How we saw Round 1 of the Big Bash League
Columnist 
2,849 reads
Sydney Thunders' David Warner celebrates his century during their Big Bash League match against the Melbourne Stars at the MCG (AAP Image/Mal Fairclough)
Related coverage
In this Exclusive Roar guest column by Mike McKenna of Cricket Australia, the Big Bash League project owner, McKenna explains to how Cricket Australia judged the opening round of the Big Bash League: a topic of strong debate on this site.
“Happy with Round 1 but with plenty of work ahead: This is the feeling at Cricket Australia following the first round of the KFC Big Bash League.
Sure, the pre-season hype built the attendance expectations to unrealistic levels and we were caught up in that too. The reality of the choices people have to make at this time of year punctured those fantasies and quickly brought our focus back to pre-season forecasts which were much more accurate.
However, the attendances across all four matches and the exciting ratings on Fox Sports are very satisfying and the Big Bash League has clearly opened up with strong results.
It was most pleasing to see large numbers of families with kids attending and having a great time. When you bear in mind that the BBL is part of Cricket’s long term strategy to attract kids and females to the game, the short term results are not the be all and end all.
Anyone who has been a regular at International cricket matches in recent times could not help but notice the profile of the BBL audiences are very different from those seen at Tests or ODIs. This is a measure of success for the League and at this early stage we are on track.
We expect to see ups and downs in crowds and TV audiences over the early years of the League, however to start with record breaking TV audiences and acceptable attendances is a fair reward for the work BBL Teams, CA and State Associations have put into promoting the new competition.
Ratings for Fox Sports’ broadcasts over the weekend saw average audiences of 325,000 (Sydney Sixers v Brisbane Heat), 476,000 (Melbourne Stars v Sydney Thunder), 347,000 (Adelaide Strikers v Melbourne Renegades) and 274,000 for the late Sunday match (Perth Scorchers v Hobart Hurricanes). These were well ahead of our expectations, with three of the four being in the top few cricket matches ever broadcast on Fox Sports.
The Stars match was the fourth highest rating broadcast, of any type, on Pay TV in Australia. The four matches were seen, in part at least, by between 800,000 and one million Australians. Live streaming of the matches on the Cricket Live app would have added to that number. This is a successful start by any reckoning.
Attendances were slightly less than our pre-season estimates but with these being the first T20 domestic fixtures played prior to Christmas, there were no benchmarks to guide us, outside International matches which rarely draw more than matches played post-Christmas.
There are plenty of clubs in other domestic sports who would have been very happy with crowds of 12,285 (Sixers), 23,494 (Stars), 13,307 (Strikers) and 11,742 (Scorchers) to their venues. With an attendance target of 16,000 on average across the season, we are well on track.
There are those who are not interested in the BBL, who are Test and/or ODI fans exclusively. They are part of the heart and soul of cricket’s supporter base and have every right to reject T20 but hopefully they can see and respect the large sections of the population who have taken to T20 cricket with a passion and will probably be the first to see the next David Warner, Nathan Lyon or Pat Cummins make their breakthrough into top level cricket, before playing Tests for Australia.”
- Explore:
- BBL, Big Bash League, Cricket, Cricket Australia
December 21st 2011 @ 10:32am
Mark said | December 21st 2011 @ 10:32am | Report comment
Mike,
Thanks for the perspective from the top. I’m sure the attendance last night (30k?) was promising as well. The BBL can be hard to swallow for an old head like me, but as long as the commitment to Test cricket is there, I can understand why it is required and hope that it prospers.
Mark W.
December 21st 2011 @ 10:37am
John said | December 21st 2011 @ 10:37am | Report comment
Yes the Pay TV ratings were pretty high. Is there any indication that this is a reflection of the uptake of Pay within households? Correlation or causality?
December 21st 2011 @ 11:37am
Matt F said | December 21st 2011 @ 11:37am | Report comment
Well unless there has been a massive uptake in subscribers over the past few months it wouldn’t explain that much differentiation. The ratings so far would flog the majority of Super Rugby games and a few NRL/AFL games. Not to mention the A-League which is on right now.
December 21st 2011 @ 10:38am
Chris said | December 21st 2011 @ 10:38am | Report comment
Yes, I agree it’s a promising start for BBL. If only CA had kept its mouth shut about ridiculous croud expectations – that hurt the image of the tournament badly in the media I think.
