Franchises not the answer for English Twenty20

When the ECB launched the Twenty20 Cup in 2003 the stated aim was to widen the appeal of county cricket, and introduce supporters to the county sides who could go on to support them in the more traditional formats. The other incentive was to safeguard the financial futures of the counties, by creating the opportunity to host full houses in a prime-time after work slot on warm June evenings. As an infant expectations were not only matched but surpassed - almost every game was sold out in those initial years, and the numbers of families in attendance was significantly higher than at other forms of the game. But in recent seasons Twenty20 has reached its adolescent stage. It asserts its independence by flexing its muscles in India, Bangladesh and Australia. And, back at home, those that adored it as a baby are less interested than they were before.

All this has led to a flurry of suggestions from players as highly respected as Muttiah Muralitharan, Scott Styris, Dirk Nannes and the number two Twenty20 batsman in the world Eoin Morgan that our Friends Life t20 is falling behind franchise-based competitions such as the Indian and Bangladesh Premier Leagues and Australia’s Big Bash. The answer, they say, is that we must follow their lead and implement a franchise-based system in the UK. I say that, as well as being unworkable, franchises would in fact be disastrous for English cricket.

The first reason for my position is that a franchise based system would undoubtedly go against the stated aim of English Twenty20 - to rejuvenate county cricket. Some interest might actually be created in the Manchester Mavericks, or the Leeds Leopards, at least whilst the novelty lasts. But what is to say that young supporters of those teams will go on to follow Lancashire and Yorkshire in the Championship? We are not India where the Ranji Trophy is attended by practically none and followed by few more - the County Championship has a stronger following than any other domestic first-class competition, and we must not let anything threaten that. The dominance of franchise cricket could easily do just that, creating the impression that county cricket is second class and driving those newspapers that still cover the Championship away.

Additionally, a franchise system would be sure to centre around our major international venues - the likes of The Oval, Headingley and Trent Bridge. The management at these venues would love a franchise system, to create more major match days, and perhaps bring in more income than the existing competition. But that fails to recognise that Surrey, who brought in an astounding 82,843 for Twenty20 group games last year aside, the counties to make the best success of Twenty20 have been the smaller ones - in particular Somerset, Essex and Sussex. Under a franchise system all three counties would almost certainly be sidelined, and even were a second T20 competition introduced to keep the clubs sweet, it is doubtful that attendances could be maintained. The end of T20 cricket as we know it would almost certainly be disastrous for these counties - the primary income stream would be cut off, and financial turmoil would be the likely result. Even were hefty compensation provided by the ECB, along with the chance to host games in the new competition, that would hardly be the way to treat the loyal supporters of those clubs.

The success of Twenty20 in smaller towns also highlights a major difference in our culture from that in the countries some think we should copy. In India, cricket dominates the sporting scene and fans will come from far and wide to see their heroes. That isn’t how things work over here. Cricket has to be taken to the people who, in areas where the county cricket club is at the heart of the local community, will happily take advantage of the opportunity to see top class professional sport. For this reason it might well be an uphill struggle for city based franchises to galvanise local support in areas where international cricket and other sports teams dominate. Mancunians have their sport fix from the two Premier League clubs, and Old Trafford’s international cricket. Domestic cricket will thus always have a niche following their.

A more fundamental reason that franchise cricket will never work in the UK is that it is hard to see who would be willing to put hefty sums of money down to buy a domestic cricket team over here. In India some of the highest profile public figures - from Shah Rukh Khan to Vijay Mallya to Shilpa Shetty - have forked out for IPL teams. But in England the domestic cricket market is narrow, and you have to think that the super-rich would be better off spending their cash on Premier League football clubs than Twenty20 franchises. Certainly, it is unrealistic to imagine Sir Richard Branson, David Beckham and Simon Cowell investing in cricket. Therefore, it is hard to see where the money would come from to lure top Twenty20 players with IPL, or at least Big Bash, style contracts. In fact franchises might be little better off than the counties.

