Franchise cricket disenfranchising cricket fans across the country. Too bad if you're a Sussex, Kent, Durham or Somerset fan, or any of those other unfortunate, out of the way places.
And which marketing nobend comes up with these useless team names anyway?!
But evidence from India and Australia suggests not, the Australian state game is in a good state, and counties are going to get a shed load of cash (£1.3m each for 2020) from this competition to invest in themselves
£1.3m won't go far. Players' salaries will rise quickly once the Franchise comes along. I can't see how 4-day cricket will survive in the medium term, which means that Test cricket will also suffer in standard at the very least.
I agree with change but this isn't the way to go about it. We're copying other countries but completely ignoring the aspects that made theirs successful.
Some points I made about this on just the previous page.
8 matches out of 38 to be on terrestrial TV is not making it more available to the masses, cheap tickets to guarantee full grounds will do more if only 8 are shown on free to air, although Surrey is very reasonable already, only £1 for my son and £18 for me I think the last couple of years
The issue is its not like the grounds weren't selling out for T20 anyway. The grounds I have been to (all in the south) Oval, Lords, Beckenham/Canterbury, Hove, Chelmsford are all packed out every T20 game and these clubs already make good money from them. Attendances at T20 was never the issue.
It's not just Root and Stokes. There is also Moeen Woakes and possibly Wood Buttler and Rashid all in the test squad so missing out. Yes many of the T20 side will be available but to do it properly there should be an international break.
As for your second point. I have said before I agree change is needed. I have never argued against changing what I think is a flawed setup. However this is not the right change. In fact it is fundamentally wrong. This is a classic case of the suits at the ECB working out that change is needed and looking at what other countries have done and copying that. But instead of tailoring it to us and making it work for us they have gone headfirst into what I think will be a disaster. They haven't worked out what made the IPL and big bash and success. In fact they have done the exact opposite.
Those leagues moving from state to city cricket meant:
More teams. We have less (10 less) More games. We have less (not sure how many but significantly less) More locations. We have 10 less locations. Theirs are solely on terrestrial TV. Ours will be 1/4 on terrestrial TV for the first year. After that it's subject to the ECB and the pull of sky money. They weren't selling out grounds for T20 before. We are already selling out most grounds for most games.
All these things for them make the cricket kettle more accessible. For us the opposite. Less people watching less cricket and having to travel further to do so.
That is the fundamental reason those leagues were a success and the fundamental reason ours won't be.
Other problems I can spot with it. Less English players playing in the English league. With 10 less teams that's minimum 90 less English players. Plus with say 2 extra over seas players that's 16 less in the teams that do play. So over 100 less English players in our T20 competition!
Who will get a contract? Stephens because he is bloody effective on English pitches and is experienced. Likewise Cook Bell Trott Compton Balance etc will all get contracts on name even though they will never play t20 for England again. At what cost? Young up and coming players are going to miss out. The players that are known to county coaches as they have been in the system for years. So those coachs would give them all chance. A franchise? No chance.
I keep harking back to the Currans. But 3 years ago when neither of them had made any county appearances only those who followed academy cricket closely were aware of them. If there was a bidding process for franchises would either of them have been bought? No chance. Yet they both were given their debuts by Surrey that year in the T20 and both excelled and became regulars. That is the route through for young players. Why ruin it?
If you think the 'lesser' T20 competition will continue more than a year then you're crazy.
The argument it will make England better at T20/ODI cricket is null and void. A change of coach and approach has changed our side around. We reached the final of the T20 world cup we have shot up the rankings we have some of the best players in the world and some of the most expensive in the IPL auction. We are expected to do well at the champions trophy. We have depth in this format like never before. Could name 2 T20i teams who I would be confident they could compete internationally.
As said change was needed but they've gone around it the wrong way.
What should have happened: Keep the counties. 3 groups rather than 2 to reduce no of games slightly. Play it all in one 4 week block in the summer holidays. Complete international break. 4 overseas players per team. But no Kolpak all must be current internationals. Have it all on Terrestrial TV. Have all the cheerleaders/stump mic/whatever franchise type stuff you want. Finals day at the Olympic stadium. Make as much song and dance out of it as you like. Keep the established set up that works but build on making it better.