It would be nice to work out a schedule where players were not caught out between international duties and the BBL. And please don’t schedule BBL games on the same day as Test matches – that’s doing a huge disservice to both forms of the game.
But if these kinks can be worked out for future seasons, then there’s a reasonable chance that the BBL can work out well for all concerned.
December 21st 2011 @ 10:51am
JD said | December 21st 2011 @ 10:51am | Report comment
All for getting kids and families to the cricket. And if T20 is what’ll do it, I have no truck with that.
I do find it hard to believe that with the same level of promotion that the previous BBL wouldn’t achieve the same, whilst at the same time not disenfranchising those in Vic & NSW country. Or making the city folk choose teams based on…. well I’m not too sure.
Had a reinvented BBL included teams from Auckland and Christchurch for example, or say Newcastle, Canberra or Geelong, then CA would have injected life and respected the fans who follow their state AND actually attended the previous model (av 18,000 per game in 2009/10). I wonder how many more would have gone to the G on Fri had Warne been representing the Big V against NSW.
Then there’s the whole matter of scheduling it against the Aust v India test series. Clearly the Argus Report is just words on paper in this respect.
December 21st 2011 @ 9:25pm
Mark Young said | December 21st 2011 @ 9:25pm | Report comment
Gday Mike, I hope you get a chance to read through this page.
I agree wholeheartedly with what JD is saying here.
Surely if you promoted the state teams with the same level of enthusiasm you would have had similar if not better results.
“I wonder how many more would have gone to the G on Fri had Warne been representing the Big V against NSW.”
My guess is twenty thousand tickets unsold.
And furthermore, why on earth did you give them all such stupid names and ridiculous colours?
I’m sure they will appeal to eight year old kids, but will they still find them cool when they are 16?
People will only think T20 is a joke while you treat it as such.
The quality of the cricket is good enough that you don’t need the stupidity,
Have a good one, Mark Young
December 21st 2011 @ 11:19am
Russell Jackson said | December 21st 2011 @ 11:19am | Report comment
To hear that CA have a long term strategy to “attract kids and females to the game” is slightly at odds with the “family focus” mantra being spouted previously in the media. Assuming that CA are trying to attract kids, females and families to the game, surely what we are saying is that they are all demographics that are too time-poor (or not in possession of a high enough attention span) to attend tests and ODI’s. Working on this assumption (which I think is fair and reasonable), how exactly does a 4 hour T20 game, which potentially involves a one hour commute either way for lots of families (so 6 hours minimum total time commitment) qualify as a dynamic entertainment experience you can slide into your day?
T20 is still just as significant a time commitment as any other cricket option. And an expensive one at that when you consider the cost of tickets, transport and food at the ground. An average family would be lucky to get change out of $220 for the experience. Does anyone at CA realise how big a commitment of discretionary funds that is for the average Australian family? Was that part of their “forecasting”, or did we all just go on a “marketing camp” and come up with this league over a few too many beers? Excessive consumption of alcohol could be the only explanation for a lot of the marketing guff on TV and the internet. I say this without even getting started on how ridiculous it is to expect anyone to form an allegiance to one of these “franchises” full of players whose main consideration in choosing a side was the size of the cheque they were handed. CA are now putting most of their eggs in one basket with a frightening lack of foresight.
Final three observations:
1. If you’re a marketing professional who is doing their job, how the hell do you get “caught up in the hype” about potential attendence? This “hype” about the league was generated exclusively by the BBL marketing team to start with, and I can’t believe someone in Mike McKenna’s position would try and convince anyone otherwise. Ask any proper cricket journo whether they were wetting themselves to write the article about the potential BBL crowds. I know what the answer would be; they want to write about real cricket stories, not regurgitate press releases and hyped up puff pieces from the offices of CA.
2. What is frustrating about this competition for what I will term “real cricket fans” is not the concept of T20 cricket itself, nor the “quality of the product”, it is the way the game as a whole has been hijacked and handed over to Marketing “Gurus” like Mike McKenna, who then focus so hard on attracting the attention of people who never have, and never will care about cricket, that they forget about considering or catering for the fans that have always been there, and always will be. Loyalty and a love for this great game cannot be bought.
