Natwest Blast 2017

[sanskritsimon]

Originally Posted by paulsre

So:

Three of last year's finals day sides didn't get out of the group this year.

Of the 8 who have progressed, 6 didn't get out of their group last season.

(In turn this follows on from 2016, where three of the finals day sides - Notts, Durham and Yorkshire - hadn't got out of the group in 2015.)

???

I don't know about other T20 tournaments but if you mix in the results of the various "World T20" competitions I think you could put forward an argument to the effect that there's no such thing as a good T20 side -- just one that's luckier than the oppo on the day.

[paulsre]

Originally Posted by sanskritsimon

I think you could put forward an argument to the effect that there's no such thing as a good T20 side -- just one that's luckier than the oppo on the day.

Yes, well initially I thought maybe it was along those lines. But while there might be some streaky runs, there is no luck involved in hitting 20 off an over, or dismissing a batsman with a fast yorker.

Maybe with the sport at this level still being just 14 years old, teams are still some way off figuring out what is really required to outplay the opposition?

[paulsre]

Surrey's home quarter-final on Friday is currently being soured by what appears to be justified discontent from members over ticketing arrangements.

Apparently it was clearly stated by the club, including on the website, that membership packages including T20 games included admission to all T20 home matches.

The club have since amended that wording, saying it was written in errror, and are charging the members admission.

At present it all looks rather badly handled.

[WeAreKent]

Originally Posted by paulsre

Surrey's home quarter-final on Friday is currently being soured by what appears to be justified discontent from members over ticketing arrangements.

Apparently it was clearly stated by the club, including on the website, that membership packages including T20 games included admission to all T20 home matches.

The club have since amended that wording, saying it was written in errror, and are charging the members admission.

At present it all looks rather badly handled.

To be fair, I don't think any county includes the later qualification stages of the one day comps in the membership package.

The only precedent I can recall is what Warwickshire did for the RLC semi-final v Kent at Edgbaston in 2014, when in a bid to boost the gate in a poorly-attended comp they decided to admit members and under-16s free and to charge all other spectators just £10 per head.

This evoked a furious complaint to the ECB from Kent, who only a few days earlier had charged their own members £25 to attend the quarter-final of the same comp at Canterbury.

"As a game we must be mad. It is short-sighted and has the potential to be deeply damaging to county cricket’s ability to justify ticket prices for matches like these in the future,” Kent's CEO railed with mind-bogglingly pompous indignation. "We shouldn’t be giving away our product. Warwickshire’s decision sends out appalling messages about an important one-day competition."

In turn, Kent's travelling supporters were righteously ****ed off with the bizarre antics of their own CEO in trying to stop them getting cheap £10 admission.

It makes embarrassing reading for any Kent supporter, but the full story of Kent's complaint about Warwickshire's policy, which three years on is still the source of bad-blood between the two counties, is here:-

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/k...al-bmj73tcltfc

[Summer of 77]

Originally Posted by WeAreKent

To be fair, I don't think any county includes the later qualification stages of the one day comps in the membership package.

The only precedent I can recall is what Warwickshire did for the RLC semi-final v Kent at Edgbaston in 2014, when in a bid to boost the gate in a poorly-attended comp they decided to admit members and under-16s free and charge all others just £10 per head.

This evoked a furious complaint to the ECB from Kent, who only a few days earlier had chagred members £25 to attend the quarter-final v Glos in the same comp at Canterbury.

"As a game we must be mad. It is short-sighted and has the potential to be deeply damaging to county cricket’s ability to justify ticket prices for matches like these in the future,” Kent's CEO railed with truly pompous indignation.

Kent's travelling supporters were eqwually ****edoff with their CEO for trying to stop them getting cheap £10 admission.

It makes embarrassing reading for any Kent supporter, but the full story of Kent's complaint about Warwickshire's policy, which three years on is still the source of much band-blood between the two counties, is here:-

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/k...al-bmj73tcltfc

Kent members were admitted for free too.

It didn't surprise me that Warks went for the low cost option. A constant misunderstanding about the pricing of events is that if you lower the prices, more people will come. However, what usually happens with niche events is that the same old crowd as always turns up and the promoter loses a substantial amount of income. I was at Edgbaston that night and the crowd size was almost identical to those of the various quarter-finals. It's impossible to say how many bodies were enticed along purely by the favourable prices but I suspect it was very few. I was very happy to get in for nowt but, equally, I'd have still gone along if it was £25.

[paulsre]

Originally Posted by WeAreKent

To be fair, I don't think any county includes the later qualification stages of the one day comps in the membership package.

The issue here was that it clearly seemed that Surrey did. They had stated "all" matches.

Anyway, just since I wrote last it has been resolved and Surrey have in fact said they will refund the purchase price for T20 members. A very sensible solution.

