SA Footy

whufc wrote:I mean what are our biggest attending sports in summer and winter in this country ….. aussie rules and cricket ‘coincidentally’ they also generate the biggest tv rights deal out of all our sports. It’s not like the A-league gets poor attendances yet millions are watching at home on tv despite the fact soccer has the highest participation rate in the country… the poor attendances reflect the lack of interest in that competition

Pretty much all of that is factually incorrect.

whufc wrote:It’s not like the A-league gets poor attendances yet millions are watching at home on tv despite the fact soccer has the highest participation rate in the country… the poor attendances reflect the lack of interest in that competition

Contradiction much?

AFL, NRL and Cricket are the most attended sports in the country (at a guess), but they're also the most viewed on TV and have the highest rating "events" for TV e.g. Grand Finals, State of Origin etc.

They are simply the most popular sports in the country. They generate tv rights because they have a product that is already being watched.

Soccer sucks.

The Bedge wrote:AFL, NRL and Cricket are the most attended sports in the country (at a guess), but they're also the most viewed on TV and have the highest rating "events" for TV e.g. Grand Finals, State of Origin etc.

They are simply the most popular sports in the country. They generate tv rights because they have a product that is already being watched.

Soccer sucks.

No one attends NRL these days but agree with the rest

When the Bowler has the ball at the top of his painted mark on the grass, the ball becomes live.
so if the batsmen want to run they can, run outs at either end can occur.


in the general play if a batsmen is out caught then you can also run out the non striker, and same for run outs

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:When the Bowler has the ball at the top of his painted mark on the grass, the ball becomes live.
so if the batsmen want to run they can, run outs at either end can occur.


in the general play if a batsmen is out caught then you can also run out the non striker, and same for run outs

Baseball thread please.

whufc wrote:

mickey wrote:

Brodlach wrote:I agree with Booney for a change. Leave. It. Alone.

Can we bring back timeless tests and uncovered pitches.
Seeing that we don't want to change anything [emoji6]

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

Yep if test cricket isn't willing to change hard to see it existing especially with a global look on the game. I would much rather some small subtle changes than a complete overhaul like 4 day tests etc.

Absolute rubbish

Interesting article showing amount of tests played slowly declining in the last decade and Aus/Eng/Ind being involved in 62% of tests played now. Looking at the fixtures for 2023 the number decreases again and the big 3 involved in even more % of tests. From what I can see no series not involving the big 3 is more than the 2 test series. Even NZ/SL is only a two test series.

https://amp.abc.net.au/article/13171360

whufc wrote:Interesting article showing amount of tests played slowly declining in the last decade and Aus/Eng/Ind being involved in 62% of tests played now. Looking at the fixtures for 2023 the number decreases again and the big 3 involved in even more % of tests. From what I can see no series not involving the big 3 is more than the 2 test series. Even NZ/SL is only a two test series.

https://amp.abc.net.au/article/13171360

You don’t think that’s because the schedule is being clogged up with T20 bull crap?

Dutchy wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Dutchy wrote:Make Lunch and tea 15 min breaks only, you get half an hour straight back, cricketers these days are so fit they dont need these long breaks anymore and its wasted time in the middle of the day - esp at a venue where light becomes a factor after 5pm

They need the 40 minutes for a feed, shower/ice bath, massage etc.

Even as an amateur, playing back to back days takes a bit out of you, especially for quick bowlers, playing 5 days in a row would be absolutely gruelling.

Even just fielding for a complete day knocks you about, these guys can field for in excess of 150 overs.

Lets remember the bowlers aren't out there for 5 days, be lucky if they are out there for more than 2 days

It’s still very taxing on the body

Brodlach wrote:

whufc wrote:Interesting article showing amount of tests played slowly declining in the last decade and Aus/Eng/Ind being involved in 62% of tests played now. Looking at the fixtures for 2023 the number decreases again and the big 3 involved in even more % of tests. From what I can see no series not involving the big 3 is more than the 2 test series. Even NZ/SL is only a two test series.

https://amp.abc.net.au/article/13171360

You don’t think that’s because the schedule is being clogged up with T20 bull crap?

