I have enjoyed watching the Big Bash League evolve over time, and it’s important that fans get on the front foot if we want to have a say in the direction of the game.
If we shoulder arms to every delivery sent down by cricket administrators we’ve only ourselves to blame when the game gets away from us.
In the past I’ve been quite the traditionalist with regards to cricket. Test cricket has been my favourite format, followed by the one-day format.
Twenty20 was a distant third. That started to change, particularly over the past two seasons, as the Big Bash League has gained some serious momentum.
Sad as it might seem, the Test format will have to evolve significantly if it is to remain relevant and that evolution might well push the one-day format into total irrelevancy.
Of course, T20 will also evolve, and it will continue to grow.
This growth will be funded by the deluge of funds generated by corporate sponsorship and broadcast rights which are even now propelling T20 to the top of the international cricket pyramid.
The older formats simply can’t compete. Relatively few people want to spend an entire day watching cricket, even fewer want to watch five full days. Three hours of prime time evening entertainment on the other hand is what the sponsors want because it’s what the public wants.
Recently there has been much excitement over the possibility of AB de Villiers taking part in the BBL next season. It’s a mouth-watering prospect, but just how good would it be if he was joined by Hashim Amla and Dale Steyn?
What if Graeme Smith could be lured out of retirement for a little T20? Furthermore I’d love to see more of what Kane Richardson can do in the format and the same could be said about many of his countrymen.
With the above in mind, I’d like to see Australia align our Big Bash League with the New Zealand and South African domestic T20 competitions. All three formats would run at the same time and of course under the same rules. All teams would be allowed just two international players.
The fixtures would expand slightly. Each team would still play their domestic opponents once with one ‘derby’ played against a traditional rival.
In addition to this each team would play four international matches each season. The international matches would consist of one away game against one team in each of the foreign competitions and a home game against one team in each foreign competition.
This would leave the Big Bash with a 12-game fixture, the HRV Cup with a ten-game fixture and the Ram Slam with a ten or possible 11-game fixture depending upon the involvement of Zimbabwe.
At the conclusion of the qualifying games, the top two sides from each competition progress automatically to the quarter-finals with these six teams joined by two wild card entries to make up the final eight.
The wild cards would be awarded to the two teams from any competition with the best win-loss percentage outside the top two placed teams. In the event of tied win-loss percentage the wild cards would be determined by net run rate.
The potential benefits of such a move are significant. From a spectator point of view it means we get to see the best players from three competitions boosted by the cream of cricketing talent from the northern hemisphere.
We also get to see the best of the developing players of these nations. Who hasn’t enjoyed watching Travis Head and Chris Lynn this season? The South Africans and New Zealanders have good young players that are worth watching.
From a cricketing perspective consider the development for the players. They get to compete against more premier players, thus honing their craft. This would be particularly important for the younger players who would get a much greater level of exposure both in terms of their opponents and foreign conditions.
The players themselves would also derive significant enjoyment from this model. Many of the overseas players who are ‘miked up’ during games comment on how wonderful it is to play in front of such large crowds. It’s difficult to imagine the players themselves being against the idea.
There will be those who will say that the concept will never happen due to the difficulties involved and I concede there are many. Not the least of which are the alignment in terms of rules and format of the three competitions. Compromises would be required from all.
The Super Rugby competition is evidence that this concept can become reality. If rugby can manage it, why not cricket? The question is what do cricket fans want?
Wasted1
Guest
@ ChrisB The difference being that Australians have always been big supporters of their cricket, where as NZ is still rebuilding the fan base that was lost through years of mediocrity running through the 2000's. If the Black Cap's continue to play as they do and win over the fans, then a Kiwi big bash team in the next 5 years is a definite possibility.
ChrisB
Guest
I don't think administrators have been agitating for this (publicaly at least). Been more some of the public calling for this
ChrisB
Guest
No one watches NZ domestic cricket.... Got a secret for you - before the Big Bash bugger all people watched Australiam domestic cricket. That's kind of the point of a domestic T20 competitions, they dragged crowds into domestic competitions and make them commercially viable. I don't see why NZ - even with its smaller population - would be any different in this regard.
