When the ECB launched the Twenty20 Cup in 2003 the stated aim was to widen the appeal of county cricket, and introduce supporters to the county sides who could go on to support them in the more traditional formats. The other incentive was to safeguard the financial futures of the counties, by creating the opportunity to host full houses in a prime-time after work slot on warm June evenings. As an infant expectations were not only matched but surpassed - almost every game was sold out in those initial years, and the numbers of families in attendance was significantly higher than at other forms of the game. But in recent seasons Twenty20 has reached its adolescent stage. It asserts its independence by flexing its muscles in India, Bangladesh and Australia. And, back at home, those that adored it as a baby are less interested than they were before.
All this has led to a flurry of suggestions from players as highly respected as Muttiah Muralitharan, Scott Styris, Dirk Nannes and the number two Twenty20 batsman in the world Eoin Morgan that our Friends Life t20 is falling behind franchise-based competitions such as the Indian and Bangladesh Premier Leagues and Australia’s Big Bash. The answer, they say, is that we must follow their lead and implement a franchise-based system in the UK. I say that, as well as being unworkable, franchises would in fact be disastrous for English cricket.
The first reason for my position is that a franchise based system would undoubtedly go against the stated aim of English Twenty20 - to rejuvenate county cricket. Some interest might actually be created in the Manchester Mavericks, or the Leeds Leopards, at least whilst the novelty lasts. But what is to say that young supporters of those teams will go on to follow Lancashire and Yorkshire in the Championship? We are not India where the Ranji Trophy is attended by practically none and followed by few more - the County Championship has a stronger following than any other domestic first-class competition, and we must not let anything threaten that. The dominance of franchise cricket could easily do just that, creating the impression that county cricket is second class and driving those newspapers that still cover the Championship away.
Additionally, a franchise system would be sure to centre around our major international venues - the likes of The Oval, Headingley and Trent Bridge. The management at these venues would love a franchise system, to create more major match days, and perhaps bring in more income than the existing competition. But that fails to recognise that Surrey, who brought in an astounding 82,843 for Twenty20 group games last year aside, the counties to make the best success of Twenty20 have been the smaller ones - in particular Somerset, Essex and Sussex. Under a franchise system all three counties would almost certainly be sidelined, and even were a second T20 competition introduced to keep the clubs sweet, it is doubtful that attendances could be maintained. The end of T20 cricket as we know it would almost certainly be disastrous for these counties - the primary income stream would be cut off, and financial turmoil would be the likely result. Even were hefty compensation provided by the ECB, along with the chance to host games in the new competition, that would hardly be the way to treat the loyal supporters of those clubs.
The success of Twenty20 in smaller towns also highlights a major difference in our culture from that in the countries some think we should copy. In India, cricket dominates the sporting scene and fans will come from far and wide to see their heroes. That isn’t how things work over here. Cricket has to be taken to the people who, in areas where the county cricket club is at the heart of the local community, will happily take advantage of the opportunity to see top class professional sport. For this reason it might well be an uphill struggle for city based franchises to galvanise local support in areas where international cricket and other sports teams dominate. Mancunians have their sport fix from the two Premier League clubs, and Old Trafford’s international cricket. Domestic cricket will thus always have a niche following their.
A more fundamental reason that franchise cricket will never work in the UK is that it is hard to see who would be willing to put hefty sums of money down to buy a domestic cricket team over here. In India some of the highest profile public figures - from Shah Rukh Khan to Vijay Mallya to Shilpa Shetty - have forked out for IPL teams. But in England the domestic cricket market is narrow, and you have to think that the super-rich would be better off spending their cash on Premier League football clubs than Twenty20 franchises. Certainly, it is unrealistic to imagine Sir Richard Branson, David Beckham and Simon Cowell investing in cricket. Therefore, it is hard to see where the money would come from to lure top Twenty20 players with IPL, or at least Big Bash, style contracts. In fact franchises might be little better off than the counties.
Most pundits seem to agree that we ask too much of our international cricketers these days. It goes without saying that a franchise competition would struggle to work without the presence of Kevin Pietersen, Graeme Swann, James Anderson and all of our other iconic England cricketers. To make itself viable it would have to be contested over at least as many matches as the current Friends Life t20 and probably more, if the Morgan Review’s suggestion of 14 is anything to go by. This would do nothing to ease the schedule, and with international cricket unlikely to be reduced either, it is therefore inconceivable that the England players would be available for more than a couple of games. It would simply be incompatible with the laudable goals of the Strauss-Flower regime to be the best team in the world.
The preceding paragraphs cover the major points, but that is only the tip of the iceberg. Some other factors to consider are that many young (and older) English players would probably be sidelined in a franchise competition, that dumping counties wouldn’t suddenly make AB de Villiers, Lasith Malinga and Chris Gayle available, and that the problems the Friends Life t20 has encountered this year have been accentuated by the weather - something that franchises won’t change.
Of course, we shouldn’t forget that England are both World Twenty20 champions and ranked number one in the world in that form of the game. What we are doing can’t be that wrong then.
As a final thought we should return to the list of players to put their names to wanting franchise cricket in England - Eoin Morgan, Scott Styris, Dirk Nannes, Murali. Three are overseas players, who probably wouldn’t care if Leicestershire collapsed. And all four would rate their chances of using an English franchise system to further top up their bank accounts. In fact they’ve probably given little thought to whether it would be the right way for English cricket to go. All my evidence suggests it wouldn’t be.
No comments:
Post a Comment