The future of County Cricket

[westoelad]

Yorkshire are against pruning the CC.

Quite right too.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/cr ... -1-7428474

Arthur's proposals still has the issues of fixture congestion, unless if he wants the County Cricket season to start in late March and finish in early October. The main reason why there is fewer days of cricket in August is because the limited overs knockout stages take place then.

Starting the RL one Day Cup in May makes sense as preparation for the Champions Trophy and World Cup competitions.

I hardly think Arthur would be making these proposals if he hadn't some firm plans of how they might work. He makes the valid point that it isn't so much a problem of workload but of scheduling. Both Durham and Yorkshire had only 13 days of cricket scheduled throughout the month of August,one of which was a RL Q/F which wasn't a definite commitment when fixtures were published.

[Aidan11]

Could the new brooms at the ECB finally be seeing sense? Probably not but they might be starting to realise that the voice of the counties is stronger than the ECB 's desire to put revenue over everything else.


http://www.espncricinfo.com/county-cric ... 14799.html

[Making_Splinters]

Could the new brooms at the ECB finally be seeing sense? Probably not but they might be starting to realise that the voice of the counties is stronger than the ECB 's desire to put revenue over everything else.


http://www.espncricinfo.com/county-cric ... 14799.html

I don't think anyone should be celebrating the fact that the Counties are able to, like a small child, say "Shan't" and hold the ECB to ransom. The current state of cricket in England is completely dependant on the Sky money paid for, in large part, the TV right for International cricket. With BT muscling in for overseas rights Sky has lost its monopoly on English cricket. Should Sky say, "We're going to pay less" or should they decide that they only want to bid for the rights to International cricket the ECB and therefore the counties would be up the creek without a paddle.

The Counties, with a few exceptions such as Lancashire, need to realise that you can't *modded* on your own doorstep. Some Counties have realised this and are tightening their belts in a bid to become more self reliant for example Durham and Kent, but we've seen this season Northants make grave statements about the future of their club and even Yorkshire, the powerhouse of English cricket, have had to be bailed out in recent memory.

There needs to be changes in County cricket to build towards a situation where Counties are not up against the wall and completely stuffed should the Sky tap stop flowing. The ECB and the Counties need to realise that there has to be compromise, the ECB needs to stop throwing obviously too radical ideas in to the public domain and the Counties need to realise that they are not the paymasters.

Even ignoring the County ECB dynamic, from a players point of view there needs to be a reduction in the amount of cricket played. Jack Brooks on Sky said it is very hard on players when they have games at different ends of the country backing into each other. How this is done is very difficult. I would personally be in favour of a three division LVCC with each team playing 12 first class games a season instead of 16. Let's face it LVCC cricket does not bring money in. This would also help to make LVCC cricket more competitive and raise the standard of first class cricket in this country.

There are of course other ways, such as the full distrubition of Test match funds throughout the Counties, a set number of international ground that the ECB will directly provide funds for and the doing away of the bidding system etc. But at the end of the day, everyone needs to come up with a realistic plan of moving English cricket away from the debt ridden domestic model it has at the moment.

[Aidan11]

As long as they don't tinker with the County Championship they can do what they like for me.

If they are obsessed with cutting cricket then why not just scrap the 50 over format? That way they can replace one limited overs tournament for another. I don't blame the counties for hanging on to what they've got. Some test grounds went deep into financial trouble for bring their grounds up to the standard that the ECB want. The ECB has more accountants than cricket lovers these days.


As for players moaning about the schedules...I can hear Fred Trueman turning in his grave every time it's mentioned. If my boss asked me to work less hours for the same amount of pay I'd take his hand off. Too much travelling? How big is the UK exactly? Jeez how much more can they trim the fixture list? I wonder how many of these cricketers would rather give it up and go and work in the rat race. Funny how the amount of cricket diminishes but Memebership subscriptions don't.

We've made a lot of differences since the days of 32 x 3-day games with the Sunday League match sandwiched between days 1 & 2 of them (or was it 2 & 3?). No one can predict how the proposed City-based T20 league will fare. We don't have the climate and fans don't have the cash for a block-based system. Tom Harrison may have wanted to make a name for himself. Cricket lovers can think of a few that he may not like.

[Making_Splinters]

What, exactly, is the sanctity of the current LVCC? Why does playing 16 games matter so much? The LVCC is becoming less competitive at the top end and England are hardly producing the quality of Test players to justify suggesting that it should never be changed.