Most pundits seem to agree that we ask too much of our international cricketers these days. It goes without saying that a franchise competition would struggle to work without the presence of Kevin Pietersen, Graeme Swann, James Anderson and all of our other iconic England cricketers. To make itself viable it would have to be contested over at least as many matches as the current Friends Life t20 and probably more, if the Morgan Review’s suggestion of 14 is anything to go by. This would do nothing to ease the schedule, and with international cricket unlikely to be reduced either, it is therefore inconceivable that the England players would be available for more than a couple of games. It would simply be incompatible with the laudable goals of the Strauss-Flower regime to be the best team in the world.

The preceding paragraphs cover the major points, but that is only the tip of the iceberg. Some other factors to consider are that many young (and older) English players would probably be sidelined in a franchise competition, that dumping counties wouldn’t suddenly make AB de Villiers, Lasith Malinga and Chris Gayle available, and that the problems the Friends Life t20 has encountered this year have been accentuated by the weather - something that franchises won’t change.

Of course, we shouldn’t forget that England are both World Twenty20 champions and ranked number one in the world in that form of the game. What we are doing can’t be that wrong then.

As a final thought we should return to the list of players to put their names to wanting franchise cricket in England - Eoin Morgan, Scott Styris, Dirk Nannes, Murali. Three are overseas players, who probably wouldn’t care if Leicestershire collapsed. And all four would rate their chances of using an English franchise system to further top up their bank accounts. In fact they’ve probably given little thought to whether it would be the right way for English cricket to go. All my evidence suggests it wouldn’t be.

I think the T20 comp we have now is pretty good. They cut down the stupid number of matches counties used to play and they cant be blamed for the wettest drought in memory.

My staunch opposition to franchises doesn't stop the fact that there is something wrong with T20 as we have it this year. The number of games, and format seems absolutely right. But it just isn't gathering the interest it was in the first few seasons.

Potential reasons are the weather, novelty wearing off, lack of England players involved, scheduling of matches too close together (Oval has 3 in 4 days this week).

I don't know quite what to suggest, but the key point is that it must be within the county system. One idea is to play the matches over a longer period, with more on a Friday evening and Sunday afternoon. But I worry that that would damage the Championship (which would end up being played Monday-Thursday), and wouldn't be popular with the players.

The only thing that definitely needs to happen is that the knock-out games should follow the group stages more closely. That way momentum can be maintained.

However, I reiterate that it seems to work perfectly at Chelmsford, Taunton and Hove. We somehow need to get the other smaller counties to replicate that.

Nice article Shelsey, I like your style.

Question

Would the suggestion of these players not have more to do with the fact that the Franchise system could pull in overseas stars?

Is it not viable to keep this system county based, but with less teams through combining county teams?

Has the marketing of the tournament not flattened out and need some revitalisation?

What do the organisors do to get crowd involvement?

In SA the T20 competition has always attracted decent crowds, but there are less teams so the monotony of watching an endless number of games doesn't become a factor.

The IPL for example bores me as it seems never ending.

Perhaps the answer is to have multi tiered T20 competitions with promotion and relegation?

biltongbek wrote:Nice article Shelsey, I like your style.

Question

Would the suggestion of these players not have more to do with the fact that the Franchise system could pull in overseas stars?

Is it not viable to keep this system county based, but with less teams through combining county teams?

Has the marketing of the tournament not flattened out and need some revitalisation?

What do the organisors do to get crowd involvement?

In SA the T20 competition has always attracted decent crowds, but there are less teams so the monotony of watching an endless number of games doesn't become a factor.

The IPL for example bores me as it seems never ending.

Perhaps the answer is to have multi tiered T20 competitions with promotion and relegation?

1. Counties attract overseas stars anyway. Franchises wouldn't suddenly make the very top players available.

2. Combining county teams is an idea which has been suggested. But what would that mean for finances? Should Somerset give half of their (excellent) T20 revenue to Gloucs? Should Essex play half their matches at Lord's?

