England's T20: facts and fiction

Why is franchise cricket in England back on the agenda?

While the Big Bash is attracting large crowds and generating new supporters and more revenue for Australian cricket, fears have been renewed that the English competition is looking pedestrian by comparison.

After a major marketing drive at the start of the 2014 season designed to double attendances over the next few years, although total crowds rose, the average attendance at the NatWest Blast fell and participation figures released towards the end of the year showed that fewer people were playing the game. It led many to conclude that cricket, in England and Wales, was in decline and that something must be done to change it.

As a result, a growing number of people seem to be concluding that England need to follow the Indian or Australian model and re-launch the competition as a franchise-based tournament over a shorter time frame. Typically, a four to six week competition is mooted with either eight or 10 teams.

Haven't we tried a shorter competition in the past?

We have, yes. There were some advantages to it, too. It could mean that it is easier to sign big-name overseas players for the whole event - their availability over a longer event is limited by the growth of the international schedule - and the players argue that focussing on one format for a few weeks allows them to raise standards. There is also an argument that suggests that playing the event over a few weeks allows it to build momentum in the way that the IPL and the Big Bash have managed.

So why didn't we stick to that?

There were a few reasons. One was that staging the competition over a short period left it at the mercy of the weather. So, a wet July could ruin the entire domestic T20 season. In 2012, for example, 16 of the 90 group games were abandoned.

Another was that the counties wanted to host more games as they see T20 as an important cash generator. They each currently host seven home games in the group stages, with the majority staged on Friday nights to encourage a post-work and school crowd. Again, in 2012, when only 10 group games were played per county, the average attendance remained about the same (4,500) and the overall attendance figure (313,215 in from 90 matches in 2012 compared to 633,957 from 144 matches in 2011) almost halved.

There was also a concern that a competition in such a window might put it at the mercy of rival events such as the Olympics, or football's World Cup and European Championships.

It's not all about money, is it?

Not entirely, it's about quality and spectator appeal as well, but money is a highly significant factor. If the argument was about the quality of international cricket, it would be relevant that India have not won the World T20 since the introduction of the IPL (though they did win it before) and Australia have not won the World T20 since the introduction of the Big Bash. England, by contrast, won it in 2010. Equally, some would argue that the strength of the IPL has actually hindered the development of Indian Test cricket, but let's not get into that here.

This argument is more about the ability of different T20 competitions to attract a new generation of supporters - and players - to the game. And everyone agrees that's important. The counties have also become reliant upon T20 ticket sales to remain solvent.

What is the attraction of franchises?

Some people feel that 18 teams is too many for a competition designed to capture the imagination of a mass-market that may well have no prior knowledge of the sport. Some also feel that the quality would be raised if fewer teams - maybe eight or 10 - were involved and the talent was concentrated into those teams. They also feel that it would make it easier to follow for new supporters.

It is argued by some that the reputation of county cricket is so old-fashioned and traditional that it fails to engage a new, young audience. As a result, it is argued that an eight or 10-team competition based in the major cities might inspire a new generation of cricket lovers.

Wouldn't it take money out of the game? Aren't the IPL franchises owned by individuals or companies with no direct link to the game?

Up to a point. But the Australian model still sees the teams effectively owned by Cricket Australia (attempts to attract 33% from private investment found no takers). So the aims of all the teams, and the revenue they generate, serve the interests of the Australian game.

Great. What's stopping us?

A few things. Firstly the counties fear that if they cut the number of teams for a T20 competition, it could set in place a chain of events that sees the number of first-class counties cut.

Some also fear that they could miss out on revenue opportunities - even though most models for a T20 franchise competition would see counties compensated if they did not host games - and that the introduction of franchises would destroy the one sure-fire money spinner in the county game: the local derby.

It also appears that the franchises would be based in city grounds, some of which have proved the least successful at selling the game to a new audience. Hove, Chelmsford and Taunton, who have taken to T20 with relish, might all miss out. Some suspect that the franchise agenda is being pushed by those who have long aimed to cut the number of first-class counties.

So it's the timid old counties holding us back again?

That's one interpretation. But county cricket was the birthplace of the List A (one-day) game in 1963 and the T20 game in 2003. It is not quite as reactionary as some suggest.

Is it a case of the smaller clubs holding back the bigger clubs?

Not really. It is often reported that way, but it is not quite so clear cut. Generally, in the first decade of T20 cricket in England, smaller clubs such as Sussex, Essex and Somerset fared best in terms of managing full-house crowds and creating a vibrant atmosphere.

County cricket was the birthplace of the List A game in 1963 and the T20 game in 2003. It is not quite as reactionary as some suggest

Also, among the deals discussed in the past was an arrangement where smaller counties would be compensated - a figure of over £1m per club was mooted - to sit out the competition. Some of the smaller clubs privately expressed their willingness to accept such a deal of it was ever forthcoming. At the same time, several of the bigger clubs - including Surrey - feel that a franchise competition would be the beginning of the end of the 18-county system and should be avoided.

Are franchises the only difference between the Big Bash and the NatWest Blast?

No. There are many other influences - some easier to address than others. The weather in Australia is better and makes watching cricket in the evening a more reliably pleasant experience, especially if - like England - the tournament begins in mid-May. That hot weather may have an impact on Australian pitches, which have consistently been very good. Scheduling over the Christmas holiday period also makes it easier for families to attend. Ticket prices in the UK are also typically higher than the Big Bash - up to three times higher - and, crucially, the competition is now shown on free-to-air TV in Australia. It was not as successful in the years when it was only available on subscription TV.

