Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 68

Thread: T20 Franchises won't work in England

  1. #16
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    still scratching around in the same old hole
    Posts
    15,676
    Quote Originally Posted by social View Post
    If Mick Jagger bought the London franchise and you had a similar no. of stars to the IPL (doubtful), ground would be packed with people who'd ordinarily spend their Tuesday night in the boozer
    Im not so sure. It would have a whiff of exhibition game to it.

    Ive nothing against Franchise sport but there is a cultural context and its not the format that the British public wants or respects.

    Even something like County cricket moved to promotion and relegation. Franchise sport cant really support this system which has such cultural importance in all other important British sports.
    Last edited by Goughy; 30-04-2008 at 06:50 AM.
    If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there will be edits

    West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma

  2. #17
    Hall of Fame Member social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    16,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Well - they might be.

    However, one would have a better idea about this if they'd undertaken market-research. Which the ECB did a few years ago. I doubt you did, however.
    Market research for 20/20 undertaken "a few years ago" is ancient history

  3. #18
    Hall of Fame Member duffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Hydrobad
    Posts
    15,956
    Quote Originally Posted by howardj View Post
    Why not? I bet the English (like cricket lovers the world over) yearn for a game between great franchises (or entities/conglomerates) like the South London Super Zebras versus the South West London Super Rhinos. Matches where we can have 15 metre boundaries; sixes every second ball (instead of every third ball, which I find too little). And fortnightly trades and auctions, so we don't get bored watching the same players (or units, as I like to call them) playing for the same franchises. You know, mix and match, bells and whistles.

    Get on board. The way of the future.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    True, a Duffer "heh" is like 50 likes.

  4. #19
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Gone too soon
    Posts
    47,096
    Interesting to read Clarke suggest that franchise sport has never been a success in Britain; the Super League goes over to franchises from next season, so rugby league is banking on him being mistaken. The owners of the bigger clubs in the rugby union Premiership have been angling for it for a good few years too.

    What Clarke means is that it isn't the way it's done in association football, but footy's so far ahead of cricket in terms of spectator & television appeal as to be useless as a comparison. Cricket has effectively had franchises since the county championship's inception; they were just called "counties" back then. The FC game is a closed shop, albeit one that's rather too unwieldy with 18 teams.

    I can see why counties would be anti any, er, streamlining of their ranks (turkeys not voting for Xmas & all), but I think a reduction is not just desirable but inevitable. I'd feel desperately sorry for the fans of the counties who did get the chop, but in other sports some proud old names have been merged or gone to the wall too.
    Cricket Web's current Premier League Tipping Champion

    - As featured in The Independent.

    "Ben Stokes, that most unlikely saint, worked the second of the two miracles he needs for his canonisation." - The Guardian's Andy Bell on the England all-rounder's Headingley ton


  5. #20
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    still scratching around in the same old hole
    Posts
    15,676
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    I can see why counties would be anti any, er, streamlining of their ranks (turkeys not voting for Xmas & all), but I think a reduction is not just desirable but inevitable. I'd feel desperately sorry for the fans of the counties who did get the chop, but in other sports some proud old names have been merged or gone to the wall too.
    The interesting thing is that we already know which teams would go. The controversy would be over whether to start the process rather than which Counties do not become a Franchise.

    Maybe its bad for the game at the moment with such obvious differences in size, strength and infrastructure between certain counties. Maybe the fat needs to be trimmed.

    If the number of County teams were to be halved then this would be my 9 and the 9 that would lose the 'franchise'.

    Kept
    Durham
    Glamorgan
    Hampshire
    Lancashire
    Middlesex
    Nottinghamshire
    Surrey
    Warwickshire
    Yorkshire

    I kept these 9 due to a number of factors. Firstly geographical location (3 Southern, 3 Central and 3 Northern), their facilities (Test ground and new stadia), their historical links and success in cricket, and being based at or around large population centers etc. The only really debatable one IMO is Glamorgan, though I do conceed that there are only 2 that should be guaranteed a place (Middlesex- Lords and history and Yorkshire- History, success and player production).

    Gone
    Worcestershire
    Sussex
    Somerset
    Leicestershire
    Kent
    Northamptonshire
    Gloucestershire
    Derbyshire
    Essex

    Of this lsit I think a case could be made for Sussex (great recent record), Essex (done well over past 25 years and produced a number of quality English cricketers) and Kent (great history and possible wealthy demographics) fighting to take the place off Glamorgan in the 'Kept' group.