3. A relevant point. There has been a lot of marketing this year, but I personally don't think it creates excitement like it did in the early years.

4. The organisers have various campaigns running this year to get crowd involvement. Such as the stand-up comedy campaign.

5. I get the impression that South Africans really connect with T20 in a way that we don't. Do all the international players play in the domestic competition?

I think we're seeing the result of a vast oversaturation of T20. Attendences and viewing figures are down for all the comps iirc, people have just had too much T20.

Shelsey usually yes, they will take part in the T20's, but our player base and system is much smaller than England's.

Perhaps because of the fact that there is only 6 Franchises and it is hosted in major city centers has something to do with its popularity.

Also I think people are starved for high quality cricket in SA.

So yu have a relatively large fanbase (cricket is quite popular amongst all races) who only supports 6 teams.

To be honest I could see a promotion relegation system introduced, whether it be 2 or 3 divisions I don't know. Yes this would take away finals day, however the current format is starting to become somewhat dated. Providing finances for being whatever division don't cause a divide in between the counties I think it could work.

Current tables for 3 tier leagues? arguable for places of course

Div 1:
Nottinghamshire
Sussex
Somerset
Hampshire
Yorkshire
Warwickshire

Div 2:
Surrey
Essex
Lancashire
Middlesex
Durham
Worcestershire

Div 3:
Glamorgan/Welsh Dragons
Gloucestershire
Kent
Derbyshire
Leicestershire
Northamptonshire

Have 2 relegation/promotion spots so that divisions should be pretty different each year.

I don't like the prospect but if something like this were to happen and prove sucessful I could see the death of 40 over cricket in England domesticly and prospective England players only playing 50 over cricket once in the Lions squad. And to replace 40 over cricket in England we would see a T20 knockout cup instead, merely with last 16, QF's then finals day. The tournamet would be over within a week or 2. So overal less days played for the players which is something thats needed.

hodge wrote:To be honest I could see a promotion relegation system introduced, whether it be 2 or 3 divisions I don't know. Yes this would take away finals day, however the current format is starting to become somewhat dated. Providing finances for being whatever division don't cause a divide in between the counties I think it could work.

Current tables for 3 tier leagues? arguable for places of course

Div 1:
Nottinghamshire
Sussex
Somerset
Hampshire
Yorkshire
Warwickshire

Div 2:
Surrey
Essex
Lancashire
Middlesex
Durham
Worcestershire

Div 3:
Glamorgan/Welsh Dragons
Gloucestershire
Kent
Derbyshire
Leicestershire
Northamptonshire

Have 2 relegation/promotion spots so that divisions should be pretty different each year.

I don't like the prospect but if something like this were to happen and prove sucessful I could see the death of 40 over cricket in England domesticly and prospective England players only playing 50 over cricket once in the Lions squad. And to replace 40 over cricket in England we would see a T20 knockout cup instead, merely with last 16, QF's then finals day. The tournamet would be over within a week or 2. So overal less days played for the players which is something thats needed.

Erm. In theory, that is not a bad way to go. However, from a county perspective they want the prospect of qualification for the CL/ a trophy every year. And I think the fans want that too. They also want the local derbies that the existing format guarantees. Promotion and relegation thus struggle to work in one-day cricket as getting up through the divisions is arduous.

I still don't know exactly what should be done. I'll try and think of something in the next couple of days!

I think an important thing to consider is that we should keep what is good about the competition:

- Evening matches at Chelmsford, Taunton, Hove
- Local derbies
- Finals day

From there on I'm open to ideas, providing all 18 counties remain involved. It may be that not much change can be made.

You would still have CL qualification through the T20 knockout cup which would still feature finals day.

Edit - forgot there were 18 counties not 16 for a second so just trying to think how you could do a knockout tournament....

