How should we improve county cricket?
English cricket seems to be rapidly returning to the 90s, those heady days that we all remember so fondly. Our team was not very good, so we resorted to dropping our better performers and selecting players in a “hit and hope” system. Then we wondered why other teams kept beating us out of sight.
Compare this with England since 2005. It began with a hangover and complacency, and continued with a descent into mediocrity until we returned full circle to muddled selections, players and coaches washing their dirty laundry in public and a team that has a habit of waving the white flag at the first glimpse of pressure from their opponents.
Back in the late 90s, it was decided that the structure of domestic cricket was partly to blame, with too many meaningless games, and not enough competitiveness. So we had the introduction of two divisions in the county championship with promotion and relegation and the system of central contracts. Initially, this seemed to have an effect, with the improvement under Duncan Fletcher, Nasser Hussain and later Michael Vaughan.
Now we are stale again. Established test performers are shielded from the county game, so we complain that they are not playing enough cricket. County performers play most days during the summer, so we tell everyone that they are being burnt out and have no time for practise.
Many of our teams are filled with Kolpaks who qualify through EU passport regulations, essentially rendering the overseas player entitlement meaningless. The structual progress achieved during the Lord McLaurin era is a distant memory, and we continue to tinker with our domestic competitions, with the introduction of P20 in 2010 having undergone several metamorphosis already.
Any further development is ultimately hamstrung by the influence of the counties, to whom the ECB chairman Giles Clarke is indebted for his recent reelection, and the complete lack of accountability at the top of our administration – see the recent Stanford fiasco.
It is high time that a break was made from the traditional power bases of English cricket. Whilst there are some forward thinking county chairmen with one eye on the good of the national team, there are too many in positions of power who have a vested interest in the domestic game.
A reduction in the amount of cricket played is badly needed, and a sensible domestic program which minimises travelling time, avoids clashes with international matches and pits the best players against each other. The counties are loath to reduce the amount of limited overs cricket as these are the big money pay days. All that being said, it should still be possible to schedule one competition in each discipline – 4 day championship, 50 and 20 over tournaments – and still have time for players to recuperate, practise and so on.
The 2009 domestic season runs from 15th April through to 27th September, or 165 days. This will allow plenty of time for the fixtures under my proposed structure, which is as follows:
- Friend’s Provident Trophy to remain unchanged
- P20 to mirror structure for FP Trophy
- County Championship to consist of 3 six team divisions
- No domestic cricket played during Test matches
The big change would come in the Championship. Many would have a reduction in the number of 1st class counties. However, the counties need to ratify competition changes under the current set-up, and turkeys don’t vote for Christmas, so we can assume that this is not going to happen.
I would introduce a 3rd division to the championship, with each division having 6 teams each. This would instantly reduce the 1st class season to 10 four-day matches, with each county losing 12 days of home cricket. Relegation and promotion would be fixed at one team up and down in each division. The other effect of this would be to encourage the best talent to compete with the top counties, and the cream would gradually float to the top.
Dates set aside for test matches would be kept free of other cricket, avoiding clashes with important domestic matches. The benefit of this would be to increase availability of internationally contracted players for their counties, whilst keeping control of when and where they play within the England setup. Players not playing for England would then have the chance to recover and work on their games away from the middle for a few days at a time, rather than having to snatch the odd net here and there.
There would be additional restrictions on overseas players, with counties not permitted, as Kent and Middlesex among others have been, to contract players whose national team are touring that summer. Eight of each counties eleven for any game would be qualified to play for England, and four would be developed through that counties academy.
Less cricket, with additional time for practise and recovery between matches would result in an improvement in quality and competitiveness, and this could lead (with the right marketing) to improved domestic attendances and revenues for the counties.
So, these are my suggestions for how we can move forward. If the status quo is maintained, then the England team can likely look forward to consistent mediocrity with only occasional moments of glory in between.
Comments:
3