The effect on the longer form of cricket is my biggest concern. If T20 becomes a world circus and all the money and focus is on that, Test cricket and County cricket could die in time. Already, the West Indies and Sri Lanka have fallen way back at Test cricket level. It only needs a few more countries to lose interest in Test cricket and there is no competition left. Already, the surfeit of Ashes series is making Test cricket less interesting for me.
The T20 and the longer form of cricket are to an extent two different sports with less and less players that perform well at both. If they split completely over the next 10 years, say, the signs are that T20 would replace Test cricket and longer forms of the game. If that is the public wish then fine, but I hope it's after my lifetime.
Tbf though it's not like our limited overs sides are struggling at the moment so I don't see the argument that it will help England. I do think something needs to be done in regards to the domestic game though. Too many counties are just scraping by, I just don't know if franchise T20 is the way to do it.
Come on Col, as mentioned earlier, if you take out our final appearance this year and the t20 win circa 10 years ago, Englands limited overs cricket in the big Tournos has been abjectly appaling over the last 25 years - including losses to Bangladesh,Ireland, Holland.
No, I'm saying the ECB's 'restructuring' to build themselves a T20 cash cow will be to the detriment of the rest of cricket. Not unlike the Premier League in football
Contrived money-making competition. I'd rather watch Surrey v Kent or Surrey v Essex every time. North London v South London at the Olympic Stadium (or West Ham Dons as it's also known), would be nothing more than an exhibition match. Surrey v Kent has 150 years of tradition, irrespective of who wins.
As a member of Surrey, I sit in the Pavilion for T20's, so I'm immune to the city office night-out brigade. We can't move in the lower seats without a Siddarnnnn from the stewards. But I can see what's happening around the ground and it's become the summer alternative to Darts. Big groups are there for the piss-up. Its called Drunk 20 or Karioke Cricket amongst the members. Unfortunately the younger generation, can't watch 4-day cricket or even 50 over games, it's boring innit. So it's T20 all the way in the future.
To be fair, the one competition that seems to becoming obsolete is the 50 over tournament. It's not drawing in the crowds and, from what I hear, is not liked by the T20 fans or fans of the longer form. Maybe, it could be reduced to a quick knock out competition or something if we have to have more T20 so that beer sales rise and Sky money comes pouring in. I am disappointed that next year sees the County Championship reducing by 2 games with a top division of 8 teams and a lopsided second division of 10 teams playing 14 matches.
my most enjoyable games are often the 50 over games. Not that keen on T20 and county championship doesn't have the thrust of a 50 over game.
This would effectively kill off Kent, who currently play at 3 enjoyable venues. Canterbury, Beckenham and Tunbridge Wells, which have all been developed recently. What will be the point if you are killing them off! Roland trying to kill of Charlton, The President (of all people!) trying to kill off Kent. Who is going to come and knock my house down!
Contrived money-making competition. I'd rather watch Surrey v Kent or Surrey v Essex every time. North London v South London at the Olympic Stadium (or West Ham Dons as it's also known), would be nothing more than an exhibition match. Surrey v Kent has 150 years of tradition, irrespective of who wins.
As a member of Surrey, I sit in the Pavilion for T20's, so I'm immune to the city office night-out brigade. We can't move in the lower seats without a Siddarnnnn from the stewards. But I can see what's happening around the ground and it's become the summer alternative to Darts. Big groups are there for the piss-up. Its called Drunk 20 or Karioke Cricket amongst the members. Unfortunately the younger generation, can't watch 4-day cricket or even 50 over games, it's boring innit. So it's T20 all the way in the future.
Couldn't agree more... I support Essex and want to watch them. Gets pretty lively on a T20, but most seem to be into cricket. Been to the Oval for a Friday with work mates... I'm sure I was the only one watching, so understand the concerns
Malan Mccullum Finch Westley Morgan Bopara Brathwaite Ten Doeschate Roland-Jones Finn Malinga
2 cracking teams where all the England and fringe players could learn.