Yes you wouldn't get local derby's guaranteed but could that not make them more special when they do appear? For example in football, i'm a Bristol City fan and each yeah you look for the Cardiff fixture and you feel a little excited however if we draw Bristol Rovers in the cup every City fan is buzzing about the match as we never play them due to the division split.

So when local derby's appear either in the league or cup there could be greater excitement around the fixture. In regards to a division structure T20 is such a lottery I don't think you would see the same teams moving division regularly, I put Leicestershire in the bottom simply because they have lost players and not done well this year, however they generally work out T20 well so could be a team to rise to Div 1.

hodge wrote:To be honest I could see a promotion relegation system introduced, whether it be 2 or 3 divisions I don't know. Yes this would take away finals day, however the current format is starting to become somewhat dated. Providing finances for being whatever division don't cause a divide in between the counties I think it could work.

Current tables for 3 tier leagues? arguable for places of course

Div 1:
Nottinghamshire
Sussex
Somerset
Hampshire
Yorkshire
Warwickshire

Div 2:
Surrey
Essex
Lancashire
Middlesex
Durham
Worcestershire

Div 3:
Glamorgan/Welsh Dragons
Gloucestershire
Kent
Derbyshire
Leicestershire
Northamptonshire

Have 2 relegation/promotion spots so that divisions should be pretty different each year.

I don't like the prospect but if something like this were to happen and prove sucessful I could see the death of 40 over cricket in England domesticly and prospective England players only playing 50 over cricket once in the Lions squad. And to replace 40 over cricket in England we would see a T20 knockout cup instead, merely with last 16, QF's then finals day. The tournamet would be over within a week or 2. So overal less days played for the players which is something thats needed.

Arguable for places yes when you put the current champions in the 3rd division!

The current champions already being out of the QFs

Ah I must have deleted the bit where I was explaining why Leicestershire were in the bottom, losing the players from last year Taylor, Nixon, McDonald, Gurney and the way they've performed this year. Feel that justifies why they are there.

Can't say I'd be a big fan of the 3-tier system to be honest. One of the best things about the T20 is that any team can beat another team on their day, and once they get to the knock out stages it is only three games and they can win it. And anyone can win it, as evidenced last year. It just would not have the same feel if you were playing in Div 3. Could you attract players like Pollard etc. if you were playing in Div 3? And like has already been mentioned, the Lancs-Yorks game on Friday is going to be buzzing. I don't want to lose games like that from the schedule.

JDizzle wrote:Can't say I'd be a big fan of the 3-tier system to be honest. One of the best things about the T20 is that any team can beat another team on their day, and once they get to the knock out stages it is only three games and they can win it. And anyone can win it, as evidenced last year. It just would not have the same feel if you were playing in Div 3. Could you attract players like Pollard etc. if you were playing in Div 3? And like has already been mentioned, the Lancs-Yorks game on Friday is going to be buzzing. I don't want to lose games like that from the schedule.

Fair point, but thats why I said I can see 40 over cricket dying domestically, while we still have too many group games for it at any rate. If as I reckon T20 revamps to league then there would be a T20 cup as well which would be where you would still have the cup element where any team can win.

Former England captain Michael Vaughan believes a radical transformation is needed in the domestic Twenty20 game.

Vaughan told BBC Radio 5 live: "Who would've said 10 years ago darts would be the second most watched sport on TV?

"My wife doesn't like darts but something comes through the screen, an atmosphere. When you put Twenty20 on, nothing comes through so we turn off.

"We've got to try to create nine teams, make it a bit different and create the 'wow' factor."

This year marks the 10th season of domestic Twenty20 competition in England and Vaughan said: "In the first couple of years it was brand new, razzmatazz, the audience saw something very fresh and liked it, went to watch it.

"The one thing we can't control in the UK is the weather which definitely plays a part in terms of the people that go and watch, but I look at all the other Twenty20 tournaments around the world - including the Indian Premier League and the Big Bash in Australia - and there is definitely more wow factor."