    Im sure not everyone would agree though
    Last edited by Goughy; 01-05-2008 at 05:56 AM.

  6. #21
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by social View Post
    Market research for 20/20 undertaken "a few years ago" is ancient history
    It's not ancient history. It may be outdated, but the only way to find that out would be to undertake some more. Not make assumptions based on happenings several thousand miles away.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  7. #22
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughy View Post
    The interesting thing is that we already know which teams would go. The controversy would be over whether to start the process rather than which Counties do not become a Franchise.

    Maybe its bad for the game at the moment with such obvious differences in size, strength and infrastructure between certain counties. Maybe the fat needs to be trimmed.

    If the number of County teams were to be halved then this would be my 9 and the 9 that would lose the 'franchise'.

    Kept
    Durham
    Glamorgan
    Hampshire
    Lancashire
    Middlesex
    Nottinghamshire
    Surrey
    Warwickshire
    Yorkshire

    I kept these 9 due to a number of factors. Firstly geographical location (3 Southern, 3 Central and 3 Northern), their facilities (Test ground and new stadia), their historical links and success in cricket, and being based at or around large population centers etc. The only really debatable one IMO is Glamorgan, though I do conceed that there are only 2 that should be guaranteed a place (Middlesex- Lords and history and Yorkshire- History, success and player production).

    Gone
    Worcestershire
    Sussex
    Somerset
    Leicestershire
    Kent
    Northamptonshire
    Gloucestershire
    Derbyshire
    Essex

    Of this lsit I think a case could be made for Sussex (great recent record), Essex (done well over past 25 years and produced a number of quality English cricketers) and Kent (great history and possible wealthy demographics) fighting to take the place off Glamorgan in the 'Kept' group.

    Im sure not everyone would agree though
    Personally I'd simply prefer mergers between First-Class and "Minor" (Second-Class) counties.

  8. #23
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    40,024
    So how many people attend county games? Isn't it a bit rich to say that franchise system won't work when, as I understand it, county games are mostly empty anyway.


    So at the very worst, it would be equally ineffective. That's one of the reasons India went with franchises and not the Ranji model. No one in India gives a crap about attending Ranji games, so there is almost no loyalty there.
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis View Post
    Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball
    "The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
    -My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with

    How the Universe came from nothing

  9. #24
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    still scratching around in the same old hole
    Posts
    15,676
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    So how many people attend county games? Isn't it a bit rich to say that franchise system won't work when, as I understand it, county games are mostly empty anyway.


    So at the very worst, it would be equally ineffective. That's one of the reasons India went with franchises and not the Ranji model. No one in India gives a crap about attending Ranji games, so there is almost no loyalty there.
    Im assuming you are talking about FC? as T20 gets very good crowds.

    If you are talking FC then its far too much history to give up and the crowds wouldnt be any better as everyone that isnt old or a student generally has a job to attend during the hrs of play.

  10. #25
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Gone too soon
    Posts
    47,096
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    So how many people attend county games? Isn't it a bit rich to say that franchise system won't work when, as I understand it, county games are mostly empty anyway.


    So at the very worst, it would be equally ineffective. That's one of the reasons India went with franchises and not the Ranji model. No one in India gives a crap about attending Ranji games, so there is almost no loyalty there.
    The County Championship is like the Loch Ness Monster: often talked about; rarely seen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goughy View Post
    Im assuming you are talking about FC? as T20 gets very good crowds.

    If you are talking FC then its far too much history to give up and the crowds wouldnt be any better as everyone that isnt old or a student generally has a job to attend during the hrs of play.
    I'd disagree slightly there. The CC suffers from a surfeit of games having to be crammed into our (poxy) summer. If there were fewer games more could be played over the weekends (Thurs-Sun or Fri-Mon, say) so might attract higher audiences. Obviously you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but I think measures can be taken to improve attendances.

    The old (football) first division had a longer history than the CC, but was replaced by the Premier League all the same & I don't think too many would argue that it hasn't been a success.

  11. #26
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    still scratching around in the same old hole
    Posts
    15,676
    An interesting perspective.

