The shape of things to come!

Karma

Well-known member
If you have a Premier League, and two equal leagues feeding into it, you avoid the pitfalls of a 3rd division, where all the ambitious players leave because it will take years to get to the top with their clubs. This is actually what Strauss wants.

His proposal is a play-off, of the two conference winners, for only one promotion spot. So obviously any decent player will leave, especially as the next step will be to announce England teams will be selected only from the Premier League. Initially, all the players will leave the relegated club, most joining the promoted one, until they ring-fence it, which they will do when they get six Test grounds in it. There are 8 such grounds, and guess which ones will miss out.

Imagine a top league of six. Fear of relegation will be the overriding fact, it will colour every game, because once you're down, you could be down for years. That's why the 10/8 current split is better than the 8/10 one was. (Obviously 9/9, but we're dealing with idiots.) I've said this before. England play without fear of relegation. So we lose the Ashes? We nearly always have. It doesn't mean next year we'll be playing Zim and Bangladesh and Ireland. We'll be playing India and Australia again.

It's easy to play Bazball when there are no consequences. Cracking game, shake hands, see you next season. Not so easy when defeat is a potential death sentence, as in our game at Old Trafford. Note Somerset's caution last week, same thing, except they won anyway.
I do like the logic of what you've set out DaveMorton 10/8 split with the aim to win, rather than playing with the constant fear of losing.

I'm all for change, if it's an improvement. Prefer to keep what we have ( preferably without a Blundered though I know that's not open for discussion).

I used to put England first but to me now ,it's a sideshow, Yorkshire red-ball first, 50white ball 2nd, T20 3rd =Tests 3rd, Blundered never.
 

Tykemania

Active member
The problem with an elite group of six is that it will produce precisely zero players for England, so it will not matter if the standard is perceived to be slightly higher. We already have a situation whereby the counties competing for the title mostly have squads made up of overseas recruits and players not quite good enough for England, and tightening the playing field would only make that worse.

Look at the County Champions going back to the last time we won:
2016 - Middlesex (no players within the England squads, though Robson, Malan, Finn and TRJ played at various points before or after)
2017 - Essex (Cook and very briefly Tom Westley)
2018 - Surrey (Burns, Curran and Foakes in the future)
2019 - Essex (as above)
2021 - Warwickshire (Bresnan, eight years previously. Sibley, briefly)

Now our Championship winnings sides were a bit different - at that time Lyth, Root, Ballance, Bairstow and Plunkett regularly played, whilst Rashid was a feature of the one day squad, Bresnan was still fighting to get his place back, Sidebottom had been a great of the not too distant past and Lees would be capped in the future. We are very much the outliers here - in that our 2015 side would probably have hammered a rest of England side - and I cannot imagine anyone would choose such a make up of squad in the future.
 

Karma

Well-known member
The problem with an elite group of six is that it will produce precisely zero players for England, so it will not matter if the standard is perceived to be slightly higher. We already have a situation whereby the counties competing for the title mostly have squads made up of overseas recruits and players not quite good enough for England, and tightening the playing field would only make that worse.

Look at the County Champions going back to the last time we won:
2016 - Middlesex (no players within the England squads, though Robson, Malan, Finn and TRJ played at various points before or after)
2017 - Essex (Cook and very briefly Tom Westley)
2018 - Surrey (Burns, Curran and Foakes in the future)
2019 - Essex (as above)
2021 - Warwickshire (Bresnan, eight years previously. Sibley, briefly)

Now our Championship winnings sides were a bit different - at that time Lyth, Root, Ballance, Bairstow and Plunkett regularly played, whilst Rashid was a feature of the one day squad, Bresnan was still fighting to get his place back, Sidebottom had been a great of the not too distant past and Lees would be capped in the future. We are very much the outliers here - in that our 2015 side would probably have hammered a rest of England side - and I cannot imagine anyone would choose such a make up of squad in the future.
All really good, well-researched and
well-made points. I can't, so don't, do detail like that but I appreciate it!
 

tbsteve

Active member
Well there are supposed to be 9 test grounds if you include Durham and Sophia Gardens which have both lost games for various reasons. Not sure which of the other 7 you think would automatically lose out.

