What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:04:11:08:40:52 by BarmierKev.

Can I ask a stupid question??? Why didn't Franklin have his injection a week or two earlier so he would be fit for the Notts game??

I think the point was made re franchises that they if they were to come about they would be based at Lord's and the Oval so 'amalgamation' of Middlesex and Surrey would not be an option.

Quote:

New signings please
Can I ask a stupid question??? Why didn't Franklin have his injection a week or two earlier so he would be fit for the Notts game??

Might he not have been having a series of injections? Might there be something about flying afterwards?

Signing an all rounder with a fitness problem does worry me, though I suppose that does make him a very close replacement...


Adelaide

Just seems odd bit it's Middlesex, so goes with the territory

If it's cortisone injections they only last a max of 8 weeks (I speak from experience), so as mentioned Franklin's probably had them previously and will need more throughout the season to manage the 'bulging disc' in his back.

The alternative of course is surgery to actually fix the problem - but at 34 he's more likely to call it a day than take risky surgery.

Middlesex were quote "not convinced on Berg's fitness"
Sorry, WTF do they make of Franklin's fitness.

I'm "not convinced" Middx know what they are doing with this signing.

There was confusion about who is allowed to enter the Middlesex MCC Shop, and I am still not entirely clear. It sounds like Middlesex merchandise will now be sold in the shop behind the Mound stand, so that may make concerns over the former Club Shop less relevant. It seems like entry to the former Club Shop will be restricted to members of Middlesex or MCC or people enquiring about Middlesex membership. I hope that non-members have a way of buying Middlesex merchandise at Lord's, as I fear that non-members would feel disillusioned if they feel attracted enough to the club to be keen to buy merchandise only to be told they could not do so. In such a scenario, the club would be missing out on potential revenue, although of course non-members could buy merchandise online.

Ian Lovett and Angus Fraser both said they don't like the word 'franchise' being used in relation to a potential new city-based Twenty20 competition, as the word implies that the teams will be run by businesses rather than the likelier possibly it being run by a proper cricket organisation. However, I am not sure what word I can use other than 'franchise'. Lovett said that big changes are highly likely and that a city-based competition is possible, although I don't think anyone currently has much idea how it would work. The fact a far smaller percentage of this country lives in cities compared to other countries means that a lot of people are doubtful whether city-based teams (possibly ignoring Taunton, Chelmsford, Hove etc.) would work. Although it would make sense for Lord's and The Oval to continue having one team each, I am not sure whether London needs two teams.

The reason why James Franklin had an injection when he did was because doing it earlier would have resulted in him missing cricket for Wellington and doing so after the match v Nottinghamshire may have resulted in missing three weeks of cricket. I think the reason why the club signed him was because they were unsure whether Gareth Berg would remain at the club, and they were keen to ensure that they would continue having a player like Berg. Gus said that we thought about Will Gidman, but he ended up at Notts. The fact Franklin arrives injured and has not done a great deal of bowling recently means I share many supporters' doubts as to whether we have made a good decision. Gus said he hopes we get around 10 overs a day out of Franklin.

Quote:

Jonathan Winsky
The fact a far smaller percentage of this country lives in cities compared to other countries means that a lot of people are doubtful whether city-based teams (possibly ignoring Taunton, Chelmsford, Hove etc.) would work. Although it would make sense for Lord's and The Oval to continue having one team each, I am not sure whether London needs two teams.

I do not accept this assertion. Roughly 80% of the population of both Australia and the U.K. live in cities whereas only 18% of the population of India live in cities.
London is by far the greatest centre of population in the U.K. and would justify having two teams. The other point that was made at the meeting is that it has the two largest capacity cricket grounds.

Selincourt

I think the point that may be more relevant is that I think there are far more cities here than in Australia, so the 80% are much more spread out. So a considerably higher proportion here would feel, er, disenfranchised if only nine or ten cities had teams. In Australia the existing teams may well tap the vast bulk of the city population.

India is another matter, though it is possible that the bulk of those who can afford to go to games live in or near the big cities.


Adelaide

But is it also not relevant that England is a far smaller in size country than Australia and India and that the cricket lover would not live far from a franchise base ?

