If the UK version of the Big Bash is marketed as cleverly and consistently as it is here, then you are going to have a juggernaut on your hands.
What you have to appreciate is that the in-ground atmosphere and match day experience is totally targeted at families/young kids - and they do it brilliantly.
It makes cricket attractive to the under 11's, and if you look at some of the stats coming out of where cricket's popularity stands in the UK at the moment, that is going to be vital moving forward.
I totally get the resistance to change etc, but as long as you take the 'Big Bash' for what it is - a bit of fun, razzmatazz and a good night out, then there should be no problem.
The audiences for traditional cricket and big bash, are totally different.
There are fundamental differences between our league and the big bash/IPL/CPL/PSL/whatever South Africa call their one.
ALL of those competitions meant there was MORE teams aying MORE cricket, at MORE grounds making it MORE spread out and MORE accessible to MORE people. It is also on terrestrial TV. This is fundamental to their success.
Our competition will mean there is LESS teams, playing LESS cricket, at LESS grounds making it far LESS spread out and LESS accessible. It has a proposed one year terrestrial TV deal after that it's expected to be on sky. Yes we have the 'secondary T20 competition' I'll bet everything I have that it's gone within 3 years.
Do you think someone from the south coast in Kent or far end of Essex is gonna travel into London to watch some South London Lions side? Not a chance. You're making it less accessible for the vast majority of cricket fans.
Whilst our current format needed change. This isn't the way to do it. Counties with small grounds (Essex Sussex Kent etc) were selling out every game and making money from it. Countries with big grounds (Surrey Middx etc) were selling out every game and making money from it.
The change should have been to put it in a 4/5/6 week window in the school holidays (have 3 groups rather than 2 to complete the group stages quicker). Have T20 finals day at the Olympic stadium. Allow one extra overseas player for the tourmant but make them top class overseas players nt the likes of Ravi Rampaul who is past it but gets in via Kolpak.
If the UK version of the Big Bash is marketed as cleverly and consistently as it is here, then you are going to have a juggernaut on your hands.
What you have to appreciate is that the in-ground atmosphere and match day experience is totally targeted at families/young kids - and they do it brilliantly.
It makes cricket attractive to the under 11's, and if you look at some of the stats coming out of where cricket's popularity stands in the UK at the moment, that is going to be vital moving forward.
I totally get the resistance to change etc, but as long as you take the 'Big Bash' for what it is - a bit of fun, razzmatazz and a good night out, then there should be no problem.
The audiences for traditional cricket and big bash, are totally different.
There are fundamental differences between our league and the big bash/IPL/CPL/PSL/whatever South Africa call their one.
ALL of those competitions meant there was MORE teams aying MORE cricket, at MORE grounds making it MORE spread out and MORE accessible to MORE people. It is also on terrestrial TV. This is fundamental to their success.
Our competition will mean there is LESS teams, playing LESS cricket, at LESS grounds making it far LESS spread out and LESS accessible. It has a proposed one year terrestrial TV deal after that it's expected to be on sky. Yes we have the 'secondary T20 competition' I'll bet everything I have that it's gone within 3 years.
Do you think someone from the south coast in Kent or far end of Essex is gonna travel into London to watch some South London Lions side? Not a chance. You're making it less accessible for the vast majority of cricket fans.
Whilst our current format needed change. This isn't the way to do it. Counties with small grounds (Essex Sussex Kent etc) were selling out every game and making money from it. Countries with big grounds (Surrey Middx etc) were selling out every game and making money from it.
The change should have been to put it in a 4/5/6 week window in the school holidays (have 3 groups rather than 2 to complete the group stages quicker). Have T20 finals day at the Olympic stadium. Allow one extra overseas player for the tourmant but make them top class overseas players nt the likes of Ravi Rampaul who is past it but gets in via Kolpak.
You can market that however you want.
This This This.
The tournament needs to be compressed, but the public need fewer games that they would have to shell out for in a shortened period and must be in school holidays with emphasis on family tickets.