I see a contradiction in the arguments made. On the one hand one up/down is criticised for potentially meaning it will take years for teams to make it back up, on the other, 3 divisions with one auto-promotion/relegation place and a further place for a play-off is criticised for meaning people will be too worried about relegation.

FWIW I preferred the 8/10 split because I felt that the top division's integrity got undermined when the fixture list became unbalanced.

So far it seems every possible option has been criticised, including the status quo which isn't working. The current proposals seem like a decent starting point to me, though I'd have liked a few tweaks. If you listen to Strauss, he's gone about the job systematically and tried to make the impossible work for all stakeholders. It was somewhat of a poisoned chalice given the strength of feeling over losing Championship games and the Hundred.
 
The review is simply commercial, the Counties are right to oppose it. The Times yesterday said that at least 9 will do so, and apart from Lancashire the larger Counties haven’t commented yet. The 35% reduction in the Championship and T20 is clearly to make space for an expanded 100. Expanded so that it can be sold off to private equity, which in this case will mean the IPL. The T20 reduction is a bargaining chip which will be used to divide the Counties, making the Counties feel they have won. The ECB need 17 extra days to expand the 100 to 10 teams. The 4 days of T20 is the icing on the cake, the 16 day reduction in the County Championship is what the ECB want. They are also quite likely aware that the pesky Counties are making quite a success of a developmental 50 over competition during the 100, so want to remove the competition from August. A couple of friendlies during August they can live with, knowing that they will soon wither on the vine.

At the forum tomorrow let them know that we follow Yorkshire, not the 100! Save the County Championship. I agree that integrity requires playing all teams home and away. We need to push tomorrow for 2 divisions of 9 and a slightly expanded County Championship!
 

Karma

Well-known member
I've come the conclusion, because there are so many proposed changes, some contradicting or conflicting with others, that not only do I want to keep county cricket, the game I love, but to expand it so everyone does play home and away in proper cricket.

For me you can consign the Hundred to the bin. RLODC is great and I can just about cope with T20.

Although I no longer put Test cricket on a 'plinth', (I obviously cannot spell pedastil), if you want to improve the gene pool of Test players, play more proper cricket, not less

What is the acronym?

KISS:

Keep It Simple Stupid.
 

tbsteve

Active member
I suppose I tend towards pragmatism. We can't stop the Hundred, it's part of the fixtures already sold in broadcasting packages. So working within the confines of what we have what do we do? I seem to remember the ICC have given the Hundred a 3 week window, so lets make it a three week tournament and sort out the CC.
 

Karma

Well-known member
That's fair comment
. I worked out if they played 2 games per day they could just about manage the hundred in 2 weeks.I suggest holdng it in the last 2 weeks of September when proper cricket would have finished, there'd be no distractions and potentially even fuller, full houses.

According to DG who will be at tomorrow's meeting "the hundred is just like T20"
 
Last edited:

Donnylad

Well-known member
That's fair comment
. I worked out if they played 2 games per day they could just about manage the hundred in 2 weeks.I suggest holdng it in the last 2 weeks of September when proper cricket would have finished, there'd be no distractions and potentially even fuller, full houses.

According to DG who will be at tomorrow's meeting "the hundred is just like T20"
... either this is another loose and ill-thought comment .. or someone can see a little commentary job in the offing in the future. Evens as to which it is.
 

tbsteve

Active member
Well in fairness its most similar to T20. Cricinfo mixes hundred stats with T20, Lyth's last T20 game for example is listed as the northern superchargers against whoever.

One day cricket has been 50 overs, 45 over, back to 50 overs again whilst I've been watching. It was 60 before that, and I have a thought it may have been 40 once too, but I'm in an airport and not.going to check. With T10 also in the mix, we've effectively got first class / one day / short form but the T20 name is sticking for now
 

Karma

Well-known member
Well in fairness its most similar to T20. Cricinfo mixes hundred stats with T20, Lyth's last T20 game for example is listed as the northern superchargers against whoever.

