More details have emerged this week of how the ECB plan to reform the county championship. Before you try and get your head around all the options on the table, be warned – you’ll need an awful lot of patience, and a degree in ECB-ology.
The headline idea is an absolute classic. Everyone agrees there’s too much cricket, and too many cricketers. The solution? *Expand* the championship to 21 sides, by promoting three minor counties. Brilliant.
There are five alternative proposals in total, explained by Steve James in the Sunday Telegraph:
- 1. Premier division of eight playing each other home and away and division one split into north/south pools with teams facing those in their own pool twice and those in the other pool once.
- 2. Three conferences with play-offs
- 3. Three divisions of six with matches played over five days
- 4. Two divisions of nine teams playing 12-14 matches
- 5. Three divisions of seven teams with three minor counties added and promotion and relegation of one team.
The status quo – 16 teams in two divisions playing each other twice – is not being considered.
None of the options above seem terribly convincing at first sight. A second division split north/south risks standards slipping too low, as might a three division system – how uncompetitive would the bottom tier be? The 21 teams idea is palpable nonsense, while the conferences plan reportedly lacks support, and may also be too contrived to make for a satisfactory spectator experience.
As Steve James observes, there’s an obvious snag with the concept of the same 2 division/9 team structure, but with each club only playing 12-14 matches. On what basis would you decide which sides played each other twice, and which only once? Wouldn’t be unfair that some counties ended up playing the top sides twice, and others the weakest ones twice?
Virtually no-one disputes that the quantity of cricket must be reduced. But why only the first class game? The ECB must cut one-day and T20 cricket in proportion, to maintain standards – instead, they increase it every year.
Missing from all the proposals is anything about the reducing the number of counties – the simplest way of cutting the amount of cricket and getting better value for the ECB’s Sky revenue. The brave option is to withdraw at least two counties from first class cricket. But goodness knows why I’m even writing the words. It will never happen.
Maxie Allen
It is remarkable that any option that increased the number of participating teams was even considered. The conferences plan has the ability to significantly reduce the competitiveness due to the dilution of talent between three supposedly even or random divisions.
In my opinion, the only option available is the three divisions of 6 teams – this configuration sustains the meritocracy of the existing 2 divisions and ensures the best players and teams play each other as often as possible. I would keep one up / one down to the top division and two up / two down between the 2nd and 3rd tier. Does it matter if the 3rd tier is of a low standard if there is a concentration of talent in the top 2 divisions?
I can understand why James would be against the three divisions of 7 teams as Worcestershire would be marooned in the bottom division and would be challenging Cumbria, Isle of Sheppey and Sark for the wooden spoon!
In a three division, what would realistically be the point of the third division? Its clubs are unlikely to keep hold of any prospective England players nor attractive overseas stars. What would those sides actually contribute to English cricket?
I would grasp the nettle and cut the Championship to two divisions of six teams each – 10 four-day games would mirror the amount of games played in Australia and, as far as I’m aware, South Africa. For England to improve, the players need to play fewer but higher-standard and more intense games – but the ECB are so in hock to the counties they either can’t see this or know they’d never get it though.
Turkeys will never vote of Christmas, and unfortunately I think each county holds one equal vote in these matters. Rather than getting rid of two / four county teams why not make them semi-professional with part-funding from the ECB. Maybe the proposed div3 could be semi-pro? If they get promoted, they then get more funding and might be able to go pro. This is something of a half-way measure, but it would at least preserve the history of all the English counties.
Goose old friend, I would be fearful if Worcestershire had to play the Isle of Sheppey! However, Sark are probably our level. Could be a good contest. However, I hear they are enlisting 28 Kolpak South Africans for next season, so maybe not!
Why not ban overseas players from division 3, limit the number of full time professionals who can play in a team to say 8 and significantly increase the payments for the number of players played under the age of 23? The problem is how these teams would compete in one day and Twenty 20 cricket with such a reduced playing staff.
Considering the way Hants have started the season (100% record – at least they are consistent), Division 3 would be too high for them at the moment.
I think something like that is worth considering mate. Maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad thing if young talented amateurs (making up the XI in div3 sides) got a chance to play against the big boys. Gives them a chance to impress and maybe get a full time contract elsewhere? I dunno. It’s a real tough one. They surely need to do something though … other than the existing experimental plans that is!
Why not have 4 conferences of 5 teams? The conferences could be named northern southern eastern and western conference, with either Scotland and Ireland joining or the top 2 minor counties from the previous year being “promoted”. Each team plays home and away with each team in their conference (8 games) and 4 home games and 4 away games with 8 of the other 15 sides. From year to year the other teams to be played could be changed similarly to what they do in the NFL. And if 8 other games was seen as to much this could be reduced to just 6. Winners of each conference go on to play semifinal and final. This idea could potentially be followed in the 50 over game and T20 having said that! Personally I like the idea as it opens up the tournament to all teams having potential to win that year. The minor counties could run similarly at the level below, a play off each year between the top 2 and 2 from the main conference system to complete the 20 team format?