3. T20 is not as “exciting and new” as it’s continually made out to be by these used car salesmen. The IPL is four seasons deep. They don’t have “first-mover advantage” and seeing CA throwing all of this cash at it now is like watching your parents invest their life savings in Myspace shares. Sad thing is, anyone with a loose interest in cricket would know not to expect any better from an organisation that’s spent its last 10 years being driven into the ground by James Sutherland.
December 21st 2011 @ 11:25am
Rodney said | December 21st 2011 @ 11:25am | Report comment
Why two teams in Melbourne and Sydney? There should be one city based team, and then maybe one in somewhere like Newcastle or Geelong ..!
But … that being said, I watched most of the games, and did enjoy it.
December 21st 2011 @ 11:34am
Russell Jackson said | December 21st 2011 @ 11:34am | Report comment
My “favourite” moments of the BBL so far (because whinge as we might, we’re all still loving watching it):
1. Seeing two teams wearing green in the same match (my girlfriend was ashamed that no-one rung around to make sure they didn’t wear the same thing. Like, soooo embarrassing).
2. Batsmen not being able to see the ball at the start and resumption of play due to the smoke generated by fireworks (nothing says “we’re hip, young and fresh” like pyrotechnics that you could have seen at a carnival in 1957).
3. Cameron White having to tell the Brisbane Heat mascot to stop doing backflips in front of the sight screen long enough for him to be able to bat properly. In fairness to the mascot, like most BBL employees, he probably didn’t know the rules of the game nor have any interest in understanding it.
December 21st 2011 @ 11:55am
John C said | December 21st 2011 @ 11:55am | Report comment
Who do fans support in the BBL? Elite sport is elite because it is the best in the world competing against the best in the world. BBL features those who have retired from elite sport and yet is represented as elite sport. There is only a place for the pyjama games only if it draws crowds and pays for itself unless the gaming/gambling industry use it to get further inroads into cricket. Good luck to the players. At least it is not being subsidised by Government – yet!
December 21st 2011 @ 12:10pm
sheek said | December 21st 2011 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
Anyone who believes CA/ICC is determined to preserve test cricket believes in fairy tales, which of course most of humanity does. Poor misguided souls.
Obviously CA & the players don’t want to alarm the population too much, so they trot out the usual mantra of T20 being another form of cricket, & players still aspiring to the baggy green.
But make no mistake, 20 years from now, aspiring to the national T20 team will be the focus of today’s babies. Test cricket will have quietly sauntered off into the sunset from lack of love & care.
If only some of the same energy was put into the longer forms of the game to make them more today-friendly. Like coloured clothing, day/night matches, session rather than day passes, etc. It’s so easy to see where the priorities of cricket authorities lie…..
December 21st 2011 @ 12:22pm
Russell Jackson said | December 21st 2011 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
Sheek, test cricket has survived for 140+ years and through 2 world wars, I think we’ll pull through a GFC and a generation or two with low attention spans, right?
Agree that the same energy should be put into the promotion of test cricket, but I think coloured clothes would do more harm than good. Some merit in the day/night discussion though.
How about CA and the ICC start recognising and celebrating the nuances and beauty of the test match, rather than apologising for what it’s supposedly not, to people who don’t care anyway?
December 21st 2011 @ 2:59pm
sheek said | December 21st 2011 @ 2:59pm | Report comment
Russell,
I read more than one story of a guy surviving a war only to die from some misadventure back home, like a car crash or being run down by a bus. Doesn’t make sense, does it?
Test cricket may well have survived 140 years & two world wars, but it could take something simple, like a bunch of simpletons to end it…..
December 21st 2011 @ 12:31pm
Matt F said | December 21st 2011 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
All that was said about ODI cricket when it came about. People don’t have to support one or the other. There are many that support all formats.
They’ve been trying to get day/night tests up for a long while now. Surely you remember all of the media reports about having trouble finding a suitable ball?
Session passes are an interesting idea but I don’t think they would work unless you made a test day into 2 longer sessions with a long break in the middle. History with events that use session passes (e.g. Rod Laver Arena at the Aus open) show that it takes a long time to get the first session people out then get the next sessions crowds in.