The facts are pretty simple, Counties are going up against the wall and if Sky were to reduce the money they are willing to pay the ECB several Counties would likely fold.

[Aidan11]

That's strange, I thought we'd just won the Ashes. We've got a young batsman who already looks like he's going to be one of the best England batsmen ever, we've got a new ball bowling pair who have more than 700 test wickets between them, and since the two division structure we have only lost the Ashes at home once - when the new structure was barely a couple of seasons old. There is an old saying - why fix what isn't broke? And if there are flaws how is depriving a struggling county of the revenue from one home game going to help?

As for the ECB moaning about bailing out the counties...they should remember they are there to represent the interests of the counties, not dictate to them.

[Making_Splinters]

Aiden, I expected better of you than to use the Ashes as a defense for something! If you actually stop and look at where most of the English talent is coming from you'd find it's one county - Yorkshire. Yorkshire is of course the county with the strongest league systems in the country by a very long way, significantly better than even the old Lancashire leagues which used to be home to a fair few young West Indian future talent. From their you're looking at Durham and Notts who are top flight counties.

I'd be interested to know what exactly are the revenues of home first class games, the ones I get up to at OT are not exactly making a significant imput and that's with us being right next to a large urban sprawl with a healthy league system.

I see little to no reason why changing to a three division system wouldn't benefit the game as a whole in the UK. Beefing up the competition in the LVCC, providing more challenging testing grounds for young players and most importantly freeing up time to move the entire domestic season into summer.

I'm not in favour of a franchise system for T20, I do think we need to streamline domestic cricket in the UK.

[westoelad]

3 divisions of 6 teams means 10,not 12, games assuming the intention is that each team plays each other home and away. A big reduction but could be compensated by increased 50 over games.

[Making_Splinters]

3 divisions of 6 teams means 10,not 12, games assuming the intention is that each team plays each other home and away. A big reduction but could be compensated by increased 50 over games.

Yes, my maths has failed me on that one. That said, with a reduced number of matches domestic games could even be five days to better prepare players for Test cricket. Of course in OZ they only play 10 games with a final if I'm not mistaken and Australia have always produced talent comparable or if not better than the English game has.

[st_brendy]

In my view, it is very easy for county fans whose team is regularly in D1 to be fully supportive of the current LVCC structure. I don't think they necessarily realise just how poor the bottom end of D2 is. You need to be down there, in D2, to really realise it.

Just look at the list of sides who have struggled in D1 after being promoted form D2 in very recent history. Worcs, Hants, Lancs, Surrey, Derby and Northants. Yorkshire are the only side in the last four years who I can think of that have managed to adequately cope with D1, but they're an anomaly given that a county of their size should never really have been in D2 in the first place. (Plus it makes it quite easy for them to attract players since being promoted).

These sides have been the best D2 can offer in the recent years, and yet have failed to cope with D1. So just think how poor the other sides in D2 are, the ones who can't even get promoted from D2.

It is absolutely not the case that a change to the structure should not, at the very least, be considered.

[st_brendy]

3 divisions of 6 teams means 10,not 12, games assuming the intention is that each team plays each other home and away. A big reduction but could be compensated by increased 50 over games.

Depends if it's a D1, D2 and D3 structure from start to finish.

One alternative I head heard for 3 divisions of 6, is that all 3 divisions are on a par with each. Then, after the 10 games have been played, 1 and 2 from each group form D1, 3 and 4 from each group form D2, and 5 and 6 from each group form D3. You only play each other once in D1, D2, and D3, meaning a total of 15 games per county. It gives every county the chance of winning the Championship at the start of each season.

[Aidan11]

Aiden, I expected better of you than to use the Ashes as a defense for something! If you actually stop and look at where most of the English talent is coming from you'd find it's one county - Yorkshire. Yorkshire is of course the county with the strongest league systems in the country by a very long way, significantly better than even the old Lancashire leagues which used to be home to a fair few young West Indian future talent. From their you're looking at Durham and Notts who are top flight counties.

I'd be interested to know what exactly are the revenues of home first class games, the ones I get up to at OT are not exactly making a significant imput and that's with us being right next to a large urban sprawl with a healthy league system.

I see little to no reason why changing to a three division system wouldn't benefit the game as a whole in the UK. Beefing up the competition in the LVCC, providing more challenging testing grounds for young players and most importantly freeing up time to move the entire domestic season into summer.

I'm not in favour of a franchise system for T20, I do think we need to streamline domestic cricket in the UK.

