T20 Franchises won't work in England

[Richard]

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 It may be outdated, but the only way to find that out would be to undertake some more.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.

 

[Richard]

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.

 

[silentstriker]

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.

 

[Goughy]

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.

 

[BoyBrumby]

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.

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.

 

[Goughy]

An interesting perspective.

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/NewsReviews/newsDisplay.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'

 

[Richard]

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.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

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.)

 

[GIMH]

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

 

[Richard]

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.

 

[GIMH]

Supports Portsmouth in footy though

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

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).

 

[Richard]

Supports Portsmouth in footy though

I know - and I also know why, but I've forgotten.

*Goes to check MSN history*

 

[Magrat Garlick]

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. People here are very wary of supporting a side they have little traditional link to. I wouldn't support anyone but Lancashire.

Second paragraph contradicting the first here?

 

[GIMH]

I know - and I also know why, but I've forgotten.

*Goes to check MSN history*

His Dad IIRC

 

[GIMH]

Second paragraph contradicting the first here?

I thought that at first, but what he is saying is that those who state the traditions argument is flawed are mistaken rather than the argument itself being flawed.

 

[Richard]

Second paragraph contradicting the first here?

Don't think so. Think George was saying the exact same thing in both. A slightly confusing double-neg in there tho, of course.

 

[Richard]

His Dad IIRC

I thought that at first, but what he is saying is that those who state the traditions argument is flawed are mistaken rather than the argument itself being flawed.

How on Earth did you manage to make 2 posts in the time it took me to make my one-liner above?

 

[GIMH]

I'm that damn good

 

[Jamee999]

I'd be mighty annoyed if we got merged with Nottinghamshire or Warwickshire or Derbyshire.