Mr President do you not think that proposal (something very similar was put to the ECB) would not be better and more suited to English cricket?
Let's be honest, it's all about money. Raising more money from sponsors and TV so the top players get paid a lot more. It has nothing to do with the cricket paying public. Each team will play 4 home games so a max of 8 in south east England. This compares to significantly more (sorry not sure of number) of packed crowds for existing T20 which also allows people of Chelmsford, Canterbury, Hove, Beckenham and Tunbridge Wells to go. Still we can't have all these oiks going can we? It has to be convenient the City based. Certainly cricket needs a revamp but I feel this is a big step backward.
Further to my previous post on the topic I have one final point.
I have just read that the ECB have confirmed that championship cricket will run at the same time of this. So could it's will be robbed of their best players for championship matchs as they will be playing games for their franchise team on the same day.
Not only is that a compete shambles it it will significantly dilute the quality of the championship game. And make the title/promotion/relegation laughable.
Not doing much to help the test side which is, arguably, the format we are struggling most at currently.
One further point on the argument it will drive interest in cricket. If you think that franchise cricket will pull in different people to watch than the blast did. It certainly wont/can't have more people watch it as there are less games, less grounds less accessible etc. So if we are working on the assumption that it won't attract the people that usually watch the blast and are already cricket fans but will attract an entirely new audience (in itself a ridiculous assumption) then are we really sure that this people will go on to have any meaningful interest in cricket going forwards. Are they going to choose a county to support or start following test matches? Don't think so. The blast was already pulling these people in and it gave them a natural progression to following other forms of the game.
I agree with change but this isn't the way to go about it. We're copying other countries but completely ignoring the aspects that made theirs successful.
Some points I made about this on just the previous page.
8 matches out of 38 to be on terrestrial TV is not making it more available to the masses, cheap tickets to guarantee full grounds will do more if only 8 are shown on free to air, although Surrey is very reasonable already, only £1 for my son and £18 for me I think the last couple of years
The issue is its not like the grounds weren't selling out for T20 anyway. The grounds I have been to (all in the south) Oval, Lords, Beckenham/Canterbury, Hove, Chelmsford are all packed out every T20 game and these clubs already make good money from them. Attendances at T20 was never the issue.
It's not just Root and Stokes. There is also Moeen Woakes and possibly Wood Buttler and Rashid all in the test squad so missing out. Yes many of the T20 side will be available but to do it properly there should be an international break.
As for your second point. I have said before I agree change is needed. I have never argued against changing what I think is a flawed setup. However this is not the right change. In fact it is fundamentally wrong. This is a classic case of the suits at the ECB working out that change is needed and looking at what other countries have done and copying that. But instead of tailoring it to us and making it work for us they have gone headfirst into what I think will be a disaster. They haven't worked out what made the IPL and big bash and success. In fact they have done the exact opposite.
Those leagues moving from state to city cricket meant:
More teams. We have less (10 less) More games. We have less (not sure how many but significantly less) More locations. We have 10 less locations. Theirs are solely on terrestrial TV. Ours will be 1/4 on terrestrial TV for the first year. After that it's subject to the ECB and the pull of sky money. They weren't selling out grounds for T20 before. We are already selling out most grounds for most games.
All these things for them make the cricket kettle more accessible. For us the opposite. Less people watching less cricket and having to travel further to do so.
That is the fundamental reason those leagues were a success and the fundamental reason ours won't be.
Other problems I can spot with it. Less English players playing in the English league. With 10 less teams that's minimum 90 less English players. Plus with say 2 extra over seas players that's 16 less in the teams that do play. So over 100 less English players in our T20 competition!
