Print

[edge]

Cricinfo are doing a week of debate on the English T20 comp, provoked by the Big Bash success this year. They've kicked it off with this very good article by Tim Wigmore, suggesting that just because franchises have worked for the IPL/BBL it doesn't mean they'd be the right way to go here: http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/story/820095.html

Personally I'm dead keen to see a better competition but slightly uncomfortable with the notion of franchises killing off half the counties, so refreshing to read some good ideas for a different way. Would absolutely love to see a two-tier English competition with some rebranding of the counties, a set period where only t20 is played and every game in the top division televised free to air. Centralise the TV/advertising revenue a la BBL so that everyone gets a share, promotion and relegation between divisons (potential for a third division for the minor counties etc, maybe even a bit of the Michael Vaughan FA cup idea and have regional club conferences giving the best amateur sides a shot at promotion to the big leagues) and suddenly county cricket sounds a lot more accessible and relevant? Start with the big city teams in the top division and go from there.

CBF, thoughts? There's been enough on this on the BBL thread that I thought it was worth its' own topic.

[Buzz]

Thanks for posting this, i think there are lots of good thoughts.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the ECB did a massive survey and created the competition in its current form on the basis of the survey. So people complaining about it now are forgetting the slient masses who voted for it.

because of the geographical spread of the UK population, the City Franchise model, i do not believe is suitable in the same way it is in Aus and we cannot compare what the Indians are doing!

Edge - I like the thoughts you have raised, i think you make a number of good points.

[Kieron_BT]

Is the spread of the UK populations worse than in Aus?

[farnham_quins_2]

They need to do something to change the competition to allow international superstars to play, which will encourage crowds etc.

Possible they could do instead of just Fridays, do games Friday Evening, 2 games Saturday, 2 games Sunday, Monday evening for a few weeks, to condense the competition down.

[smilley792]

Is the spread of the UK populations worse than in Aus?

Says somewhere that the 8 bbl teams cover 66% of the aus population.
If uk went to ten franchises, it would only cover 22% of the population.




It does seem the argument for franchises won't work. For various reasons.

So how about.
2 leagues 9 teams. 2 up 2 down promotion.
Each team play each other once, and 2 teams twice. So ten games each. 5 home 5 away.
Play mid July to beginning of sept(school hols for kids)
A game from each division every night during the week.
Then weekends have a day game and a night game from each division(4games per day).
Tv coverage is alternated, both games live, one on terrestrial one on sky(min div 1 sky div 2 teresrrial, ties div 1 terestrial div 2 sky etc etc)
End of season div 1 finals day to decided champions- 2 semis and a final.
Div 2 winners go straight up, next 3 play round robin in 1 day to determin 2nd promotion.
Both finals days covered by sky and terrestrial TV, punter chooses which to watch.

Ensure worlds best players want to play, by encouraging sides to sign them(tv money incentives etc), and remove the current structure of having to play so many internationals in that year(brad hodge, wanted to play blast last year, but didn't qualify........means pollard and bravo won't either.....)

[Buzz]

I think the regional competition is better as it is the big derby games which bring in the crowds - Roses games, Surrey vs Middlesex,  etc. It also means that anyone can win - with a league structure you need to have two years of success to win (to either get or maintain your place in div 1 and then win it the following year).

suddenly it looks a load like what we have now.

[smilley792]

suddenly it looks a load like what we have now.

Which either doesn't work, or we are expecting to much, and it is working. Cricket has just reached its peak in the uk.

[TangoWhiskey]

The only way to get the crowds in is to get the big name players and the only way to get the big name players is a shorter tournament. Doesn't need to be franchises but there should be a three week gap in the season where only T20 games are played, one a day every night until the final. Could still have a finals day, but it would have to coincide with the end of the tournament so the big names can play.

Centralise the TV money and try and get Sky and BT to compete for it. Each team is allowed 4 overseas, no restircitons on current internationals and the ECB should release England players to play in it wherever the International schedule allows, even if it is the weekend between two tests.

[tate035]

The only way to get the crowds in is to get the big name players and the only way to get the big name players is a shorter tournament. Doesn't need to be franchises but there should be a three week gap in the season where only T20 games are played, one a day every night until the final. Could still have a finals day, but it would have to coincide with the end of the tournament so the big names can play.

Centralise the TV money and try and get Sky and BT to compete for it. Each team is allowed 4 overseas, no restircitons on current internationals and the ECB should release England players to play in it wherever the International schedule allows, even if it is the weekend between two tests.