From a purely commercial/economic perspective, the only reason test cricket would die would be if there was no demand for it (i.e. people stopped watching.) If that happened then why are they obligated to continue it? If nobody was interested in test cricket then logically that would mean nobody would care if it died right? The fact that so many people get up in arms whenever the future of test cricket is mentioned (at least in Australia) tells me that it’s pretty healthy. Sure, it’s not without issues, but it’s hardly on life support (again, at least in Australia.)
December 21st 2011 @ 1:19pm
Russ said | December 21st 2011 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
The trouble with emptying an arena after a session is that half the crowd would just go home. Not a problem for the tennis, where demand is high for the later sessions, but likely to be one for the cricket. It’s essentially the same problem as public transport ticketing, albeit with higher prices such that paying ticket checkers might be feasible, but not easily solved.
Lalit Modi mentioned once that test cricket is very profitable, moreso than other formats even, because of the match length. It is harder to schedule, less likely to be competitive, and harder to attract a crowd to; but it is the most widely discussed, and most respected format amongst players. The only real danger to test cricket is that in most parts of the world it is either not played at all, or is marginalised in low key series. If test cricket becomes the preserve of only England, Australia, India and maybe one or two others, then it will have problems.
December 21st 2011 @ 1:45pm
Matt F said | December 21st 2011 @ 1:45pm | Report comment
You’d also have to sort out the light rule. Who would buy a ticket for an evening session when they go off early almost every day, even when the light is still pretty good? Not to mention rain delays.
Also, in Tennis a session will have 1-3 matches in it so it’s worth going to. If you made cricket tickets session based you would be seeing 1/15th of a match which, given that test cricket unfolds slowly, means that you would be very likely to no see anything significant in a session.
I’d agree that, overall, having fewer nations playing test cricket will detract from the spectacle though an arguement could be made that certain nations aren’t really adding anything to test cricket now so would we really miss them? Would test cricket really be poorer without Bangladesh getting flogged almost every match?
December 21st 2011 @ 4:22pm
Russ said | December 21st 2011 @ 4:22pm | Report comment
This discussion will completely derail this thread but… Bangladesh only lose because they are required to play teams above them, not because they are an awful team it is a contextual problem, not a competitive one.
The problem with limiting test cricket to 4/5 teams is that as cricket grows outside those nations T20 (international T20) grows in importance. If 24-32 nations play in a T20 world cup (and 100+ try to qualify) and 4-10 play test cricket, which will appear to be more important?
December 21st 2011 @ 3:06pm
sheek said | December 21st 2011 @ 3:06pm | Report comment
Matt F,
I accept that T20 has its place. But you don’t need to be a genius to see the lay of the land.
Too much thought, energy & money is going into promoting T20, & too little thought, energy & money is going in finding ways to preserve test cricket & its buddy, first class cricket. Not to mention one-day cricket.
Australian cricket can’t have test cricket without Sheffield Shield. And the SS is in need of a massive dose of love & money. Kill the SS, & test cricket will naturally follow.
Batsmen won’t learn how to build an innings, & bowlers won’t learn how to think a batsman out, playing T20 cricket. It’s an entirely different mindset. While some of the skills transfer across, players will not be learning how to develop the mindset for longer cricket, by playing T20.
December 21st 2011 @ 4:10pm
Matt F said | December 21st 2011 @ 4:10pm | Report comment
The Shield didn’t have any love well before T20 came along and CA continue to plow money into it because it’s the best way to produce test players which means a better, and more marketable, test side. It pays for itself by producing test players, which is where a lot of CA’s revenue comes from (at least currently.)
The ast part is only true if you assume they only play one form or the other. A state player currently plays up to 40 days of first-class cricket and probably 15 T20 games if they play IPL. Players in the BBL will play 7-9 games of T20. How many T20 games have Australia played this year compared to test matches (or test days?) There’s more then enough test days to cover for the number of T20 games, at least for now.
December 21st 2011 @ 12:39pm
Chris said | December 21st 2011 @ 12:39pm | Report comment
Sheek, there has been plenty of research done into day/night Test matches – most of the problem with implementing this revolves around getting a ball that will be visible in both day and night conditions (and won’t deteriorate as quickly as the white ball currently used in limited overs cricket).
