Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Cricket] Franchise T20
- Thread starter 8ace
- Start date
spring hall convert
Well-known member
I don't like the idea of breaking the country structure but if we want to compete with the IPL and Big Bash, it has to be done.
If we're not interested in competing with those tournaments, leave it how it is.
Personally I'm in a funny position, selfishly, I hate the idea (Brighton would be unlikely to get a Franchise wouldn't it?) but it's probably for the best. They can work reimbursing the counties out, I'm sure.
If we're not interested in competing with those tournaments, leave it how it is.
Personally I'm in a funny position, selfishly, I hate the idea (Brighton would be unlikely to get a Franchise wouldn't it?) but it's probably for the best. They can work reimbursing the counties out, I'm sure.
Hotchilidog
Well-known member
- Jan 24, 2009
- 8,688
Why would any Sussex fan want to watch the London Lions or Southampton Squids or whatever they would call these franchises. A complete non starter for me.
Whilst I can see T20 as a necessary evil for counties to raise revenue, I hate what it has done to the game, both in terms of disruption to the fixtures and in terms of the quality of play required to be successful in the game. There is nothing more dispiriting for me to see the rise of the dibby dobber bowler trying to bowl as slowly and blandly as possible whilst batsmen eschew proper technique for slogging.
Whilst I can see T20 as a necessary evil for counties to raise revenue, I hate what it has done to the game, both in terms of disruption to the fixtures and in terms of the quality of play required to be successful in the game. There is nothing more dispiriting for me to see the rise of the dibby dobber bowler trying to bowl as slowly and blandly as possible whilst batsmen eschew proper technique for slogging.
No. Or rather, I'd be in favour of franchises so long as either a) there were 18 of them or b) Sussex had one called the Sussex Sharks. I have zero interest in joining with Hampshire and supporting a team called something like 'South Coast Sabres'.
I suppose if they're going to divvy the money up they can get on without me (and others like me) and we'll just take the cash. Be a pity though as I like watching T20 at Hove.
I suppose if they're going to divvy the money up they can get on without me (and others like me) and we'll just take the cash. Be a pity though as I like watching T20 at Hove.
Why do we need to compete with the IPL or the Big Bash?
spring hall convert
Well-known member
Personally, I don't think we do.
Somehow I don't think that will be the ECB's position though.
EDIT: Ignore. Replied before you edited
spring hall convert
Well-known member
English cricket - the same people I assume you meant when you said 'we.'
I think you've mistaken me for a 20/20 fan. I'm more you're old fashioned 2 men and a dog county championship man. So what I personally want the 20/20 tournament to be, probably isn't for the best.
I think you've mistaken me for a 20/20 fan. I'm more you're old fashioned 2 men and a dog county championship man. So what I personally want the 20/20 tournament to be, probably isn't for the best.
And we're back ....
Ok, I don't think 'English Cricket' does need to compete with the IPL or the Big Bash. We still get the top players over here and the ECB seem to think that if they concentrate them in a few big teams that will be 'better' and 'more exciting'. I disagree and feel left out, but if you don't like T20 then I accept that the argument doesn't really worry you.
I don't see how franchise cricket could work. Clearly, if Sussex & Hants joined forces, most Sussex fans won't make the trek to Southampton, so what's the point? Same for Essex and Kent or whatever.
It's not like reducing the number of teams/interested spectators is going to benefit anyone as far as I can see?
It's not like reducing the number of teams/interested spectators is going to benefit anyone as far as I can see?
spring hall convert
Well-known member
Whichever way you cut it 20/20 is about bums on seats and cash. I suspect a franchise system will generate more of that, particuarly if they could get tie in's with football clubs.
But as you say, it's not really my argument to have.
In The Rough
New member
Am I going to get excited watching the South Coast Chargers or similarly other wanky name that it will be given. No. Am I going to travel to Southampton to watch it? No. Will it be able to compete with the big bash or IPL in terms of numbers? No.
Will the ECB press ahead with this ****ing abysmal idea? Of course they will. ****ing Incompetent tossers. Couldn't run a bath. Would rather have Blatter in charge. Actually I quite like the idea of a cricketing world somewhere odd like France or Brazil.
Will the ECB press ahead with this ****ing abysmal idea? Of course they will. ****ing Incompetent tossers. Couldn't run a bath. Would rather have Blatter in charge. Actually I quite like the idea of a cricketing world somewhere odd like France or Brazil.
Left Footer
Well-known member
No I wouldn`t.
sten_super
Brain Surgeon
It depends what the idea is. If it's to have a competition to rival the IPL or BB, then yes, it's essential. Fewer teams would mean fewer matches, and they could be played in one go rather than every week. Doing this would also make it more likely to attract the best overseas players (which clearly isn't the case at the moment), while one assumes that the England players would also be made available. It also has the potential benefit of allowing the England players to play more high-quality T20, whereas at the moment as soon as they are picked for England they more or less never play domestic T20.