Canters, shall we resurrect our old T20 argument discussion ?
PS - great to hear you are coming to Belgium - lets make sure we meet up there - no doubt we will.
Hahah I knew I shouldn't have started it again. But once I'd started writing I just couldn't stop!
Yes! Excited for it. I'll wear a name badge and go around around asking everyone if they're the president. I'm sure some smart arse will reply with 'do I look like Roland?'
lol - i'll be the fat bloke at the front going round knocking on peoples doors ! shame you cant make the overnighter ( could be achieved considering the special sponsor funding youve received), as St Truiden is quite a craic - most of the B20 are going out early on Friday and spending 2 nights there - then again, we obviously knew this was all coming up and got in early!. The generosity of our fans humbles me to this day - we are an amazing bunch.
lol - i'll be the fat bloke at the front going round knocking on peoples doors ! shame you cant make the overnighter ( could be achieved considering the special sponsor funding youve received), as St Truiden is quite a craic - most of the B20 are going out early on Friday and spending 2 nights there - then again, we obviously knew this was all coming up and got in early!. The generosity of our fans humbles me to this day - we are an amazing bunch.
Indeed wish I could but with exams coming up losing one whole day is a big issue. Can't afford to lose any more.
If the UK version of the Big Bash is marketed as cleverly and consistently as it is here, then you are going to have a juggernaut on your hands.
What you have to appreciate is that the in-ground atmosphere and match day experience is totally targeted at families/young kids - and they do it brilliantly.
It makes cricket attractive to the under 11's, and if you look at some of the stats coming out of where cricket's popularity stands in the UK at the moment, that is going to be vital moving forward.
I totally get the resistance to change etc, but as long as you take the 'Big Bash' for what it is - a bit of fun, razzmatazz and a good night out, then there should be no problem.
The audiences for traditional cricket and big bash, are totally different.
There are fundamental differences between our league and the big bash/IPL/CPL/PSL/whatever South Africa call their one.
ALL of those competitions meant there was MORE teams aying MORE cricket, at MORE grounds making it MORE spread out and MORE accessible to MORE people. It is also on terrestrial TV. This is fundamental to their success.
Our competition will mean there is LESS teams, playing LESS cricket, at LESS grounds making it far LESS spread out and LESS accessible. It has a proposed one year terrestrial TV deal after that it's expected to be on sky. Yes we have the 'secondary T20 competition' I'll bet everything I have that it's gone within 3 years.
Do you think someone from the south coast in Kent or far end of Essex is gonna travel into London to watch some South London Lions side? Not a chance. You're making it less accessible for the vast majority of cricket fans.
Whilst our current format needed change. This isn't the way to do it. Counties with small grounds (Essex Sussex Kent etc) were selling out every game and making money from it. Countries with big grounds (Surrey Middx etc) were selling out every game and making money from it.
The change should have been to put it in a 4/5/6 week window in the school holidays (have 3 groups rather than 2 to complete the group stages quicker). Have T20 finals day at the Olympic stadium. Allow one extra overseas player for the tourmant but make them top class overseas players nt the likes of Ravi Rampaul who is past it but gets in via Kolpak.
If the UK version of the Big Bash is marketed as cleverly and consistently as it is here, then you are going to have a juggernaut on your hands.
What you have to appreciate is that the in-ground atmosphere and match day experience is totally targeted at families/young kids - and they do it brilliantly.
It makes cricket attractive to the under 11's, and if you look at some of the stats coming out of where cricket's popularity stands in the UK at the moment, that is going to be vital moving forward.
I totally get the resistance to change etc, but as long as you take the 'Big Bash' for what it is - a bit of fun, razzmatazz and a good night out, then there should be no problem.
The audiences for traditional cricket and big bash, are totally different.
There are fundamental differences between our league and the big bash/IPL/CPL/PSL/whatever South Africa call their one.
