Brett McKay was right on the money with his piece earlier this week about the Big Bash turning heads elsewhere in the cricket-playing world.
I’ve no idea whether the men in suits in South Africa or Bangladesh are consulting their calculators and assessing the merits of a Big Bash-style competition, but the triumph of the competition has certainly created a lively debate.
Some of the points being raised are valid and worthy of discussion and some, in complete contrast, aren’t worthy of the 140 or less characters they’ve been published in, but in England some green eyes are glaring enviously.
A recent study stated that participation numbers in English recreational cricket are down from 2013, which was cause for dissatisfaction. The Big Bash has merely compounded the calls for change and, in the most extreme and ridiculous case, the very English trait of self-loathing.
It has always been the way that Australian success, when served as a counterpoint to an English downturn, leads to the demand for imitation.
While England were losing however many successive Ashes series throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, the Sheffield Shield was doing everything right while the County Championship was the opposite.
When the tables turned, the Championship was held to be a superior domestic competition and the Shield failing to live up to past glories. All a touch exaggerated with neither being as bad or good as made out.
Now, with the Big Bash setting a new benchmark for a domestic Twenty20 tournament, its English cousin is in the stocks being flogged for all it’s worth, which if you listen to some, is not very much.
Yet the calls for wholesale change smack of a bandwagon riding by and the majority choosing to jump on board. Politicians couldn’t attach themselves to a cause any quicker and that really is saying something.
The biggest issue is one of assumption.
The assumption that a franchise tournament will attract the marquee names, that the attendances will automatically rise, that the standard will increase significantly. All may well be true, but they are certainly not a given.
For starters, the Big Bash didn’t downsize, it increased. Six states already in place, add a couple to the cities that could support two teams, and give them new monikers.
Cutting 18 counties down to 10, for example, will alienate nearly 50 per cent of the current market. And while the Big Bash teams have captive audiences in their respective cities, the population in England is distributed differently.
Nottinghamshire merging with Derbyshire and Leicestershire might make geographical sense but that’s about it. Members’ clubs, as counties are, won’t vote for the chance to watch less cricket, however much money is promised.
And you need money if you want top-class talent. AB de Villiers doesn’t show up in the IPL because he wants to improve his switch-hit; he goes because of the rewards. As does Kevin Pietersen, Chris Gayle, David Warner and so on.
The northern hemisphere may benefit from a summer that opens up doors to cricketers from around the world, but not from a financial climate where cricket commands the top dollar as is the case in India.
No free-to-air TV coverage doesn’t help either (domestic cricket has been on satellite for the past decade) but the relevant TV companies have to be willing for that to come about – which is easier said than done.
The other factor, that of the standard of play, is also misleading. Is the Big Bash, in playing terms, superior to the IPL or England’s T20 Blast? I’ve seen enough of each to suggest they’re all a much of a muchness with a good game in any being a good game and a poor one being the same. A correlation is made too quickly and conveniently between games in front of massive attendances being of a higher standard, which is not necessarily the case.
And it is this last factor that provides the crux of the matter.
The green-eyes monster has come out for a look because of the vast numbers of people who are turning up to watch at the SGG, the Gabba and the Adelaide Oval, not because of how well or far the ball is being struck. This is where the T20 Blast should start taking some serious notes.
Attractively priced tickets, scheduling in the holidays, aggressive and well-targeted marketing, and games played in a dedicated block are all contributory factors to a curve that is going upwards.
Contrast this to overpriced entry, one game a week mostly in term time, comparatively weak promotion, and a lengthy, stretched-out fixture list and you don’t need to be Colombo to work out where the problem lies.
If you look past all of the teeth gnashing, the foundations and the audience are in place for the English version to find its way back to its earlier success and not be put to shame by its brash antipodean cousin. Wholesale change isn’t the way to go about it.
Worlds Biggest
Guest
Good stuff from Macca and Alec following up. Cricket Australia have nailed the Big Bash format and it is a resounding success. I guess a point of difference between us and England is fairly poignant one, Cricket is our National game. That's not to infer that it can't be successful in England. I think they would have to adopt a City based model like ours. Something like 2 teams in London, 2 in Manchester, 1 in Leeds, Nottingham, Durham and Birmingham.
Jack Russell
Roar Guru
I'm not sure cutting 18 counties down to 10 will alientate a large part of the market - as long as you take the teams to where the people are. Currently there are major cities not even served by the counties. Liverpool and Newcastle for instance. If they put the teams where the big cities are then they're going to appeal to more people than they'll alienate.
Simon Smale
Roar Guru
Ye absolutely Ash, and you're right - I just thought I'd point it out. I've always been a believer in that there is simply too much T20 in England, and people simply get over saturated with it. 122 games is just too many. Each game in the BBL feels like an event, in England they felt a little like a chore...
The Bush
Roar Guru
I'd also look to give it a wider, possibly European feel. It's certainly true that the competition has an exciting opportunity to run in July/August when the European Football and Rugby leagues are in their off seasons. I'd also be great to put in a Dublin side to give Ireland a chance to make some more money and continue the development of their side and the sport in the Country. Depending on success you'd also look at Edinburgh and at an outside maybe Amsterdam/the Netherlands. It'd be pretty cool...
Winston
Guest
I think there's a big cultural difference with the Poms as well. How long did it take to get a roof at Wimbledon; look at people's love for historical buildings and contrast that with their hatred of Canary Wharf; I asked someone why support a crap football team knowing it has ZERO chance of ever winning the EPL given the financial inequities and the answer given was something like "I just do". That's just a few examples. I think based on that culture it would be extremely difficult to change anything.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Bah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha... Classic Brett.