Yes but what about all the young lesser well known county players who won't make the squad? You've combined 2/3 county squads added in more overseas players so someone has to lose out. It'll be the young English guy who hasn't yet made a name for himself.
Not every star is spotted at a young age, some come through later and so wouldn't get that opportunity.
And to reply to your point about the Currans I don't think it's a non argument. They may have been identified as ones for the future. But of you think a franchise is more likely to take a gamble on them and give them their debut, than the county that has nurtured them for years and knows when they are ready, then I am sorry but you are off your rocker.
You call it progress, yet all the reasons it has been successful in India and Australia don't apply here. And the argument that it will help the national team is thin and could be be argued the other way.
Malan Mccullum Finch Westley Morgan Bopara Brathwaite Ten Doeschate Roland-Jones Finn Malinga
2 cracking teams where all the England and fringe players could learn.
You call it progress, yet all the reasons it has been successful in India and Australia don't apply here. And the argument that it will help the national team is thin and could be be argued the other way.
Sorry Canters - I really respect your views , as always, as you are a true cricket fan (and a Surrey one at that !), but you cant selectively dismiss opinions without having something to back them up - in response to your comment about 'argument about national team is thin' or 'they don't apply here' - *why* is it thin?, *why* doesnt it apply here? ,How much more evidence do you need other than they (Oz and India) are no's 1 and 2 respectively in the Test League ? , and they have the 2 primary T20 leagues - next thing you'll be saying is that 'oh, well, they don't count'
In response to Red's comment about me wanting to kill off Kent , I've 'turned' - I've become an RD disciple. If you re-read my comments, its to the contrary - I'm saying that if Franchise DOESNT come along then Kent WONT survive, however, with T20 Franchise cricket Kent has a big role to play and could be financially viable , along with the likes of the other 2nd Tier counties.
I've explained this multiple times, but the Big Bash in Australia increased the number of teams, the number of games and the number of venues, and was broadcast on terrestrial TV. Franchise T20 here would do exactly the opposite, there'd be few teams playing fewer games at fewer venues and you can guarantee it would be a Sky exclusive. It would generate a lot of money for the select few whilst meaning that fewer fans could actually see games.
I'm not sure how preventing at least 100 English county players from playing competitive T20 can possibly help the England team. We'll have young players coming through who have little to no experience, especially in high pressure games in front of big crowds and we'll wonder why the fold when suddenly stuck on the big stage for England.
I've explained this multiple times, but the Big Bash in Australia increased the number of teams, the number of games and the number of venues, and was broadcast on terrestrial TV. Franchise T20 here would do exactly the opposite, there'd be few teams playing fewer games at fewer venues and you can guarantee it would be a Sky exclusive. It would generate a lot of money for the select few whilst meaning that fewer fans could actually see games.
I'm not sure how preventing at least 100 English county players from playing competitive T20 can possibly help the England team. We'll have young players coming through who have little to no experience, especially in high pressure games in front of big crowds and we'll wonder why the fold when suddenly stuck on the big stage for England.
Andy, I don't get your points either. Oz had teams playing at Perth,Brisbane,Adelaide,Melbourne,Sydney x2 - I don't see 7 venues being more than the 9/10 that I have mentioned in the EPL ? - it probably increased the number of teams by a couple in that there were 2 teams in Melbourne and Sydney, whereas in Sheffield Shield you would have Victoria and NSW respectively. Also, of course Sky would have the exclusive live rights (although maybe BT - probably more likely, as they want to get into the Cricket market) but this is no different to the way that Channel 10 has the monopoly in OZ ! - with potential highlights pakagee on terrestrial like it is now on C4. Number of games can be as many as the schedule permits. So, no, I don't 'get' any of your points.