Who will get a contract? Stephens because he is bloody effective on English pitches and is experienced. Likewise Cook Bell Trott Compton Balance etc will all get contracts on name even though they will never play t20 for England again. At what cost? Young up and coming players are going to miss out. The players that are known to county coaches as they have been in the system for years. So those coachs would give them all chance. A franchise? No chance.
I keep harking back to the Currans. But 3 years ago when neither of them had made any county appearances only those who followed academy cricket closely were aware of them. If there was a bidding process for franchises would either of them have been bought? No chance. Yet they both were given their debuts by Surrey that year in the T20 and both excelled and became regulars. That is the route through for young players. Why ruin it?
If you think the 'lesser' T20 competition will continue more than a year then you're crazy.
The argument it will make England better at T20/ODI cricket is null and void. A change of coach and approach has changed our side around. We reached the final of the T20 world cup we have shot up the rankings we have some of the best players in the world and some of the most expensive in the IPL auction. We are expected to do well at the champions trophy. We have depth in this format like never before. Could name 2 T20i teams who I would be confident they could compete internationally.
As said change was needed but they've gone around it the wrong way.
What should have happened: Keep the counties. 3 groups rather than 2 to reduce no of games slightly. Play it all in one 4 week block in the summer holidays. Complete international break. 4 overseas players per team. But no Kolpak all must be current internationals. Have it all on Terrestrial TV. Have all the cheerleaders/stump mic/whatever franchise type stuff you want. Finals day at the Olympic stadium. Make as much song and dance out of it as you like. Keep the established set up that works but build on making it better.
Mr President do you not think that proposal (something very similar was put to the ECB) would not be better and more suited to English cricket?
Let's be honest, it's all about money. Raising more money from sponsors and TV so the top players get paid a lot more. It has nothing to do with the cricket paying public. Each team will play 4 home games so a max of 8 in south east England. This compares to significantly more (sorry not sure of number) of packed crowds for existing T20 which also allows people of Chelmsford, Canterbury, Hove, Beckenham and Tunbridge Wells to go. Still we can't have all these oiks going can we? It has to be convenient the City based. Certainly cricket needs a revamp but I feel this is a big step backward.
Further to my previous post on the topic I have one final point.
I have just read that the ECB have confirmed that championship cricket will run at the same time of this. So could it's will be robbed of their best players for championship matchs as they will be playing games for their franchise team on the same day.
Not only is that a compete shambles it it will significantly dilute the quality of the championship game. And make the title/promotion/relegation laughable.
Not doing much to help the test side which is, arguably, the format we are struggling most at currently.
One further point on the argument it will drive interest in cricket. If you think that franchise cricket will pull in different people to watch than the blast did. It certainly wont/can't have more people watch it as there are less games, less grounds less accessible etc. So if we are working on the assumption that it won't attract the people that usually watch the blast and are already cricket fans but will attract an entirely new audience (in itself a ridiculous assumption) then are we really sure that this people will go on to have any meaningful interest in cricket going forwards. Are they going to choose a county to support or start following test matches? Don't think so. The blast was already pulling these people in and it gave them a natural progression to following other forms of the game.
As do the majority of actual cricket fans. Certainly I've only ever met 2 that don't. It's this fictional group of people who will suddenly be attracted to cricket that will love it. Apparently.
The argument that we need it to make our England one day side competitive is ridiculous after the last 2 years.
All the talk after the blast last year was that it was the best ever and having it in a window in the middle of the summer was the change that was needed. Why not build on that change and make the current format even better. I just don't get the logic behind it. Probably because there isn't any.
"The rules, at least per Monday's games, see the 100 balls delivered in blocks of 10, with each bowler permitted a maximum of 20 balls, either in blocks of five or 10. The bowling changes end every 10 balls, but a bowler can deliver the last five balls from one end and the first five from the other end if desired."
"The rules, at least per Monday's games, see the 100 balls delivered in blocks of 10, with each bowler permitted a maximum of 20 balls, either in blocks of five or 10. The bowling changes end every 10 balls, but a bowler can deliver the last five balls from one end and the first five from the other end if desired."
