Four seasons in, has your opinion on the Big Bash changed?

[sherb]

The format does nothing for me, never has. So for that reason the BBL does nothing for me either. Often I will get to 8.30 and think "oh, the 20/20 is on".

I think mainly because it is comes across as American style, razzamatazz, wham bam, limited attention span, switch your brain off type entertainment to me.

However, I understand it has its place in the game and as long as the other formats of the game are maintained I'm happy.

If 20/20 were to become the sole or dominant form of cricket, then I would fear for the future of the game itself.

 

[brucetiki]

I was always a fan of the BBL from day 1, so my opinion hasn't changed in that it's a great competition.

In 4 seasons, however, it's gotten better and better. This season in particular has seen the big crowds come in (3 x 30k+ crowds in Adelaide - one for a game that most knew would be washed out), great atmosphere at games, and always a good night out regardless of whether you team wins or loses.

Things like the Zinga bails have been a brilliant innovation to the game.

As for those that carry on about T20 destroying test matches, when I was a kid, everyone thought one dayers would destroy test match cricket. As a kid, I would sit through a one dayer, but would have little interest in test cricket. Now I enjoy all three forms of the game. If T20 can brings kids to watching cricket as a stepping stone to watching/enjoying test cricket, then that is a good thing in my opinion.

 

[RobbyRoy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the crowds for this summer's Tests were excellent weren't they? I really don't think there's a place for T20 intentionally, but even if it stays (it will), there's no way it will effect Test cricket. I'm only in my mid 20's and grew up when ODI's were very popular. But even as a kid Test cricket was always the ultimate. I imagine that will always be the case with a lot of future kids coming into the game.

 

[Zarrix]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the crowds for this summer's Tests were excellent weren't they? I really don't think there's a place for T20 intentionally, but even if it stays (it will), there's no way it will effect Test cricket. I'm only in my mid 20's and grew up when ODI's were very popular. But even as a kid Test cricket was always the ultimate. I imagine that will always be the case with a lot of future kids coming into the game.

A bit on the low side besides Melbourne, the rescheduling threw things out of whack though.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Geez you must be a real laugh riot to hang around with.

Why? Because I don't like things that cater for imbeciles?

 

[peternorth]

its no surprise that t20 rise has coincided with the increase importance people/media put on facebook/twitter/instagram. everyone has to be done NOW or in quick time. t20s are fast paced and over quickly. the world is now this way

 

[Underarm]

I like it. I miss a United Victoria, but I get why franchises are a good idea going forward. I still refuse to pick a side, and will barrack for them both, depending on who is doing well.

We've got a great lineup of Internationals in the competition, and we have just enough depth for the Thunder/Renegades additions. The West Indians were fun, and KP is a hoot on and off the field.

 

[ROOTA#6]

I love Test Cricket and will sit and watch every single ball of it but it doesn't mean that I can't like other forms of the game. I have particularly enjoyed this season of the BBL. My young bloke is really starting to get into his cricket and I love that I can sit and watch a game with him each night. Took him to his first game at the MCG last weekend for the Stars v Renegades and it blew his mind....doesn't mean I don't love test cricket though

 

[Mkcaptain]

I'm not the biggest fan of T20 and have a sneaking suspicion that the bubble will burst when greedy administrators over saturate the market. But despite that I've watched most BBL matches since its creation. Personally I think the quality of cricket has dropped compared to previous editions but that has been saved by the fact the competition seems very even. I like in T20 any side can win on their day. The state competition was great but the franchised city based competition in hindsight was the right call. I barrack for both the Stars and the Renegades regardless of any rivalry the try to drum up between their supporters.

The current BBL window and full FTA coverage has done wonders for the competition and has really made it successful. I reckon the A-League administrators would be privately seething that the BBL came along when it did

 

[The Speaker]

T20 leagues will be an important part of the future of cricket, but what part they play is the most important thing of all.

 

[Ciderhound]

My opinion remains the same as it was 4 years ago. Still hit and giggle nonsense with top 40 dance music in the background all designed for the great unwashed. Cannot wait for the Sheffield shield to return.

 

[holybishop]

I go to Scorcher games because it's included in my WACA membership, and I want to see them win so they host finals which I get entry to, but that's really as far as my support goes. Would care more if they were the Warriors.