The ECB will go for it because this is the way to generate the most money.
The ECB will go for it because this is the way to generate the most money.
What an absolutely horrible idea. My son's just at the point where he's really enjoying the Albion. 20/20 is the natural way to break him in as a cricket fan. No one from round here is going to support a Southampton based side.
Mackenzie
Old Brightonian
No frigging way. I hate Hampshire and Surrey nearly as much as palace.
Absolutely pointless trying to compete with the IPL and BBL terms of trying to get bums on seats and milking the cash cow.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cricket_grounds_by_capacity
There are 20 Indian grounds and 6 Autralian ones until you hit Lords in that list (an, err, 'impressive' joint 38th...). You then have Edgbaston and the Toilet Bowl at joint 45th.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cricket_grounds_by_capacity
There are 20 Indian grounds and 6 Autralian ones until you hit Lords in that list (an, err, 'impressive' joint 38th...). You then have Edgbaston and the Toilet Bowl at joint 45th.
Blue Valkyrie
Not seen such Bravery!
It could only really work if the South Coast Cloggers, or whatever they are called, played at least some of their matches at Hove. Surely no need for them all to be at Southampton or the Oval.
Uncle Buck
Ghost Writer
- Jul 7, 2003
- 28,071
Just have to go to down the alternative route of bringing him to a 4 day game. There he can watch us start the day with a coffee, high brow chat and the intention not to drink until after lunch.
Then at midday, somebody will fancy a pint, everyone else will agree.
Then the whole thing slips into stupidity. By tea the chance of speaking has gone, followed by a pub crawl round Hove, Golden Grill and passing out.
All meet the next day, but rather than high brow conversations, there is a collective moan about hangovers and one person questioning why there was a stake board in their flat that morning.
Peter Grummit
Well-known member
Horrendous plan.
For a start, SCCC is a members' club and would have to consult its members about whether they were in favour. Half the members hate T20 and don't go. The other half go to Hove and enjoy it (including me). Neither group is likely to be in favour.
Second, look at the maths. How is concentrating it in 10 grounds rather than 18 going to increase income? By each team playing more matches. So it takes over more of the cricketing calendar, which is already stuffed to the gills. So the 50 over competition will be dropped. Or the County Championship (the breeding ground for Test players) messed about. The CC 1st division actually works really well, produces some great cricket and higher standard of players.
Third, I am not convinced more people would go along anyway. There would no doubt be 2 teams in London at the Oval and Lords. They already attract very healthy gates for the existing T20. Ditto Yorkshire and Lancashire. Warwickshire are already called the Birmingham Bears, it will make no difference. Presume the others would be Hants, Glamorgan, Gloucs (Bristol), Durham and Nottingham. Would Derby fans go to Nottingham? Northamptonshire fans to Birmingham? Essex to Lords? Kent to The Oval? Can't see what more it would offer. For example, the 7 x 4-5k gates at Hove would be lost. Call it 30k crowd. x 8 counties who miss out, roughly 250,000 spectators lost.
So what is it really about? TV money ie Sky and better marketing opportunities. And more money for overseas mercenaries and a few English players.
Still in favour?
PG
For a start, SCCC is a members' club and would have to consult its members about whether they were in favour. Half the members hate T20 and don't go. The other half go to Hove and enjoy it (including me). Neither group is likely to be in favour.
Second, look at the maths. How is concentrating it in 10 grounds rather than 18 going to increase income? By each team playing more matches. So it takes over more of the cricketing calendar, which is already stuffed to the gills. So the 50 over competition will be dropped. Or the County Championship (the breeding ground for Test players) messed about. The CC 1st division actually works really well, produces some great cricket and higher standard of players.
Third, I am not convinced more people would go along anyway. There would no doubt be 2 teams in London at the Oval and Lords. They already attract very healthy gates for the existing T20. Ditto Yorkshire and Lancashire. Warwickshire are already called the Birmingham Bears, it will make no difference. Presume the others would be Hants, Glamorgan, Gloucs (Bristol), Durham and Nottingham. Would Derby fans go to Nottingham? Northamptonshire fans to Birmingham? Essex to Lords? Kent to The Oval? Can't see what more it would offer. For example, the 7 x 4-5k gates at Hove would be lost. Call it 30k crowd. x 8 counties who miss out, roughly 250,000 spectators lost.
So what is it really about? TV money ie Sky and better marketing opportunities. And more money for overseas mercenaries and a few English players.
Still in favour?
PG