That’s exactly why….

T20 is where the money is at….it’s the money maker. T20 is threatening test crickets existence especially in the smaller less financial countries. Unless test cricket somehow gains popularity in those countries t20 cricket will only take over more.

The Bedge wrote:

whufc wrote:It’s not like the A-league gets poor attendances yet millions are watching at home on tv despite the fact soccer has the highest participation rate in the country… the poor attendances reflect the lack of interest in that competition

Contradiction much?

What I was meant to say is that the A league gets shit crowds attending and it also gets shit viewing ratings on tv.

What sport can you think of gets shit attendances yet gets huge tv audiences. There is normally a fairly direct correlation.

Maybe horse racing is one….

whufc wrote:

The Bedge wrote:

whufc wrote:It’s not like the A-league gets poor attendances yet millions are watching at home on tv despite the fact soccer has the highest participation rate in the country… the poor attendances reflect the lack of interest in that competition

Contradiction much?

What I was meant to say is that the A league gets shit crowds attending and it also gets shit viewing ratings on tv.

What sport can you think of gets shit attendances yet gets huge tv audiences. There is normally a fairly direct correlation.

Maybe horse racing is one….

Horse racing and NRL

DRS -

LBW - no umpires call - if ball hitting the stumps its out. either fully trust the technology or not at all

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:DRS -

LBW - no umpires call - if ball hitting the stumps its out. either fully trust the technology or not at all

It’s very frustrating hey? It’s a batters game

I agree re things like going off for bad light shouldn’t happen. Why not bring in a pink ball if light gets bad, much like they change a ball if it goes out of shape. More penalties for not getting through 90 overs in a day - or even 30 overs in a session. However, I wouldn’t change too much else regarding Test cricket.

Keeping in mind T20 or short format franchise cricket is taking over. India and Asia is now the major force in cricket and Australia and England are the other big players - where Test cricket is still popular, I’d suggest the following…

I’d change the fixture to have the equivalent of a Test World Cup, ODI World Cup and T20I World Cup happen every year.

The Test World Cup over 2 months with the best 6 nations playing each other once - top 2 play final. The ODI and T20I World Cups over 3 and a bit weeks in the Super 12 format we saw for the T20 WC recently in Australia. Qualifier tournaments could be held at the same time with lower nations a chance to qualify for the following year in each format - promotion/relegation.

The ICC should be able to make a packet from these tournaments and pay each player from each nation a decent pay packet to make these tournaments the highest level of cricket.

There should be 4 months where the major franchise T20 tournaments are given exclusive access to all players and likewise, when these international world cups are on, no franchise cricket to be played. January for BBL, Sth Af, UAE etc. April/May for IPL, July for The Hundred, US etc.

Due to popularity of format, time zones etc. over an 8 year cycle:

Asia would alternate hosting a T20I or ODI World Cup each year. Usually in October. They would host one Test World Cup also.

England would host the Test World Cup every 2nd year in June & July. They would host one T20I and one ODI World Cup over the 8 year cycle.

Australia/NZ would host a Test World Cup every 4 years and one T20I and one ODI World Cup over the 8 year cycle.

South Africa would host one Test, one T20I and one ODI World Cup over the 8 year cycle.

West Indies would host one T20I and one ODI World Cup over the 8 year cycle.

