General Cricket Discussion

[Bevab]

Rob Key: 'Life-changing' franchise deals are hard for non-contracted players to turn down

Bilateral international cricket feeling the squeeze from the growth of T20 tournaments

www.espncricinfo.com

Bwaahahaaaaaa.... If England can feel this kind of a squeeze with this whole "franchise leagues is coming after international cricket to test player loyalties" thing, imagine the situation in other countries. FRANCHISE CRICKET IS COMIN' FOR YOU, BABY!!!

In the end, the deciding factor is about money. All the "nationalism / nationalist pride / national duty" brouhaha is just a marketing tool for the ICC and the member boards to entice fans to follow/watch the games and take their money. Countries dont lose anything if their national team loses a cricket game or a tournament or even a World Cup. Few days of disappointment for the fans, but the respective nation moves on. All nations and their member boards get revenue irrespective of whether their team wins or loses. Then why in the bloody hell, do players get abuse for choosing their paths which conflicts with their availability to play international cricket?

I'd gladly take franchise cricket over international games if the former had any sort of meaning... at the moment it doesn't feel that way at all. It's just the same cricket format and players switching between teams every few years. Whilst I agree that a lot of the national duty talk is played up, it still is a thing at the end of the day and it does show when it comes to the intensity and pressure between an international tournament and a T20 league. They're also never going to embrace test cricket in any way and as long as that is the case I doubt they'll be taken seriously by the core cricket community. The issue is... the latter is going to just be replaced by the casuals en masse in a few decades anyways assuming cricket survives the climate change that'll heavily affect it.

 

[SaiSrini]

I'd gladly take franchise cricket over international games if the former had any sort of meaning... at the moment it doesn't feel that way at all. It's just the same cricket format and players switching between teams every few years. Whilst I agree that a lot of the national duty talk is played up, it still is a thing at the end of the day and it does show when it comes to the intensity and pressure between an international tournament and a T20 league. They're also never going to embrace test cricket in any way and as long as that is the case I doubt they'll be taken seriously by the core cricket community. The issue is... the latter is going to just be replaced by the casuals en masse in a few decades anyways assuming cricket survives the climate change that'll heavily affect it.

Franchise leagues outside of cricket seem to be thriving really well (e.g. NFL) for many decades now. There is the city/state rivalries there that keeps the hype going strongly. I think it will thrive if it has an exclusive place in the cricket calendar (chop off the bilaterals completely) and also if they bring back the Champions League, that lets teams across the various T20 leagues compete for bragging rights for the best T20 side in the world. Even if they dont do the Champions League, franchise leagues can still thrive and will be the future.

I think the intensity for international games is coming to come down drastically as the generation passes by. Imagine children who are now born during the IPL/T20 era and in an era where there are multiple ICC events in a single year, and a World Cup every year. and so many damn meaningless bilaterals and also in a generation where they are overloaded with entertainment options. Do you think there are going to grow into their adulthood, feeling the same intensity that my/your generation felt when watching international cricket?

 

[Bevab]

Franchise leagues outside of cricket seem to be thriving really well (e.g. NFL) for many decades now. There is the city/state rivalries there that keeps the hype going strongly. I think it will thrive if it has an exclusive place in the cricket calendar (chop off the bilaterals completely) and also if they bring back the Champions League, that lets teams across the various T20 leagues compete for bragging rights for the best T20 side in the world. Even if they dont do the Champions League, franchise leagues can still thrive and will be the future.

I think the intensity for international games is coming to come down drastically as the generation passes by. Imagine children who are now born during the IPL/T20 era and in an era where there are multiple ICC events in a single year, and a World Cup every year. and so many damn meaningless bilaterals and also in a generation where they are overloaded with entertainment options. Do you think there are going to grow into their adulthood, feeling the same intensity that my/your generation felt when watching international cricket?

I'm not as aware of the history of sport in the US but I assume that the likes of the MLB, NFL and NBA were primarily based around the franchise model/system first and foremost? In that case I'd understand why the hype around their city and state rivalries are strong. Cricket however has been an international and county/state sport at it's heart with the odd sprinkling of clubs here and there (the Lancashire leagues, Packer's attempt which was based on countries anyway, Stanford's attempt). It'd require a seismic change to completely forego all forms of international cricket. I also don't think it'd be viable for several boards to have their domestic systems in place actively in a world of exclusively franchise cricket and I'm not sure franchise cricket has developed the sort of pathway system like in the US to soften the blow of a collapse of the former. I also doubt they'll be anywhere as good if attempted either.

