Have franchise leagues helped reduce the gap between associate/minnow teams and the major international sides in T20 cricket?

[Local.Dada]

I see a lot of players from these associate / minnow nations play in various franchise leagues across the world.

Most franchises have a lot more professional setups than even some international teams.

A lot of these associate country players play all over the world with other international team players apart from India. Looks like a lot of these folks have become proper T20 specialist players.

While maybe not IPL or big bash and to some extent PSL but SA T20, IL T20, BPL, MLC, Abudhabi T10 and other such leagues have given opportunity to a lot of these associate or smaller team players. Muzurbani or Sikandar Raza can on their day win a game even against big teams with some things going their way.

I feel in coming years, we might see the gap reduce even further as some of these leagues exapnd and there is a lot more demand for professional cricketers.

India is the biggest market, lot of marquee players form SENA teams don’t play smaller leagues so I feel associate players will only benefit and their cricket will only flourish.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

I might not agree with Indian politics but the way Dalmiya saved a dying game is commendable.

 

[Mas-LFC]

In 2007 BD beat Windies in t20 WC chasing 160 odd when Bd wasnt as good loi side, Zimbabwe beat Australia too in the same WC, that was a massive upset. in 2009 world T20 Netherlands beat England. So t20 cricket starting from international t20 itself started the gap closer between better teams v weaker teams v associates. I wouldn’t say leagues made the main difference, it started from inaugural world t20.

 

[sweep_shot]

There are definitely more collaborations now. That plays a factor I guess.

Also, many of the associate sides have good immigrant players (South African, desi, Kiwi etc.). That also helps.

 

[Local.Dada]

In 2007 BD beat Windies in t20 WC chasing 160 odd when Bd wasnt as good loi side, Zimbabwe beat Australia too in the same WC, that was a massive upset. in 2009 world T20 Netherlands beat England. So t20 cricket starting from international t20 itself started the gap closer between better teams v weaker teams v associates. I wouldn’t say leagues made the main difference, it started from inaugural world t20.

You are confusing an odd upset with quality of players going up. By the same account Kenya beat WI in 96 and Zim beat Aus in 83 worldcup in odi format which is more challenging for minnow teams than T20.

What I am noticing is a lot of these teams having proper players who are sought after as T20 professionals in a lot of smaller or mid level leagues which makes them more confident against big team bowlers now .

 

[DeadlyVenom]

It's probably the format itself but there also benefits with the players exposure too.

It's just an easier format for associate countries to develop in their own countries. The infrastructure required is a lot less than tests and limited overs.

However let's be clear, most of the associate teams consist of expats many of who have developed their careers in FC level at their home country. Italy even has a player who has never set one foot in Italy!

 

[sweep_shot]

It's probably the format itself but there also benefits with the players exposure too.

It's just an easier format for associate countries to develop in their own countries. The infrastructure required is a lot less than tests and limited overs.

However let's be clear, most of the associate teams consist of expats many of who have developed their careers in FC level at their home country. Italy even has a player who has never set one foot in Italy!

Yes. You got that right.

In T20, it is easier to do well and cause an upset. There are only 20 overs.

I think an associate team's strength should be judged based on how they do in ODI/List A. T20 is not a proper metric.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Yes. You got that right.

In T20, it is easier to do well and cause an upset. There are only 20 overs.

I think an associate team's strength should be judged based on how they do in ODI/List A. T20 is not a proper metric.

They arent going to compete in ODI.

T20 is the format that is going to globalise cricket.

And @Local.Dada isnt wrong the exposure to other leagues and other players does help too.

No other team is ever going to go for test status after Afghans and Ireland and ODI status won't be far behind.

But what needs to be done is efforts to actually grow the game. Nepal, Ireland, Afghanistan have all done well and they are proper cricketing countries. We need to see if we can replicate this elsewhere rather than the USA/UAE model.

Maybe countries will get their own leagues.

 

[sweep_shot]

They arent going to compete in ODI.

T20 is the format that is going to globalise cricket.

And @Local.Dada isnt wrong the exposure to other leagues and other players does help too.

No other team is ever going to go for test status after Afghans and Ireland and ODI status won't be far behind.

But what needs to be done is efforts to actually grow the game. Nepal, Ireland, Afghanistan have all done well and they are proper cricketing countries. We need to see if we can replicate this elsewhere rather than the USA/UAE model.

Maybe countries will get their own leagues.

They also try to qualify for ODI World Cup.

But, ODI WC have less space (14 teams). So, most don't make it.

Netherlands did well in 2023 WC. They beat South Africa and Bangladesh.

I think Netherlands is the best associate because they can actually win ODI games. Other associates can only win T20 games.

