They already have 6 credible clubs in existence, why in the blue f**k are they creating 8 fresh yet embarassing franchises when they really only need 2?

The current 6 'clubs' aren't credible, nor does anyone (barring the very occasional tragic) have any attachment or loyalty to them. And CA know it.

I'm presuming you're joking, but on the off chance you're not, how is the proposed system any better. Most of the franchises (and that's what they will be, not clubs) will be run (or at least will have a significant interest in) by the State cricketing bodies. I guarrantee that (as an example), the two NSW based clubs will be populated mainly by NSW players. Nothing fundamental will change, besides a bunch of marketing types getting paid a shed load of money to come up with new names and colour schemes that will be changed every year or two, thereby ensuring vast amounts of money continue to flow out of cricket and into marketing companies.

The sad thing is about this sudden (but I think fleeting) fascination with T20 is that a generation of players will come through a system with poor basic playing techniques. If we think the Australian playing talent is poor now, wait to see what its going to be like in 5, 10, 15 years' time.

I think the current six have some credible following. It's not massive but the brands have been established for a decade and a half and being attached to the state as a whole, the moist casual of cricket fans have had an easy time identifying with them.

I hope they have some geographical element to them as well as the made up bit. Super Rugby franchise names are a disaster - nobody knows where any of those teams are actually based!

as evidenced by their current ability to pull the kind of crowds that CA is looking for.

Seriously, I went through that surveymonkey site and it was full of epic fail and derpitude. It immediately brought to mind this:



The only bright idea there is that it looks like they want the realistic down to earth franchise and the completely off the wall franchise to be separate. Might as well make the first club the Bushrangers and the new one the Renegade Lightning Destroyers.

That's not a bad idea. Play them off against each other in NSW and Vic. Keep the Redbacks, Bulls, Warriors and Tigers. I know which one would win the hearts and minds.

The current format is working very well IMHO. Good crowds, standard, media coverage.

Why would they want to go and franchise it? I do not understand the logic.

If people wanted to support a franchise they would support Mc Donalds or the A-League.

Hoping that common sense will prevail however i am not holding my breath.

You know, not quite. Having lived in NSW for a while it amazes me the number of bogans who hate league and wear the nsw blues jumper everywhere they go. I'd say the problem for CA is the brand loyalty is there, just not within a cooee of the SCG.

I had no idea they would change the current format so much, i'm pretty dissapointed they want to replace all the current teams.

Take the Tassie Tigers for example, the "new team" will still play out of Bellerive Oval and will probably have the same roster of local players. The only difference will be a ridiculous new name, logo and uniforms, and maybe 1-2 new import players.

Its a lot of effort by the game to get a handful of "gen Y's" interested in cricket.

Im not a huge traditionalist, but the Tassie Tigers winning the big bash this season will mean more than the "Hobart Howlin' Hurricanes" winning the Colniel Sanders Super Biggest Bash National Championship next year.

There are 2 reasons (as I see it) why the current set up is not credible. The first is loyalty. Anyone can crap on about how they 'follow' NSW or whatever state they're from, but the bottom line is that they almost certainly don't show up to games and don't watch on TV -, with the exception of a big bash game, and IMO that's just novelty following anyway. If they stopped the big bash league and replaced it with nothing, no-one would give a sh*t. Who travels interstate to watch a domestic cricket game? Fucken no-one. Because no-one really cares whether their team wins or loses. There is precisely zero supporter loyalty.
The 2nd is that the current location of teams has absolutely nothing to do with population, players, or supporters. Teams are based on political boundaries. That is utterly, utterly ridiculous, and it's no wonder the system loses millions a year. And results in a lot of quality young players winding up playing grade cricket until they're 25.

I'm not going to try and pretend that whatever structure they're proposing is going to be better, because it may well not be. Especially if the early signs are any indication. But our current domestic structure will definitely not create the popular 'product' that CA really need.

Um, try telling Rugby League's State of Origin series that having teams based on political boundaries is "utterly, utterly ridiculous".

That's not a sporting league, and in any case it's a sport that, in reality, lacks serious international competition. It's the best representative competition they've got. Imagine if they replaced the NRL with a state based comp - the sport would die in the arse.

Nothing wrong with representative sport, as long as there's some balance. It's also worth noting that the domestic cricket structure is not really representative either. There are no eligibility rules that prevent any player from playing for any state. It's a league that simply contains the names of each state.

I agree with your conclusion about replacing the NRL with a state based comp, but not your reasoning. Its the fact that they would throw away decades of history with the teams and replace them with new entities that would cause the problem. People form attachments to sporting teams for all sorts of reasons - e.g. I support the Dragons in the NRL, but have never lived anywhere near either Kogarah or Wollongong. Many Australians follow an EPL team, despite never having been to the UK. And speaking of the EPL, that leads me on to your second point about team eligibility... Having no eligibility other than permission to play professional football in the UK clearly hasn't hampered the popularity of the EPL teams. Has had the unintended effect of turning England into chronic underachievers at international level, but that's another story...

I am not sure that attendance is a reasonable measure of loyalty. I will always be a supporter of the NSW cricket team but I can't attend their games. Even when I lived in Sydney I could only attend occasionally. I was either playing the game or working when games were on. Anyone who says that someone like me is a not a loyal supporter is talking complete nonsense.