The ECB must be wary in its handling of the development of Twenty20 cricket in England.
The news that the ECB have shelved plans for an EPL – an English Premier League – is welcome. However, it is only a step in the right direction, as the administrators remain committed to introducing another major Twenty20 competition.
The success and popularity of the newest form of the game is to be applauded and embraced, but governing boards around the world must be aware that they run the risk of overkill in their bid to squeeze every drop of profit out of the format.
If England is to have its own version of the Indian Premier League, then it must be distinct from the county system. The original EPL proposals, for 18 counties and two new teams, would leave supporters confused who had just watched the 18 counties contest the Twenty20 cup.
A scaled-down EPL of two divisions of nine with promotion and relegation does little to alleviate this confusion; aside form having four overseas players rather than two and two divisions rather than three, the new competition will act as little more than a re-run of the Twenty20 cup.
The maintenance of the county structure in a new Twenty20 competition is of course largely due to the counties’ instinct of self-preservation – and who can blame them from wanting to be part of the biggest ever domestic money-spinner when they are constantly under pressure to merge or disband – but a second English Twenty20 tournament needs to take the IPL’s lead.
The IPL is a cricket circus, based in big cities with big name players and funded by big money. It can be argued that India maintains the rebel Indian Cricket League alongside the IPL, but the pre-eminence of the big tournament is clear and unchallenged.
An EPL – or P20 as it is now rumoured to be called – would struggle to rapidly outgrow the successful Twenty20 cup and would suffer in comparison with the IPL and possibly any new Twenty20 tournaments that will inevitably spring up around the world.
A shortage of funds would make the attraction of the star names, who had already lined their pockets in India, difficult. MS Dhoni is unlikely to be as desperate to play in England as Kevin Pietersen is to in India.
Now that Giles Clarke is guaranteed a second term as ECB chairman, it must be hoped that he oversees a proper review of England’s Twenty20 plans. He has surely learnt from the mistakes of the dash for cash that was the Stanford Super Series; if not we are in danger of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Written by Philip Oliver, an online sports writer for Betfair - check them out when making a Cheltenham bet.
Showing posts with label EPL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EPL. Show all posts
Tuesday, 3 February 2009
Friday, 18 July 2008
Welcoming the EPL and "Friday night cricket"!
The ECB have taken their time to respond to the IPL, a wise move, which suggests that the planned changes to the domestic competitions are more measured rather than knee-jerk. It was back in May when I last touched upon this subject and suggested that a two tier league structure was the best way forward. As such I am pleased that the new EPL will begin in this form and qualifying will be based on sides’ performances in the 2009 Twenty20 Cup. The major feature of the new EPL is that it will coexist with the current Twenty20 Cup, which will be played later on in the summer, regularly on Friday nights, which may not do much for the alcoholic consumption of your average Twenty20 punter, especially with 19:30 start times, which tends to attract those who are just beginning their weekend. Still, a regular time and place is good for attracting regular supporters and it may free up more weekends for some four day cricket, a revolutionary idea. The fact that the Twenty20 Cup will now be spread out over a couple of months is also good for gate revenues, as it means that people will probably be more likely to attend more matches. At present there is no way that a fan can reasonably be expected to attend all of their sides home fixtures within the three week period. Making way for the newly timetabled Twenty20 Cup will of course be the Pro40, which used to be the big money earner in county cricket, but is now so far outdated and quite frankly unnecessary that it is a surprise that it has lasted as long as it has. I think that these moves are sensible ones by the ECB and will give Twenty20 fans what they want. If you go away for holiday in June you can still watch some Twenty20 cricket now at a different point in the year!