Honestly, what is this shit?
overcomplicating what is an already complicated sport. I would've thought it would be easier to have first 50 balls from one end, second 50 from the other.
t20 was a really refreshing idea, but this just strikes me as hoping lightning will strike twice.
This is what's known as "group think". All the committee needed to put this abomination to sleep is a dissenting voice just saying "what a load of cock". By all means revamp the blast, but this is the answer to a question that nobody asked
All that was needed was to make the T20 blast more accessible with more TV coverage (preferably free), cheaper tickets, more of a condensed scheduling so that England and world superstars could play and 3 overseas allowed per side instead of 2.
The basis is all there and it wouldn't have taken much to make the blast a quality tournament.
This is a nonsensical load of bollocks. The blast is going to get worse and this is going to flop miserably.
T20 is great, something happens every ball, the power play bits are the only slightly complicated part and in cricket terms that is uncomplicated
I agree the T20 league format could be buggered about with and we could have one or two more overseas players in a match squad but I personally love our t20 tournament and whilst I'd appreciate cheaper tickets I think I've always got value for money at every game I've attended over the years. If I had to change anything I'd scale down one day cricket and focus on 4 day stuff and t20 only
"The rules, at least per Monday's games, see the 100 balls delivered in blocks of 10, with each bowler permitted a maximum of 20 balls, either in blocks of five or 10. The bowling changes end every 10 balls, but a bowler can deliver the last five balls from one end and the first five from the other end if desired."
Honestly, what is this shit?
More to the point - how does a scorer fit 10 balls in one box? What happens when there's 2 no balls and a wide in the over? It won't matter how fine the pen or pencil is, it will be a physical impossibility to do so.
Also, when it comes to viewing the scorecard on play cricket 20 off 3.2 overs will now be a run rate of 117.65 instead of 100.00.
They really haven't thought this through, have they?
Aah, The ECB: The Banter Years are well upon us I see.
This is complete tripe. There is absolutely no need to gimmick what was originally a gimmick in T20 and has now become a perfectly credible, digestible (to the part time fan) length of cricket match.
"The rules, at least per Monday's games, see the 100 balls delivered in blocks of 10, with each bowler permitted a maximum of 20 balls, either in blocks of five or 10. The bowling changes end every 10 balls, but a bowler can deliver the last five balls from one end and the first five from the other end if desired."
Honestly, what is this shit?
More to the point - how does a scorer fit 10 balls in one box? What happens when there's 2 no balls and a wide in the over? It won't matter how fine the pen or pencil is, it will be a physical impossibility to do so.
Also, when it comes to viewing the scorecard on play cricket 20 off 3.2 overs will now be a run rate of 117.65 instead of 100.00.
They really haven't thought this through, have they?
I just get more and more depressed and dispirited with the clowns at the ECB and their half-arsed attempts to ru(i)n the game. Their desperation to come up with something 'new & exciting' has driven them to this ridiculous extreme. As they say, "It's just not cricket!"
They refuse to acknowledge the one single thing that will help cricket's popularity as they have thrown in with Sky and their money. Free to air terrestrial broadcast coverage of T20. Not contrived rule changes, dayglo kits and their product hidden behind a TV paywall watched by a declining subscriber audience.
I just get more and more depressed and dispirited with the clowns at the ECB and their half-arsed attempts to ru(i)n the game. Their desperation to come up with something 'new & exciting' has driven them to this ridiculous extreme. As they say, "It's just not cricket!"
They refuse to acknowledge the one single thing that will help cricket's popularity as they have thrown in with Sky and their money. Free to air terrestrial broadcast coverage of T20. Not contrived rule changes, dayglo kits and their product hidden behind a TV paywall watched by a declining subscriber audience.
The new 100 ball thing or whatever it's called is going to be on BBC 2, and BBC only agreed to take it if the ECB could ensure each game would only last 2 and a half hours, which is why they have come up with various ideas to cut the time of T20 down.
Don't get me wrong, think it's absurd, but actually a lot of the stupid stuff has come from a desire to get the game free to air on BBC.
