The English Twenty20 Debate

[_Sam_]

I notice recently on cricinfo there has been a lot of debate regarding improving the English domestic t20 competition. Anyone got any thoughts on this, notice a lot of debate is whether we should stick with counties or turn to city franchises.

 

[bigred]

Has to be 8 franchises. Fewer but better quality teams is the way forward. 4 overseas players in each team also to increase the standard. It's the only way we'll improve at international level. If it could happen in that short window between the summer's two test series, even better, as we'll need the likes of Buttler, Anderson, Broad etc to be playing in it.

 

[Greninja]

Yes the English international players should be there so the domestic players will get experience from them and be the good players like them

 

[_Sam_]

Problem we have with franchises compared to for example the big bash which I have been watching a lot of recently, is we have a much more dispersed population.

I'd have thought if it ever did go franchised they'd use the 9 test grounds/10 international grounds.

I also think 4 is a few too many overseas players really, 2 works in the big bash and I think a maximum of 3 to be honest.

 

[MUFC1987]

I hate the idea of franchises. You'd alienate a lot of fans, as you'd be moving teams to be nowhere near them, essentially because some counties are really bad at selling tickets to games.

Less teams also means less opportunities. We'd have young, talented players not playing T20, whilst some ageing Australian journeyman does instead. Look at teams like Leicestershire. They've produced the likes of Broad and Taylor in recent years, yet those players young players wouldn't get the chance to play T20, because there would be so few teams. And let's not forget that Australia franchised to create more teams, which is part of the reason for why it works so well.

This is what grates me with the likes of Buttler wanting it. He got his break in the Somerset T20 side and then got chances in other forms of the game. With a franchise, that wouldn't happen.

I think we do need some changes though. Bring back the condensed calendar in the middle of the summer. Perhaps spreading games over a 6 week period to try to get the best of both worlds. This would enable teams to sign big name overseas players, that can play the whole tournament.

 

[Leicester Fox]

For a start tickets needs to be cheaper. There should be less games with smaller groups, unlimited overseas players and more attractive girls and beer.

 

[ethybubs]

For a start tickets needs to be cheaper. There should be less games with smaller groups, unlimited overseas players and more attractive girls and beer.

Nothing says "watch cricket" quite like an attractive beer.

 

[Aislabie]

As you may have seen, ESPNcricinfo has been really pushing a big debate on what the future of English Twenty20 cricket should be. I would be very interested to hear your opinions, as cricket watchers yourselves.

*

Personally, I would have something of a two-fold solution:

Spoiler: My Ideas

Spoiler: 1. The English Premier League

For me, as for Michael Lumb, franchises are really the only way forward if we're looking for mass market appeal. Condense it right down to six teams, the very best of the best, and get them playing their games in a month-long window. You'd be looking at 31 matches in total. For full details of what I would propose, click here.

Spoiler: 2. The FA Cup Thing

We've had knockout tournaments before, and they've been great. A FA Cup-type-tournament is the best way - in my opinion - of getting Twenty20 cricket to areas of the country it's not been seen before.

Spoiler: The Teams

Minor Counties (Enter In Round One)
Bedfordshire
Berkshire
Buckinghamshire
Cambridgeshire
Cheshire
Cornwall
Cumberland
Devon
Dorset
Herefordshire
Hertfordshire
Lincolnshire
Norfolk
Northumberland
Oxfordshire
Shropshire
Staffordshire
Suffolk
Wales Minor Counties
Wiltshire

Other Teams (Enter in Round One)
MCC Young Cricketers

Cambridge MCCU
Cardiff MCCU
Durham MCCU
Leeds-Bradford MCCU
Loughborough MCCU
Oxford MCCU

Chester Boughton Hall CC (NatWest Club T20 Champions)

And the first-class counties, who enter the draw in Round Two

The draw is completely random, which means that you could have Staffs hosting Yorkshire in Leek or something, and makes a lengthy cup run for a minor county a distinct possibility.

Five rounds of games:

• Round One (All minor counties)
• Round of 32 (Including FC counties)
• Round of 16
• Quarter Finals
• Finals Day (Semis and final)

 

[_Sam_]

As you may have seen, ESPNcricinfo has been really pushing a big debate on what the future of English Twenty20 cricket should be. I would be very interested to hear your opinions, as cricket watchers yourselves.