'Preventing at least 100 Englnad players from playing' - none of the sort, if you are good enough then you will get in the team, if you are part of the run of the mill trundlers, ie Stevens,Masters,Cobb,Smith,Croft etc etc - then you wont get in the team - therefore you will have to up your game. Surely everyone can see that this will benefit the ENgland team ??!! - please ? - coz if you cant then you are living with your head in the sand- coz you cant tell me that you aren't going to become a better player if you have to face the likes of Malinga and Starc most games instead of having Stevens or Smith trundling in at you ??????
I'm not saying Oz has more venues than here, I'm saying Big Bash has more venues that any competition with just the 7 Sheffield Shield sides. They went to a franchise system to increase the number of teams from 7 to 12 and the number of venues and games increased correspondingly. An English franchise system would see a reduction from 18 to 12 teams, with the corresponding reduction in venues and games.
I'm not talking about trundlers, I'm talking about young and fringe players, who get a chance in the current system, but won't in a franchise system. Unless a lesser T20 competition was created for them to play in how would these players ever get a chance to break into the 1st 11? You're reducing 2-3 counties down to 6-7 English players. There's fewer games, so each game becomes more important and you'll get the premiership effect, when teams can't risk trying unknown players, and a far smaller percentage of youngsters will ever get a chance. A few exceptionally talented ones will, but those who develop at a different rate will be cast aside and we'll lose players. Please explain how having fewer English players playing at the top level can possibly be good for the English game. Maybe there'll be a few who become better than they would under the current system, but I'd argue that is far out-weighed by the lack of strength in depth and the sheer volume of discarded talent.
Saying Oz are number 1 in test because of the strength of the Big Bash is completely disingenuous. The Big Bash has been going for 2 years and test rankings are taken over 4 years. Their number one because of the strength of the Sheffield Shield (that has very very few non-Oz players in it) and the number of home tests they've played in the period. The Big Bash wasn't even that great, a number of English players who can't get near the England team were amongst the top performers. The big bash really was the poster=boy for mediocre foreigners displacing local talent, but the was counterbalanced by the increase in the number of teams. Here we'd be displacing local talent for mediocre foreigners whilst reducing the number of teams.
Tbf though it's not like our limited overs sides are struggling at the moment so I don't see the argument that it will help England. I do think something needs to be done in regards to the domestic game though. Too many counties are just scraping by, I just don't know if franchise T20 is the way to do it.
Come on Col, as mentioned earlier, if you take out our final appearance this year and the t20 win circa 10 years ago, Englands limited overs cricket in the big Tournos has been abjectly appaling over the last 25 years - including losses to Bangladesh,Ireland, Holland.
I did say at the moment. Because at the moment we have very good limited overs sides. Our record in the past 18 months in both formats has been excellent. I remember when the IPL started and there where those screaming that not letting our centrally contracted players play in it would harm their ability to compete at IT20. I think recently we have shown that that isn't the case. I also don't think you can just downplay the 2010 win and the final this year, they are very good acheivements especially when you consider we have more final appearances than Aus, SA and NZ combined!
I'm not completely against the franchise idea it's just I don't buy that it will drastically change the fortunes of the T20 side.
I'm not saying Oz are No 1 because of the Big Bash - I'm saying that the Big Bash and IPL have clearly not harmed their performances in Test matches - which is what some people are suggesting would happen to Englnad should Franchise cricket come along.
I really cannot see any coherent argument to suggest that doing this would not make a stronger England in all formats of the game- and certainly in T20, which would turn them into regular semis/finalists , which apart from the occasional year, is not happening now, despite what you might suggest. I'll dig out some stats later tonight .
Big Bash and IPL increased the number of native players playing the game, English Franchise T20 would reduce the numbers, that's why I think it will harm England. The fact a minority of our players may improve from being around some better players won't make up for the reduction in strength in depth and reduction in playing time and opportunities. That's my opinion. It'll all be fine whilst we have a couple of super star players, but there won't be a lot below that level.
