• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

T20 Franchises won't work in England

BoyBrumby

Englishman
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.)
As I understand it the SL franchises are awarded for a set period (might be three years from memory, but CBA to check) and are then reviewed dependent on financial viability, attendances, performances, etc after it expires. But you are right in that the franchises will be awarded to (mostly) existing clubs with long histories.

Clarke may have a point about us being resistant to flagrantly created confections, but if we are to compete with (or even aspire to come within a million miles of) the IPL tough decisions will have to be made. I don't think the city-based idea was ever a serious one, so the existing 18 counties must be trimmed, if only for the purposes of this proposed 2020 comp. That will come either through a process of natural selection of the more profitable and populous counties or through mergers.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Could have an EPL based around promotion and relegation, with lower divisions. Just a thought.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Clarke may have a point about us being resistant to flagrantly created confections, but if we are to compete with (or even aspire to come within a million miles of) the IPL tough decisions will have to be made.
1, we don't need to compete.
2, the IPL isn't something in competition with English cricket anyway.
3, "taking tough decisions" isn't generally equable with "making decisons which are likely to cost millions and make little gain". There's no point creating something which the fans don't want.

(I would have phrased these as questions but there's no point addressing questions to someone who won't read them, so I phase them as statements directed at the forum not questions at the poster)
 

Magrat Garlick

Global Moderator
Could have an EPL based around promotion and relegation, with lower divisions. Just a thought.
It would essentially require the top division to get 6-7 times the income of the bottom division though (in order to pay them enough), which would only lead to elevator systems.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Could have an EPL based around promotion and relegation, with lower divisions. Just a thought.
It's possible, I guess, but that brings its own set of problems: the clubs in the lower reaches will aspire to promotion so will be looking to sign the talent that will get them there, meaning (potentially at least) that not all the best players would be in the top division.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
I think those who are claiming that all teams must start from somewhere and therefore the traditions argument is flawed are mistaken. English football clubs developed in the late 19th century when organised sport took off. They did not have to replace anything and were therefore original.

Twenty20 franchises won't work in England, because people will only support a team that they have a link to. I wouldn't support any English side but Lancashire (Cheshire, perhaps, in a game between the two).
Not quite sure who I would support between Cheshire and Lancs tbh. Geographically, I was born in the old Cheshire boundaries so I guess I'd go that way, but something I've always resented is people from Liverpool telling me I live in Cheshire because I have a CH postcode, it's short for Chester FFS. Don't quite know what the relevance is actually, but I see myself as from Merseyside (steds would give me some remark here I am sure).

That was some ramble, anyway, you have got me thinking JJ
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
It's possible, I guess, but that brings its own set of problems: the clubs in the lower reaches will aspire to promotion so will be looking to sign the talent that will get them there, meaning (potentially at least) that not all the best players would be in the top division.
Easy solution.

Allow 4 overseas in Div 1 and only 2 (or 1) in Div 2.

Makes Div 1 a very good standard, stops Div 2 teams investing in short term foreign solutions, guarantees places for English cricketers and forces clubs to develop local tatent.

Everyone is a winner. High standard and good product at the top and a solid English based foundation.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Easy solution.

Allow 4 overseas in Div 1 and only 2 (or 1) in Div 2.

Makes Div 1 a very good standard, stops Div 2 teams investing in short term foreign solutions, guarantees places for English cricketers and forces clubs to develop local tatent.

Everyone is a winner. High standard and good product at the top and a solid English based foundation.
Would work for overseas players who're actually classed as overseas, but as we've seen the EU employment laws guarantee the same rights to any EU citizen or any national of a country with a trade agreement with the EU. I genuinely think promotion & relegation promotes short-termism in cricket & the experienced pro who doesn't count as overseas in the ultimate quick-fix.

No, a reduction in numbers would be the way I'd go.
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
The more I think about this, the more I think that it is all about finding the right solution for yourself and needs of your country. India, Sri Lanka and South Africa needed a franchise type system for domestic cricket to take off in any way. Hardly anyone cares about Ranji or PL in India or Sri Lanka.

If a domestic players goes well there and then the common line, "It is poor standard domestic competition, he just minnow basher comes through." The fact that performances by say Mendis and Agarkar for example in the franchise competition have put them in the selectors minds says something about the need for these competition in those countries.

Mendis for example was preforming at a similar level and probably better level (stats wise) for his domestic club SL Army. But wasn't even talked about as International bowler until his performances in the provincial (franchise) competition.

South Africa I'm not 100% sure about the situation there. I think a lot hard to do with some poor players were playing in the major FC competition and the fact the competition was becoming stale, was the main reasons for change. South Africa is also an example of how it probably hasn't been a complete success. But a lot of that has to do with Kolplax.

With regard to England though. When I first saw this in the media, I personally thought it was just a me too thing. India done well with franchises and a new Twenty20 format, maybe we should cash in as well. But realistical it not going to work in England. As the major problem ATM is probably the lack of chances for young English players. If you cut teams down to six, even just for Twenty20 and allow 4 overseas players. Likely not to include Kolpax and European qualified players. You will just end of with sides with only a couple English players.

But in saying all that there needs to be change to Twenty20 format. As it is already out dated and if they want to do more then just make up the number in Champions League, then there does need to some changes. A divisional structure, rather then groups and more Twenty20 specialist overseas players is probably a start.

I also think Australia need to consider allowing overseas players to play in Australian Twenty20 KFC Cup as well. The India sides will wipe the floor with that tournment unless Australia, South Africa and England allow some/more overseas players into their sides.
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
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.
How could merging minor counties with first-class counties help?
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Because then all areas of the country are represented, rather than there being "on" and "off" areas.

"Somerset and Dorset" would be so much better than those from Dorset having to "move" to Somerset to represent their team.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
It would indeed probably have to be. Whether Devon and Cornwall combined would make a team the strength of a First-Class county, however, I don't know. They might.
 

Top