Scrum
Guest
Agree completely. BBL is a short sharp comp & this I think is part of its attraction. SA Time Zone makes it very difficult. The NZ Georgie Pie T20 Comp attracts only a handful of spectators. Why should Cricket Australia risk a good product by going international. Cricket in NZ and SA does not attract the same interest & support as it does in Australia. Sometimes Less is More.
Alex L
Roar Rookie
This is literally the worst BBL related idea I've ever heard beyond abolishing it.
Jason Cave
Guest
If CA was to grant NZ a team in the Big Bash League, where would the Kiwis play their home games? Should there be two NZ teams-one representing the North Island (Wellington/Auckland), and one from the South (Christchurch/Otago/Dunedin)?
Brainstrust
Guest
RUgby is much bigger in New Zealand than cricket probably by an order of magnitude, rugby amongst the small but wealthy white minority in South Africa is also much bigger. RUgby is Australia is semi popular in half the country in Australia so they are about equal financially. Cricket in Aistralia has 20 million wealthy people , NZ and white South Africa have 4 million each, so why should the big market combine with the two small markets. If the Big Bash wanted more South Africans they would hire them, and the same for Kiwis. There are large populations of Kiwis and white South Africans here but they will pay big money to attend rugby and are an important part of Australian rugby but have a lot less interest in cricket.The Big Bash is really after Indians because Indians here like attending cricket and T20, and then Indian Tv would pay big money for the Big Bash rights. I think you need to stop thinking on rugby lines, where people think NZ and white South Africa are two big financial centers in the world. They are big population centers and financially big compared to the only other places were rugby is really popular in the Pacific islands and that is all.They are tiny and insignificant otherwise.
Working Class Rugger
Guest
Not sure about teams but certainly, yes, new commercial markets shouod be seriously analysed and strategies to approach them devised. The obvious markets for mine would be both Hong Kong and Singapore. Both with large expat communities from Ceicket playing nations. They would be solid footholds if CA ever wanted to try and develop the BBLs commercial side beyond our domestic market. Malaysia would be a little further down but likely the next market. They once held an annual Super 6s tournament in KL. So, might be worth a look. Sure, already being a Cricket fan does suggest a degree of ingrained bias but I believe that the BBL is an excellent product in which to build new interest in new markets.
Ruminate
Roar Guru
NZ, for sure...2 or so teams, but Canberra should have one first, as should FNQ. After NZ, HK, and Malaysia might be better than SA....same Timezone, expanding into new media/sponsorship markets, etc. SA should focus on Africa expansion
Wasted1
Guest
With a larger population than us over here as well as a much larger player base, I don't understand why they would offer an opportunity to younger NZ players than to Aus players. If by your example you had 9 Aus teams that would be a total of 18 players from Aus domestic and grade cricket missing out. The 2 NZ teams would have 4 Aus players which doesn't balance out. It would be great for NZ cricket in the sense they get to see some of our domestic players in an environment unlike they've ever played before. As for finance's NZ domestic cricket is watched by very few in this country and i would be surprised if they made anywhere near the money the other franchises make so how would they be able to compete with the clubs who can actually spend up to the salary cap. I'm sure you could find a sponsor and i agree they would benefit from it especially with the Big Bash numbers but my doubts about it being financially viable, given the travel the NZ team would have to do coupled with the fact domestic T20 is nowhere near big business over here. I mean half the time the "Auckland Aces" play in front of a crowd of maybe 300 when they play at Eden Park outer oval. 15000 people would be fantastic to see at a small ground in NZ and while i would love to be the optimist and say it would happen every time i just don't think it will. Even the added rivalry of us playing against some big franchise teams from aus. Dont get me wrong i definitely think it can happen successfully, it's just that NZ cricket isn't in a good enough state as it is to make it viable and i feel they would be leaning on Cricket Aus for far too much help. I'd say if NZ cricket continues the regeneration it is currently going through, then we could possibly make this work within a 5-10 year timeframe.
SP
Guest
No. It's fine as it is. Don't NZ and SA have their own comps anyway?