Of course, if this actually comes to pass (and I have serious doubts it will), there will be all sorts of whinging from people saying that the “tradition” of cricket is being tainted. of course, what those people fail to realise/acknowledge is that Test cricket has been constantly evolving – personally, I see no reason why it can’t continue the ‘tradition’ of evolving even further…
I actually don’t see the end of Test cricket, but it may have to share the season with the forms of cricket that the public are actually prepared to fork out money to go and watch.
December 21st 2011 @ 12:58pm
Russell Jackson said | December 21st 2011 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
On your last point Chris, I agree that a big part of the debate regards where the money comes from the subsidise and protect test cricket. We’re all burying our heads in the sand if we think it can exist as the be-all and end-all like in 1971. There needs to be a balance though. If we stand back and look, a lot of the over-saturation actually comes from domestic and privately owned leagues, rather than international fixtures. Do we take a hard-line approach on these guys to protect the long-term health of the game? Or do we pander to them and take the quick buck with no view to the future? Pretty sure Rahul Dravid covered this off quite well in his Bradman oration.
Administrators, and by virtue players, are 99% of the problem, not fans, and we should all remember that. They can’t expect year-on-end growth of popularity and revenue from cricket. It’s not sustainable. At the end of the day cricket is a business to most of the people making these decisions, and businesses are driven by growth. I just wish they had the foresight to see that this growth needs to be gradual and sustainable, and it’s unrealistic to think it will be exponential and continuous. I think that was the main lesson of the recent NBA lockout; sports administrators and players need to get real about how much their sport is actually growing (and what they’re worth), and adjust their expectations of what their revenue/wages should be.
December 21st 2011 @ 3:54pm
Rellum said | December 21st 2011 @ 3:54pm | Report comment
I agree with your point, but you can’t have endless growth unless we start colonizing other planets.
Even then Earth can only hold so many people, so we would have to work out some way of getting a live feed out across the cosmos.
December 21st 2011 @ 4:07pm
Russell Jackson said | December 21st 2011 @ 4:07pm | Report comment
Erm, I think we’re getting off track. I think I did say that continuous growth was “not sustainable”, Rellum. Cricket administrators need to get realistic about the potential for growth in the sport, even given the massive popularity of the game in India (who by the way, will gather even more financial clout as the years go on).
I think T20 cricket on other planets would greatly appeal to the CA marketing department. They wouldn’t even have to drain massive marketing budgets coming up with stupid team names, because people would not need prodding to go see a World XI take on an Aliens XI. And with the teeth and the new face he’s rocking these days, Warney could get away with playing for either side.
December 21st 2011 @ 4:23pm
Rellum said | December 21st 2011 @ 4:23pm | Report comment
Yes we are getting off track. but you did say
“growth needs to be gradual and sustainable”. Like I said, I agree with you sentiment.
December 21st 2011 @ 12:34pm
Ben Carter said | December 21st 2011 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
Hi Mike – appreciate the official CA input on The Roar. However, like others have said (often!), cricket fans who dislike the current T20 competition format are not necessarily against T20 as a cricketing format. Some (like myself) just think that the previous editions were not broken, so didn’t warrant such an overhaul.
Good report here on CricInfo about the opening round: http://www.espncricinfo.com/big-bash-league-2011/content/story/546191.htm
And I loved author Alex Malcolm’s succinct reading of the team identities that have been worth following (apparently).
“Ironically, the three sides that have played the most cricket together were the three most convincing victors in round one. The Sixers are predominantly a NSW unit, the Strikers are simply the Redbacks in blue, and the Hurricanes are Tasmania with Jaques replacing Bailey.”
How come no-one else has been able to cut through the relentless hype and put it so simply? So it IS okay if you are a Blues’ die-hard to follow the Sixers (despite the daft name), and Redbacks supporters can safely go for the Strikers (despite the wrong colour) and Tassie Devils fans can get a Hobart-based fix (if they’re prepared to accept Phil Jaques as a ring-in). It almost makes perfect sense… On that basis, people in New South Wales, South Australia and Tassie might just start giving the Big Bash v2.0 a go…
December 21st 2011 @ 12:42pm
JD said | December 21st 2011 @ 12:42pm | Report comment
My view is that no sport can support 3 versions of the same thing. Especially when players and fans are being pulled in all directions because of a ridiculously saturated calendar.