The EPL will be held around the time of the current Twenty20 Cup and will last about three weeks, shorter than the IPL, which has been widely acknowledged to have lasted too long. This will allow England Internationals to feature, in between series, which will give them much needed experience of the format. It will hopefully attract the best overseas players, who will see the three weeks as a nice little earner. The presence of players of such high calibre and class will be hugely attractive to audiences around the globe, which means revenue for the ECB, counties and players. The particulars of the EPL are of course yet to be finalised, but the general understanding is that each county will be allowed three overseas players in addition to the one player they are currently allowed throughout the entire season. The kolpak problem will of course still exist, but this needs to be addressed separately and with more haste by the ECB anyway. The current idea is that overseas players wishing to partake will be contracted to the ECB for the competition and then clubs will bid for players with funds which will be supplied from the ECB after funding initiatives have been put into place. So that needs a little more work, but there is time! Most interestingly of all, the new EPL will feature two overseas teams, one in each division, how that will be decided goodness knows. The two teams are likely to be a Stanford IX and the IPL winners, although that is yet to be confirmed.
Overall, the proposals put forward and accepted by the ECB are good ones and are likely to be successful in this country. It was important to keep the county structure and not go down the alien road of franchises. We need to stick to what we know and what works in England. Whether two competitions is a good idea or not, well, only time will tell. However, the brevity of the EPL will add to it’s success I believe, whilst the sparsely scheduled nature of “Friday night cricket” will still lead to strong gates for the later half of the season, provided the prices are moderated though. Cricket needs to remain accessible and not go down the route of the FA Premier League. These are exciting times for county cricket and in leaving the FP Trophy and County Championship untouched the ECB has done a wise thing. The Pro40 was due to be culled and although some will point to the dangers of Twenty20 overkill I am firmly of the opinion that the ECB are heading down the correct route for the future of the counties and of the England national team.
The EPL will be held around the time of the current Twenty20 Cup and will last about three weeks, shorter than the IPL, which has been widely acknowledged to have lasted too long. This will allow England Internationals to feature, in between series, which will give them much needed experience of the format. It will hopefully attract the best overseas players, who will see the three weeks as a nice little earner. The presence of players of such high calibre and class will be hugely attractive to audiences around the globe, which means revenue for the ECB, counties and players. The particulars of the EPL are of course yet to be finalised, but the general understanding is that each county will be allowed three overseas players in addition to the one player they are currently allowed throughout the entire season. The kolpak problem will of course still exist, but this needs to be addressed separately and with more haste by the ECB anyway. The current idea is that overseas players wishing to partake will be contracted to the ECB for the competition and then clubs will bid for players with funds which will be supplied from the ECB after funding initiatives have been put into place. So that needs a little more work, but there is time! Most interestingly of all, the new EPL will feature two overseas teams, one in each division, how that will be decided goodness knows. The two teams are likely to be a Stanford IX and the IPL winners, although that is yet to be confirmed.
Overall, the proposals put forward and accepted by the ECB are good ones and are likely to be successful in this country. It was important to keep the county structure and not go down the alien road of franchises. We need to stick to what we know and what works in England. Whether two competitions is a good idea or not, well, only time will tell. However, the brevity of the EPL will add to it’s success I believe, whilst the sparsely scheduled nature of “Friday night cricket” will still lead to strong gates for the later half of the season, provided the prices are moderated though. Cricket needs to remain accessible and not go down the route of the FA Premier League. These are exciting times for county cricket and in leaving the FP Trophy and County Championship untouched the ECB has done a wise thing. The Pro40 was due to be culled and although some will point to the dangers of Twenty20 overkill I am firmly of the opinion that the ECB are heading down the correct route for the future of the counties and of the England national team.
Wednesday, 16 July 2008
EPL announcement brings relief - and a golden opportunity
So it's finally here. The much-anticipated EPL has been officially announced, with the new domestic structure to come into place from 2010.
Overall the verdict has to be: this could have been a whole lot worse. In retaining 16 CC matches per side, the ECB have ensured there is still much to prepare players for Test cricket - and for connoisseurs of the 'old cricket' to enjoy. The new cricket, whether we like it or not, is Twenty20. The risk of overkill is palpable, but in light of the current lust for Twenty20 cricket, this overhaul could have been considerably worse.
