New test venue

[greg]

I can't understand why Cardiff has got an ashes test straight away.If one had been given to Chester le Street then i could have gone along with that but we don't even know if Sofia Gardens will be up to staging such a big game yet.

Good luck to them but i hope the ECB don't end up with egg on their faces over this.

[Notts Exile]

Surely Sophia Gardens should be feeling it's way into Test cricket? A couple of Tests where the visitors are Bangladesh or New Zealand might be a good idea. NOT the Aussies!

[Vrock]

Looks like they wanted to get in at the deep end, but everything does stand on whether they get the planning permission to actually build in more capacity to the ground.

I think it would have been a better idea to have given Old Trafford/Chester le Street the Ashes test and Sophia Gardens the WI test. For all we know the extra capacity might not even get put in, and then we would see another ground chosen for the test match.

[adamberry]

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

Surely Sophia Gardens should be feeling it's way into Test cricket? A couple of Tests where the visitors are Bangladesh or New Zealand might be a good idea. NOT the Aussies!

I would tend to agree, the possibility of it all going wrong is just too great, especially against such high profile opponents as Australia. I'd be much happier if Sophia Gardens hosted the Zimbabwe test in the same year, leaving a more established ground (Trent Bridge, Old Trafford, maybe the Rose Bowl) to host the higher-profile game.

Of course, it could be a fabulous money-spinner for Glamorgan, especially if they do host the Ashes test. Good luck to them I say, they may just need it.

[Collyisamackem]

Originally Posted by Andy Mellon

I'm not sure that throwing Cardiff in at the deep end for the Ashes is the best of ideas, but I bet its got those people down at the Rose Bowl jumping up and down in anger!!!

Not only Hampshire. Durham have been more deserving of an Ashes test than anyone for a long time now, and to be continuously fobbed off with Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and the West Indies is galling.

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

Durham have been more deserving of an Ashes test than anyone for a long time now, and to be continuously fobbed off with Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and the West Indies is galling.

Do you think, even in this day and age, Durham is just a wee bit far away from the centre of power to seem important? After all, they wouldn't dream of taking away games from Lord's or The Oval. Two games in one city? And people living in Georgie-Mackem Land having to travel to Headingley, or even Old Trafford, to get to see big games? Maybe the people in London think the north is just one little village.

[south beds mikey]

Originally Posted by Mongoose

Maybe the people in London think the north is just one little village.

I can see I'm going to have to tread carefully on this one! Firstly let me say I am in favour of the test venues being as geographically diverse as possible. The team is supposed to represent the whole country. I guess one of the problems is that all touring sides will want one of their games at Lords so that does reduce the options a bit. I do take the point about 2 games in one city but I guess the argument in favour is the sheer size of the population in and around London. (It does have a far bigger population than Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Sunderland, Bristol and Cardiff combined.) However in my opinion it is important that as many different people get to see the tests as opposed to the same people seeing two games. Also England really isn't that big a place. I live about 25miles north of the West End so Durham is by far the furthest test venue from me but its still only about 4 hours by car. (traffic permitting)

Regarding the Rose Bowl; I wonder if the transport/traffic problems count against it? I can't comment on this personally as I've never been there but I did hear some bad reports on this following the 20/20 last year so maybe thats part of the reason.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by south beds mikey

Regarding the Rose Bowl; I wonder if the transport/traffic problems count against it? I can't comment on this personally as I've never been there but I did hear some bad reports on this following the 20/20 last year so maybe thats part of the reason.

From memorythe bid from Sophia Gardens was thought to be somewhere in the region of 3.5-4 million... or some 5 times the Old Trafford bid. None of the other venues was thought to have the same financial clout - or to have quite so much financial and political backing when it comes to staging such a major fixture.

Ps. Despite generations of neglecting the Principality in general and GLamorgan players in particular.... the ECB is the England and WALES Cricket Board: the case ain't JUST financial and pragmatic!

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by south beds mikey

I can see I'm going to have to tread carefully on this one!

I can see where you're going with the Lord's thing, and with the number of people in London. But you also point out that it's about allowing a variety of people see the games. With Lord's having two matches and the Oval one, that's three matches in the capital. I don't think there would be any harm in London people who were so desperate to get to a match to have to travel to, say the Rose Bowl. Even Nottingham and Birmingham aren't too much hassle to reach, given that London has ample transport provisions. By contrast, people living out in the 'provinces' might not have transport amenities on a par with those in the capital. Some people riral areas in the North East might have to spend as much time getting to Chester-le-Street as Londoners would spend getting to Edgbaston. So it's swings and roundabouts. I just think it's unfair that, when Durham have already put on a very good test match, they should miss out the big matches while London keeps its quota. I suppose it's unrealistic to think London would be made to give up a match, as there are powerful people in the capital, and I'm sure they wouln't allow it to happen. There, that's the cynical bit! But you did treat carefully, SBM, and you put forward a logical case.

[Victor Frankenstein]

I'll tread a lot less carefully, Londoners on the whole do think that anywhere outside of london is just a village so it's not just the north. Hampshire, like Durham, just isn't fashionable enough to host a test despite us having far better facilities than the majority of cricket grounds in the country, and access to the ground is no worse than London or Leeds, the entrance to the rosebowl is about 2 minutes drive from the M27 motorway and only two junctions away from the M3, that 2 minutes might be a bit congested (where in the world wouldn't be?) when everyone leaves but after that you're on a motorway so there's not much else we can do to provide better access.

I can fully understand each touring side wanting to play at Lords, it is the home of cricket and despite having one of the worst pitchs it does have the best facilities. However, i don't see why the oval always gets a test match, or both old trafford and headingly getting one at the same time, the matches should be more evenly spread. The distances might not be as far compared to australia or india, but it costs a lot more to travel here, on top of the exorbitant ticket prices.