England needs T20 evolution, not revolution

Perhaps familiarity has bred contempt but it seems every few years the county game has to fight to justify its existence all over again.

On the last occasion, when David Morgan was conducting his review in 2011, it was the Championship that came under threat. The ECB board was set to accept a 14-match programme that would have compromised the integrity of the competition but made room to play in the Champions League. Only a backlash from supporters - a backlash that one ECB cricket committee member admitted "shocked" everyone involved - provoked a last-minute change of heart.

Once again, it seems the domestic game has been seduced by a foreign suitor and a commentary team with an interest in talking up the product. This time T20 cricket in Australia - shiny, warm and inviting just as England is gripped by winter - has some convinced it is time to cut the number of counties, in one competition at least, and welcome a new era of franchise cricket.

"Franchise cricket" is a nebulous term. It is used, generally, as a symbol to represent words such as "new", "exciting" and "rebranded". But it is often forgotten that it might also mean - as in the IPL - "run for profit". The last time English cricket considered "franchising" teams in the loosest sense, it led to the Allen Stanford debacle.

Do we really want to follow the lead of the IPL? For all the success of that competition - and there is little doubt that it is the best T20 league by a distance - it has come at a cost. Such is its dominance that it is not always obvious whether India, now down to seventh in the Test rankings, still has an appetite for the longest format. T20 is important to England. But is it more important than the first-class game? The present debate seems to have lost sight of the need to balance the priorities between formats.

The timing of the new bout of navel gazing is odd, too. The year 2014 actually saw record sales for domestic T20 cricket in England and Wales and 2015 is highly likely to see those records broken. The counties are one year into a four-year plan. To even consider changing now reeks of indecisiveness.

The frustrating thing about the T20 debate is that it largely covers old ground. There is a reason why these ideas were abandoned. Let us learn the lessons.

Play T20 in a block? We did that. And, after one wet summer (2012) led to a 50% fall in ticket sales, we abandoned it.

Not only that, but it was concluded that playing games in a window demanded too much of spectators: families might be asked to buy tickets two of three times in a week, rather than having the opportunity to spread the cost over three weeks or a month.

Equally, it was concluded that playing it in a block rendered it at risk of being overwhelmed by rival events such as the Olympics and that it threatened to undermine the Championship programme.

How about fewer teams? True, we haven't tried that. But the promotion of Durham to first-class county status illustrated the value of spreading the game. It helped develop a generation of players and spectators who might otherwise well have been lost. If you're looking to reach out, you don't cut off your arms.

The 18 counties could share the profits of an eight-team competition. But once you start a two-tier system, it may prove very hard to turn back. It might well be the beginning of the end.

It is short-term thinking to believe cutting the number of teams will improve the standard. Instead, in an era when so little cricket is on free-to-air television and so little cricket is played in schools, it would see the sport contract. If you take the most glamorous, accessible form of the game from our smaller cities, how can the next generation living there be exposed to the joys of the sport?

The job of the counties is not just to entertain. It is to inspire and nurture a new generation of cricket players and supporters. It is to go into schools and clubs in their region and unearth the next Jos Buttler (from Taunton), Ben Stokes (Durham), Stuart Broad (Leicestershire) or Moeen Ali (Worcestershire). The level of talent in society is not finite; it depends on us inspiring and developing it.

Include the best players in the world? We did that for years. We had Sobers and Sachin, Marshall and Warne, Richards and Akram. But the international schedule has changed hugely and, even if a window helped to some extent, the increased difficulty in obtaining work permits - for which the ECB lobbied - or permission from national boards, has changed the situation forever. It is facile to pretend that playing in a three-week window will suddenly guarantee the likes of Virat Kohli.

Besides, while the IPL does manage to attract many of the big name players, it is a myth to suggest the Big Bash fares any better than the NatWest Blast in those terms. Indeed, many of the draw players are former England stars: the likes of Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff, both of whom appeared in the Blast last year. Equally, three of the top eight batsman in this year's competition are former England players and four of the top eight are county regulars. It is hard to sustain any argument that suggests the quality of the cricket in the Big Bash is better. This debate is largely about marketing.

There is some wishful thinking involved, too. No amount of marketing will give England and Wales the climate of Australia. No amount of marketing will allow England and Wales to run their T20 competition over the Christmas holidays. No amount of marketing will change the fact that, in Australia, the vast majority of people live in and around the large cities. Cutting the number of counties and rebranding those that remain won't change any of these things.

That is not to say that change is not required. The county game, for all its strengths, clearly has an image problem and convincing new spectators to give it a try is a significant challenge. But it is, largely, a marketing rather than a cricketing problem.

The NatWest Blast could be improved significantly with some relatively painless alterations. For a start, the competition could be moved back about three weeks to ensure it is played during the school holidays. At present it begins in mid-May and ends just as the schools break-up. This is madness.

Equally, the counties need to take a longer-term approach towards ticket prices. They need to understand that they cannot use T20 tickets sales to plug the holes in their finances now; they have to invest in low prices to encourage a new audience to attend.

In both regards, England can learn from the Big Bash. Most Australian school children broke up on December 18 - the day the 2014-15 Big Bash began - and go back just after the final on January 28. But in last year's T20 Blast the group stages finished on July 25, a few days after most children were free for the summer. They finish a day earlier this year, despite protests from a number of county chief executives.

Meanwhile, a family of four making a spontaneous decision to watch a Melbourne Stars game could do so for just $42.50, or £22.69. It would cost them over three times as much - £74 - to do the same at Yorkshire.

The pitches could be improved, too. For too long, canny medium-pacers and waspish spinners have dominated in English conditions. While those subtle skills are much appreciated by established cricket-lovers, they are not likely to captivate a new, mass-market audience. To that end, England require pitches that encourage fast bowlers and boundary hitting. It may well be that the ECB needs to explore the possibility of using drop-in pitches. They may be prohibitively expensive now but, with investment, that could change. It is not so long ago that it seemed fanciful that most grounds would have floodlights.

And, most of all, English cricket is crying out for some exposure. While Sky provides excellent coverage, the fact is that many children grow up in homes without subscription TV. All the millions invested in facilities and coaching schemes can never replicate the simple inspirational moment of witnessing a close-fought match on TV. It is how heroes are born and a love for the game is instilled.

With Sky having an exclusive deal until the end of 2019, the prospects for change may seem limited. But the counties are exploring the possibility of a highlights show and it may well be that Sky offers a few games free of charge on their Pick channel. It is in nobody's interest to see the game's relevance decline.

Let's give the counties a chance. Give them a chance to pick their best players - even their England players - when people are able to come and on the best possible pitches. And give them a chance to do it on free-to-air TV. It remains a great game and, with just a bit more exposure, there is no reason why another generation should not fall in love with it.