Admittedly I tried not to but The Ashes seems to be the yardstick by which cricket is measured.


Members subs I understand are still important to the counties as are hospitality and sponsorship/advertising revenue. Cutting one home game (and trust me they wont stop there) will damage counties in the long term. Weaker counties can become strong again as cricket has always taken a cyclical nature. Three divisions was pitched to the counties in the days of the Tesco fella and they hated it then. I can't see them changing that view.

[Aidan11]

In my view, it is very easy for county fans whose team is regularly in D1 to be fully supportive of the current LVCC structure. I don't think they necessarily realise just how poor the bottom end of D2 is. You need to be down there, in D2, to really realise it.

Just look at the list of sides who have struggled in D1 after being promoted form D2 in very recent history. Worcs, Hants, Lancs, Surrey, Derby and Northants. Yorkshire are the only side in the last four years who I can think of that have managed to adequately cope with D1, but they're an anomaly given that a county of their size should never really have been in D2 in the first place. (Plus it makes it quite easy for them to attract players since being promoted).

These sides have been the best D2 can offer in the recent years, and yet have failed to cope with D1. So just think how poor the other sides in D2 are, the ones who can't even get promoted from D2.

It is absolutely not the case that a change to the structure should not, at the very least, be considered.

And how does cutting a couple of games a season give the poorer teams a better chance?

[st_brendy]

In my view, it is very easy for county fans whose team is regularly in D1 to be fully supportive of the current LVCC structure. I don't think they necessarily realise just how poor the bottom end of D2 is. You need to be down there, in D2, to really realise it.

Just look at the list of sides who have struggled in D1 after being promoted form D2 in very recent history. Worcs, Hants, Lancs, Surrey, Derby and Northants. Yorkshire are the only side in the last four years who I can think of that have managed to adequately cope with D1, but they're an anomaly given that a county of their size should never really have been in D2 in the first place. (Plus it makes it quite easy for them to attract players since being promoted).

These sides have been the best D2 can offer in the recent years, and yet have failed to cope with D1. So just think how poor the other sides in D2 are, the ones who can't even get promoted from D2.

It is absolutely not the case that a change to the structure should not, at the very least, be considered.

And how does cutting a couple of games a season give the poorer teams a better chance?

Where on earth in this post have I said anything about cutting a couple of games?

My post was simply to point out it's very easy the people at the top end of D1 to sit back and say that there is nothing wrong. And in their defence, they probably honestly think that is the case.

(My second post, following my above one here, was simply me passing an option which I have heard one or two give in the media).

[Making_Splinters]

Aiden, I expected better of you than to use the Ashes as a defense for something! If you actually stop and look at where most of the English talent is coming from you'd find it's one county - Yorkshire. Yorkshire is of course the county with the strongest league systems in the country by a very long way, significantly better than even the old Lancashire leagues which used to be home to a fair few young West Indian future talent. From their you're looking at Durham and Notts who are top flight counties.

I'd be interested to know what exactly are the revenues of home first class games, the ones I get up to at OT are not exactly making a significant imput and that's with us being right next to a large urban sprawl with a healthy league system.

I see little to no reason why changing to a three division system wouldn't benefit the game as a whole in the UK. Beefing up the competition in the LVCC, providing more challenging testing grounds for young players and most importantly freeing up time to move the entire domestic season into summer.

I'm not in favour of a franchise system for T20, I do think we need to streamline domestic cricket in the UK.

Admittedly I tried not to but The Ashes seems to be the yardstick by which cricket is measured.


Members subs I understand are still important to the counties as are hospitality and sponsorship/advertising revenue. Cutting one home game (and trust me they wont stop there) will damage counties in the long term. Weaker counties can become strong again as cricket has always taken a cyclical nature. Three divisions was pitched to the counties in the days of the Tesco fella and they hated it then. I can't see them changing that view.

Very romatic of you to suggest weak counties will, in time, get better. Don't see much evidence of that happening. What we've seen develop over the last few years is a core group of top counties who can take any emerging talent from the lesser counties. As Brendy points out, the top teams from Div 2 do not end up competing with the Div 1 teams and sooner or later fall back down. All that is happening is the stronger teams keep getting better and the weaker ones do not improve.

Three divisions would be the easiest way to start freeing up time in the cricket shedule each summer, and we've seen signs that the ECB are keen to change the way first class cricket is played. Harrison may not be the most popular man on the planet, but he's right that domestic cricket needs to be in a format that produces the best quality.