To use an analogy, has the influx of top level foreign players into the Premiership improved the England team? I'd argue our tournament performances in recent years are as bad as at any time in my life, and world cup 94 apart, considerably worse that the 1990s, mostly before the influx of foreign players. It's only recently we've got to the stage where none of the England squad player premiership football before that influx. Our last 5 tournaments have been:
2008 DNQ 2010 Round of 16 2012 QF 2014 Group Stage 2016 Round of 16
Why would cricket massively benefit from more foreign players when football has clearly suffered
Contrived money-making competition. I'd rather watch Surrey v Kent or Surrey v Essex every time. North London v South London at the Olympic Stadium (or West Ham Dons as it's also known), would be nothing more than an exhibition match. Surrey v Kent has 150 years of tradition, irrespective of who wins.
As a member of Surrey, I sit in the Pavilion for T20's, so I'm immune to the city office night-out brigade. We can't move in the lower seats without a Siddarnnnn from the stewards. But I can see what's happening around the ground and it's become the summer alternative to Darts. Big groups are there for the piss-up. Its called Drunk 20 or Karioke Cricket amongst the members. Unfortunately the younger generation, can't watch 4-day cricket or even 50 over games, it's boring innit. So it's T20 all the way in the future.
Watched a recent Surrey vs Sussex T20 at the Oval. The cricket match was almost incidental to majority of the crowd. Many there just to get pissed. It was gimmicky & a bit desperate as if they had to dress things up because the cricket match itself wasn't interesting enough. Not sure, I would bother again.
Malan Mccullum Finch Westley Morgan Bopara Brathwaite Ten Doeschate Roland-Jones Finn Malinga
2 cracking teams where all the England and fringe players could learn.
You call it progress, yet all the reasons it has been successful in India and Australia don't apply here. And the argument that it will help the national team is thin and could be be argued the other way.
Sorry Canters - I really respect your views , as always, as you are a true cricket fan (and a Surrey one at that !), but you cant selectively dismiss opinions without having something to back them up - in response to your comment about 'argument about national team is thin' or 'they don't apply here' - *why* is it thin?, *why* doesnt it apply here? ,How much more evidence do you need other than they (Oz and India) are no's 1 and 2 respectively in the Test League ? , and they have the 2 primary T20 leagues - next thing you'll be saying is that 'oh, well, they don't count'
In response to Red's comment about me wanting to kill off Kent , I've 'turned' - I've become an RD disciple. If you re-read my comments, its to the contrary - I'm saying that if Franchise DOESNT come along then Kent WONT survive, however, with T20 Franchise cricket Kent has a big role to play and could be financially viable , along with the likes of the other 2nd Tier counties.
Absolutely mate. Not gonna take offence I enjoy our debates on here.
Just to clear a few things up first. I am not an older cricket fan, I am on fact 21 you can't say I am a traditionalist. Whilst I do love the long form of the game I also find T20 and 50 over stuff brilliant. So I have reached my opinion through reasoned thought and no sticking my head in the ground.
I feel like my two previous comments answer those points already but I will summarise.
The reasons it was so successful in Australia and India is because they had more teams and the revamped format stopped the decline in fans turning up to watch by having games in different places so more people could get to games 1)we don't have declining attendances. Crowds this year and last are record highs. Most county's sell out most games. 2) we would end up with less teams. So further for people to travel and local grounds won't get games.
Argument that it will help the national team is thin. As I said before this was used as an excuse when England were dreadful at limited overs cricket because we didn't want to face the fact that we had the wrong coaches with the wrong ideas and approach picking the wrong players. (How cook/trott/bell/balance ever played limited overs cricket is beyond me) Now we have new coaches with a new focus on one day cricket they have the right approach and are picking the right players our form has completely changed. We have shot up the rankings and reached the final of the latest tournament. Sure it's still a work in progress but our one day side is in the best place it's been in my lifetime and I'm very excited by it. All this has been achieved with players who came through the county system and have rarely of at all played in the big bash/ipl. So I don't think the argument that our system doesn't provide players who can play international one day cricket holds up.
