BBL or BBS?

[RANT]Okay, I thought the idea of the split innings Domestic One-Day Competition was a silly idea. I really did. And (un)fortunately I was out of the country, so I didn't really get to see how it played, so I probably shouldn't slag the format off, rather than to say: If you want to develop players that can compete at the international level in a game, you should have the domestic levels of the game replicate as closely as possible the international game.

But I didn't really come here to rubbish the Australian Domestic One-Day Competition.

The Big Bash League, on the other hand...

Okay. Let's start with the fact that they have decided to scrap the 6 existing State Sides that compete in the other 2 formats of the game in Australia, and expand it to 8 city-based sides. That in and of itself wasn't the worst idea. It was a pretty bad idea, but it wasn't the worst. I could have seen it working a little better if they had decided to pick the 6 major capital cities and 2 other major cities (like, maybe, Darwin and Canberra - not state capitals, but the capitals of the territories we have here in Australia, which are pretty much states anyway). As it stands they now have to develop a new fan-base and make them care about teams and players that they still aren't sure about, get them to the games, and get ridiculous amounts of money from broadcasting rights and sponsors so they can pay the players enough money to want to attract the international and other headline players that they need in the first place to get people to care about the teams and get them to the games...

Next, they decide to hold the competition at a time when not even the Australian International players are available, and the only Internationals that might be available of from the West Indies, who may or may not be interested in playing. Between you and me, I'd be more interested in following the East Melbourne Echidnas (not an actual team name) if I knew that Mike Hussey and David Hussey were playing all the games, and that they had Martin Crowe and Viv Richards as their imports, rather than holding my breath on a diluted domestic talent pool and the possibility that there might be a WI player that is going to play.

Speaking of retired players, they then go out and try to enlist a couple of retired Australian players that have no intention of playing any more cricket at that level, or at that time of year. Unless you're willing to drive a dumptruck full of money up to their door (which I'm pretty sure they don't have), these players are going to prefer to do the thing that they retired to do - spend time with their family over the holiday period.

Then there are the proposed rules changes to, I assume, freshen up a game that is pretty much still out of its wrapping paper and doesn't really require freshening up. It's like jumping out of a nice hot shower, and applying a KFC refresher towel to your face, really.

The notion of keeping the balls hit into the crowds isn't too bad, I suppose. Sure, there are a lot of sixes hit in T20 games (I think they cited 14 as being the most hit so far in the competition), but replacing the ball seems no real drama, except they used the term "new ball". I believe they used the term twice. Now, I hope that they mean "new replacement ball", as in a reconditioned ball, not actually a brand new ball. Call me crazy, but isn't a new ball nice and hard and much easy to slog over the fence than an older ball? Then it occurred to me, that it's not only sixes that go into the crowd - it's not that uncommon for balls to bounce and go into the crowd. Are these to be thrown back, or can the fans keep these lesser keepsakes as well? If not, it's only a matter of time (probably the first game) before there is a picture of Little Johnny or Jane on the back page of the Perth Daily News (not an actual paper) crying because they caught a ball that bounced into the crowd while the Perth Possums beat the West Sydney Wombats (not actual team names), only to have to give the ball back.

The Super Over is the next proposed change. An over that doubles every run in the over scored. That seems like a whacky, fun idea, until you think about how it's going to affect the stats. But maybe it's best not to think about batting and bowling averages, and economy rates, and such. Maybe they have promised Chris Gayle the chance to beat the over that he was part of in the IPL where 37 runs were scored, or for David Warner to be able to crack the fasted T20 century (bowl a couple of no balls in the Super Over, and you could do it in an over. Take the Super Over in the first over of the first game against a guy recruited from one of the club sides to make up the numbers, and you could do it right at the start of the competition to really make the papers!). In a game where the scores are already pretty impressive, I don't see the need to make the scores even higher with a meaningless bonus over.

And then there is the 12th man as a Pinch Hitter. Didn't we already go down this road in the Domestic One Day competition a while ago? And why do we need a pinch hitter in a T20 game where everyone is trying to score as quickly as possible, anyway? Is this a plan to lure back some retired players who want to play the game, but don't want to bother with "all that fielding business"? Maybe there are some baseball players that want to have a hit, but don't want to be confused by all the rules of the game that the BBL organizers are looking to get into the squads?

I think there was some other proposed changes about fielding restrictions, and so on, and an online survey you could complete on the suggestions that I was going to mention, but I think I have run out of steam. That and the page that the survey was supposed to be on didn't work. An omen perhaps?[/RANT]