One day cricket has been 50 overs, 45 over, back to 50 overs again whilst I've been watching. It was 60 before that, and I have a thought it may have been 40 once too, but I'm in an airport and not.going to check. With T10 also in the mix, we've effectively got first class / one day / short form but the T20 name is sticking for now
May be similar in relation to length of game though Hundred costs more for less.

Other differences, there's a YCCC T20 team but NOT a Yorkshire hundred team just a made up name for a hotchpotch team of older itinerant players topping up their pension funds together with others from all over playing for 'big money' not pride in representing their club

T20 has overs, hundred doesn't, has a countdown instead of proper scoreboard, has 'timeouts' to break batsman's concentration and most importantly hundred has rules carefully explained in a 'dumb down' way. Cricket lovers know the rules

Most importantly the Hundred takes the marketing budget for all cricket, takes August out of the calendar and steals players from proper cricket. It also steals the stadiums including Headingley so the subsequently downgraded RLODC has to be played on out-grounds where people have to travel miles.

Did I mention tv? Well hundred on Sky and BBC with gushing commentators going overboard to secure a contract for next year.

There are other changes but that's enough for now. I won't be attending any more hundred games.

Later Edit: on computer to correct hurried typos and spelling from previously using phone's small screen/keyboard and clumsy fingers
 
Last edited:

Hawke

Administrator
Staff member
May be similar in relation to length of game though Hundred costs more for less.

Other differences, there's a YCCC T20 team but NOT a Yorkshire hundred team just a made up name for a hotchpotch team of older itinerant players topping up their pension funds together with others from all over playing for 'big money' not pride in reoresenting their club

T20 has overs, hundred doesn't, has a countdown instead of proper scoreboard, has 'timeouts' to break batsman's concentration and most importantly hundred has rulrs carefully explained in a 'dumb down' way. Cricket lovers know the rules

Most importantly the Hundred takes the marketing budget for all cricket, takes August out of the calender and steals players from proper cricket. It also steals the stadiums incl Headingley so the subsequently downgraded RLODC has to be played on out-grounds where people have to travel miles.

Did I mention tv? Well hundred on Sky and BBC with gushing commentators going overboard to secure a contract for next year.

Therecsrecother changes but that's enough for now. I won't be aþending any more hundred games.
DG must have meant what Steve is suggesting, 100 deliveries and 120 deliveries put the 2 formats in the same category.
But Karma points out the crucial differences which make one a positive and arguably crucial feature of the county game, indeed an actual money-spinner, whilst the other undermines and threatens it.
 

Hawke

Administrator
Staff member
I suppose I tend towards pragmatism. We can't stop the Hundred, it's part of the fixtures already sold in broadcasting packages. So working within the confines of what we have what do we do? I seem to remember the ICC have given the Hundred a 3 week window, so lets make it a three week tournament and sort out the CC.
as the unmentionable competition is contracted to continue, yes we, unfortunately, have to work within its confines.
 

Hawke

Administrator
Staff member
The review is simply commercial, the Counties are right to oppose it. The Times yesterday said that at least 9 will do so, and apart from Lancashire the larger Counties haven’t commented yet. The 35% reduction in the Championship and T20 is clearly to make space for an expanded 100. Expanded so that it can be sold off to private equity, which in this case will mean the IPL. The T20 reduction is a bargaining chip which will be used to divide the Counties, making the Counties feel they have won. The ECB need 17 extra days to expand the 100 to 10 teams. The 4 days of T20 is the icing on the cake, the 16 day reduction in the County Championship is what the ECB want. They are also quite likely aware that the pesky Counties are making quite a success of a developmental 50 over competition during the 100, so want to remove the competition from August. A couple of friendlies during August they can live with, knowing that they will soon wither on the vine.

