it isn't.
Do the international teams play in the World Cup with nicknames, the Australian Attackers, the Bangladeshi Bushwhackers, the England Eagles, the West Indian Warriors?
It works in American Sports as it's pretty much always been the way to attach the nickname to the name of the club, especially in College Sports where so much of the sports were developed.
In other words, this approach is part of their heritage / history.
But in our domestic cricket, I've always felt it was an almost embarrassing attempt to market the teams where we have no such affinity with nicknames.
Unfortunately, Warwickshire, it seems, will still play as the Birmingham Bears in T20, a completely daft decision, in my view.
Or Warwickshire?
I think it's a bit sad.........it reeks a bit of desperation, like admitting that the game, like county cricket, is in decline so they've turned to the marketing men to jazz it up
I refuse to use these marketing names........>:(
Accusation removed immediately.
I thought it used to be called the Western Terrace and had change to Stand???
Next time I go, I'll be wearing beer-proof clothing after getting soaked at last year's Roses T20 match!
Durham 79/1 at lunch
Monty is playing for MCC . Maybe he does have a future...
Exactly!
I think they are a definite improvement and I'd summarise them as follows;
If it's Sunday, it's County Championship.
If it's Friday, it's T20.
If it's school Summer holiday's, it's One-Day Cup.
For the LVCC matches, although Sunday might seem an odd day to start the matches, I think it's more improtant that there is some consistency in the start day as much as what that day actually is.
But while the Sunday start is good, it applies at the start of the season and then after a while begins to morph back into the old ways with starts beginning on all sorts of different days with 3 matches in a division starting on one day and the 4th on another) or seemingly one-off matches starting out of the blue on any day.
At the back end of the season, there are blocks of matches starting on Friday 15th August, Tuesday 9th September, Monday 15th September and Tuesday 23rd September.
Why on earth can't these blocks start on a Sunday too?
What makes the rationale work in the early and mid season now not work for the end of the season?
I'm sure there is a reason for this, my frustration with it is that I don't know what that reason is, let alone the fragmentation of the matches, making the whole thing more difficult to track.
The German Bundesliga has Matchday 1 to Matchday 38. One match is usually played on a Friday evening and the rest on Saturday afternoon.
Why can't the LVCC have Matchday 1 to Matchday 16 with all the rest of the formats' fixtures planned around it?
I think the idea of T20 on a Friday and One-Day Cup in the holidays makes great sense, especially for the younger audience.
Obviously, the approach used previously for the T20 in trying to play it as a block of matches has been transferred to the One-Day Cup and I think it's more likely that crowds would be better for T20 on a Friday from earlier in the season than for the old Pro-40 matches when they were player early / mid season.
Time will tell on this one.
Ultimately, I feel more inclined to go and watch some matches in all the formats as a result of these changes and if a few more people feel the same, then hopefully, that will be a good thing for attendances.
PS For those interested, my latest website 'brief guide' post on the programmes issued for the Sunday League from 1976 onwards;
http://www.goalsandwickets.co.uk/cricket/cricket-programmes/what-no-more-scorecards-a-brief-guide-to-the-cricket-programmes-of-the-sunday-league/
It was a family day, getting youngsters interested, and went on throughout the season.
I just don't think the pace of 4 day cricket on a Sunday will entice young families, get youngsters interested, and bring in big crowds.
Moving to 50 overs will also, in my opinion, be a backward step, with the dead overs in the middle, a longer day,and less commercial interest.
Essex have already reported they are finding it difficult to market these games, and this may affect revenue streams.
Time will tell, but us oldies will look back on the Sunday League with fondness, and give a nod to the fact that change is not always for the better.
hatpeg, I think they are trying to re-create some of that old Sunday League feeling again, it's just that they're doing it on Fridays with the T20.
On the issue of a Sunday LVCC start day, I don't think this was chosen with even a secondary aim of attracting a younger audience (i.e. old Sunday League gets replaced by LVCC to replicate experience).
If anything, they have chosen Sunday start dates as this placates county members who want at least some cricket and preferably LVCC cricket at the weekend. In the initial proposals a few months back, the LVCC start day was a Monday, I think.
As for 50 over cricket, I have always been in favour of it.
I disagree with the dead overs argument and always have. This area of an innings, to me, is the time the innings is being built; it's part of the format where there is the opportunity for momentum shifts.
Much as I enjoy all formats, the problem for me, the shorter the overs become is that bit by bit, over reduction by over reduction, another slice of opportunity to create nuance / momentum is lost.
In T20 cricket, there is very little nuance despite all the endless commentaries on IPL which debate an innings down to every ball almost.
The best matches I've ever watched are often not even One-Day ones where a side is trying to save a match or creep towards a low target on a difficult track.
I think there is way too much emphasis on the 'wham, bam, thank you mam' nature of one-day cricket and especially T20 cricket. The sport is fundamentally so much more than 4's and 6's (irritatingly called maximums in the IPL).
Also, the balance in both formats of One-Day cricket is way too far in favour of batsmen but that's for another day.
I've never got why we should be so different to the rest of the world as far as ODI overs are concerned. Is it any wonder that we have palpably failed to become a power in One-Day cricket at ODI level when our domestic version is a different length?
Also, I don't understand the commercial argument. How can a difference of 90 minutes (20 additional overs) make so much difference? Commercial managers get on here and explain.
As an ex corporate marketing person, I'd politely suggets they come up with different packages or position the ones they've got differently or better.
Despite my marketing background, even because of it, I say get the product right for the sport and then market that to the spectators. Often what is right for the sport makes a better spectacle for the fans too. It can often be a circular argument.
That's why I'm glad they don't break up a County match with a one-day one anymore like they did back in the early Sunday League days.
As I said above, I hope it works better; it's certainly easier to understand and therefore to track and enjoy and I think that's a good thing.
The Sunday League was often the first introduction to children going to cricket, and in many cases got them hooked and eventually interested in the longer form of the game.
I'm not sure T/20 will do the same, and an introduction to Championship cricket (probably on a Sunday) which will be the first day, may be rather slow and could put them off for life!
I've never bought into the fact that playing 40 overs hampers our International chances because they play 50 overs.
How many contracted England players ever turn out in 40 over games?
A 40 over game is 80% of the International game, just as 4 Day cricket is 80% of Test matches.
Players should be able to adapt.
i attend more 4 day matches too, and for them to start it on a sunday, their trying to get more people to attend, as no one is at school,uni and unless you work on public transport or retail, most people have it off...
Sidebottom was also a late developer, but had a very good , if brief England career.
On the subject of commentary I was surprised how good Gatting was as a pundit. He brought some astute observation to the drama.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/county-cricket-2014/content/story/735035.html
Tom Poynton Derbys WK hurt in car crash where his father died
Blackpool Hockey Festival is usually in April and that's well known for carting players off in ambulances, 10% due to injuries, 90% severe hypothermia that even Jagermiester can't cure.