Also less teams+more overpaid overseas players=less opportunities for young English players to break through... for reasons outlined in detail above. Don't think that benefits the English game.
Don't get me wrong I think having all our T20 cricket in a block will be better for it. And the ayers want that too. I am also quite intrigued by having finals day at the Olympic stadium. but think it would be best done through the county system.
One issue to me is the smaller size of English venues. It's not as if Lord's and the Oval can both hold 50/60k, and there are lots of empty seats.
Combining Kent and Surrey at the Oval would generate little extra revenue than Surrey by themselves can do so already, and would lose the audience for T20 cricket in Kent and also the Surrey out grounds
Those people using Football as the example as to why they don't believe it would benefit Englnad are missing one HUGE point.... That most clubs in the Prem play with very few English players nowadays, whereas in T20 Franchise teams there would be a minimum of 7 English-qualified players playing.
Those people using Football as the example as to why they don't believe it would benefit Englnad are missing one HUGE point.... That most clubs in the Prem play with very few English players nowadays, whereas in T20 Franchise teams there would be a minimum of 7 English-qualified players playing.
I still think the cash flowing in to this franchise T20 league will distort the finances of cricket, like the Premier league has. The FA are a slave to TV and the Premier League clubs who run the game in their own interest. Money and franchise T20 self interest will have the same destructive effect on the county game.
Those people using Football as the example as to why they don't believe it would benefit Englnad are missing one HUGE point.... That most clubs in the Prem play with very few English players nowadays, whereas in T20 Franchise teams there would be a minimum of 7 English-qualified players playing.
Yes a minimum of 7, which is 2 less per team than currently, plus less teams which means less English players.
Watching tonights game Notts v Essex - cmon Notts. sorta sums it up for me, Masters,Bopara and Ten Doeschate all bowling for Essex at 67 mph - yeah i'd really rather watch them than Starc,Malinga and Shah. not. Its the real trudgers and nurdlers that Franchise would get rid of - how the hell can you say this is better than what we are going to get is beyond me totally and utterly beyond me - but, hey,ho lidl 'ol Charlton.
Those people using Football as the example as to why they don't believe it would benefit Englnad are missing one HUGE point.... That most clubs in the Prem play with very few English players nowadays, whereas in T20 Franchise teams there would be a minimum of 7 English-qualified players playing.
Yes a minimum of 7, which is 2 less per team than currently, plus less teams which means less English players.
but Canters, you miss the point, about 7 more than a Prem team. You cant seriouslt tell me that if they cant get into a 7 of a 10 (lets say) Franchise team that they could be challenging for England ??!!! (thats 70 players btw)
Watching tonights game Notts v Essex - cmon Notts. sorta sums it up for me, Masters,Bopara and Ten Doeschate all bowling for Essex at 67 mph - yeah i'd really rather watch them than Starc,Malinga and Shah. not. Its the real trudgers and nurdlers that Franchise would get rid of - how the hell can you say this is better than what we are going to get is beyond me totally and utterly beyond me - but, hey,ho lidl 'ol Charlton.
But that's exactly my point. It is almost guaranteed that those players along with the likes of bell, Ballance, Cook Trott and Compton who will get franchise contracts as they are big names and have been around and are experienced campaigners. It's the young up and coming exciting cricketers who's I'll one day go on to play limited overs cricket for England who will miss out. As a franchise is much less likely to take a chance on a young kid than the county that reared them.
And Mullaney bowling seam at 59 mph - yawn....yeah he's really gonna make it into the England squad ay????????
Pase off the ball is an accepted technique in limited overs cricket especially in English conditions. Look at Morris for Surrey this year steamed in bowled fast and got smashed around. Every team will want a trundeler whether it is the current system or franchise.
