Posts
Loading ...I couldn’t agree more. The standard and intensity of county cricket has improved over the last couple of years but this would make it excellent. Am I right in thinking that you’ve suggested more teams that the county reform group did (That thing led by Atherton and Willis)? Question is, what can we, as the cricket loving public, do to push for reforms like this?
Do we need counties?
By Jonathan Liew 3 months ago Leave a comment on this post
There are 18 counties playing first-class cricket. That’s quite a lot. There are more domestic teams in England than in any other country. Yet they’re not evenly spread around - London and its environs has an embarrassment of teams, while parts such as the south west, the far north and most of Eastern England have none at all.
Now partly, that’s due to population: cricket teams are concentrated around the biggest cities. And yet, we persist in clinging to the county apparatus, a hotchpotch of hazily-defined localities that has very little relevance to the social geography of today. Counties don’t really exist in any meaningful sense any more; in fact, for four of the 18 counties, that’s literally true. The county system is rooted in a long gone past, and it hasn’t changed, even though everything around it has. Does the idea of ‘Warwickshire’ mean anything to anyone any more? Certainly not for someone like Ian Bell, who was born in Coventry - which since 1974 has been part of the West Midlands.
If it were only a quibble about names and boundaries, we could probably let it go. But this archaic system has a more serious effect on the domestic game. With large shifts in population and wealth away from rural England and towards the towns, some counties clearly have an inherent advantage over others. A county like Lancashire, with a catchment area of Liverpool and Manchester, the surrounding towns, Cheshire and Cumbria, have far more resource to draw on than the likes of Leicestershire, which has one medium sized town and four rival cricketing counties on its borders. It may always have been this way to an extent - pre-reform Yorkshire was bloody huge - but that doesn’t necessarily make it fair.
As a result, prosperity - and thus success - is distorted by the fact that some counties will always be struggling to prosper, regardless of cricketing merit, and some will always be comfortable. Test grounds - a major source of potential revenue - are concentrated almost exclusively around big cities. Look at the list of county champions: the top four are Yorkshire, Surrey, Middlesex and Lancashire - areas with high populations and a Test ground. Then look at who has come bottom most often: Derbyshire, Somerset, Northamptonshire, Glamorgan. When Leicestershire can’t hang on to a player like Stuart Broad, who was born in the county and has played all his cricket there, it’s clear the playing field is not level. The influx of Kolpak players have counteracted population factors to an extent - but they still need to be paid, and the biggest counties will always jostle their way to the front in this respect.
It’s possible teams like Leicestershire and Derbyshire will never again reach the pinnacle of English cricket. The best they can hope for is the odd promotion or a dart at a one-day trophy here and there, but it’s equally likely they’ll wane and recede slowly into the background. That is, unless something is done about it.
If domestic cricket is ever to make proper money - and, who knows, provide a higher standard? - it needs to brand itself in more familiar terms. In short, we need fewer teams, more fairly distributed. The quickest way of doing this would be to merge counties; in short, persuading them to vote themselves out of business. That’s not going to happen. Instead, reorganisation of domestic cricket could be craftily disguised as a PR exercise.
Ironically, the IPL might be able to teach English cricket a thing or two in this respect. Moneyed franchises they may be, but the teams in the League are based in - and upon - very real localities. The players may not be sourced locally, but that will come in time. What’s important is that a bond is being forged betwen a cricket team and a town. In England, those bonds already exist in large part: Gloucestershire is by and large a Bristol team, Hampshire a Southampton-based club, Warwickshire is a Birmingham team, and so on. Towns have a far greater emotional and economic pull than counties these days, and are far more relevant in today’s society.
The idea, then, is this, although the details are less important than the diagnosis behind them. Cut the number of teams to, say, 12, and base each one around a large town. Let’s call them, for sake of argument: Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester, Bristol, Southampton, Birmingham, Nottingham, North London, South London, East London, Cardiff and Brighton. The South East has a quarter of England’s population, so it should have a quarter of the teams. The names, as I say, are largely irrelevant.
What English cricket would then have, essentially, is the Australian system in all but name. Teams would be able to draw on the emotional and financial clout of the major town, but talent-wise the spread would be far wider - and far fairer. It provides the best balance between levelling the playing field and preserving some semblance of geographical integrity. And the standard would improve.