ALL of those competitions meant there was MORE teams aying MORE cricket, at MORE grounds making it MORE spread out and MORE accessible to MORE people. It is also on terrestrial TV. This is fundamental to their success.
Our competition will mean there is LESS teams, playing LESS cricket, at LESS grounds making it far LESS spread out and LESS accessible. It has a proposed one year terrestrial TV deal after that it's expected to be on sky. Yes we have the 'secondary T20 competition' I'll bet everything I have that it's gone within 3 years.
Do you think someone from the south coast in Kent or far end of Essex is gonna travel into London to watch some South London Lions side? Not a chance. You're making it less accessible for the vast majority of cricket fans.
Whilst our current format needed change. This isn't the way to do it. Counties with small grounds (Essex Sussex Kent etc) were selling out every game and making money from it. Countries with big grounds (Surrey Middx etc) were selling out every game and making money from it.
The change should have been to put it in a 4/5/6 week window in the school holidays (have 3 groups rather than 2 to complete the group stages quicker). Have T20 finals day at the Olympic stadium. Allow one extra overseas player for the tourmant but make them top class overseas players nt the likes of Ravi Rampaul who is past it but gets in via Kolpak.
You can market that however you want.
Bang on!!
NO ITS NOT !!!!!!
For example how can the proposed EIGHT team EPL have more teams and more grounds than the EIGHT team Big Bash ?? Also, how can 'less spread out' make it 'less accessible' - makes no sense whatsoever.
Canters is a good guy and he knows his cricket, and it may be pre exam nerves, but a lot of what he says about Franchise cricket in that article simply is a load of bollox. I'll have to beat him to a pulp in Belgium and get him to write some sense.
I think he means in The Big Bash having 8 teams increased the number of teams playing instead of it just being the State teams - hence more team, more games played, more accessible.
In England reducing it to 8 franchises makes it less teams, less games played, less accessible to cricket fans.
If the UK version of the Big Bash is marketed as cleverly and consistently as it is here, then you are going to have a juggernaut on your hands.
What you have to appreciate is that the in-ground atmosphere and match day experience is totally targeted at families/young kids - and they do it brilliantly.
It makes cricket attractive to the under 11's, and if you look at some of the stats coming out of where cricket's popularity stands in the UK at the moment, that is going to be vital moving forward.
I totally get the resistance to change etc, but as long as you take the 'Big Bash' for what it is - a bit of fun, razzmatazz and a good night out, then there should be no problem.
The audiences for traditional cricket and big bash, are totally different.
There are fundamental differences between our league and the big bash/IPL/CPL/PSL/whatever South Africa call their one.
ALL of those competitions meant there was MORE teams aying MORE cricket, at MORE grounds making it MORE spread out and MORE accessible to MORE people. It is also on terrestrial TV. This is fundamental to their success.
Our competition will mean there is LESS teams, playing LESS cricket, at LESS grounds making it far LESS spread out and LESS accessible. It has a proposed one year terrestrial TV deal after that it's expected to be on sky. Yes we have the 'secondary T20 competition' I'll bet everything I have that it's gone within 3 years.
Do you think someone from the south coast in Kent or far end of Essex is gonna travel into London to watch some South London Lions side? Not a chance. You're making it less accessible for the vast majority of cricket fans.
Whilst our current format needed change. This isn't the way to do it. Counties with small grounds (Essex Sussex Kent etc) were selling out every game and making money from it. Countries with big grounds (Surrey Middx etc) were selling out every game and making money from it.
The change should have been to put it in a 4/5/6 week window in the school holidays (have 3 groups rather than 2 to complete the group stages quicker). Have T20 finals day at the Olympic stadium. Allow one extra overseas player for the tourmant but make them top class overseas players nt the likes of Ravi Rampaul who is past it but gets in via Kolpak.
You can market that however you want.
Bang on!!
NO ITS NOT !!!!!!