*

Personally, I would have something of a two-fold solution:

Spoiler: My Ideas

Spoiler: 1. The English Premier League

For me, as for Michael Lumb, franchises are really the only way forward if we're looking for mass market appeal. Condense it right down to six teams, the very best of the best, and get them playing their games in a month-long window. You'd be looking at 31 matches in total. For full details of what I would propose, click here.

Spoiler: 2. The FA Cup Thing

We've had knockout tournaments before, and they've been great. A FA Cup-type-tournament is the best way - in my opinion - of getting Twenty20 cricket to areas of the country it's not been seen before.

Spoiler: The Teams

Minor Counties (Enter In Round One)
Bedfordshire
Berkshire
Buckinghamshire
Cambridgeshire
Cheshire
Cornwall
Cumberland
Devon
Dorset
Herefordshire
Hertfordshire
Lincolnshire
Norfolk
Northumberland
Oxfordshire
Shropshire
Staffordshire
Suffolk
Wales Minor Counties
Wiltshire

Other Teams (Enter in Round One)
MCC Young Cricketers

Cambridge MCCU
Cardiff MCCU
Durham MCCU
Leeds-Bradford MCCU
Loughborough MCCU
Oxford MCCU

Chester Boughton Hall CC (NatWest Club T20 Champions)

And the first-class counties, who enter the draw in Round Two

The draw is completely random, which means that you could have Staffs hosting Yorkshire in Leek or something, and makes a lengthy cup run for a minor county a distinct possibility.

Five rounds of games:

• Round One (All minor counties)
• Round of 32 (Including FC counties)
• Round of 16
• Quarter Finals
• Finals Day (Semis and final)

Was another thread but you seem to have thought this through a lot more mate. The problem over here with cutting down to such a small amount of teams is how much more widespread our population is that in for example Australia in my opinion.

Edit : Having now read your blog though, the only problem I can see is or example me as a fan going from 7 easily accessible games per season all the way down to 2 or perhaps even 1.

 

[Aislabie]

Was another thread but you seem to have thought this through a lot more mate. The problem over here with cutting down to such a small amount of teams is how much more widespread our population is that in for example Australia in my opinion.

Sorry about that - however well I may or may not have thought things through, I didn't think to check elsewhere on the forum!

I think the biggest problem for accessibility of cricket is the fact that it is hidden behind the Sky pay-wall. If it is the case that the contracts are such that Sky have the divine right to do as they wish, then could we not maybe twist their arms and get them to broadcast on Pick TV?

Edit : Having now read your blog though, the only problem I can see is or example me as a fan going from 7 easily accessible games per season all the way down to 2 or perhaps even 1.

True, that would be a big issue. The best I could hope for would be that every one of those games is a sell-out thanks to the demand.

At the same time, I'd hope that the FA Cup could contribute spreading cricket to the masses. Imagine, for instance, a grumpy old ex-cricketer, a budding young child, or a cricket-fan family being able to potter down to Ipswich to see Suffolk host Yorkshire for the chance to go to Wembley Trent Bridge for finals day.

 

[SpitfiresKent]

I have merged both threads together to save confusion.

 

[MUFC1987]

For those who are fans of it moving to franchises, what would we do about the Counties that rely on T20 gate money to survive? There have been plenty of Counties in recent years struggling financially, who rely on those games to make a bit of cash. This is why I think Franchises are so short sighted.

 

[_Sam_]

For those who are fans of it moving to franchises, what would we do about the Counties that rely on T20 gate money to survive? There have been plenty of Counties in recent years struggling financially, who rely on those games to make a bit of cash. This is why I think Franchises are so short sighted.

I would guess (being quite neutral to this) that it would be suggested that the profits should be divided between all the counties.

 

[MUFC1987]

That's not even mentioning the fans who first go to watch their local county in a T20 game and then come back the next week to see a One day game. Our whole premise has been about T20 being the gateway for fans to watch cricket, yet for me, franchises shut that door pretty quickly.

But hey, it's a great idea for mercenaries like Michael Lumb who just go around earning a bit of cash playing T20, because they're not good enough for much else, so they'll keep on pushing for it, no doubt.

 

[_Sam_]

I think the likes of Lumb are just experiencing the thrill of playing in Australian conditions with the hype, large crowds, better atmospheres (and better weather) along with the higher class internationals of which they desire to be able to do so in their own country.