And Mullaney bowling seam at 59 mph - yawn....yeah he's really gonna make it into the England squad ay????????
Pase off the ball is an accepted technique in limited overs cricket especially in English conditions. Look at Morris for Surrey this year steamed in bowled fast and got smashed around. Every team will want a trundeler whether it is the current system or franchise.
Those people using Football as the example as to why they don't believe it would benefit Englnad are missing one HUGE point.... That most clubs in the Prem play with very few English players nowadays, whereas in T20 Franchise teams there would be a minimum of 7 English-qualified players playing.
Yes a minimum of 7, which is 2 less per team than currently, plus less teams which means less English players.
but Canters, you miss the point, about 7 more than a Prem team. You cant seriouslt tell me that if they cant get into a 7 of a 10 (lets say) Franchise team that they could be challenging for England ??!!! (thats 70 players btw)
Not but the counterfactual should not be premier league football. It should be the t20 system as it is..
So to use your example that's 70 players in 10 teams. So 2 less per team than under current rules and 8 less teams than the current system that's 72. So a total of 92 less English players playing in the English t20..
Comments
The T20 and the longer form of cricket are to an extent two different sports with less and less players that perform well at both. If they split completely over the next 10 years, say, the signs are that T20 would replace Test cricket and longer forms of the game. If that is the public wish then fine, but I hope it's after my lifetime.
As a member of Surrey, I sit in the Pavilion for T20's, so I'm immune to the city office night-out brigade. We can't move in the lower seats without a Siddarnnnn from the stewards. But I can see what's happening around the ground and it's become the summer alternative to Darts. Big groups are there for the piss-up. Its called Drunk 20 or Karioke Cricket amongst the members. Unfortunately the younger generation, can't watch 4-day cricket or even 50 over games, it's boring innit. So it's T20 all the way in the future.
Roland trying to kill of Charlton, The President (of all people!) trying to kill off Kent. Who is going to come and knock my house down!
Not every star is spotted at a young age, some come through later and so wouldn't get that opportunity.
And to reply to your point about the Currans I don't think it's a non argument. They may have been identified as ones for the future. But of you think a franchise is more likely to take a gamble on them and give them their debut, than the county that has nurtured them for years and knows when they are ready, then I am sorry but you are off your rocker.
You call it progress, yet all the reasons it has been successful in India and Australia don't apply here. And the argument that it will help the national team is thin and could be be argued the other way.
In response to Red's comment about me wanting to kill off Kent , I've 'turned' - I've become an RD disciple.
If you re-read my comments, its to the contrary - I'm saying that if Franchise DOESNT come along then Kent WONT survive, however, with T20 Franchise cricket Kent has a big role to play and could be financially viable , along with the likes of the other 2nd Tier counties.
I'm not sure how preventing at least 100 English county players from playing competitive T20 can possibly help the England team. We'll have young players coming through who have little to no experience, especially in high pressure games in front of big crowds and we'll wonder why the fold when suddenly stuck on the big stage for England.
'Preventing at least 100 Englnad players from playing' - none of the sort, if you are good enough then you will get in the team, if you are part of the run of the mill trundlers, ie Stevens,Masters,Cobb,Smith,Croft etc etc - then you wont get in the team - therefore you will have to up your game. Surely everyone can see that this will benefit the ENgland team ??!! - please ? - coz if you cant then you are living with your head in the sand- coz you cant tell me that you aren't going to become a better player if you have to face the likes of Malinga and Starc most games instead of having Stevens or Smith trundling in at you ??????