 

[Smartys Power]

I've loved it since the start. People claim it just isn't cricket but I don't. It's still cricket, I love cricket and the more cricket I get to see, the happier I am. Test cricket always as been and always will be my number 1 format however.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Well it's easy to sit over here and say that, but such statements ignore the culture differences between Australia and England. The difficulty of the franchise system over there, is summed up in this article.

In Australia, geographically it was obvious where franchises should be based - in the capital of each state, there was and continues to be conjecture as to where the second franchises for the two major population centres should have been, but it's not make or break if a team is based in Geelong or Newcastle or wherever as they aren't 'losing' access to cricket.

In England, T20 has been especially successful for small county sides like Somerset at Taunton, Sussex at Hove, Leicestershire etc. These places would miss out under a franchise model. The BBL has done an excellent job at making the sport accessible - tickets are cheap, easy to get despite the big crowds so the fans are growing a connection to their side. A move to the same model in England flies in the face of this.

The ECB need to simply take their competition back to what made it initially successful. Play it in a window of approximately a month, with as much of that window being over the holiday period. Find a way for it to be shown on FTA, at the very least in the form of highlights packages (one underrated aspect of the BBL's success on TV is the fact you can switch on a game at the exact same time each night during the window which is very effective at garnering a loyal audience). They already have all the peripheral stuff we have ie. fireworks, music, dancers... so not a huge change needs to be made there.

It would be a massive shame if T20 leagues around the world were homogenised. Each should have their own characteristics that make it relevant to the location it is in. I think the concept of a 'finals day' which is held at a different ground each year is fantastic, but it simply isn't applicable in Australia.

If they want anyone to care about Twenty20 (do they...) England's administrators have to move to a city-based system. County cricket is the preserve of old white men. The common people will never care about 'their' county.

Ironically cricket is less popular in England than it is here so they should be less resistant to change but understandably their 'traditionalist' contingent is massive.

 

[Tyberious Funk]

I'm a traditionalist, and Test cricket will always be my first love. That said, I've never objected to the T20 format, just the way the game is packaged. Way too much emphasis on fireworks, dancers, guys on trampolines, confetti and crap like that. IMHO, far greater emphasis should be placed on raising the standard of cricket, and promoting the game on it's own merits.

This is the first year I've started to take notice of the the BBL. And ironically, one of the things I've enjoyed is the fact that it is "low involvement". I'm not a passionate supporter of any of the teams, and I'm not following the game religiously. So basically, I'll watch games if and when it suits me. There's something relaxing about watching cricket for the sake of the cricket itself... which is probably the reason why I get annoyed and the deliberate over-hyping.

A couple of changes I wouldn't mind seeing...

Expanding the competition, but at the same time increasing the number of imported players so that the overall quality of the cricket doesn't diminish. And maybe allowing the expansion to include one or two invitational teams from overseas. I'd love to see, say, an English Lions teams participate -- although, there'd probably need to be some rules to stop them playing a full strength international team, and dominating the competition. Alternatively, it'd be great if we could find a way to get one of the affiliate teams involved to help improve their development -- though, again, we'd probably need some rules to bring them to an equivalent strength of existing BBL teams.

 

[Kram]

Ironically cricket is less popular in England than it is here so they should be less resistant to change but understandably their 'traditionalist' contingent is massive.

A Pom on Big Cricket reckons the sport suffers a lot over there as being seen as at least upper middle class by your average punter that would follow stuff like football religiously.

 

[Zarrix]

A Pom on Big Cricket reckons the sport suffers a lot over there as being seen as at least upper middle class by your average punter that would follow stuff like football religiously.

This is true, Cricket is in the same bracket as Golf and Tennis over there, essentially a white collar sport. Whereas here, it fills the blue collar void during the summer. Perhaps plays a role regarding Englands resistance against franchise based cricket.

Though they are proud of their traditions and history, so it transcends all sports. When history and traditions are disregarded, a huge furore erupts Wimbledon/MK Dons is the most prominent example of that. Or the fact Hull were up in arms about being renamed the Hull Tigers. Franchises are seen as the devils reincarnation over there. On the other hand, we seem much more willing to create 'franchises' ala USA. Perhaps because our history isn't as deeply rooted.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

A Pom on Big Cricket reckons the sport suffers a lot over there as being seen as at least upper middle class by your average punter that would follow stuff like football religiously.