Replacing the Pro40 with a new Twenty20 competition was inevitable and few will mourn its loss. The only shame is, despite being 10 overs less, it probably was a better preparation for one-day internationals than the Friends Provident Trophy. It is ludicrous that the preparation for the ODI game takes place in April and May - in seaming, swinging conditions that deter spectators and six-hitters alike. The Pro40, for all the lunacy of the format not mirroring ODIs was closer to ODI cricket in that it was played in batsman-friendly conditions that replicated the nature of the modern ODI. So England's ODI side is unlikely to benefit from these changes.
The chief mystery of the EPL concerns the two overseas teams. Having a team of 'Stanford All-Stars' would seem absurd - constructing a side from nothing would devalue the tournament to an extent. Yet given the lure of Stanford's dollars that is surely one very likely option. The only satisfying outcome which did not make a mockery of the EPL would be to make the two sides Scotland and Ireland.
If - perhaps through the funds they would receive from gate receipts - Scotland and Ireland had the means to ensure their best players played for them rather than their counties for the EPL, they would be able to muster highly competitive sides. An Irish side featuring Middlesex's attractive pair of batsman Eoin Morgan and Ed Joyce, alongside William Porterfield, Niall and Kevin O'Brien and Boyd Rankin would surely finish no lower than mid-table in the second tier.
And the possibility for bringing genuine good to the long-term development of cricket is one that should not be overlooked. How receptive could Ireland and Scotland be to five home Twenty20s? If they were allowed to field full-strength sides and players dared to put them before their counties - even if just for a three-week spell annually - it could do a great deal for advancing cricket in these countries. This would be in everyone's interests, not least England's, who could one day find a clutch of Celts in their Test side.
So there is still much to be resolved for the ECB regarding the brave new world of Twenty20 they are so keen to embrace. How to distinguish - and prioretise - between the two competitions certainly promises to be a challenge for fans. But after all the speculation, the news that fans of all 18 counties will have a Twenty20 side to support certainly comes as a welcome relief.
Overall the verdict has to be: this could have been a whole lot worse. In retaining 16 CC matches per side, the ECB have ensured there is still much to prepare players for Test cricket - and for connoisseurs of the 'old cricket' to enjoy. The new cricket, whether we like it or not, is Twenty20. The risk of overkill is palpable, but in light of the current lust for Twenty20 cricket, this overhaul could have been considerably worse.
Replacing the Pro40 with a new Twenty20 competition was inevitable and few will mourn its loss. The only shame is, despite being 10 overs less, it probably was a better preparation for one-day internationals than the Friends Provident Trophy. It is ludicrous that the preparation for the ODI game takes place in April and May - in seaming, swinging conditions that deter spectators and six-hitters alike. The Pro40, for all the lunacy of the format not mirroring ODIs was closer to ODI cricket in that it was played in batsman-friendly conditions that replicated the nature of the modern ODI. So England's ODI side is unlikely to benefit from these changes.
The chief mystery of the EPL concerns the two overseas teams. Having a team of 'Stanford All-Stars' would seem absurd - constructing a side from nothing would devalue the tournament to an extent. Yet given the lure of Stanford's dollars that is surely one very likely option. The only satisfying outcome which did not make a mockery of the EPL would be to make the two sides Scotland and Ireland.
If - perhaps through the funds they would receive from gate receipts - Scotland and Ireland had the means to ensure their best players played for them rather than their counties for the EPL, they would be able to muster highly competitive sides. An Irish side featuring Middlesex's attractive pair of batsman Eoin Morgan and Ed Joyce, alongside William Porterfield, Niall and Kevin O'Brien and Boyd Rankin would surely finish no lower than mid-table in the second tier.
And the possibility for bringing genuine good to the long-term development of cricket is one that should not be overlooked. How receptive could Ireland and Scotland be to five home Twenty20s? If they were allowed to field full-strength sides and players dared to put them before their counties - even if just for a three-week spell annually - it could do a great deal for advancing cricket in these countries. This would be in everyone's interests, not least England's, who could one day find a clutch of Celts in their Test side.
