“THE number of counties needs to be dropped down to 10 or 12, so the top players are playing with and against one another regularly,” Alec Stewart said the other day. Who is he kidding? The “top” players, or those deemed to be the top ones produced by a county programme that does not always sort the men from the boys, play in international fixtures that are increasingly separate from the domestic programme. Reducing the pool of players would do nothing to change that, but eliminating some of the growing number of players in the county game who are ineligible for England could.
According to the ECB’s annual report, £33.5 million of the ECB’s annual gross profit of £52.5 million last year was ploughed back into the first-class and minor counties. The majority of that sum went towards the wages of players. They could be reduced only by a cap on the total salary expenditure for all clubs and by a reduction to perhaps 16 full-time professionals per county. Sussex have shown that it can be done by fulfilling all first and second XI fixtures this season with 18 contracted professionals.
Provided that a sensible balance between home and foreign-produced players can be achieved, this is a better way of tackling the perceived problem of too much of the income from international cricket going into the pockets of “mediocre” professionals than trying to reduce the number of counties playing first-class cricket. Already 13 counties have academies and £50,000 for each of them is being provided by Sport England under their World Class funding scheme.
Quite apart from the traditions of the county game, not something to be carelessly cast aside, it is essential that talented young cricketers should have access to a local club. Reducing the outlets to first-class cricket is not going to assist either greater participation at the grass roots or the quality of the cricket at the top. In time, it would simply reduce the flow.
We all know that there are only six first-division sides in Australia but the population of England and Wales, more than three times that of Australia, can accommodate 18 first-class teams. These aspiring centres of excellence provide a conduit to the top of the game and as good a means as any for co-ordinating youth and recreational cricket in each area. It is not the ideal system but it is the one that has evolved.
Provided that all counties continue to develop their own revenue sources in a professional manner, there is nothing to be gained by pushing any of them over the edge.
All of them generated fresh local interest from the Twenty20 Cup last season. Given the strong opinion in England circles that there are too many games and too few opportunities to rest and practise, there should be an acceptance that Twenty20 will take over from the National League. Scrapping the unsponsored 45-over league would give room for some zonal 50-over matches in the Cheltenham & Gloucester Trophy before the knockout stages start.
As to the championship, my first solution would be to return to uncovered pitches and run-ups for a minimum of ten years to encourage finger spinners and better batting techniques. Fully covered pitches since 1981 have made pitches worse, generally speaking. Certainly, they have become slower and blander, encouraging one-dimensional, inflexible cricket and cricketers. Alas, the Harry Brind formula of introducing Surrey loam and Ongar clay to pitches where local soils worked perfectly well has produced too many hard clay surfaces that crack and produce uneven bounce, but that never crumble to help finger spinners as used to be the case.
I would also begin the long-resisted experiment with a small but significant amount of regional cricket designed to help the selectors to have a clearer idea of who the best British players actually are. I would confine the championship to 13 games per county but make sure, by offering serious prize-money, that it is still the premier domestic competition, played with pride, passion and professionalism in the prime of the season.
How? Not only would touring sides play regional combinations in future (by playing weakened teams against touring sides, the counties have brought that upon themselves) but there would be a new tournament for six regions comprising England-qualified players only, chosen by the national selectors in conjunction with a representative from each of the three counties in each region. They would play a league of five two-day, 200-over matches under Australian Grade rules, taking up the first three weeks of the season. Remaining county players would contest an equally self-contained competition for less prizemoney. England contracts would be announced when these tournaments have finished in the first week of May.
The championship would then be played in two halves: initially between all 18 counties divided into geographical groups, as in the Twenty20, to save expense on travel and reduce the number of games. The top and bottom nine counties would then contest the championship in two divisions as now, but all 18 counties would start each new season on equal terms. The aim would be to retain competitiveness without putting clubs out of business. The second XI competition would start in earnest from early July, after exams, played mainly by young, part-time professionals and university students.
The championship would then start (using 2003 dates as a model) on May 12, with five games each for counties playing in three regional divisions of six. The top three in each region would form the first division in an eight-match competition in the second half of the season; the bottom three in each would form the second division.
No system is perfect. Counties in the second division would have no promotion to play for in the second half of their season, nor would first-division clubs have to fear relegation, but this would be offset by much higher financial incentives for the players, paid from the ECB’s sponsorship and broadcasting revenue, augmented by money saved in travel and second XI expenses, and lower salary costs for fewer professionals.
Every game would carry prize-money for a win and there would be additional prize-money, steeply graded, for the top three in each division, with significantly greater rewards for the first division starting at £150,000 for the champions. Under this plan, urgent competition would start with the first ball of the season and ought not to finish until the last. Despite having three fewer games in the championship, there would be a greater variety of opposition.
The burgeoning transfer system would be avoided and local sponsorship encouraged by the fact that everyone would start with an equal chance of winning the first division of the championship at the outset of each season.
With no National League (but a few more 50-over games) and a slight reduction in first-class cricket, everyone should be fresher and injuries fewer, especially if the ECB was to restrict the international fare to seven Tests and ten one-day internationals.
DEBATE: Is this the way forward for cricket? Have your say at debate@thetimes.co.uk