This is true, Cricket is in the same bracket as Golf and Tennis over there, essentially a white collar sport. Whereas here, it fills the blue collar void during the summer. Perhaps plays a role regarding Englands resistance against franchise based cricket.

And it's not like here where the AFL and NRL go a solid 2-3 months without any real stories, allowing cricket space in the media.

Soccer there is effectively year-round. The season goes months longer, the players move clubs all summer and every second summer there's a World Cup/Euro championship.

 

[questionable]

In England, T20 has been especially successful for small county sides like Somerset at Taunton, Sussex at Hove, Leicestershire etc. These places would miss out under a franchise model. The BBL has done an excellent job at making the sport accessible - tickets are cheap, easy to get despite the big crowds so the fans are growing a connection to their side. A move to the same model in England flies in the face of this.

heaven forfend that the millionaires of sussex and kent be deprived of their god-given right to top level domestic t20 cricket.

meanwhile, a place like liverpool (the sixth largest urban area in the UK) will never have any form of top-level domestic cricket (first class, list a, or t20) under the county system

no doubt the english situation is more difficult than here in australia, but if they want cricket to remain the preserve of the upper class - disconnected from the majority of the population - they're going about it the right way.

 

[The Speaker]

heaven forfend that the millionaires of sussex and kent be deprived of their god-given right to top level domestic t20 cricket.

meanwhile, a place like liverpool (the sixth largest urban area in the UK) will never have any form of top-level domestic cricket (first class, list a, or t20) under the county system

no doubt the english situation is more difficult than here in australia, but if they want cricket to remain the preserve of the upper class - disconnected from the majority of the population - they're going about it the right way.

Do they even have any grounds to play county cricket in some of the major cities? Most of the bigger stadia are rectangular.

I tried looking through some of the grounds in metro areas for a theoretical franchise league but the way they divide cities and metro areas and unitary councils and everything was far too complex for me to get my head around.

 

[questionable]

also, the numbers used in this article you quoted

The difficulty of the franchise system over there, is summed up in this article.

...are way, way off. claiming that a ten-team competition comprising london x2, leeds, manchester, nottingham, southampton, birmingham, bristol, cardiff and durham/newcastle would only serve 22% of the population is absolute bullshit that's based on arbitrary city limits - a completely different methodology to the 61% figure cited in the article for the BBL.

 

[questionable]

Do they even have any grounds to play county cricket in some of the major cities? Most of the bigger stadia are rectangular.

I tried looking through some of the grounds in metro areas for a theoretical franchise league but the way they divide cities and metro areas and unitary councils and everything was far too complex for me to get my head around.

most of the major cities are represented in the county championship (liverpool is an exception, as are the scottish cities of course).

england doesn't have the benefit of ground sharing with aussie rules that has funded the development of large, modern stadia for cricket in australia. a t20 league based in the major population centres could change that but the ECB is too concerned with pandering to rich white people in the south-east to ever make that happen, and will consign the sport to irrelevancy.

 

[Zarrix]

Plus the rivalries between cities are far too profound. Can't imagine someone from Liverpool supporting a Manchester team or a Manchester resident supporting a Leeds team. Here that isn't an issue, for example Geelong isn't hated by Melburnians, if that ever came to be a sizable conundrum.

 

[FRUMPY]

I was really into it when the Vics played and it probably helped that they dominated. For me having it on basically every night leads me to not watch most games, over saturation.

I am usually away at the beach for majority of it and would watch some of the 2nd inning before going to bed. Only am interested in certain players (Hodge, Wade, Finch and a few other Vic players) and watch the games to see how they go.

The internationals have been a success this year with Flintoff and Pieterson adding a lot to the coverage.

To me T20 is a domestic game and it works really well here albeit to the detriment of our test team and players being ready to play tests in case of injury/form.

 

[peternorth]

Do they even have any grounds to play county cricket in some of the major cities? Most of the bigger stadia are rectangular.

I tried looking through some of the grounds in metro areas for a theoretical franchise league but the way they divide cities and metro areas and unitary councils and everything was far too complex for me to get my head around.

from my experience, some 25 years ago, from life in england, counties have a major ground, and 2 others that they may or may not use. they are cricket grounds.