Three nations plan an answer to the IPL

[NZTailender]

You want to see international cricket become like international football - one game every couple of months in between domestic commitments?

Not to mention all international cricket being Twenty20 because that's all anyone is playing domestically?

Don't put words into my mouth Richard. Where did I say that?

For a long time I've wanted something similar to the Super 14 in terms of different nations domestic teams competing together.

Despite a lot of talk Australia is not going to let NZ compete in the regular Aussie domestic tournament, so this is a way for that type of competition to work.

And considering the amount of T20s being played, T20Is hasn't increased that much. And as it stands I think there is too many tests being played as it is, to that the point a lot of them seem meaningless.
I think 5 home tests in a summer and 5 away tests in winter is plenty, which should leave enough time for IPL-esque leagues inbetween tours.

 

[Richard]

Meh, 2 series' per year's nowhere near enough IMO. I'd be starved of Tests under such circumstances.

I want 4 personally, 3 minimum, and feel that anything less is too little.

I have no interest in Twenty20, even domestic Twenty20, and to see it be played more regularly than Tests would be a travesty to me.

 

[G.I.Joe]

What the hell is wrong with England, Australia, SA and NZ?

Its one thing having one Twenty20 league. Why have two in the same year? Get rid of one of them like India did.

 

[Indipper]

Seems like a cricketing version of the Super 14.

If done correctly, it could be very good for all nations.

Thought the same thing. But isn't Super Rugby in the **** because of travelling costs, TV times and unstoppable New Zealanders? Could be the same here with Australia.

 

[Anil]

sad but inevitable...

 

[aussie]

Bloody hell yo, Do the ICC still run cricket?.

 

[Richard]

No, they never did. ICC has only ever been the sum of its parts, which are usually fractious.

 

[brockley]

4 franchises in africa 4 in australiasia,kenya,namibia and zimbabwe are chances at getting a franchise.

 

[social]

TV will love it - represents extremely cheap programming costs

Certain players will love it as it will supplement their incomes

Fans - Who the hell wants to watch a match between Cape Town (*insert whatever ridiculous name you can come up with here*) and Sydney (*ditto*)?

And, if they do, why would anyone turn to Sheffield Shield, Ranger Cup or the NZ/SA/ECB equivalent?

Overkill IMO

 

[pup11]

What the hell is wrong with England, Australia, SA and NZ?

Its one thing having one Twenty20 league. Why have two in the same year? Get rid of one of them like India did.

I guess they too won't mind making some money like BCCI are doing atm...

 

[Arjun]

Why can't all these leagues come together for an integrated T20 event? Rather than compete, they can operate together like European or South American football leagues, then finish with a Champions' League.

 

[Redbacks]

Dear England,

 

[masterblaster]

Too much Cricket. This is going to be Overkill. Hate the idea of so many leagues popping up everywhere. Cricket is not the same as Football and it's not meant to be a franchise sport.

Even the IPL got old fast. Cricket to me has always been a sport associated with nationalities and national pride. There's no feeling like supporting your country. I felt a certain emptyness watching IPL and trying to support Delhi Daredevils or Bangalore Royal Challengers or Mumbai Indians.

If Shane Warne is playing for my team and bowling to Sachin Tendulkar, I'd still want Tendulkar to smash him all over the park.

But hey, that's just me.

 

[Precambrian]

Too much Cricket. This is going to be Overkill. Hate the idea of so many leagues popping up everywhere. Cricket is not the same as Football and it's not meant to be a franchise sport.

Even the IPL got old fast. Cricket to me has always been a sport associated with nationalities and national pride. There's no feeling like supporting your country. I felt a certain emptyness watching IPL and trying to support Delhi Daredevils or Bangalore Royal Challengers or Mumbai Indians.

If Shane Warne is playing for my team and bowling to Sachin Tendulkar, I'd still want Tendulkar to smash him all over the park.

But hey, that's just me.

No mate, I too think like that. Sad Tendulkar-Warne face-off didnt happen last year. The first match, Sachin didnt play. The second one, he got out soon before Warney came in iirc. Yeah, my support for Mumbai Indians is purely out of the fact that Tendulkar plays for it. People who subscribed to a particular team because of the stars in it, will have a tough time keeping their loyalty due to frequent shufffling of players owing to transfer.

 

[Redbacks]

What a great story to tell the grandkids in the future about the history of a team.

"Well businessmen ,some who don't even care about the game, saw an opportunity to make big $$ by building a fanchise and hoping to sell at a big profit in the future, it wasn't the collective will of a community like most clubs"

sounds a bit like the EPL at the moment

 

[Arjun]

Too much Cricket. This is going to be Overkill. Hate the idea of so many leagues popping up everywhere. Cricket is not the same as Football and it's not meant to be a franchise sport.

Even the IPL got old fast. Cricket to me has always been a sport associated with nationalities and national pride. There's no feeling like supporting your country. I felt a certain emptyness watching IPL and trying to support Delhi Daredevils or Bangalore Royal Challengers or Mumbai Indians.

If Shane Warne is playing for my team and bowling to Sachin Tendulkar, I'd still want Tendulkar to smash him all over the park.

But hey, that's just me.

While there surely is too much cricket, it's caused when there are so many leagues competing with each other for more or less the same players. When we have these leagues operating together rather than independently, we'll see the same players playing a lot less, as it's only one team they'll play for, not more than one, like one per league.