    Quote Originally Posted by University of Nottingham Economists
    The researchers found that average attendance at Division 1 County Championship matches is more than 4,000. Attendance at National League games is just under 3,000. Professor Paton, Head of Industrial Economics at Nottingham University Business School, said: "These attendances are achieved despite games being played mainly on weekdays during the daytime (when most supporters of county cricket are at work or school), in variable weather, scheduled against test matches and other high-profile sporting events, with no TV coverage and with little or no marketing. The interesting question for us is how on earth do the counties manage to attract so many people through the gates?
    http://research.nottingham.ac.uk/New...lay.aspx?id=45

    Im not sure what value to place on it but its refreshing to read a different point of view than the normal 'CC is doomed and noone cares'

  12. #27
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    So how many people attend county games?
    A few hundred more than attend domestic-First-Class cricket anywhere else in The World - in other words, a few hundred rather than zero. This varies, of course, from fixture to fixture and for a multitude of reasons - as shown above, the average is as many as 1,000 per day.

    Domestic-First-Class cricket is not, cannot and will never again be a major spectator sport. Its purpose is to develop Test cricketers.

    That is not to say that two centuries' worth of tradition should be scrapped without a moment's look-back, as those who advocate less top-level teams in this country are so keen on. 18 (17 until very recently) counties has served the game in this country perfectly well, producing plenty of Test cricketers of calibre, for many decades now. There's really no need to change the number of teams, the best ways to raise standards are other methods. Reducing the number of games primary amongst them. Mergers between First-Class and Minor counties another.

    Too many people, to use Matthew Engel's phraseology, "flail around desperately trying to find the alchemist's formula for English cricket". So many people seem to think there is a "magic bullet", something you can do that will instantaneously flick a switch and make things irresistably better. The truth is, you can raise standards only by doing smaller, more subtle things, but for those simplistic of mind this is not enough. The other truth that cannot and will never change is that there's a limit to what you can do. You cannot create or artificially modify a cricket culture. Only those who want to play the game will do so.

    For those who cannot accept these realities, trying to find the alchemist's formula by reducing teams seems an appealing prospect.

  13. #28
    rather mad Norwegian Magrat Garlick's Avatar
    Defend Your Castle Champion! Monkey Diving Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    East Holland
    Posts
    26,434
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    Interesting to read Clarke suggest that franchise sport has never been a success in Britain; the Super League goes over to franchises from next season, so rugby league is banking on him being mistaken. The owners of the bigger clubs in the rugby union Premiership have been angling for it for a good few years too.
    I think your opinion of what "franchises" means slightly differs from Clarke's. He's probably thinking about creating a league from scratch, with team names and assignments that have no connections in history, which you can't really say about the Super League. If your definition is merely closed-shop, which seems to be your definition, you might argue that English football was a "franchise" exercise until 1992, what with there being no relegation from the Fourth Division. (Yes, there was a possibility to be "elected" to the league, but presumably this would still exist in the Super League - especially from teams outside the heartland.)
    A follower of the schools of Machiavelli, Bentham, Locke, Hobbes, Sutcliffe, Bradman, Lindwall, Miller, Hassett, Benaud and Thunberg

    I had a glimpse of Eureka
    Chewing me up, chewing me up and spitting me out

    -jected, I was rejected
    I wasn't good enough to be elected
    Lava, it was like lava
    Moving through my body like fire

  14. #29
    Norwood's on Fire GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    League One
    Posts
    60,545
    Promotion to the league started in 87 tbh, trust me on that

    Yeah, new teams from scratch wouldn't work, agree with Goughy that culturally it wouldn't be a success in England, MK Dons are so reviled it's untrue.

    My main concern was the talk of city cricket. If Lancashire were rebranded Manchester for an EPL, there goes my support, and anyone else this side of the East Lancs. Same for Pitt if Hampshire were renamed Southampton (though actually I think he supports Somerset), folk from Swansea if Glamorgan's team were Cardiff etc etc etc

    Quote Originally Posted by Axl Rose
    The internet is a big garbage can


    RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.

  15. #30
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Pitt's at Uni in Southampton, and doesn't support Hampshire.

    Have always said inter-city cricket in this country would be possibly the most stupid idea anyone has ever come-up with. The supposed benefits would in all likelihood not materialise and while the losses wouldn't exactly be collossal, they'd certaily be there, and there's no point in making a loss for a small chance of a gain.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. England Now vs England in late 1990's
    By ozone in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 26-01-2008, 03:11 PM
  2. England in 1990 vs England in 2006
    By aussie in forum 2006 Football World Cup - Germany
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10-05-2006, 12:56 PM
  3. North of England v South of England
    By Scaly piscine in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 01-08-2005, 04:53 AM
  4. where do you work ?
    By sledger in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 29-06-2005, 04:17 AM
  5. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 17-11-2002, 11:07 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •