|
It's Simple Really
According to Cricket Australia’s Executive General Manager Events
and Competitions, Anthony Everard
“In both of those cases, we found that when women’s cricket is
given the appropriate marketing and promotional support, and scheduled
in clean air, it performs really, really well from an attendance and a
viewership perspective.
“When there’s cross-over between men’s and women’s cricket, life
gets a bit harder in terms of the choices that we demand of our fans.
16 Over + 4 balls Cricket
Well everyone else seems to have had their say about the new proposed league
due to start in 2020, so I guess I might as well.
Let's kick off (sorry) with the statement that we have three brands of
cricket that are played internationally, although the ICC, in the case of
the women's game, have essentially buried one of them. Only England and
Australia will play Tests and only, it follows logically, against each other as part of the Ashes.
This in itself is hugely disappointing for the fans and especially for the
players. One of the reasons given has been crowded schedules, although cost
is also often mentioned. So, forgetting the anomaly, you might be left
thinking there's no space for something new. However, it doesn't make sense though,
does it, as schedules are 'too crowded' as we all recall, even when
Tests have (almost) disappeared, to try to introduce another format?
The case of finding another style of format in the men's game (hereafter
known as 'TOG' - an abbreviation for 'The other game') is even weaker as
Tests will continue and the schedule is far more crowded than the women's.
But, staying with the women's sport, let's look at it from another angle.
What's broken that needs fixing? We've all been told, by the very people
wishing to introduce this new format to replace the KSL, how successful the
previous couple of seasons have been. Great! So let's keep doing what
obviously works... Seems not. Let's shake it all up, and try and fix what
isn't broken.
How about a bullet-point list so beloved of those in smart suits to check
out some of the issues. As one comedian used to say about his jokes... 'in
no particular order...'
-
The plan is to integrate with the men. Well the men
don't currently play 16 overs plus 4 balls cricket so both
men and women must change. It's not, in other words, an integration
at all. We have that already in the T20 in the sense of format, if
not of teams. One reason not to 'integrate' (and we'll
find others later) is that experience with the KSL has shown that
for stand-alone T20 matches it has been more successful in terms of
'bums on seats' than the double headers and this new scheme looks
like heading for more of those. {If you want any idea of the crowds
at KSL count them just before the innings break - not at the end of
the game where many of the croud have turned up for TOG - and do count them so you can ignore those who have
arrived just for the bar. The 'entrance numbers' can be hugely
misleading.}
-
The next reason (following on from above) is that the
KSL made only a half-hearted attempt to align itself with the
counties, although some counties did pick up some of the heavy
lifting, For instance Somerset with Western Storm. Loughborough
remained in the cold. An attempt seems to have been made to show that
it wasn't county based but a 'franchise'. However in every case bar
one it essentially was. That worked we were told, and in deed it
appeared to. The dropping of the 50-over format did mean, however,
that its stated purpose of 'developing players' had lost most of its
meaning.
-
The new tournament is supposed to be 'city based'. Well
we know that Warwickshire TOGs have decided to abandoned most of their
area and become Birmingham in some formats of the game but to ignore
your many followers who don't live in just one city seems very short
sighted to me.
-
'City based' also rings bells with, now who could it
be...? I know, the IPL. So will billionaires be bidding for top players
from 'TOG' or better still among the women? Oh, I do hope so! The women
players deserve some cash in their pockets that provides more than a token
existence. Can you see that happening?
-
Of course we could compare it to the WBBL. This seems to
have been a TV hit although we don't, once again, have accurate crowd stats.
But hang on... that's T20 cricket not 16 overs and 4 balls. Crowds,
the media, and just about everyone has been happy with that. Rumours abound
as I type that 'double headers will be abandoned and the WBBL is to be
'stand alone' (see my point above).
-
Yes, the media! One reason for this change is said to be FTA
(or free to air) TV. The game must occupy 2 1/2 hours or less to interest
them apparently. That's as long as their attention span. Now I cut my teeth
not just on the cricket field but on FTA TV cricket. I watched it for years. There
was plenty of room for it then, but we didn't, of course, have to fit in so
many 'repeats' as seems vital on TV these days. There were of course so many
more channels then - oh, no - sorry - I've got that... - well let's be polite
and say 'wrong way round'. When I started watching
Aunty Beeb had only one channel - now she has 4 and streaming and iplayer
and... well... I am pretty sure I will have missed some. So of course you
can't fit a 3 hour game in anywhere! What was I thinking. There simply isn't
room. Not in one of the billion channels that seem to be out there.
Sky has now taken up women's cricket quite well and I think gives
as much coverage as the sport needs. If it doesn't benefit from this
then it won't from more even if FTA (free-to-air). There's an argument
to be made
about FTA but I'd be
doubtful Sky would readily give up some of their rights - they
are a commercial organisation - why should they? They might
drop their future offers for broadcasting rights
to the ECB on
the basis they are losing part of their monopoly i.e. it will cost ECB
money. Now the ECB have gone down this route of no FTA they'll have to
live with it unless BBC is interested in
women's county or club which is just not going to happen.
-
When T20 started it was supposed to be 3 hours long. For an
evening match that's start at 18:30 and end at 21:30. It doesn't now and needs
severely taking in hand. If you want to make things easier for the
broadcasters tackle this problem and maybe you can forget the gimmicks. With
the women's game that won't be a problem but in TOG...
-
There's also the nightmare of how you work out the stats with
one long over being bowled by as many bowlers as you chose to use - all 10
might be interesting - surely someone will think of that!
-
If you're female and reading this then I do hope you can count
to 100. I know from what's been said in launching this idea, that counting to
120 is just a bit too difficult for you. In view of that I am also not sure
how you'll get on when the first ball ever bowled in this 16 overs+4 balls
turns out to be a wide. We've got 101 balls and likely to get a few more on
the way. I hope you're keeping up...
-
And I've left what many might consider the most important
point to the last. No one - yup - no one around the world plays this format or
has shown any indication they are even thinking about it. You are thus
training players to play in a format that is useless to them unless a T20
match gets shortened by rain to 16 overs and 4 balls - except you can't have
bits of an over in a T20 second innings - at least I don't think so.
The whole idea seems to be just plain daft. I would
type another bulleted list of items in favour of this idea but I can't
think even of one to kick off with.
It has been greeted by the pundits, journalists,
bloggers etc with totally unanimous negative comments,
ranging from derision to apoplexy. I can understand why.
I can also understand why the powers that be put their
minds to how they can improve the game. The MCC changes the Laws of
the game as new ideas and experience guides them. The ECB, the
governing body of the sport in the UK has worked wonders with the
women's game at the top. The base of the pyramid is very rocky indeed, but
more of that anon. But, to repeat myself, why would you take something
that you've proclaimed a great success and risk changing it. In
business this would be considered a very doubtful, if not poor or even
suicidal
strategy. If something's not working, that's one thing, but if it is...
From a personal point of view how far will I travel
to a game? If it's 50-over it's much further than a T20. I get a day's
cricket for the expense of all that petrol. When asked about who
I would support in the Kia Super League I replied 'whoever is playing
nearest'. Why? Well there's the petrol argument and also the fact 'my
county' doesn't have a team. Their players are scattered to the four
winds. I have no natural affiliation. Would it make a difference if it
were city based? Well I live close to the largest conurbation in the
south of England and they don't have a team either. Fortunately I just
love cricket so I'll be watching somewhere but how many are there like
me? With a county team you have a relatively large area in which
people can feel involved. That should have been the way to go with the
KSL, of course.
It seems to me this suggested format is different enough from T20 to make the
players' lives difficult but not different enough to be considered
innovative. That kind of planning... well...
If sledged can you think of a quick retort? In a recent
interview Hayley Matthews' brother showed he had some imagination...
When teased with "you're not as good a cricketer as your
sister!" His reply was "No, and neither are you!"
Probably also an accurate assessment.
|