The Bush
Roar Guru
There's definitely only one Johnno...
Bovs
Guest
Problem with a conference system is that it puts a high number of teams on an equal footing... that spreads both media/spectator attention and on-field talent too thinly. Let the top division be the top division with all the live TV, star players, big crowds and big money. You'll find the more successful organisations establish themselves quickly attracting the best players and staying in the league. Those teams wil grow their fan base not just in their home town but throughout the country (I'd be surprised if their weren't more Chelsea and Man Utd fans in most English towns than fans of the local third division sie). For the rest of them, they're still in the system and still have a chance to grow. They're providing a pathway for younger players to establish a reputation. They're servicing their local region with live cricket. But they're not detracting from the carnival spectacle of the top division.
JimmyB
Guest
Rather than having divisions, they could do a conference system where the winners of the conferences face off, just a thought.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I like that idea, having divisions like that. It gives them the bonus of having some promotion/relegation in that, keeps all the counties involved and still enables the short, sharp tournament to work.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I never said that just replicating the BBL in England would be a success, I'm just saying that a lot of the particular arguments given aren't necessarily valid. I'm well aware, (just from watching on TV, not actually going there) that the England grounds seem much smaller, and going to test cricket and the like is therefore more for the elite as smaller capacity grounds tend to mean charging prices such that there are still enough people willing to pay that to fill the ground. But one thing the BBL has managed to do in Australia is to take cricket and make it feel almost more like going to a footy game than going to a day at the cricket, and be able to appeal to people who in the past may have only had a passing interest in cricket without alienating those who've always loved the game. CA have worked really hard over the last decade or so to resist the slide of the game, reduction in participation rates and things included, to be able to turn things around and make it really healthy. And it may be that England could learn from those sorts of grass roots things that CA have done as much as the BBL. The big point being that if there are issues in English cricket there are things that can be done, they may involve doing some similar things to what has been done in Australia, or taking some ideas and modifying them to work over there, but either way it's likely to include some successes and some failures, but it needs to involve positive action. I don't know what will and won't work in England, but I'm certain that there are things that can work.
jammel
Guest
Hahaha!
Julian
Guest
YOu'll find the BBL generally has a round or two before christmas and those matches always get lower crowds then the post chistmas games
Bovs
Guest
To replicate the BBL England would need two things... fewer games over a shorter period. Since you can't have fewer games without merging teams, and I agree that trying to merge teams such that you might for example have one team representing Derby, Nottingham and Leicester combined isn't realistic for England, perhaps the trick is to have more divisions? If you had 3 divisions of 8 teams (including teams for each major city in each county plus a few "expansion" teams such as regions within London, teams outside ok England and Wales (Glasgow, Amsterdam, Dublin) and second cities in counties with 2 big population centres... Leeds and Sheffield from Yorkshire for example) then your top division could be a smash hit and the other divisions would run on tighter budgets looking to force their way to the big league. It would possibly even force teams to generate their own income and engage the fans in their area so they can force their way into the top division. It would very much compare to the BBL just as the English football pyramid compares to our A-League football. And I think it could work. But it would probably be at the cost of the traditional county teams and they would oppose it.
The Palace
Roar Rookie
Great comment Chris... The BBL is bringing in an income that Cricket Australia never thought they would get out of a domestic competition.
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
BBL works because a big part of its audience is kids. The tournament runs essentially from Christmas to Australia Day - i.e. during the school holidays. I guarantee if CA tried to extend the BBL past these dates the crowds would drop off significantly. I'm not sure England has an equivalent date opportunity to take advantage of.
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
The BBL has "flair", but is "boring". State cricket fans in "there" thousands are annoyed? Sure, that's why the BBL crowds are so much worse than state cricket games. Oh, wait... I think my brain just exploded.
Ash
Guest
Very good point Simon. And I would've totally agreed with you but for the fact that these already small capacity grounds aren't selling out (I'm talking about the Test grounds only BTW. Forget the smaller county grounds) If the T20 Blast would have been selling out Lord's, Oval, Edgbaston, Headingly etc then you would have been spot on but unfortunately they aren't.
JimmyB
Guest
That's actually one or two things to do in England to occupy your time too Chris. With regards attendances, the grounds in Australia predominantly have larger capacities, but the format of BBL is very appealing, although I'm not sure that it could be replicated like for like in England. Cricket is still popular in England and international cricket is very well attended. I don't get this idea for European expansion, there just isn't the interest apart from perhaps Holland.
Simon Smale
Roar Guru
While those statistics are pretty damning, I would like to add a caveat in that the size of the grounds in England is much much smaller than in Australia. The top 5 grounds by capacity in England v Australia are: Lords - 28,000. MCG - 100,000 Edgbaston - 25,000. Olympic Stadium - 84,000 The Oval - 23,500. Docklands - 56,000 Old Trafford - 22,000. Adelaide Oval - 53,500 Headingly - 20,000. SCG - 48,000 The smallest ground (regularly) used for the Big Bash is Bellerive Oval - 16,000 There are plenty of England county grounds in England that host T20 that have a capacity of well under 10,000, namely Derby - 9,500, Durham - 8,500, Chelmsford - 8,000, Gloucestershire - 8,000, Northamptonshire - 6,500, Somerset - 8,500, Sussex - 4,000, Worcestershire - 4,500. And the other counties only get up to about 15,000 if they aren't Test venues... Having said all that, obviously that's not the only reason for the difference...