Don't be silly!!! The ECB wouldn't use this format as it's to obvious and likely to succeed . Especially if you have kids for a fiver and they get a T-shirt that they can wear. adults can also purchase one, that if wearing whilst they take a catch will get a grand. Money will roll over if no catches taken. Could also make great t.v. Viewing
 

[Cedrictoad]

I think the regional competition is better as it is the big derby games which bring in the crowds - Roses games, Surrey vs Middlesex,  etc. It also means that anyone can win - with a league structure you need to have two years of success to win (to either get or maintain your place in div 1 and then win it the following year).

suddenly it looks a load like what we have now.

I would have said the same in Australia pre BBL.  But after 4 years new rivalries are flourishing.  If the target market for T20 is your 'non-traditional' cricket watcher (have a look at the people in the crowd at a BBL game... most of them wouldn't even have heard of test cricket) then the current County based model is irrelevant.  I have been to 3 BBL games and thought the atmosphere and crowd were fantastic.  This is key to attracting and retaining the 'non core cricket fans'. The families, groups of mates etc want to go out for the night, have some fun, see some big hits and enjoy the atmosphere.

Having been in Australia on and off for the last few years I can tell you that moving to a franchise model can work.  It might be a bit strange to start with but, people will pick a team and support them... it's human nature.  Rivalries will emerge, banter will begin... it is all inevitable.

In terms of timing, the competition has to be in summer and condensed in the holidays (not just to attract the best international talent for a short window - which is obviosuly important for attendances and promotion, but so that everyone can actually go) so the kids (and mum and dad - who have annual leave) can stay up for it.  England has the distinct advantage of not have 40 degree summers so won't suffer from bad attendances on those scorching midweek days like Australia can.

I struggle to see how this population dispora argument stacks up.  My cousins in Mildura go to every single Melbourne Stars game at the MCG... google how long that takes to drive! 

Build it and they will come (Wayne's World), the UK is tiny compared to Australia.  Start with 8 franchises, base them at the Oval, Lord's, Old Trafford etc give them funky names and bright coloured uniforms and let the public "see the white ball fly".

[Gerry SA]

Franchise T20 is 100% the correct way forward.

Reduce teams from 18(I think that the number of counties), down 10. Somewhere like London could have two sides(like Melbourne and Sydney)

By having franchise style model you strip out all the rubbish/average players. Instantly increasing the level of play.

[fromthehip]

The weather......

[Stuey]

Franchise T20 is 100% the correct way forward.

Reduce teams from 18(I think that the number of counties), down 10. Somewhere like London could have two sides(like Melbourne and Sydney)

By having franchise style model you strip out all the rubbish/average players. Instantly increasing the level of play.

I think Ldn would need a team in the east in addition to the Oval and Lords, probably the Olympic stadium. However you've got as much chance of getting this past the counties/ecb as KP has of donning an England Shirt in the WC.

[edge]

I think it's probably as much about marketing as anything else, the image of county cricket combined with poor marketing and coverage doesn't get the game anywhere. Your average casual fan (and just as importantly, a lot of serious cricket followers) jsut aren't that interested in Gloucestershire v Hampshire, give them Bristol v Southampton with a snappy name and solid image attached to each and it could capture the imagination much more easily. Would probably annoy a few hardcore county followers but they're going to turn up anyway after all. Having read more thoughts about it and put more thought into it myself recently I don't think there's a lot to be gained from reducing the number of teams, to make the most of it it should be to make English cricket as appealing as possible, rather than try and fabricate something new.

Brand it well (BBL is a great example to follow there with the look of the tournament/teams), get some exciting coverage on TV to catch people's attention, sort the kit and team names out, create a T20 'season' in the holidays and within a few seasons the attention would be huge I'm sure.

Kits are very important I think, let's be honest most of the current county kits are dire and aren't even easily recognisable. Look at this lot below, would you be able to pick out which team was which if they were stood 150 yards on the other side of a cricket ground? The trousers are almost all practically identical at a distance before you even consider the shirts. With a potential 18 teams to worry about, away kits should be considered too. It's always amazed me the way cricket frequently has teams lining up against each other in borderline identical kits, potential new fans are going to want to be able to tell who's batting without a detailed knowledge of the game and players. What an immediate psychological turnoff if you can't recognise your team and wouldn't be seen dead wearing their shirt.



I also think there's definitely potential in the less advertising saturated English market to create something that would really stand out and keep the classy image of cricket while bringing it into the modern sporting age, compared to the advert-heavy IPL/BBL teams.

[Gerry SA]

I think Ldn would need a team in the east in addition to the Oval and Lords, probably the Olympic stadium. However you've got as much chance of getting this past the counties/ecb as KP has of donning an England Shirt in the WC.

Can't see London having three teams being right.

Anyway the Oval based team could easily play matches at the Oval and Olympic stadium.