While franchise ownership is a touchy issue, cricket needs to move away from the national pride that exists. That's doing far more damage to the game than good. People just don't enjoy the game anymore; they root only for their country, and that was mentioned by many columnists, from Shashi Tharoor to Sir Viv Richards. Just recently, Michael Clarke scored a 50 but there were no cheers, and he had to force the issue by hitting a four just a little later. That's diametrically opposite to Kolkatans wildly cheering Shoaib Akhtar as he got Sehwag out cheaply and blitzed through the Delhi team.

While there is a feeling of emptiness to some watching Delhi Daredevils against Mumbai Indians, there's a lot less tension to some others. You don't break down and shut shop when one team loses; you just enjoy the game. Frankly, this congregation of cricketing greats for a league of teams owned by franchises would be a lot better than the numerous ODI tournaments played for Pepsi rather than national pride, with no great cricket on show.

While I'd still love to see Tendulkar smash Warne or Lee around the park, I'd still love to have at least one of them in my team. They can't play for India, so at least they'll play for a franchise I support.

 

[Richard]

While franchise ownership is a touchy issue, cricket needs to move away from the national pride that exists.

Not sure about that. Cricket is founded along traditional country\agglomeration-of-countries-vs-country\agglomeration-of-countries lines - the most important part of the game has always been international cricket.

I'd be disappointed to see that changed. There just doesn't seem any good reason to do such a thing.

 

[Arjun]

Not sure about that. Cricket is founded along traditional country\agglomeration-of-countries-vs-country\agglomeration-of-countries lines - the most important part of the game has always been international cricket.

I'd be disappointed to see that changed. There just doesn't seem any good reason to do such a thing.

That's been the problem. This is why we don't see visiting teams cheered when they do well in most places, except in England.

People don't enjoy the game so much, and that isn't a good thing. Bodyline is still fresh in memories, and that was long before Indo-Pak cricket rivalry.

When you have teams comprising players of different countries, fans can finally cheer their favourite players, irrespective of which country they're from. Without any pressure. So Indian fans can cheer Shaun Pollock or Brett Lee, as they now play for their team of choice, so they can relate to them a lot better. Of course, it's more an opinion of someone who always wanted Shaun Pollock and/or Brett Lee in a team of choice, but such ventures make it possible.

While it's still a country-against-country idea to many, the state-against-state or city-against-city rivalry is a lot more fun, and less stressful. And a lot more interesting than those silly exhibition ODI tournaments. The IPL, I'd say, was a lot better than that plywood-sponsored stupidity that followed, and the cricket played there indicated hardly any national pride on show. The two forms can surely co-exist- maybe not so much these T20 leagues, but an integrated domestic circuit across different countries.

 

[Richard]

That's been the problem. This is why we don't see visiting teams cheered when they do well in most places, except in England.

I think this is far more to do with a problem of attitudes, rather than there being anything intrinsically wrong with the basic premise of international cricket.

When you have teams comprising players of different countries, fans can finally cheer their favourite players, irrespective of which country they're from.

Well I myself tend to do that anyway, and TBH I think if others don't it's their loss.

 

[Precambrian]

While there surely is too much cricket, it's caused when there are so many leagues competing with each other for more or less the same players. When we have these leagues operating together rather than independently, we'll see the same players playing a lot less, as it's only one team they'll play for, not more than one, like one per league.

While franchise ownership is a touchy issue, cricket needs to move away from the national pride that exists. That's doing far more damage to the game than good. People just don't enjoy the game anymore; they root only for their country, and that was mentioned by many columnists, from Shashi Tharoor to Sir Viv Richards. Just recently, Michael Clarke scored a 50 but there were no cheers, and he had to force the issue by hitting a four just a little later. That's diametrically opposite to Kolkatans wildly cheering Shoaib Akhtar as he got Sehwag out cheaply and blitzed through the Delhi team.

While there is a feeling of emptiness to some watching Delhi Daredevils against Mumbai Indians, there's a lot less tension to some others. You don't break down and shut shop when one team loses; you just enjoy the game. Frankly, this congregation of cricketing greats for a league of teams owned by franchises would be a lot better than the numerous ODI tournaments played for Pepsi rather than national pride, with no great cricket on show.

While I'd still love to see Tendulkar smash Warne or Lee around the park, I'd still love to have at least one of them in my team. They can't play for India, so at least they'll play for a franchise I support.

Good points but I tend to disagree with the overall tone.

International Test Cricket is supposed to be the toughest form of cricket. It involves ultimate test of skill, temperament, and stamina. So, representing one's own national teams mean the ultimate scenario, because, unlike in the case of club-based competition, here there are no second chances. If you perform a bit badly in a top club, you may get transferred to a weaker one, and still play at the same level. But in Test cricket, you perform badly and you're dropped, then you've to toil hard in the First class level to come back again.

So, it's the ultimate challenge for a sportsperson, and involves playing in difficult conditions, including places where crowd support is next to zero. And that is when you become completely "rounded" as a cricketer. Like in life, in test cricket also you have to expect the worst and experience the best.

I am not against Club cricket. It is just that, entertainment. And do not mind it as long as it does not affect test cricket. It may eat up the ODIs. Test cricket, as Kevin Peitersen said, "Is what seperates men from the boys".

And again, take the example of football. Even though EPL attracts humoungous attention, it never can emulate a World Cup in terms of passion, viewership and following. It offers a chance to re-identify ourselves with our nation-states, and be proud of it.