So which one goes?
I’d be looking at ways to incorporate the best of test cricket with the 50 over format and merge the two. In doing so we could save one that is the essence of cricket, whilst accepting reality on the other.
T20 is here to stay, but it doesn’t have to be done to death or structured and promoted in a way that treats the public like fools.
December 21st 2011 @ 1:16pm
Ben Carter said | December 21st 2011 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
Hi JD – by that logic (merging ODIs with Tests), you’d be looking at something like two-day Tests that run at 80 overs a day with each team getting one full day to bat (unless dismissed earlier), or three-day Tests with not more than 130 overs per team… It’s just not cricket (either ODI OR Test then!)
December 22nd 2011 @ 9:53am
JD said | December 22nd 2011 @ 9:53am | Report comment
OK, here’s a few ideas to start with Ben which would obviously need some workshopping.
I’d be looking at first innings compulsory closure at 80-100 overs, 4 day tests. Modified ODI fielding restrictions would apply.
Play it as day/night with white balls where possible. Run penalties for slow over rates.
It’s essentially test cricket as we know it but with more urgency and almost guaranteed results (bar rain etc).
‘it’s just not cricket’. Well it is, more so than T20 (which is partly responsible for the pressing need to be bold and make some hard calls on the incumbent forms of the game).
But T20 is here to stay. In their current form the others are dying a slow death.
December 21st 2011 @ 2:28pm
Chris said | December 21st 2011 @ 2:28pm | Report comment
JD – what evidence do you have to support your theory that 3 versions are unsustainable? I’m struggling to think of another sport that actually has that many versions actually!
I still maintain that the present amount of cricket can be dealt with – the trick is to get the scheduling right. I don’t think CA has got this right yet, but as this is season 1 of the new BBL I’m prepared to cut them some slack on this and give them time to finesse things in future seasons.
December 21st 2011 @ 2:32pm
Ben Carter said | December 21st 2011 @ 2:32pm | Report comment
Agree Chris. The scheduling is the issue this summer, not the formats of the game themselves.
December 21st 2011 @ 2:38pm
Matt F said | December 21st 2011 @ 2:38pm | Report comment
Very true Chris. I made a comment in Lordy’s article along those same lines. In the 18 month (give or take) period between April/May 2011 and October/November 2012 the national side had 4-5m months of no cricket, then from the SL tour to the WIndies tour next year we’ll have 7-9 months of almost non-stop cricket then we’ll have 6 months where we only play 10 ODI’s and one T20. Surely the cricket would have been spread out a bit more evenly over this period?
December 21st 2011 @ 4:30pm
Russ said | December 21st 2011 @ 4:30pm | Report comment
Only if you want to play Ireland (and others). Only England really play after April and before September. Australia has flirted with home games then, but they lose money, as far as I can tell.
December 22nd 2011 @ 9:42am
JD said | December 22nd 2011 @ 9:42am | Report comment
Um, have you noticed the ‘crowds’ at test and ODI cricket here and around the world over the past few years?
And yes, my point exactly – what other team sport has 3 different versions of the same thing?
How exactly do you get the scheduling right when in one summer players are pulled between 6 test matches, domestic and international ODI’s and the same with T20? There’s only so many days in the week. Players are not robots and there is simply too much cricket for even the most avid fans to bear.
December 22nd 2011 @ 10:56am
Russ said | December 22nd 2011 @ 10:56am | Report comment
JD, not too much cricket. Too many trophies. If anything there is a lack of high profile cricket played; venues go under-used (the MCG gets maybe a dozen days of int’l cricket per year, that is low) and in many nations are under-developed, there are whole weeks in the schedule without games even on tv at the height of summer.
In most sports, the season climaxes with 1, but sometimes up to 4 trophies; plus 1 or 2 international tournaments. Even so, that is too many, our attention as fans is limited to only 2 or 3 major narratives. In the year up to the champions league, including domestic cricket, Watson turned out for teams that played for 17 different trophies. Multiple formats don’t make too much cricket, but they dilute the narrative by adding trophies. And too many trophies drain all but the very biggest events of interest. Seventeen. In about 8 months of cricket.