Is the Big Bash as good as people say?

It's debatable. Some insist it is higher quality than the ECB version, but the fact that three of the top six run-scorers are former England players suggests that might not be the case. Equally, the match totals are actually a little lower than in England (about 11 at the time of writing) and there have been, as in England, some one-sided encounters. TV audiences for the Big Bash this season have actually dropped marginally, while there might be an element of the relentlessly upbeat commentary for the tournament which seduces observers into concluding the product they are watching is somewhat better than the reality.

What do the players want?

Judging by Twitter, they seem very keen on a Big Bash style competition. But that may well not be a reliable gauge: after all, if the number of teams is cut by eight or 10, up to half of them would miss out. This debate is much more about what spectators - or potential spectators - want.

Will the ECB consider the franchise system?

There is change afoot at the ECB, with a new chairman and chief executive about to take office and they have long seemed permanently on the verge of another root-and-branch review into the domestic structure.. But for all the waves produced by the Big Bash there is no immediate prospect of the ECB considering franchise cricket. They said before the 2014 season that they would end the tinkering that has characterised the competition and give the current format four years to bed in. It is believed that Sky, the ECB's key broadcast partner, would favour a slimmed T20 format, though it always says publically that it is down to the ECB to decide how the ECB run its competitions.

Is there any prospect of domestic T20 cricket being shown on free to air TV?

Yes. ESPNcricinfo understands that it is likely that some domestic cricket will be shown on free-to-air TV in 2015. While that might only be a highlights package, it will provide some oxygen for the game. There is little prospect of widespread, live free to air coverage, though: Sky has recently taken up the option of extending their broadcast deal until the end of the 2019 season and they pay handsomely for exclusivity. It is understood, though, that they are also considering putting some games - perhaps one a week - on their free to air Pick channel in order to encourage new spectators and advertise their coverage.

When should a franchise tournament be played?

Some are calling for it to be played straight after the IPL, even though the weather in May is unreliable, it is exam time for many school children and the football season may still be running. Others want it in July or August to take advantage of school holidays and warmer - if not necessarily dryer - evenings. As ever in this debate, there is little consensus.

Are there other options?

Yes. A franchise system could work in a mid-season window alongside an 18-county T20 league running through the season. Alternatively, an FA Cup-style knockout is also favoured by some. Quite where all that cricket would fit in is a good question: the county fixture list is already too crowded for some. Equally, a two division T20 league with promotion and relegation is a possibility. None of these things are on the agenda at present, but they are being widely discussed and these things can change quite quickly.

Is the situation in England really that bad?

No, it's just not as good as it could be. And there will always the critics of cricket who will run it down given a moment's opportunity. The T20 Blast brings in money for the counties, sells reasonably well, and most counties insist the graph is heading upwards. In 2014, attendances topped 700,000 for the first time.

As the ECB settle upon an improved schedule - and they are only one year into a four-year plan - they are predicting record ticket sales again in 2015 with the aim of doubling them from their 2013 level (611,299) by the end of 2017. Lord's and The Oval - who will host games on Thursday and Friday evenings respectively - both expect to top 20,000 a game this year.

There is a perception that the T20 competition in the UK hasn't generated the interest of the Big Bash, but it would be wrong to say the current NatWest Blast is not working at all, though.

So can you suggest some simple solutions other than franchises?

Sure. There has been a lot of tinkering with the competition in England and nothing has quite captured the public imagination as it might have done, but all these options are worth considering:

The competition could start two or three weeks later (it started on May 16 in 2014 with the group stages finishing on July 25), to enable kids to finish their exams and for the competition to go on into the school holidays. Rather oddly, it stops as they start at present.

The counties could reduce their ticket prices to attract casual spectators or simply started half-an-hour later at times: maybe 6.30pm rather than 6pm. Yorkshire, in the process of installing floodlights at Headingley, expect to feel the benefit of that. Start from the urge to fill the ground and create an atmosphere.

County cricket's most serious problem may be its image. Whoever solves this one will deserve the gratitude of English cricket for putting the future of the game on a much securer footing.

It would help if the England schedule allowed the top players to appear in domestic T20 cricket more often. In 2015, they will be released for just one T20 game.

It might help, too, if work permit criteria were relaxed to allow counties access to a wider pool of overseas players. After years of the ECB lobbying the government to tighten loop holes, they have now made it harder than anywhere else in the world to sign an overseas cricketer. Fast-track visas have never been harder to obtain for international sportsmen and women plying their trade.

Equally, the quality of pitches remains a contentious subject with high-scoring encounters featuring fast bowlers and big hitters generally proving more attractive to casual spectators than low-scoring games where waspish spinners and canny medium-pacers abound. Preparing the requisite number of good pitches is not easy, though, especially when an abandonment of out-grounds has put squares at county HQs under such demand.

It would also help if the traditional media gave the tournament more attention. With many games played on summer Friday nights, the media will only change if reader demand and revenue opportunities forces change upon it.

But even after explaining all that, you still can't escape the fact that a survey on Cricinfo indicated, in way or another, that 80% of respondents (presumably all cricket fans) accepted that county cricket had an image problem.

It's a fair point. County cricket's most serious problem may be its image. Often unfairly, the domestic T20 game does not have a great reputation and is struggling to capture the public imagination. Some sort of rebranding may well improve things - the question is "how much?" Whoever solves this one will deserve the gratitude of English cricket for putting the future of the game on a much securer footing.