12 months would look like:

Jan - Franchise cricket - BBL etc
Feb/Mar - International friendlies leading to WC in Aus/NZ/SAF or WI
Apr/May - Franchise cricket - IPL etc
Jun/Jul - international cricket in England
Aug - Franchise Cricket - The Hundred etc.
Sep/Oct - International friendlies leading to WC in Asia
Nov/Dec - International bilateral series

Australian summers might look like this over a 4 year period:
Year 1: Nov/Dec Ashes, Jan BBL, Feb 3xODI or T20I friendlies
Year 2: Nov/Dec India in Aus, Jan BBL, Feb T20I or ODI World Cup
Year 3: Nov/Dec Test World Cup (final MCG Boxing Day), Jan BBL, Feb 3x ODI or T20I friendlies
Year 4: Nov/Dec Other Int side in Aus, Jan BBL, Feb 3x ODI or T20I friendlies

whufc wrote:

PatowalongaPirate wrote:

whufc wrote:

The Bedge wrote:[quote="whufc"]Disagree especially in the case of the Windies......

Hmm I thought it was well documented that issues - particularly around $$ with the WICB and WI Government was a large part of the decline in cricket, and was also a major factor in players defecting to T20 format in the early years and/or playing overseas.

It is but cricket was already well and truly on a decline.....that was just the nail in the coffin.

The West Indies are unique, it must be incredibly hard to select a team of players from different countries (some that really don't like each other) and have to appease the different Governments and local cricket boards. I was in Jamaica in 1999 when Brian Lara walked out to a chorus of boos late on day 1. He was even booed by some when got to 100. They were more congratulatory when he passed 200 lol.

Is it time a few Islands break away and try and play as individual nations?

You wouldn't think they would be competitive, but it would give each nation more control of their players, governances, promotion and investment in the game.

Hard part would be not many of the nation's cricket bodies would be financially strong enough to break away.

The other part is as well that even if the players are paid more is it ever going to be more than what they can get playing in the T20 comps around the world. I dont know the answer to that but would Pat Cummins be financially better off quitting t20 and playing t20 all his life. If thats a yes throwing more money at the players may not solve the issue anyway.[/quote]
If your interested Whufc- The guys from the Caribbean Cricket Podcast have discussed this topic on their West Indies on 99.94 podcast a month ago.
https://youtu.be/W8a6yw8uk4w

And yesterday they discussed the Over Saturation on T20 cricket.
https://youtu.be/1xXXZI8pkv0

The Dark Knight wrote:

whufc wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:

whufc wrote:It's crazy to think it's that simple yet the ICC won't change it for some strange reason.

TV rights and advertising.

True....quicker days equals less time on tv which equals less adverts which should equal less tv rights $$$.

This is basically what Jarrod Kimber says on his podcasts when people ask him about over rates, he says the ICC and cricket boards aren't willing to do anything major about it because quicker days mean less adverts which mean less $$$ for them.

Hang on, dont they only do adverts at the completion of every over?
So if only 88 overs are bowled in the day they are 2 adverts short.
I fail to see how a quicker day leads to less revenue

daysofourlives wrote:

The Dark Knight wrote:

whufc wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:[quote="whufc"]It's crazy to think it's that simple yet the ICC won't change it for some strange reason.

TV rights and advertising.

True....quicker days equals less time on tv which equals less adverts which should equal less tv rights $$$.

This is basically what Jarrod Kimber says on his podcasts when people ask him about over rates, he says the ICC and cricket boards aren't willing to do anything major about it because quicker days mean less adverts which mean less $$$ for them.

Hang on, dont they only do adverts at the completion of every over?
So if only 88 overs are bowled in the day they are 2 adverts short.
I fail to see how a quicker day leads to less revenue[/quote]
I should of said advertisement, not just TV adverts, plenty of advertising at the grounds too that people are exposed too.
Yes there's ad breaks at the end of ever over (two or three during a drinks break) but there's also plenty of ads during the lunch and tea breaks.

The Dark Knight wrote:I should of said advertisement, not just TV adverts, plenty of advertising at the grounds too that people are exposed too.
Yes there's ad breaks at the end of ever over (two or three during a drinks break) but there's also plenty of ads during the lunch and tea breaks.

Chemist Warehouse boundary