So there is still much to be resolved for the ECB regarding the brave new world of Twenty20 they are so keen to embrace. How to distinguish - and prioretise - between the two competitions certainly promises to be a challenge for fans. But after all the speculation, the news that fans of all 18 counties will have a Twenty20 side to support certainly comes as a welcome relief.
Monday, 23 June 2008
Twenty20 problems - and solutions
With Twenty20 certain to form a core part of cricket's brave new world, the news that crowds are slightly down on previous years should not be ignored.
The reasons for this slight decline are obvious. Whilst games in which rivalry is fiercest - the roses clash, for instance - sell out, interest in the less glamarous fixtures is reduced. Over the space of 17 days, each county plays five home games. Yet, with five home games spread so thinly, even the most avid of Twenty20 fans would find it difficult to attend every game, especially members of counties for whom Twenty20 is no longer included in the membership. The problem is not helped by brainless scheduling: four of Surrey's first five games were at home within the space of eight days. Fans would be more willing, and able, to attend every clash were they spread over a longer period. The problem is obviously compunded at counties that have struggled and were effectively eliminated by the halfway stage. Where is the motivation for fans to attend Leicestershire's last two home games? These should be one of the highlights of their season, and should contribute a large portion of their annual gate receipts. But, with the grim record of seven consecutive defeats, the incentive for fans to part with their wages is negligible.
There is considerable merit in the decision, from this season, to increase the number of games played by two to ten. It makes the groups symmetrical and, subsequently, a lot fairer. Yet there are flipsides. The ECB are determined to encourage local rivalries but there is palpable frustration developing amongst fans bored of playing the same teams persistently, due primarily to the regionalisation of both the FP Trophy and the Twenty20 Cup. There will be 13 days of cricket between Kent and Surrey this season, including eight in seven weeks, whilst some pairs of counties go seasons without meeting others.
What is the best way round these problems to maximise the popularity of Twenty20 Cup cricket, and the financial benefits it can have to the counties? I would advocate replacing the three regions with two, prior to the quarter-final stage, meaning each county would only play the others in the region once, reducing supporter fatigue with seeing the same opposition players constantly. This would reduce the number of games played by each county to eight. This would be hard to stomach, and chairmen may be angry that they would only have their bumper derbies every other season, but has great merit. Extra games of Twenty20 would be implemented to placate the chairmen by replacing the Pro40 with a Twenty20 league, played primarily on Friday nights.
Another thought that needs serious consideration is the possibility of extending the season into October - playing almost the same number of days of cricket, but more spread out, would help increase resting and preparing time during the season itself. Late September weather is also generally superior to that of late April. The championship should not extend beyond around the 20th of September, but there could be great merit in an end-of-season Twenty20 bonanza. This would help consolidate the fanbase built up over the mid-season and would give county cricket a memorable end-of-season that would capture the attention of the nation in a way that even county championships as enthralling as last season's simply will never do. Ending the season with a final - perhaps Twenty20 finals day - would provide a climactic and definitive finale. Just as the FA Cup Final concludes the English domestic football season, so the Twenty20 finals could conclude cricket's.
Ideas, ideas. The ECB has an abundunce of them to consider: of that no one doubts. Now it is up to them to make the right choice: to maximise and consolidate the support for Twenty20 in a way that leaves the 16-game county championship as it is.
The reasons for this slight decline are obvious. Whilst games in which rivalry is fiercest - the roses clash, for instance - sell out, interest in the less glamarous fixtures is reduced. Over the space of 17 days, each county plays five home games. Yet, with five home games spread so thinly, even the most avid of Twenty20 fans would find it difficult to attend every game, especially members of counties for whom Twenty20 is no longer included in the membership. The problem is not helped by brainless scheduling: four of Surrey's first five games were at home within the space of eight days. Fans would be more willing, and able, to attend every clash were they spread over a longer period. The problem is obviously compunded at counties that have struggled and were effectively eliminated by the halfway stage. Where is the motivation for fans to attend Leicestershire's last two home games? These should be one of the highlights of their season, and should contribute a large portion of their annual gate receipts. But, with the grim record of seven consecutive defeats, the incentive for fans to part with their wages is negligible.
