The Big Bash: Can Cricket Cash In?

[fredfertang]

The Big Bash: Can Cricket Cash In?

In the wake of the success of enoyed by Australia's Big Bash CricketWeb's Cameron Burge asks the inevitable question.

[GingerFurball]

How successful are we talking?

I was a pretty big skeptic before the competition started; I haven't paid much attention to the competition, aside from knowing that the Perth Scorchers reached the final, losing to one of the Sydney sides, because it's clashed with Test cricket and no TV channel in the UK picked up the rights, which was a shame because I was looking forward to supporting the Perth Scorchers if I happened to catch some games.

[Burgey]

There were usually more than 15K people at the matches, plus it was live on Yatesyvision. it was pretty bloody popular for an Australian domestic comp. Some matches had really big crowds. I think it was a bigger success than CA thought it would be.

[BoyBrumby]

Interesting read. "Connect": is the Burgemeister outed as an EM Forster fan?

One thing tho, it appears under fred's byline at the top? Shome mishtake shurely?

[Burgey]

I was playing Connect Four with the twins.....

[uvelocity]

People have low attention spans, I think if CA marketed domestic cricket and even tests & ODI's as aggressively as they did with the bigbash there would be an increase in crowds across the board.

Also one thing which has bugged me in the past is the fun police at the cricket, whereas the fun seemed to be a large focus for the bigbash.

[Jono]

Was the BBL more of a success, in terms of ratings, attendance and obviously ultimately monetary value, than the regular state-team Big Bash?

I imagine with Warney playing it would have been, but am curious if this can be confirmed.

[James]

One of the things I wondered was, with the League, Union, Soccer, Basketball and probably other sports as well containing NZ team(s) in the Aussie competition. In the next few years how likely would it be before we see NZ teams or even SA teams playing a domestic style cricket series?

[TNT]

I thought the article didnt really have a good understanding of how cricket works. CA started the BBL and its up to the relevent cricket states to capitalise on the interest.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by TNT

I thought the article didnt really have a good understanding of how cricket works. CA started the BBL and its up to the relevent cricket states to capitalise on the interest.

Yes, I agree. After CA starting a non-State based league which was a roaring success, the various State bodies are the ones who are responsible for ensuring the success is transformed into burgeoning Shield crowds of about 50 per day, instead of the 25 we get now.

[Crazy Sam]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Yes, I agree. After CA starting a non-State based league which was a roaring success, the various State bodies are the ones who are responsible for ensuring the success is transformed into burgeoning Shield crowds of about 50 per day, instead of the 25 we get now.

They could do this now if the grounds allowed people to bring their pets in.

[TNT]

If you wanted to increase the amount of people going to sheild matches then the obvious changes would be to reduce the match to 20 overs per team with single innings, limit bowlers to 4 overs each, quicken up the match to 15 overs per hour, play lots of loud music, have lots of crown interacting gimmicks, start the match in the early afternoon.

Other than that I dont see how you can expect spectators to watch a 20/20 match and then think it would be fun to go and watch a whole day of cricket and only see half of one innings. Its not so much that 20/20 is so popular its just that four day games are not very interesting and spectators dont want to watch them no matter how much you tell the spectators that its the purest form of cricket.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by TNT

If you wanted to increase the amount of people going to sheild matches then the obvious changes would be to reduce the match to 20 overs per team with single innings, limit bowlers to 4 overs each, quicken up the match to 15 overs per hour, play lots of loud music, have lots of crown interacting gimmicks, start the match in the early afternoon.

Other than that I dont see how you can expect spectators to watch a 20/20 match and then think it would be fun to go and watch a whole day of cricket and only see half of one innings. Its not so much that 20/20 is so popular its just that four day games are not very interesting and spectators dont want to watch them no matter how much you tell the spectators that its the purest form of cricket.

*Sigh*

So just give up on it then? You don't need a crowd the size of those at the BBL to make the Shield a success. The issue isn't just the Shield either. Junior cricket numbers are down, there are less people playing it. You have a new format of the game which has been a success. The issue is whether it's possible to turn that support into greater interest in playing the game and supporting it in general.

Or whether you just give up.

[Crazy Sam]

Shield cricket will never have big crowds again with the unavailability of the Aussie players to play most of it. I think people still care about it and follow the scores but certainly not enough to want to go to a day of it.

BBL is where it's at for domestic cricket crowds in Australia - and does it really matter if it's only the one format that gets big crowds, so long as the internationals are still well-supported?

[uvelocity]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Junior cricket numbers are down, there are less people playing it.

Numbers up here at all time highs ftr

probably due to smart cookies escaping (or rather moving) the ratrace.