To cite an example, domestic cricket in nearly every country is going to lose money every season for the most part in some way at the end but it's worth it as it does produce your twenty to thirty international standard cricketers who bring in the money and keep it afloat. There's no incentive for a cricket board to keep their system in place once they lose out on the latter unless the franchises and league organisers compensate the boards enough and how long will they try to do this before they decide to cut off the middlemen (boards) and attempt naively to do it all themselves and save the cost?

I can't disagree on the generation growing up watching T20 leagues take precedence. I don't think the issue with international cricket is bilaterals alone, they still garner a ton of interest. The issue seems to be the lack of meaning associated with them as you allude to and that's because ODIs have been devalued heavily and T20Is are being played in increasing amounts to bring in money. Dewald Brevis wants to play test cricket despite not having played any official FC match so far in a system that's not conducive to him getting opportunities at the moment and having the world at his feet in terms of T20 league options because he grew up watching one of the most dominant SA sides in test cricket. I doubt that'll be the case for someone watching Markram and Rassie look out of place in tests on TV while watching the SA20 live because the tickets were dirt cheap and the time investment significantly less.

 

[ddrap14]

I'm not as aware of the history of sport in the US but I assume that the likes of the MLB, NFL and NBA were primarily based around the franchise model/system first and foremost? In that case I'd understand why the hype around their city and state rivalries are strong. Cricket however has been an international and county/state sport at it's heart with the odd sprinkling of clubs here and there (the Lancashire leagues, Packer's attempt which was based on countries anyway, Stanford's attempt). It'd require a seismic change to completely forego all forms of international cricket. I also don't think it'd be viable for several boards to have their domestic systems in place actively in a world of exclusively franchise cricket and I'm not sure franchise cricket has developed the sort of pathway system like in the US to soften the blow of a collapse of the former. I also doubt they'll be anywhere as good if attempted either.

To cite an example, domestic cricket in nearly every country is going to lose money every season for the most part in some way at the end but it's worth it as it does produce your twenty to thirty international standard cricketers who bring in the money and keep it afloat. There's no incentive for a cricket board to keep their system in place once they lose out on the latter unless the franchises and league organisers compensate the boards enough and how long will they try to do this before they decide to cut off the middlemen (boards) and attempt naively to do it all themselves and save the cost?

I can't disagree on the generation growing up watching T20 leagues take precedence. I don't think the issue with international cricket is bilaterals alone, they still garner a ton of interest. The issue seems to be the lack of meaning associated with them as you allude to and that's because ODIs have been devalued heavily and T20Is are being played in increasing amounts to bring in money. Dewald Brevis wants to play test cricket despite not having played any official FC match so far in a system that's not conducive to him getting opportunities at the moment and having the world at his feet in terms of T20 league options because he grew up watching one of the most dominant SA sides in test cricket. I doubt that'll be the case for someone watching Markram and Rassie look out of place in tests on TV while watching the SA20 live because the tickets were dirt cheap and the time investment significantly less.

What makes them so meaningful is that there's only one league clearly above the others in both pay and competition level. So for example, the NBA does have competition (think EuroLeague) but the competition is at such a higher standard in the NBA that players really want to play there (even in a tiny role) if it's possible. (It's also why the MLB's championship is somewhat egocentrically called the World Series)

With cricket, the obstacle there I'd say is less national/state competition and more the fact there's like 20 franchise leagues. If the IPL was bigger and the only one, we'd probably see more of a similar effect.

 

[Satan666]

What makes them so meaningful is that there's only one league clearly above the others in both pay and competition level. So for example, the NBA does have competition (think EuroLeague) but the competition is at such a higher standard in the NBA that players really want to play there (even in a tiny role) if it's possible. (It's also why the MLB's championship is somewhat egocentrically called the World Series)

With cricket, the obstacle there I'd say is less national/state competition and more the fact there's like 20 franchise leagues. If the IPL was bigger and the only one, we'd probably see more of a similar effect.

So youre basically saying IPL should be the only T20 professional league in the world? At the cost of the fans and cricketers in Australia, Pakistan, WI and Bangladesh who have pretty lucrative established leagues for a good few years now, those fans and cricketers gonna suffer.

However I do agree with you.

 

[ddrap14]

So youre basically saying IPL should be the only T20 professional league in the world? At the cost of the fans and cricketers in Australia, Pakistan, WI and Bangladesh who have pretty lucrative established leagues for a good few years now, those fans and cricketers gonna suffer.

However I do agree with you.

No, not at all - I'm the biggest BBL fan here.

I said if the IPL was the only franchise league and it was longer (like 4 months), international cricket would become less of a big thing among big name cricketers.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

No, not at all - I'm the biggest BBL fan here.

I said if the IPL was the only franchise league and it was longer (like 4 months), international cricket would become less of a big thing among big name cricketers.

IPL already gets boring at half way. Another two months of it, my God. I guess there might be people who would enjoy this but I can't imagine a cricket league going on for so long.