There is considerable merit in the decision, from this season, to increase the number of games played by two to ten. It makes the groups symmetrical and, subsequently, a lot fairer. Yet there are flipsides. The ECB are determined to encourage local rivalries but there is palpable frustration developing amongst fans bored of playing the same teams persistently, due primarily to the regionalisation of both the FP Trophy and the Twenty20 Cup. There will be 13 days of cricket between Kent and Surrey this season, including eight in seven weeks, whilst some pairs of counties go seasons without meeting others.
What is the best way round these problems to maximise the popularity of Twenty20 Cup cricket, and the financial benefits it can have to the counties? I would advocate replacing the three regions with two, prior to the quarter-final stage, meaning each county would only play the others in the region once, reducing supporter fatigue with seeing the same opposition players constantly. This would reduce the number of games played by each county to eight. This would be hard to stomach, and chairmen may be angry that they would only have their bumper derbies every other season, but has great merit. Extra games of Twenty20 would be implemented to placate the chairmen by replacing the Pro40 with a Twenty20 league, played primarily on Friday nights.
Another thought that needs serious consideration is the possibility of extending the season into October - playing almost the same number of days of cricket, but more spread out, would help increase resting and preparing time during the season itself. Late September weather is also generally superior to that of late April. The championship should not extend beyond around the 20th of September, but there could be great merit in an end-of-season Twenty20 bonanza. This would help consolidate the fanbase built up over the mid-season and would give county cricket a memorable end-of-season that would capture the attention of the nation in a way that even county championships as enthralling as last season's simply will never do. Ending the season with a final - perhaps Twenty20 finals day - would provide a climactic and definitive finale. Just as the FA Cup Final concludes the English domestic football season, so the Twenty20 finals could conclude cricket's.
Ideas, ideas. The ECB has an abundunce of them to consider: of that no one doubts. Now it is up to them to make the right choice: to maximise and consolidate the support for Twenty20 in a way that leaves the 16-game county championship as it is.
Sunday, 8 June 2008
Twenty20, The English Summer and a Champions League…
There came the much anticipated announcement this week that there is to be an annual Twenty20 Champions League which will take place in the autumn out in India or the Middle East. However, the format of the competition leaves much to be desired and hardly qualifies it as a true League of Champions, especially when compared to the footballing equivalent.
For starters, it features just eight teams! Now, you would assume that this would be the Champions from each of the major Test playing nations. Unfortunately not. Sorry New Zealand, Pakistan, West Indies and Sri Lanka, you’re not cutting the mustard. How exactly can a tournament be claimed to be that of the Champions, when the four domestic Twenty20 Champions from half of the major Test playing nations are not present? Domestic sides from these countries are still competitive and would definitely add value to the competition in a number of ways, not least in terms of increased viewing figures and truly global interest. That point needs addressing immediately.
So it’s good news for India, England, Australia and South Africa then. The two finalists from each country’s domestic Twenty20 league will battle it out for the much coveted £2.5 million prize on offer. Who though is going to be turning out for each side? What of the Aussies, Saffers and Englishmen who play for the two Indian sides who qualify each year from the IPL? Will they represent their Indian fantasy side, or their domestic side? An obvious example is Dimi Mascarenhas, Hampshire Hawk, or Rajasthan Royal? What of Makhaya Ntini, Chennai Super Kings or Border? Justin Langer, Somerset or Rajasthan? Albie Morkel, Durham, Chennai or Easterns? It could become a real problem and there appears to be no official guidance. A limit on foreign players will obviously be required, as in the IPL, but the format could still lead to clashes over which player will play for which side, with money most likely the deciding factor.