At the forum tomorrow let them know that we follow Yorkshire, not the 100! Save the County Championship. I agree that integrity requires playing all teams home and away. We need to push tomorrow for 2 divisions of 9 and a slightly expanded County Championship!
yes that is a very sound argument for sticking with the 50 over county competition
 

Karma

Well-known member
The review is simply commercial, the Counties are right to oppose it. The Times yesterday said that at least 9 will do so, and apart from Lancashire the larger Counties haven’t commented yet. The 35% reduction in the Championship and T20 is clearly to make space for an expanded 100. Expanded so that it can be sold off to private equity, which in this case will mean the IPL. The T20 reduction is a bargaining chip which will be used to divide the Counties, making the Counties feel they have won. The ECB need 17 extra days to expand the 100 to 10 teams. The 4 days of T20 is the icing on the cake, the 16 day reduction in the County Championship is what the ECB want. They are also quite likely aware that the pesky Counties are making quite a success of a developmental 50 over competition during the 100, so want to remove the competition from August. A couple of friendlies during August they can live with, knowing that they will soon wither on the vine.

At the forum tomorrow let them know that we follow Yorkshire, not the 100! Save the County Championship. I agree that integrity requires playing all teams home and away. We need to push tomorrow for 2 divisions of 9 and a slightly expanded County Championship!
Obviously, there are still contradictions in the review. If a major stated objective is to produce and improve Test players ie proper cricket, then it defies logic to play less proper cricket. in this case less isn't more. My red line is keeping County Championship cricket, not reducing playing days and ideally playing teams home and away - what happened to something called fairness?

In spite of attempts to consign the RLODC to an insignificant corner, the game has been a bit of a success, albeit played at out grounds usually away from the major population centre. Attendances have been good even where unmatched teams have played. It shows a strong support for proper cricket over 50 overs.

I can cope with some reduction in T20 but with better scheduling, so we don't get 7 successive home games in a short period again.

Friendly games of cricket are sometimes played on the local park, sometimes enjoyable. I don't want to see any friendlies as another made-up pointless game using valuable time up as a diversion.
 

DaveMorton

Well-known member
What happened to fairness is called Graves (I get to make changes), Harrison and Strauss. Guilty, without trial, just like YCCC over the Rafiq affair.

Friendly cricket was once the norm, outside the leagues Up North, which made southerners shudder, like rugby league did...end of civilisation as we know it. But then, when you've played cricket in a league, you understand that 'friendly' cricket is the pits. Why play for a draw when we could be in the bar?
 

Newby

Well-known member
Looking at the International fixtures for next season I note that England (the playing cricket bit) have joined the Counties in selling August to the ECB and the blessed hundred, England have just one single T20 fixture on the 30th of August.

They now want to move the increasingly popular RLODC away from August too so that the hundred can complete the monopoly.
 

Karma

Well-known member
Well the last time I totally agreed with Geoff Boycott was when he described Dominic Cork as a Show Pony

Now Sir Geoff in my (online ) snippets from the Telegraph says, 'ECB suits must stop looking at bottom line and act to save game'

He goes on to say,'If the counties vote for the Sir Andrew Strauss report it will not produce more quality England cricketers and it will be the death of county cricket' Agreed.

Butler seems to think the opposite view whilst I've read that Malan is blaming their defeats in Pakistan on lack of practice on the difficult wickets out there.

So many experts
 

Newby

Well-known member
Well the last time I totally agreed with Geoff Boycott was when he described Dominic Cork as a Show Pony

Now Sir Geoff in my (online ) snippets from the Telegraph says, 'ECB suits must stop looking at bottom line and act to save game'

He goes on to say,'If the counties vote for the Sir Andrew Strauss report it will not produce more quality England cricketers and it will be the death of county cricket' Agreed.

Butler seems to think the opposite view whilst I've read that Malan is blaming their defeats in Pakistan on lack of practice on the difficult wickets out there.

So many experts
Yes indeed so many experts looking at things from their own self interested points of view. Just like us I'm afraid.

There were I'm sure several thousand Yorkshire and Warwickshire supporters who spent much of yesterday on tenterhooks, listening and watching the live stream to see how things turned out. I'm not sure how many were actually at the ground though and similarly how many turned out to watch the game play out at Headingley the previous day.

I do know it wasn't nearly enough people at either venue to make the case that the CC is important to people and deserves it's place in the cricketing schedule.

I'm afraid until cricket can find a way to get people back into the grounds to watch County Championship cricket our argument about how important it is just don't stack up.

I had an excuse, and with the live stream I'm finding a lot of excuses for missing a lot more cricket than I ever used to and, if I can't trust myself to get out there, who can I trust.
 
Top