For example how can the proposed EIGHT team EPL have more teams and more grounds than the EIGHT team Big Bash ?? Also, how can 'less spread out' make it 'less accessible' - makes no sense whatsoever.
Canters is a good guy and he knows his cricket, and it may be pre exam nerves, but a lot of what he says about Franchise cricket in that article simply is a load of bollox. I'll have to beat him to a pulp in Belgium and get him to write some sense.
I was comparing the numbers of teams before and after they introduced franchise cricket. So In india before there were the state sides. Then they introduced the IPL and moved to a city based model the number of teams increased! And grounds that previously never hosted professional crixket were built/developed. By having more teams there were more matches. And more grounds meant more people were nearer a ground. Therefore more accessible for more people.
With English cricket. We will be moving from 18 teams to 8. That's ten less teams and a lot less games. Ano 10 less grounds therefore there will be no cricket at canterbury/beckenham/Cheltenham/Hove etc etc. So for many people they would have to travel further to get to grounds. That makes it less accessible.
Does that make sense now? I appreciate you may disagree with the argument but surely you can recognise it is an argument?!
I think he means in The Big Bash having 8 teams increased the number of teams playing instead of it just being the State teams - hence more team, more games played, more accessible.
In England reducing it to 8 franchises makes it less teams, less games played, less accessible to cricket fans.
i get it Canters. you know my view, tbh, its a case of do we want to stay lidl ol England, in the same way that i agree with a move to the peninsular as i dont want to stay lidl ol Charlton- we have to progress and move forward - else we are dead ducks being lined up- we cant continue in the way we are now.
I I also feel change is needed. I just don't think this is the way to do it. My proposal (well the one put forward by Surrey and backed by most other counties before the ECB bribed them in the vote) is to keep the 18 counties have a 3 group competition to make it fit into a 4/5 week window in the middle of the summer holidays. Allow one extra overseas player but get rid of Kolpak crap, past it players. Add in some of the quirks of franchises: cheer leaders etc. Have finals day at the Olympic stadium etc to make it feel like franchise cricket but not lose any accessibility and not lose any grounds.
I I also feel change is needed. I just don't think this is the way to do it. My proposal (well the one put forward by Surrey and backed by most other counties before the ECB bribed them in the vote) is to keep the 18 counties have a 3 group competition to make it fit into a 4/5 week window in the middle of the summer holidays. Allow one extra overseas player but get rid of Kolpak crap, past it players. Add in some of the quirks of franchises: cheer leaders etc. Have finals day at the Olympic stadium etc to make it feel like franchise cricket but not lose any accessibility and not lose any grounds.
What do you think of that?!
On the surface it sounds good mate - however, i cant my head around Darren Stevens trundling up to bowl to unknown Glous/Derby/Leics no 5 who 1) is shit 2) adds no value 3) has no chance of potentially reaching the England team - who wants to see that ? - i dont. I want to see Rabada coming in to bowl at Jason Roy and then ABDV coming in at no 3- and then Ben Stokes smashing Steyn all over the place.
Tbf Stevens is still a very capable t20 and one day player, the only reason he's not played for England in those formats is because he's so ancient. What I'm saying is you still might be seeing Stevens rocking up to bowl in a t20 franchise game.
As long as they keep it on terrestrial telly and keep the county format as well I'm happy
for me its about condensing the talent and making a better spectator experience and making that English talent better - Big Bash and IPL have proved that
As kentaddick alludes to I can guarantee Stevens would get a contract. As would the likes of Cook, Bell, Trott, Compton etc etc. These players are never going to represent England in T20s. However they are getting a spot ahead of a young English player who may well go on to represent England. A county who knows them a headed has nurtured them for years will give them their chance. Will a franchise? No chance. They'll pick the name of Cook or Bell even though they have no future in the format.