The lucrative IPL completed its fifth annual tournament this year as a Kolkata Knight Riders team featuring South African Jacques Kallis and Australian Brett Lee beat the Chennai Super Kings, containing South African Albie Morkel and Australians Mike Hussey and Ben Hilfenhaus.

Recent Twenty20 Cup winners
2011: Leicestershire

2010: Hampshire

2009: Sussex

"You see a different format, more of a show being put on, away from just the cricket, and I think that's very important," Vaughan said.

"We in this country seem to have this long drawn-out affair, we can't really get to grips with how it works, the spectators will go and watch because they watch cricket anyway rather than it being something new."

This year's domestic Twenty20 group matches have now been completed and attention turns to the 40-over competition before the T20 quarter-finals are played on 24 and 25 July, with the semi-finals and final in Cardiff on 25 August.

"I really think a window of two-and-a-half weeks [is needed] when the whole country is geared towards Twenty20 cricket. People might say 'oh the weather might affect' but that's just life, the weather can affect any day given the nature of our country," Vaughan added.

"I think England players are very important in this, I know in the Big Bash the Australian players didn't play a massive part but they had really good overseas players.

"In our season we don't seem to be able to get the big overseas players.

"An England player against an England player would be a great sell, a Pietersen versus Swann - I'd like to see that. I think a lot of people would buy a ticket to see that kind of event and it would really jazz it up and make it somewhat different to what we've got.

"You've got to turn the telly on and get this energy through the screen. If I turn and see no-one watching, no real names, you're not going to get many people interested.

"We've got to take it to grounds that are successful. Hove is a very successful ground in Twenty20, Taunton also, Essex produce a wonderful evening, I think it's only Essex that I turn the screen on and think this is quite a good event, big crowd, lot of buzz, lot of energy but 80% of the games are not like that so we've got to try and create that atmosphere more often."

Tonight (Monday) on BBC Radio 5 live at 2100 BST, Michael Vaughan and Phil Tufnell will discuss the various issues that see the Indian Premier League and the Big Bash in Australia create lots of excitement - and why that just doesn't happen over here.

from BBC Sport.

Thought it'd be interesting to add that to the discussion, doesn't really present any new ideas other than England players being made available for the tournament, something which I do think could add to the excitement but then again, that's only for the teams who have England players.

Despite saying he wants 9 teams, he doesn't propose how he would create those 9 sides without angering the other 9 counties who would miss out on revenue and indeed, whether supporters would be interested in Franchise's

I said I would try and come up with what needs changing in the next few days, and I've concluded that actually not much needs to change. Whilst Vaughan suggests the dreaded franchises, the availability of England players is critical - to the casual fan (which are so crucial to filling the bigger grounds; less important to venues like Taunton and Chelmsford which already have a large following) the prospect of Pietersen, Swann and Broad in the action is considerably more enticing than the major roles being played by generally journeyman overseas players. For this reason I suggest that we must provide a window in which as many England players as possible can play. That won't happen next season so in the short term we need better marketing - some of this years campaigns (comedy etc.) came across as quite desperate.

Of course Mat rightly points out that for some counties the availability of England players wouldn't make any difference - Derbys and Northants for instance - but it is at least a start.

Additionally I think we need quarter-finals and finals day to take place quickly after the group stage, so that momentum isn't lost and rather gathers. In Twenty20 that is important with overseas players not wanting to fly in and out etc.

Do we really need a radical transformation? I think not, we're the best in the World at T20s, if it isn't broke then don't fix it.

Glad that the consensus amongst the knowledgeable fans on here is that T20 should remain with the counties and doesn't need much tweaking. Reading the papers and thoughts in the media you'd think the majority want franchises, but that clearly isn't so.

I too am against franchises. If for some reason it were essential to have fewer teams I would prefer something based on combining counties rather than creation of artificial new franchises.

http://v2journal.com/franchises-not-the-answer-for-english-twenty20.html