Could this entire tournament in fact lead to problems within the domestic game? With such a massive prize as £2.5 million being on offer, does that not immediately elevate Twenty20 cricket to the status of be all and end all for the majority of county sides, as that type of money is just not otherwise available to county sides who are reliant on ECB handouts to avoid going out of business. Will the winner of the tournament not subsequently be on a completely different playing field to the other domestic sides in terms of what players it can attract and how much it can afford to spend. The UEFA Champions League has arguably led to such an unbalanced situation in this country and others, with Man Utd, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Inter Milan, Roma, AC Milan, Juventus, FC Bayern and such like almost ever presents in the competition and also of course the leaders in their respective countries. An imbalance already exists between grounds with and without Test Match Status, but this potential new imbalance could be even greater in a decade, so will need to be carefully monitored.
Key to the success of English teams in this competition will be the creation of an English equivalent of the IPL. There is not as much money floating around English county cricket, but people still turn up in their droves to witness this format. The best way to rival the IPL is to create a self-sustaining viable long-term competition of our own which will keep English players here and still be able to attract quality overseas players, with touring countries the most likely supplier of many of the overseas players for the tournament. The creation of a county based Twenty20 Dual League format of 9 sides per division and therefore 16 matches per side would be a good start. Determining who starts in which league could be based upon each sides record in Twenty20 since it’s inception with the 9 most successful sides starting in division one, from which the top four sides would progress to a finals day to decide an overall winner, with the two finalists participating in the Champions League. Meanwhile the top two sides in the second division should be automatically promoted, while the third placed team should face a home play-off against the third bottom team in the first division, with the fourth placed team facing an away play-off against the fourth bottom team in the top division. This would help to maintain competitiveness throughout the entire round of sixteen matches in both divisions, with the majority of sides still having something to play for come the seasons end.
This format would not lead to overkill, given that currently each side plays 10 matches minimum, with the possibility of 3 more matches (Q/F, S/F and Final). A limit of four overseas players per side should be set with the extra gate and television money being used to finance these signings and England players should be allowed to participate, with the gap between English Summer International Series being made greater to allow the new all inclusive Twenty20 League to be played in the five weeks across mid-summer, from the last week of June until the end of July. The first set of three Test matches, five ODI’s and two International Twenty20 matches could be played from the second week of May through to the third week of June, whilst the second set of four Test matches, five ODI’s and two International Twenty20’s could be played from the beginning of August until the third week in September. Meanwhile the Pro40 should of course be culled to free up more space in the domestic programme. The proposals are not unworkable, but flexibility will be required.
Twenty20 cricket is undoubtedly popular and as such needs to cater to demand. We must not get carried away with it and flood the market, but we do need to respond to the IPL and the increased demand for it. Our answer needs to be sustainable and attractive and I believe that the above competition would be. It needs to feature England's best players and the above format could do. There is space in the calendar for such a competition if we simply shuffle the international series roughly two more weeks apart. Touring country's players could often provide a lot of the season's overseas players with it being positioned in between series and would provide a good warm-up or warm-down for such players. The County Championship format should not be touched, the number of Test matches should not be reduced, but the Pro40 can be sacrificed, a small increase can be made to our current Twenty20 competition (which would also make it fairer, rather than regional) and England players can take part and earn some more money, because fans will pay more to see them and more of them will turn up to watch them.
For starters, it features just eight teams! Now, you would assume that this would be the Champions from each of the major Test playing nations. Unfortunately not. Sorry New Zealand, Pakistan, West Indies and Sri Lanka, you’re not cutting the mustard. How exactly can a tournament be claimed to be that of the Champions, when the four domestic Twenty20 Champions from half of the major Test playing nations are not present? Domestic sides from these countries are still competitive and would definitely add value to the competition in a number of ways, not least in terms of increased viewing figures and truly global interest. That point needs addressing immediately.