I also think our tournament should coincide with an international break so all our internationals can play every game.
for me its about condensing the talent and making a better spectator experience and making that English talent better - Big Bash and IPL have proved that
But then the England T20 team is pretty good now anyway, we reached the final of the last WC and English players produced by the current system did well in the Big Bash etc
If English players have a weakness, it's in foreign conditions, and reducing this to 8 teams makes no difference
for me its about condensing the talent and making a better spectator experience and making that English talent better - Big Bash and IPL have proved that
But then the England T20 team is pretty good now anyway, we reached the final of the last WC and English players produced by the current system did well in the Big Bash etc
If English players have a weakness, it's in foreign conditions, and reducing this to 8 teams makes no difference
But you cant deny that someone like , say, Sam Billings is going to be a better player by having to face Malinga,Starc,Steyn,Rabada day in day out that having to face 70 mph county trundlers ?
for me its about condensing the talent and making a better spectator experience and making that English talent better - Big Bash and IPL have proved that
But then the England T20 team is pretty good now anyway, we reached the final of the last WC and English players produced by the current system did well in the Big Bash etc
If English players have a weakness, it's in foreign conditions, and reducing this to 8 teams makes no difference
But you cant deny that someone like , say, Sam Billings is going to be a better player by having to face Malinga,Starc,Steyn,Rabada day in day out that having to face 70 mph county trundlers ?
But what about the next generation Sam Billings, where will he learn his T20 skills? In the "reserve" T20 fixtures Kent and Sussex etc are left with?
I I also feel change is needed. I just don't think this is the way to do it. My proposal (well the one put forward by Surrey and backed by most other counties before the ECB bribed them in the vote) is to keep the 18 counties have a 3 group competition to make it fit into a 4/5 week window in the middle of the summer holidays. Allow one extra overseas player but get rid of Kolpak crap, past it players. Add in some of the quirks of franchises: cheer leaders etc. Have finals day at the Olympic stadium etc to make it feel like franchise cricket but not lose any accessibility and not lose any grounds.
What do you think of that?!
On the surface it sounds good mate - however, i cant my head around Darren Stevens trundling up to bowl to unknown Glous/Derby/Leics no 5 who 1) is shit 2) adds no value 3) has no chance of potentially reaching the England team - who wants to see that ? - i dont. I want to see Rabada coming in to bowl at Jason Roy and then ABDV coming in at no 3- and then Ben Stokes smashing Steyn all over the place.
Whilst I think that Canters makes some very valid points, the whole problem with involving all eighteen counties is that immiediately you have a dilution of the quality.
All of the big bash games here, are intense and highly competitve - if you don't perform you are out.
Sangakarra was dropped by his team this year, and he was by no means the only high profile casualty.
When you keep a competition like the BBL to eight teams, it means that they all have air and space to form their own identities, and young fans can connect easily to the best players etc.
I don't have an answer for you on how you solve the regionality problem, but I can tell you that the BBL over here is great fun, and that is coming from someone for whom test cricket is a very special thing indeed.
I regularly make a 100 mile round trip to Canterbury to watch cricket, mostly one day and T20. I won't be bothering to make the short trip to the Oval on a Friday night to watch a couple of pick up teams.
I will go to the Oval for Surrey v Kent or Surrey v Essex on a Friday evening. Loads of away fans, proper atmosphere, traditional rivalries. Not interested in South London v Leeds.
If the cricket powers pursue this new tournament, in a chase for money, they will come unstuck.
I will go to the Oval for Surrey v Kent or Surrey v Essex on a Friday evening. Loads of away fans, proper atmosphere, traditional rivalries. Not interested in South London v Leeds.
If the cricket powers pursue this new tournament, in a chase for money, they will come unstuck.
I went to see Surrey play Middlesex with a load of work colleagues. I support Essex. I mean, it was fun and the cricket was good, but I wasn't getting excited. Most there probably didn't care that much about the cricket. This isn't right
Comments
ALL of those competitions meant there was MORE teams aying MORE cricket, at MORE grounds making it MORE spread out and MORE accessible to MORE people. It is also on terrestrial TV. This is fundamental to their success.