Paul D
Roar Guru
Still have the same problem - only BBL teams or the IPL sides would win it. The standard in the other domestic tournaments doesn't come close, and that's not chest beating. Plus you've still got the issue of IPL players having to choose IPL over their home franchise. These T20 tournaments are great spectacles, but they're already artificially contrived for the purposes of entertainment - creating another artificially contrived tournament on top of that, just for the sake of having two good sides play off for a trophy no-one cares about...that's the exact same model that the floundering Champions League pursued and no-one watched.
Working Class Rugger
Guest
One of the biggest issues with the Champions League was that if a IPL team wasn't playing there was little interest from the Indian spectators perspective. Which was the primary audience that the Champions League was set up for. As above, it was heavily geared to favour IPL franchises which meant it had little appeal elsewhere. I actually think a similar concept could be revived. A world Series so to speak. But instead of it being strictly in one country every year. It could be rotated. Or if it were to be held in one location it needs to be one with a greater degree of diversity than India. Australia, Sth Africa and England all have significant cultural mixes from across the Cricket playing world. The T20 World Series could draw the top 2 teams from each major T20 league. That would be the BBL, Ram Slam (SA), NZ, ProCricket, Bangladesh, CPL, IPL and the new Pakistan Super League. Played as a knockout tournament.
Paul D
Roar Guru
"popular" Yes, it was so popular no-one bothered to watch it at the ground or on TV. The problem with the Champions League was the IPL teams – the fact they got first dibs on players eligible for domestic sides also competing made it a farce. Couple of times there you had teams make it to the Champions League on the strength of massive performances from one or two of their star players, but come Champions League time they had to play for their IPL side which had also qualified. Kieran Pollard, Dwayne Bravo and Sunil Narine all had to play for their IPL side instead of Trinidad and Tobago in 2010, for example, and I think Kallis had to turn out for Bangalore instead of his domestic team at some stage also. I’m not surprised it tanked badly, it wasn’t an even competition, and the domestic sides from the lesser cricketing nations routinely got flogged. Only teams who ever won were IPL sides and NSW.
Craig Swanson
Guest
Losing the popular Champions League was a big blow to state/province home- based T20 cricket. The BBL is an incredible success but imagine having a pot of gold at the end of the tournament namely being titled the best T20 franchise in the Southern Hemisphere. Reckon Northern Hemisphere sides would want to do something similar. Could be a way to get the CL back on the cricket calendar.
Working Class Rugger
Guest
Maybe some time in the future NZ would be a good option. But never SA. Too far and too little interest. Take it from a Rugby fan. No one is keen to get up at 2am to watch their team. I do but I'm too far gone. I doubt we'll see any expansion until probably the deal after next. Then, I think we'll see a Canberra and maybe Gold Coast based franchises first.
Kaks
Roar Guru
"With regards to summer being prime time test season in the Southern Hemisphere that is as true for Australia as it is for SA or NZ, yet in Australia we make it work. Surely you’re not suggesting that South African or New Zealand administrators are unable to do the same?" Except they would be unable to do so as SA and NZ do not have the depth of players that Australia has. Without their test players they would have average teams at best. If you can name me 22 players from SA or NZ who are at the level of the Australian players currently playing in the BBL - minus the test players - then I will concede defeat and say that it is a plausible idea.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Super Rugby teams fly over to South Africa and stay there for 2-3 weeks at a time, and play a couple of games over there. And yes, I am suggesting that South Africa in particular would struggle - they don't have the depth we have in Australia without their test players, and you've also got the stumbling block of the quota based selections over there. I'll give you New Zealand, I can see that working. But South Africa is a bridge too far, and you'd be best served by dropping that component from your grand plan.
Joey Johns
Roar Guru
Except if there's a Grand Final played in South Africa and no one really cares.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Also the small matter of arranging to fly whole teams and support staff over to South Africa, visas, passports, and the wear and tear of doing 12-15 hour flights there and back in the space of a few days. It's not like you just a wave a magic wand and BAM the Brisbane Heat are in Johannesburg. I don't think it's relatively minor at all.