I'm not talking about trundlers, I'm talking about young and fringe players, who get a chance in the current system, but won't in a franchise system. Unless a lesser T20 competition was created for them to play in how would these players ever get a chance to break into the 1st 11? You're reducing 2-3 counties down to 6-7 English players. There's fewer games, so each game becomes more important and you'll get the premiership effect, when teams can't risk trying unknown players, and a far smaller percentage of youngsters will ever get a chance. A few exceptionally talented ones will, but those who develop at a different rate will be cast aside and we'll lose players. Please explain how having fewer English players playing at the top level can possibly be good for the English game. Maybe there'll be a few who become better than they would under the current system, but I'd argue that is far out-weighed by the lack of strength in depth and the sheer volume of discarded talent.
Saying Oz are number 1 in test because of the strength of the Big Bash is completely disingenuous. The Big Bash has been going for 2 years and test rankings are taken over 4 years. Their number one because of the strength of the Sheffield Shield (that has very very few non-Oz players in it) and the number of home tests they've played in the period. The Big Bash wasn't even that great, a number of English players who can't get near the England team were amongst the top performers. The big bash really was the poster=boy for mediocre foreigners displacing local talent, but the was counterbalanced by the increase in the number of teams. Here we'd be displacing local talent for mediocre foreigners whilst reducing the number of teams.
I'm not completely against the franchise idea it's just I don't buy that it will drastically change the fortunes of the T20 side.
I really cannot see any coherent argument to suggest that doing this would not make a stronger England in all formats of the game- and certainly in T20, which would turn them into regular semis/finalists , which apart from the occasional year, is not happening now, despite what you might suggest.
I'll dig out some stats later tonight .
To use an analogy, has the influx of top level foreign players into the Premiership improved the England team? I'd argue our tournament performances in recent years are as bad as at any time in my life, and world cup 94 apart, considerably worse that the 1990s, mostly before the influx of foreign players. It's only recently we've got to the stage where none of the England squad player premiership football before that influx. Our last 5 tournaments have been:
2008 DNQ
2010 Round of 16
2012 QF
2014 Group Stage
2016 Round of 16
Why would cricket massively benefit from more foreign players when football has clearly suffered
Just to clear a few things up first. I am not an older cricket fan, I am on fact 21 you can't say I am a traditionalist. Whilst I do love the long form of the game I also find T20 and 50 over stuff brilliant. So I have reached my opinion through reasoned thought and no sticking my head in the ground.
I feel like my two previous comments answer those points already but I will summarise.
The reasons it was so successful in Australia and India is because they had more teams and the revamped format stopped the decline in fans turning up to watch by having games in different places so more people could get to games
1)we don't have declining attendances. Crowds this year and last are record highs. Most county's sell out most games.
2) we would end up with less teams. So further for people to travel and local grounds won't get games.
Argument that it will help the national team is thin.
As I said before this was used as an excuse when England were dreadful at limited overs cricket because we didn't want to face the fact that we had the wrong coaches with the wrong ideas and approach picking the wrong players. (How cook/trott/bell/balance ever played limited overs cricket is beyond me)
Now we have new coaches with a new focus on one day cricket they have the right approach and are picking the right players our form has completely changed. We have shot up the rankings and reached the final of the latest tournament. Sure it's still a work in progress but our one day side is in the best place it's been in my lifetime and I'm very excited by it. All this has been achieved with players who came through the county system and have rarely of at all played in the big bash/ipl. So I don't think the argument that our system doesn't provide players who can play international one day cricket holds up.
Also less teams+more overpaid overseas players=less opportunities for young English players to break through... for reasons outlined in detail above. Don't think that benefits the English game.
Don't get me wrong I think having all our T20 cricket in a block will be better for it. And the ayers want that too. I am also quite intrigued by having finals day at the Olympic stadium. but think it would be best done through the county system.
Combining Kent and Surrey at the Oval would generate little extra revenue than Surrey by themselves can do so already, and would lose the audience for T20 cricket in Kent and also the Surrey out grounds
So to use your example that's 70 players in 10 teams. So 2 less per team than under current rules and 8 less teams than the current system that's 72. So a total of 92 less English players playing in the English t20..
Good for English cricket.