Our competition will mean there is LESS teams, playing LESS cricket, at LESS grounds making it far LESS spread out and LESS accessible. It has a proposed one year terrestrial TV deal after that it's expected to be on sky. Yes we have the 'secondary T20 competition' I'll bet everything I have that it's gone within 3 years.
Do you think someone from the south coast in Kent or far end of Essex is gonna travel into London to watch some South London Lions side? Not a chance. You're making it less accessible for the vast majority of cricket fans.
Whilst our current format needed change. This isn't the way to do it. Counties with small grounds (Essex Sussex Kent etc) were selling out every game and making money from it. Countries with big grounds (Surrey Middx etc) were selling out every game and making money from it.
The change should have been to put it in a 4/5/6 week window in the school holidays (have 3 groups rather than 2 to complete the group stages quicker). Have T20 finals day at the Olympic stadium. Allow one extra overseas player for the tourmant but make them top class overseas players nt the likes of Ravi Rampaul who is past it but gets in via Kolpak.
You can market that however you want.
The tournament needs to be compressed, but the public need fewer games that they would have to shell out for in a shortened period and must be in school holidays with emphasis on family tickets.
argumentdiscussion ?PS - great to hear you are coming to Belgium - lets make sure we meet up there - no doubt we will.
Yes! Excited for it. I'll wear a name badge and go around around asking everyone if they're the president. I'm sure some smart arse will reply with 'do I look like Roland?'
shame you cant make the overnighter ( could be achieved considering the special sponsor funding youve received), as St Truiden is quite a craic - most of the B20 are going out early on Friday and spending 2 nights there - then again, we obviously knew this was all coming up and got in early!.
The generosity of our fans humbles me to this day - we are an amazing bunch.
For example how can the proposed EIGHT team EPL have more teams and more grounds than the EIGHT team Big Bash ??
Also, how can 'less spread out' make it 'less accessible' - makes no sense whatsoever.
Canters is a good guy and he knows his cricket, and it may be pre exam nerves, but a lot of what he says about Franchise cricket in that article simply is a load of bollox. I'll have to beat him to a pulp in Belgium and get him to write some sense.
In England reducing it to 8 franchises makes it less teams, less games played, less accessible to cricket fans.
With English cricket. We will be moving from 18 teams to 8. That's ten less teams and a lot less games. Ano 10 less grounds therefore there will be no cricket at canterbury/beckenham/Cheltenham/Hove etc etc. So for many people they would have to travel further to get to grounds. That makes it less accessible.
Does that make sense now? I appreciate you may disagree with the argument but surely you can recognise it is an argument?!
you know my view, tbh, its a case of do we want to stay lidl ol England, in the same way that i agree with a move to the peninsular as i dont want to stay lidl ol Charlton- we have to progress and move forward - else we are dead ducks being lined up- we cant continue in the way we are now.
What do you think of that?!
I want to see Rabada coming in to bowl at Jason Roy and then ABDV coming in at no 3- and then Ben Stokes smashing Steyn all over the place.
As long as they keep it on terrestrial telly and keep the county format as well I'm happy
Unfortunately, Sky/BT have the big bucks.
I also think our tournament should coincide with an international break so all our internationals can play every game.
If English players have a weakness, it's in foreign conditions, and reducing this to 8 teams makes no difference
All of the big bash games here, are intense and highly competitve - if you don't perform you are out.
Sangakarra was dropped by his team this year, and he was by no means the only high profile casualty.
When you keep a competition like the BBL to eight teams, it means that they all have air and space to form their own identities, and young fans can connect easily to the best players etc.
I don't have an answer for you on how you solve the regionality problem, but I can tell you that the BBL over here is great fun, and that is coming from someone for whom test cricket is a very special thing indeed.
I'm a Kent fan, maybe I'll die out with my team?
If the cricket powers pursue this new tournament, in a chase for money, they will come unstuck.