Selincourt

Oh yes, that's relevant, or at least should be, but perhaps that means that we are less prepared to travel long distances for anything (I am ignoring Manchester United fans of course, something I like to do if possible in between battling innumerate Chelsea fans!).

India is a special case, I think. In Australia the franchises are where the state teams already played. In England at least half the existing bases won't have a franchise, so no crossover for supporters of the teams that play there. Not that it can be taken for granted even where venues do coincide, as shown on this forum. In essence you run the risk of alienating a good chunk of current supporters, which could affect the wider county game. The question is whether enough people will attend to make up for those and to meet the extra costs associated with recruiting overseas stars.

The way things are shaping up we are going to find out the answer in the fairly near future. If the answer is "no" I'm a bit worried about what will be left behind in the wreckage.


Adelaide

Whatever happens, I think it would be a mistake to run two T20 competitions, let's have one or t'other.

I have always been doubtful whether the UK’s geography is particularly conducive to staging a Twenty20 competition that a). has a similar quantity of teams to the tournaments ECB are trying to replicate; and b). does not leave out supporters of non-Test ground counties. The following paragraph in the March 2015 edition of The Cricketer explains the point I am trying to make: ”Franchises in Australia expanded the competition from six teams to eight, tapped into vast urban markets and created derbies, whereas in England, to franchise Leeds, London and the rest would only serve to disenfranchise and take the game away from the good folk of, say, Sussex, Somerset and Northamptonshire, all of whom host frequently filled grounds of their own. England has just one city with more people than Adelaide - the far more urbanised Australia’s fifth most populous - and London already has two grounds that sell out its T20s on a regular basis. Less than one quarter of the population of England (23 per cent) would be covered by a franchise system involving the obvious choices: London (x2), Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Durham/Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester, Nottingham and Southampton. Such a system simply would not cater for the market it serves, whereas it is perfect for Australia, where the six cities involved in the BBL make up upwards of 60% of the country's population. Australia expanded the game to grow it and tap into its most valuable markets; England shrinking it for the same end would be impossibly illogical“.

I suppose that having 18 counties is simultaneously a strength and a weakness of English cricket, as it is great to have cricket being played and supported all around the country, although a lot of people think it roughly double the ideal amount of teams needed for a Twenty20 competition.

To further complicate things, there are some people who think that there are too few first-class counties, which is a point Tim Wigmore made on Cricinfo where he wrote ”even with 18 teams, it is lamentably difficult for fans in Dorset, Cornwall and Norfolk to see live cricket“.

I feel that the best way around this would be to have two competitions, one being made of teams based in cities and the other being played by the 18 counties. I feel it is important to retain the 18 counties, because as well as ensuring that the non-Test counties have Twenty20 cricket to stage, it would also mean that players not involved with a city-based team would having some Twenty20 cricket to play.

If city-based teams are introduced, then the temptation would obviously be to create two teams in London considering the two (or three if the Olympic Stadium is included) largest grounds are there. However, I am unconvinced whether there is a need for two teams.

Returning to the subject of the AGM, Middlesex’s official website has produced a report on it.

The Australian franchises are based on their State sides. All owned and run by Cricket Australia. Despite average crowds of 23000 this time.

All lose money. India. Cricket along with hockey are the top sports.

Very rich people run the franchises: Bollywood actors/actresses for instance. Nevertheless, two went bust.

England. Possible link up Middx/Essex. Would Essex fans be prepared to travel to watch what would'nt be a pukka Essex team. I think not. Plus that attitude likely to be the norm for most county followers.

As Adelaide said: the gamble would be attracting others to make up the numbers.

Congratulations to Alvan Seth-Smith and Andrew West upon their election to the Executive Board for a three year term. We should thank Keith Mein, Nigel Ross and Simon Sheppard for standing and thus ensuring a democratic contest.

I am personally opposed to a divisive city-based franchise system. We are essentially a nation of counties with cities which have also grown. The example of the "Birmingham Bears" has effectively excluded the remainder of the county, whether you call it Warwickshire or West Midlands.

Why should Middlesex and Surrey be broken up because of this city-based obsession which sounds like the instance above. Why exclude all those who live outside the city limits. We should cease comparing ourselves to other nations because we are an unique island.

A merger with either MCC or Surrey would not be in Middlesex's better interests if you wish to see it survive independently.