"The rules, at least per Monday's games, see the 100 balls delivered in blocks of 10, with each bowler permitted a maximum of 20 balls, either in blocks of five or 10. The bowling changes end every 10 balls, but a bowler can deliver the last five balls from one end and the first five from the other end if desired."
Honestly, what is this shit?
More to the point - how does a scorer fit 10 balls in one box? What happens when there's 2 no balls and a wide in the over? It won't matter how fine the pen or pencil is, it will be a physical impossibility to do so.
Also, when it comes to viewing the scorecard on play cricket 20 off 3.2 overs will now be a run rate of 117.65 instead of 100.00.
They really haven't thought this through, have they?
There are no such things as overs in 'The 100' Overs is a word they have deliberately left out.
I just get more and more depressed and dispirited with the clowns at the ECB and their half-arsed attempts to ru(i)n the game. Their desperation to come up with something 'new & exciting' has driven them to this ridiculous extreme. As they say, "It's just not cricket!"
They refuse to acknowledge the one single thing that will help cricket's popularity as they have thrown in with Sky and their money. Free to air terrestrial broadcast coverage of T20. Not contrived rule changes, dayglo kits and their product hidden behind a TV paywall watched by a declining subscriber audience.
The new 100 ball thing or whatever it's called is going to be on BBC 2, and BBC only agreed to take it if the ECB could ensure each game would only last 2 and a half hours, which is why they have come up with various ideas to cut the time of T20 down.
Don't get me wrong, think it's absurd, but actually a lot of the stupid stuff has come from a desire to get the game free to air on BBC.
Surely the simplest solution to the 2 and a half hour time limit is to call it T15 instead? I guess that's not what they're looking for though. A scoreboard that counts down 100 deliveries while the runs count upward is an appealing gameshow style approach for people looking to popularize cricket (or something that looks like cricket but is actually something a bit weird and made up).
Make the ball bigger, replace the stumps and wickets for posts and cross bars, award each team a point everytime they kick the ball into the goal and only allow the keeper to handle the ball in the area in front of the posts.
What we need is a longer competition. We should replace the 50 over comp played from mid May with the final at the end of June, a straight 60 over knock-out like the Gillette was. There would be enough daylight that time of year. Players to wear whites, red ball, bowlers restricted to 12 overs but no powerplays or fielding restrictions. Get batsmen batting properly again! T20 to be played August till final in Sep without a big gap from 1/4 to final. CC played from May - end of July and finished after T20 Fri-Mon with the new cup played on Wednesdays.
"The rules, at least per Monday's games, see the 100 balls delivered in blocks of 10, with each bowler permitted a maximum of 20 balls, either in blocks of five or 10. The bowling changes end every 10 balls, but a bowler can deliver the last five balls from one end and the first five from the other end if desired."
Honestly, what is this shit?
More to the point - how does a scorer fit 10 balls in one box? What happens when there's 2 no balls and a wide in the over? It won't matter how fine the pen or pencil is, it will be a physical impossibility to do so.
Also, when it comes to viewing the scorecard on play cricket 20 off 3.2 overs will now be a run rate of 117.65 instead of 100.00.
They really haven't thought this through, have they?
There are no such things as overs in 'The 100' Overs is a word they have deliberately left out.
It really is nothing more than a load of balls then.
T20 is great, something happens every ball, the power play bits are the only slightly complicated part and in cricket terms that is uncomplicated
I agree the T20 league format could be buggered about with and we could have one or two more overseas players in a match squad but I personally love our t20 tournament and whilst I'd appreciate cheaper tickets I think I've always got value for money at every game I've attended over the years. If I had to change anything I'd scale down one day cricket and focus on 4 day stuff and t20 only
I like the 50 over format as well. It feel more like a "proper" game of cricket, as top order batsmen have time to play themselves in and don't have to slog every ball.