Personally, give me manufactured nationalism over supporting corporations any day. One reason I don't watch football anymore is because the soul of it has been sucked out in the last 20 years.

International cricket has a problem and the horse has bolted. They could have done things that would have mitigated the explosion of these privately owned leagues but unsurprisingly didn't have the foresight. It's why England, where the T20 format kicked off in a big way, comes up with its own franchise model 20 years later.

A proper* divisional international T20 structure of some kind might have worked. Different legs in different countries, played annually, promotion and relegation. People talk about ODI cricket being dead, yet the last World Cup final was the greatest we've seen and because of England the format has moved forward a lot. No one ever mentions if getting rid of it also means the same for Women's cricket. Which would essentially leave the with one format. I do wonder how many of these people, those in the public eye, are not doing out of self interest of basically lobbying for it's abolition because they stand to benefit from the T20 leagues that would fill the gaps.

I don't think the pandemic has helped at all, not least because we ended up with teams spending three years preparing for T20 world cups.

*Not like the WTC and ODI Super League, they are pretend leagues.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

Johnson, Madsen, Manenti sign up for Berg's Italian Job

Trio set to feature for Azzurri in July with 2024 T20 World Cup qualification on the line

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[wasteyouryouth]

This is a great thread

 

[wasteyouryouth]

Another thing I'd add about the international v franchise thing is, while it wouldn't surprise me that the ICC (and boards) are incompetent enough to let franchise cricket get out of hand, those boards and individuals are the same ones who stand to benefit. N Srinivasan was Chairman of the ICC, MD of Indian Cements and owner of CSK at a time when the ICC could have done something. Is it really any surprise that nothing was done to mitigate things?

 

[Satan666]

Another thing I'd add about the international v franchise thing is, while it wouldn't surprise me that the ICC (and boards) are incompetent enough to let franchise cricket get out of hand, those boards and individuals are the same ones who stand to benefit. N Srinivasan was Chairman of the ICC, MD of Indian Cements and owner of CSK at a time when the ICC could have done something. Is it really any surprise that nothing was done to mitigate things?

Not sure what you're getting at but are you inferring that other leagues around the world should cease to exist? Have IPL only?

 

[wasteyouryouth]

Not sure what you're getting at but are you inferring that other leagues around the world should cease to exist? Have IPL only?

I'm inferring that decision makers, whether they are part of the ICC or domestic boards have *possibly* had self-interest at the forefront of their decision making, which have resulted in the changed landscape we see in cricket compared with 15-20 years ago.

Personally, I wouldn't care if franchise cricket ceased to exist.

 

[Satan666]

No, not at all - I'm the biggest BBL fan here.

I said if the IPL was the only franchise league and it was longer (like 4 months), international cricket would become less of a big thing among big name cricketers.

Okay ‘big name cricketers’ having a ‘big thing’ for international cricket, at present are primarily guys from England and Australia. Funnily enough the only international 5 test series these days are the Ashes. So deplete that to what a two test series?

Guys from NZ, SA, SL, WI, Bang are fully committed to the IPL and normally forgo international duty to run the T20 league in India. You want that for England and Aussie players as well?

 

[Satan666]

I'm inferring that decision makers, whether they are part of the ICC or domestic boards have *possibly* had self-interest at the forefront of their decision making, which have resulted in the changed landscape we see in cricket compared with 15-20 years ago.

Personally, I wouldn't care if franchise cricket ceased to exist.

Fully agree. Coincidentally the last 15-20 years the ‘decision makers’ have been the Indians. The BCCI always got their way. I’m glad someone else on this board states the obvious other than myself.

Buddy I never whole heartedly follow an IPL season or the other fast food leagues for that matter.

Guys forgot before these T20 leagues you had county and state cricket for franchise, at the time was pretty awesome.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

Fully agree. Coincidentally the last 15-20 years the ‘decision makers’ have been the Indians. The BCCI always got their way. I’m glad someone else on this board states the obvious other than myself.

Buddy I never whole heartedly follow an IPL season or the other fast food leagues for that matter.

Guys forgot before these T20 leagues you had county and state cricket for franchise, at the time was pretty awesome.

I'm not pointing the finger solely at the BCCI/Indians alone; the ECB and CA have been complicit in diminishing our established domestic leagues and international cricket in favour short term financial gains and, in the ECB's case, of a format and franchise model that they will aim to sell to detriment of everything else.

I watch a lot of cricket and a lot of franchise cricket. Not because I care about these leagues or support any teams but because I love cricket. If they ceased to exist and were replaced by something else (more test cricket, an international T20 league) I'd be just as happy. However, I can't say the same about franchise cricket replacing the other forms.