So it’s good news for India, England, Australia and South Africa then. The two finalists from each country’s domestic Twenty20 league will battle it out for the much coveted £2.5 million prize on offer. Who though is going to be turning out for each side? What of the Aussies, Saffers and Englishmen who play for the two Indian sides who qualify each year from the IPL? Will they represent their Indian fantasy side, or their domestic side? An obvious example is Dimi Mascarenhas, Hampshire Hawk, or Rajasthan Royal? What of Makhaya Ntini, Chennai Super Kings or Border? Justin Langer, Somerset or Rajasthan? Albie Morkel, Durham, Chennai or Easterns? It could become a real problem and there appears to be no official guidance. A limit on foreign players will obviously be required, as in the IPL, but the format could still lead to clashes over which player will play for which side, with money most likely the deciding factor.
Could this entire tournament in fact lead to problems within the domestic game? With such a massive prize as £2.5 million being on offer, does that not immediately elevate Twenty20 cricket to the status of be all and end all for the majority of county sides, as that type of money is just not otherwise available to county sides who are reliant on ECB handouts to avoid going out of business. Will the winner of the tournament not subsequently be on a completely different playing field to the other domestic sides in terms of what players it can attract and how much it can afford to spend. The UEFA Champions League has arguably led to such an unbalanced situation in this country and others, with Man Utd, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Inter Milan, Roma, AC Milan, Juventus, FC Bayern and such like almost ever presents in the competition and also of course the leaders in their respective countries. An imbalance already exists between grounds with and without Test Match Status, but this potential new imbalance could be even greater in a decade, so will need to be carefully monitored.
Key to the success of English teams in this competition will be the creation of an English equivalent of the IPL. There is not as much money floating around English county cricket, but people still turn up in their droves to witness this format. The best way to rival the IPL is to create a self-sustaining viable long-term competition of our own which will keep English players here and still be able to attract quality overseas players, with touring countries the most likely supplier of many of the overseas players for the tournament. The creation of a county based Twenty20 Dual League format of 9 sides per division and therefore 16 matches per side would be a good start. Determining who starts in which league could be based upon each sides record in Twenty20 since it’s inception with the 9 most successful sides starting in division one, from which the top four sides would progress to a finals day to decide an overall winner, with the two finalists participating in the Champions League. Meanwhile the top two sides in the second division should be automatically promoted, while the third placed team should face a home play-off against the third bottom team in the first division, with the fourth placed team facing an away play-off against the fourth bottom team in the top division. This would help to maintain competitiveness throughout the entire round of sixteen matches in both divisions, with the majority of sides still having something to play for come the seasons end.
This format would not lead to overkill, given that currently each side plays 10 matches minimum, with the possibility of 3 more matches (Q/F, S/F and Final). A limit of four overseas players per side should be set with the extra gate and television money being used to finance these signings and England players should be allowed to participate, with the gap between English Summer International Series being made greater to allow the new all inclusive Twenty20 League to be played in the five weeks across mid-summer, from the last week of June until the end of July. The first set of three Test matches, five ODI’s and two International Twenty20 matches could be played from the second week of May through to the third week of June, whilst the second set of four Test matches, five ODI’s and two International Twenty20’s could be played from the beginning of August until the third week in September. Meanwhile the Pro40 should of course be culled to free up more space in the domestic programme. The proposals are not unworkable, but flexibility will be required.
Twenty20 cricket is undoubtedly popular and as such needs to cater to demand. We must not get carried away with it and flood the market, but we do need to respond to the IPL and the increased demand for it. Our answer needs to be sustainable and attractive and I believe that the above competition would be. It needs to feature England's best players and the above format could do. There is space in the calendar for such a competition if we simply shuffle the international series roughly two more weeks apart. Touring country's players could often provide a lot of the season's overseas players with it being positioned in between series and would provide a good warm-up or warm-down for such players. The County Championship format should not be touched, the number of Test matches should not be reduced, but the Pro40 can be sacrificed, a small increase can be made to our current Twenty20 competition (which would also make it fairer, rather than regional) and England players can take part and earn some more money, because fans will pay more to see them and more of them will turn up to watch them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)