" I didn't say it would work for all...but this nonsense about P20 being on Friday and Saturday nights is chav hell.....cricket is meant for Sunday afternoons." wrote WBB

" Chav hell " - what an excellent description of the " new cricketing audience " that has been dragged through the gate of 20/20. I don't suppose that Mr Newton and the other Chief Execs mind too much, as they can always turn a deaf ear to the moronic football - type chanting as long as the " new cricketing audience " keep buying their £ 3.30 pints !

Good lord, Hotels...I am close to agreeing with you...

Except...I went to two 20/20 matches, and what I saw shocked me for its normality.
The big screen was gone. The multi-coloured boundary rope; and was the rope that much more further out than last year; gone. The Jacuzzi and the models under the ropes- gone. The inflatable kangaroo on the Dolly- gone.

Sharons- gone...


Instead- Members of a certain age who told me two years ago that they would never do 20/20 again there, in the Pavilion, drinking beer and telling me that they were everpresents. More than five.

What is going on? Is 20/20 becoming the norm? Are the ranks of the old faithful pretending that they always liked it?

Will the Sharons re-appear to a lager hell of warm Friday nights and staggering up Broad Street afterwards?

"Good lord, Hotels...I am close to agreeing with you... " - I feel quite humble, WBB

" Will the Sharons re-appear to a lager hell of warm Friday nights and staggering up Broad Street afterwards? ". I suspect that they have missed a few games lately as they have been catching up on " Big Brother ", and the latest goings on of " Jordan and Peter Andre ". They will be back !

It it relatively clear that most of the posters on this thread are from the 'traditionalist' camp - County Championship cricket, whites, upholding standards and gentle applause from the Pavilion. You get my drift.

This group is justifiably aggrieved when it appears that the 'product' that they have primarily bought into ('traditional' cricket) is being gradually eroded.

However, it may be worth considering some of the following points:

1. Cricket is in an enviable position in being able to change and evolve the type of game played, from 5 days to 20 overs a side. This provides huge variety and is good for the game in attracting more supporters from a wider spectrum.

2. The different 'types' of supporters (from 'Sharons' to 'Old F*rts' - a term the 'Sharons' might equally use to refer to 'traditional' members) can CO-EXIST. If one group doesn't like the 'other product', then that can be simply excluded from what one buys. But there is little benefit in one group openly deriding the other when it is all for the good of the game and the club.

3. Like it or not, without T20 revenue, the 4 day game would not be viable. Another good reason for harmony and co-existence.

4. And if the growth in attendance and gate / secondary revenue year-on-year is coming from T20, surely the clubs and the ECB would be berated for not growing this area? Understandably 'traditionalists' will not be happy if this is at the expense of the type of 'product' they are interested in, but the expanded T20/P20 startegy makes logical and commercial sense...and keeps 4 day cricket alive.

5. Finally, kids and growing the sport at grass roots level. T20 now provides the perfect entry point for youngsters to watch the game live. There's plenty of action and it's not too long - you try retaining the interest of a 9 year old for over two hours. In time they may understand the finer points and then embrace all forms of the game but T20 is the starting point.

In summary, it would be uplifting to see some more collaboration rather than conflict. T20 is not evil. It has been a major boost to the game and, as WBB stated earlier, even some die-hard traditionalists may have even crossed to the other side already!

The only two points I would raise here are that 9 year olds coped very well before 20/20 began in getting into cricket; and so did the game in terms of revenue.

Of course the Championship needs subsidising- but 40+50 overs matches did that very well for many years.

In 50 years time, their grandchildren will be bored by anything more than 5/5 and people will be on the Net advocating that as an entry position!

Well I hope you enjoy that, WBB; fortunately I shan't be around to abhor it!

I'll be abhoring it too- my point was that saying 20/20 is an entry position as the kids do not get bored with it is a very very dangerous starting point onto a slippery slope.

Re : Malvern Mike's points. All of your points are excellent and have merit, but it's a matter of balance. I don't think anyone would disagree that T20 has made a major difference and for the good - for all the reasons you state.

But, the tail mustn't wag the dog. We've already lost the 40 over tourny for a second T20 tourny, and now there's more talk of reduced championship games. T20 is important though and no-one would argue with you when they say there should be more collaboration - the sooner the better because the way things are going we'll have no proper cricket left.

Stop It Aggers has just about hit the nail on the head. No-one (I don't think so, anyway) is saying there should be no T20. But the cash crazy administrators who run the game can see only the £££££'s the T20 is bringing in to the game, at the moment.

But the long form of the game is at the heart and soul of cricket and must be preserved.

Instead, it is being sidelined and that, inevitably will lead to its demise.

As for the new fans? Last Friday, The Aussies were jeared by lagered up, Mexican waving, sections of the crowd for scoring at only 3.5 per over. Are these really going to form the long term cricket supporters of the future?

I don't know, I only ask the question.

But I do know that existing long term supporters are being alienated.

If the Championship programme is reduced to 12 games next season as mentioned will the cost of this category of membership ( ie non 20-20) be reduced accordingly?
We have already seen the overs bowled reduced to 96 overs I have no intention of paying the same money for 25% less first class cricket

We Don't need to shorten the season, we just have had a good break between the Durham and Lancashire games. Surely if this was 2010 we could have played a couple of T20 games in between.
Yes the players need a breather but a T20 game is not that time consuming, and WCCC and other counties don't earn money when there's no cricket on to watch.

" If the Championship programme is reduced to 12 games next season as mentioned will the cost of this category of membership ( ie non 20-20) be reduced accordingly?
We have already seen the overs bowled reduced to 96 overs I have no intention of paying the same money for 25% less first class cricket " wrote Member1

I couldn't agree more.
The New Road membership prices for 2010 ( if based on this years pricing criteria ) will make for interesting reading. How much for 20/20 ? How much for LVCC ?
Perhaps Mr Newton will care to enlighten us as to the Club's thinking for 2010 ?