[WeAreKent]

Yes, I recall it was poorly attended and as you say, we can never know how much poorer the crowd might have been if Warwicks had charged everyone £25 as Kent had done for the q/f.
Warwicks anticipated a poor crowd and so took what was a bold initiaitve to try to increase the numbers.

Was the initiative "mad", "short-sighted", "deeply-damaging" and sending out "appalling messages" as the Kent CEO said?

I've never understood why Kent seem to go out of their way to cause unnecessary animosity with other counties.They've done it with Warwicks, Worcs, Lancashire and Hampshire - and that's just in the last three seasons...

[WeAreKent]

Originally Posted by paulsre

The issue here was that it clearly seemed that Surrey did. They had stated "all" matches.

Anyway, just since I wrote last it has been resolved and Surrey have in fact said they will refund the purchase price for T20 members. A very sensible solution.

Good thing Surrey are not playing Kent. Jamie Clifford would denounce it as "mad", "short-sighted", "deeply-damaging" and "sending out appalling messages" !!!

[Summer of 77]

Originally Posted by paulsre

The issue here was that it clearly seemed that Surrey did. They had stated "all" matches.

Anyway, just since I wrote last it has been resolved and Surrey have in fact said they will refund the purchase price for T20 members. A very sensible solution.

I doubt they had any choice. I can imagine a membership such as Surrey's has more than one or two big company lawyers on their membership roster only too happy to point out their obligations.

[Summer of 77]

Originally Posted by WeAreKent

Yes, I recall it was poorly attended and as you say, we can never know how much poorer the crowd might have been if Warwicks had charged everyone £25 as Kent had done for the q/f.
Warwicks anticipated a poor crowd and so took what was a bold initiaitve to try to increase the numbers.

Was the initiative "mad", "short-sighted", "deeply-damaging" and sending out "appalling messages" as the Kent CEO said?

No, but I'd say it was naive of them. Then, as a more affluent Test staging club, they can probably afford to be.

[WeAreKent]

Originally Posted by Summer of '77

No, but I'd say it was naive of them. Then, as a more affluent Test staging club, they can probably afford to be.

Not sure it is fair to call Warwickshire's pricing policy naive, even if it failed to fill the ground in the RLC. They priced Test match tks versus a weak West Indies side with little box-office appeal at a cut-price £28 and pretty much sold out all three days. Day two actually had more in the ground than any day of the last Ashes test at Edgbaston.

I'd like to see more counties showing a flexibility based on supply and demand to use adventurous pricing in a bid to attract more spectators. Nothing ventured, nothing gained and all that...

[Summer of 77]

Originally Posted by WeAreKent

Not sure it is fair to call Warwickshire's pricing policy naive, even if it failed to fill the ground in the RLC. They priced Test match tks versus a weak West Indies side with little box-office appeal at a cut-price £28 and pretty much sold out all three days. Day two actually had more in the ground than any day of the last Ashes test at Edgbaston.

Test cricket remains pretty popular in England, though. There exists a sizeable enough market which can be enticed by more favourable pricing. Not so with the 50 over game which is now almost as much a niche activity as nudist trainspotting.

[Arachibutyrophobic]

Originally Posted by Summer of '77

Test cricket remains pretty popular in England, though. There exists a sizeable enough market which can be enticed by more favourable pricing. Not so with the 50 over game which is now almost as much a niche activity as nudist trainspotting.

I'd advise either one or the other. Getting the train to Trent Bridge for the former has been made impossible due to the ASBO received for indulging in the latter.

[Jock McTuffnel v3]

Afridi making a brisk start in the first 1/4 final.

50 off 21.

[square leg umpire]

Derbyshire need to learn how to catch.

[Ali TT]

I think the decision to promote Afridi has paid off.

[paulsre]

How did Derbyshire qualify in second place? There just seems to be a huge gulf between Hampshire and Derbyshire in all disciplines.

[Hector]

Originally Posted by paulsre

How did Derbyshire qualify in second place? There just seems to be a huge gulf between Hampshire and Derbyshire in all disciplines.

Fickle game T20.

It levels the playing field in giving unheralded teams a better opportunity of winning but can also produce some massive anti-climaxes.

[billyguntheballs]

Afridi's innings was awesome. Should be interesting to see how the semis pan out.

[Maty]

Originally Posted by paulsre

How did Derbyshire qualify in second place? There just seems to be a huge gulf between Hampshire and Derbyshire in all disciplines.

Just a bad day at the office at the worst time, as has been said Twenty20 does at times have the habit of making teams look very bad very quickly - let's not forget it was only Friday night that Hampshire got a pumelling themselves. Generally over the course of a twenty20 campaign your going to take one, unfortunately for the club, the plans and the players ours was tonight.