 

[ghalib kichlu]

In 2007 BD beat Windies in t20 WC chasing 160 odd when Bd wasnt as good loi side, Zimbabwe beat Australia too in the same WC, that was a massive upset. in 2009 world T20 Netherlands beat England. So t20 cricket starting from international t20 itself started the gap closer between better teams v weaker teams v associates. I wouldn’t say leagues made the main difference, it started from inaugural world t20.

There’s been loads of upsets in t20is
It’s why they’ve made it easier to qualify for the super 6ers

 

[Major]

Just a correction i wana add, Pakistan did give associate nations more chances when these others leagues hadnt formed.

Tim david from singapore, shaiman anwar and Usman khan of UAE and ali Khan of USA are examples.

 

[Deewana Mastana]

I think franchise leagues have helped, but let’s not overstate it.

They’ve definitely helped individual players from associate or smaller teams. When these guys get into leagues, they’re training with top coaches, sharing dressing rooms with elite players, and playing under real pressure. That experience makes a difference when they go back to their national sides. That’s why we now see teams like Netherlands, Namibia, Nepal or USA being more competitive in T20s and pulling off the odd upset.

But franchise leagues haven’t magically closed the gap. Only a few associate players actually get picked, while the big teams still have stronger domestic systems, more money, and far more depth. One or two improved players can help, but they can’t carry an entire team on their own.

So yes, franchise leagues have narrowed the gap a little, especially in T20 cricket. But to really level things out, associate teams still need more regular international games against top sides, proper funding and better domestic structures.

 

[Major]

As for the topic.

I disagree. Its not really franchise leagues, its just the nature of the format.

Associate nations were always known as teams that would have one player around whom the team revolved, and if he performed against a test side nation, that would be a massive upset.

John Davison for Canada, kevin Obrien for ireland, ryan ten doeschatte for Netherlands.

The thing about t20 cricket is that the margins are not that huge, thus associate nations have a bigger chance.

The other day Pakistan stole a win due to a cameo by Faheem Ashraf. However, if this was an odi match, Faheem Ashraf would had never played such a cameo.

T20 made batting more easy. A cameo from a player can help you win. Bowling wise, t20 is still difficult though

 

[Major]

I might not agree with Indian politics but the way Dalmiya saved a dying game is commendable.

Nothing to do with Dalmiya.

It was Haroon Lorgat of South Africa that bought massive changes to cricket somewhere in 2009-2011 as icc ceo.

2011 was the last world cup where a large number of teams participated and lorgat had decided he would reduce the teams for odi world cup, and increase the number of teams for the world t20.

He was heavily criticized by everyone. But he came from an accounting and finance background and had worked at IBM, Ernst and Young before coming into the ICC.

He was the one that realized the money to be made from t20 and used this format for the world cup rather than the odi.

Alot of people tend to critisize india, but it was Haroon Lorgat who reduced teams in the odi world up

 

[BreadPakoda]

Nothing to do with Dalmiya.

It was Haroon Lorgat of South Africa that bought massive changes to cricket somewhere in 2009-2011 as icc ceo.

2011 was the last world cup where a large number of teams participated and lorgat had decided he would reduce the teams for odi world cup, and increase the number of teams for the world t20.

He was heavily criticized by everyone. But he came from an accounting and finance background and had worked at IBM, Ernst and Young before coming into the ICC.

He was the one that realized the money to be made from t20 and used this format for the world cup rather than the odi.

Alot of people tend to critisize india, but it was Haroon Lorgat who reduced teams in the odi world up

Didn’t know Haroon was a Partner at EY before pivoting to cricket. Interesting.

 

[Mas-LFC]

You are confusing an odd upset with quality of players going up. By the same account Kenya beat WI in 96 and Zim beat Aus in 83 worldcup in odi format which is more challenging for minnow teams than T20.

What I am noticing is a lot of these teams having proper players who are sought after as T20 professionals in a lot of smaller or mid level leagues which makes them more confident against big team bowlers now .

No doubt, definitely playing in various t20 leagues has helped smaller, associate nations players get better hence which they take it into the international arena for their nations hence they’re able to give better match against better teams.

 

[Major]

Didn’t know Haroon was a Partner at EY before pivoting to cricket. Interesting.

He was one of the persons who helped in starting the PSL aswell.

BCCI hated him, because he took away the 2013 champion trophy away from them and gave it to england as BCCI couldnt get a tax exemption

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Probably two year T20 WC also deserves some mention.

The associates play top opposition every two years Vs every 4 years in ODI.

They also go through a pretty rigorous qualifying process between those two years which means that there is a lot of pretty high quality cricket for them to play.

Then you can add in the times some of their players play the leagues.

ICC is very commercially driven but things could get even better for cricket if they reduced the number of guaranteed qualifiers to 4 and then even bigger teams would have to play qualifiers.