What we need is a longer competition. We should replace the 50 over comp played from mid May with the final at the end of June, a straight 60 over knock-out like the Gillette was. There would be enough daylight that time of year. Players to wear whites, red ball, bowlers restricted to 12 overs but no powerplays or fielding restrictions. Get batsmen batting properly again! T20 to be played August till final in Sep without a big gap from 1/4 to final. CC played from May - end of July and finished after T20 Fri-Mon with the new cup played on Wednesdays.
Not sure I could muster the willpower to watch 120 overs. 50 over games seems to go on for ever as it is and sitting through the last 40 overs of no hope cricket by Kent at the Oval final this year was too depressing.
What we need is a longer competition. We should replace the 50 over comp played from mid May with the final at the end of June, a straight 60 over knock-out like the Gillette was. There would be enough daylight that time of year. Players to wear whites, red ball, bowlers restricted to 12 overs but no powerplays or fielding restrictions. Get batsmen batting properly again! T20 to be played August till final in Sep without a big gap from 1/4 to final. CC played from May - end of July and finished after T20 Fri-Mon with the new cup played on Wednesdays.
You mean like the benson and hedges cup that got scrapped? Iirc the final was the only county game on terrestrial telly all year.
I personally think there should be a t20 competition running throughout the year (like the county championship) have a 50 over competition at the beginning of the season and the big t20 knockout tournament near the end.
Comments
Thanks Grapevine
Does that make me right?
The argument that we need it to make our England one day side competitive is ridiculous after the last 2 years.
All the talk after the blast last year was that it was the best ever and having it in a window in the middle of the summer was the change that was needed. Why not build on that change and make the current format even better. I just don't get the logic behind it. Probably because there isn't any.
"The rules, at least per Monday's games, see the 100 balls delivered in blocks of 10, with each bowler permitted a maximum of 20 balls, either in blocks of five or 10. The bowling changes end every 10 balls, but a bowler can deliver the last five balls from one end and the first five from the other end if desired."
Honestly, what is this shit?
I mean 5 and 10 ball overs oooooh look at us being different and trend setters , clowns
t20 was a really refreshing idea, but this just strikes me as hoping lightning will strike twice.
The basis is all there and it wouldn't have taken much to make the blast a quality tournament.
This is a nonsensical load of bollocks. The blast is going to get worse and this is going to flop miserably.
Sad.
T20 is great, something happens every ball, the power play bits are the only slightly complicated part and in cricket terms that is uncomplicated
I agree the T20 league format could be buggered about with and we could have one or two more overseas players in a match squad but I personally love our t20 tournament and whilst I'd appreciate cheaper tickets I think I've always got value for money at every game I've attended over the years. If I had to change anything I'd scale down one day cricket and focus on 4 day stuff and t20 only
Also, when it comes to viewing the scorecard on play cricket 20 off 3.2 overs will now be a run rate of 117.65 instead of 100.00.
They really haven't thought this through, have they?
This is complete tripe. There is absolutely no need to gimmick what was originally a gimmick in T20 and has now become a perfectly credible, digestible (to the part time fan) length of cricket match.
They refuse to acknowledge the one single thing that will help cricket's popularity as they have thrown in with Sky and their money. Free to air terrestrial broadcast coverage of T20. Not contrived rule changes, dayglo kits and their product hidden behind a TV paywall watched by a declining subscriber audience.
Don't get me wrong, think it's absurd, but actually a lot of the stupid stuff has come from a desire to get the game free to air on BBC.
Called it from the very start.
Overs is a word they have deliberately left out.
And can the BBC really not spare more than 2.5 hours in the summer, when there's bugger all on except sport anyway?
T20 to be played August till final in Sep without a big gap from 1/4 to final.
CC played from May - end of July and finished after T20 Fri-Mon with the new cup played on Wednesdays.
Not sure I could muster the willpower to watch 120 overs. 50 over games seems to go on for ever as it is and sitting through the last 40 overs of no hope cricket by Kent at the Oval final this year was too depressing.
I personally think there should be a t20 competition running throughout the year (like the county championship) have a 50 over competition at the beginning of the season and the big t20 knockout tournament near the end.