Anyway, well done for getting through all that - any thoughts?
Tags: counties, county-cricket, derbyshire, domestic cricket, durham, ECB, english cricket, essex, glamorgan, gloucestershire, hampshire, IPL, kent, lancashire, leicestershire, middlesex, northants, nottinghamshire, population, reform, somerset, surrey, sussex, warwickshire, worcestershire, yorkshire |
22 Responses to “Do we need counties?”
April 16th, 2008 at 7.31 am
April 16th, 2008 at 7.39 am
I agree Will. Have been saying that this is the way to go for years. There are far too many cricketers in the county game in their ‘comfort zone’. Who knows, there may be someone who, if he really pushed himself, could become a great England player. Instead, given the relaxed nature of the county game, he’s happy having his winters off and chatting to square leg about the weather.
Something has to be done and partly because of the IPL, I think there is some movement surrounding the English County game. Finally.
April 16th, 2008 at 8.03 am
I agree that the number of real counties should be halved - but the ‘fairness’ issue is a red herring, I feel. Who cares about fairness to the worst counties? Not I…
Probably the most organic and evolutionary change would be to strengthen the two division system, and only have one team promoted or relegated but not every year - perhaps a promotion and relegation would only happen when the top team had been top for two or three consecutive years and vice versa? The point is to maintain the incentive of a promotion system, but enable stability and long termism in the premier league.
What might emerge would be 8 teams that were strong over the long term - a cricket premier league. There would need to be a simple and flexible transfer system, so that the best players could/ would move to the best clubs to get the highest pay and play the most competitive cricket. And there would need to be a mechanism by which mostly England-qualified players were encouraged.
This would probably (legally- but IANAL) need to be some kind of subsidy (’training’ grant) linked to the average proportion of England-qualified players in the team. For example, if a team played an average of at least 10 (or 9) England-qualified players per match for the whole season they might be entitled to a fairly whopping Test-player-training subsidy from the ECB.
This could be reinforced by allocating at least one home test match to all premier league clubs who had been the in the premier league for two years. (Hosting a test match would be sort-of equivalent to a football club getting into the European competitions).
In a nutshell, I think that divisional cricket would achieve the result we both want IF we accept that about half the counties need to decline to semi-pro status on a long term basis and the other half should be allowed/ encouraged to form a richer, better premier league
April 16th, 2008 at 8.24 am
Is following the football mould the way to go then? Do you think if we had four teams that dominated the county scene that would be beneficial?
My only problem with that would be that the ‘best’ players would presumably be international players and therefore wouldn’t play a great deal for their counties. Meaning those who don’t have many international players would benefit.
That brings me onto something else - the signing of England players. What motivation do counties have to do this? Ok, they may be being paid by England but how often are the really going to play? Notts for example have Sidebottom and Broad who look likely to be two parts of England’s attack this summer. I guess that’s why counites go for the ‘Kolpak’ players
April 16th, 2008 at 8.40 am
Indeed, I’ve been arguing this very idea for many a year, way before Twenty20.
However, I think 12 is too many - from your list I’d drop Brighton and East London (where would the latter play anyway ?), although losing both would leave the South East looks a little unrepresented…be tempted to keep either Chelmsford or Canterbury - is that what you meant by East London ? Perhaps keep one and drop Newcastle.
April 16th, 2008 at 9.19 am
I’d take any of the following to be honest…
Twelves teams split into two divisions, each of whom would play ten first class games, each lasting four days, in a single season.
One division of eleven teams, each of whom would play ten first class games, each lasting four days, in a single season (five games at home and five away).
One division of nine teams, each of whom would play eight first class games, each lasting five days, in a single season (four games at home and four away).
Then all we’d need to do is find a way to make the football start a couple of weeks later….
April 16th, 2008 at 11.37 am
I think the present county structure developed as it did because of the spread of the railways in the mid-19th century, which explains why some parts of the country are well served by counties and others aren’t. The railways went to Manchester, Bristol, Birmingham, Nottingham, etc, but didn’t go to Devon, Cornwall, Cumbria, Newcastle, Norfolk and so on until much later.
April 16th, 2008 at 3.24 pm
I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, but I think the argument for, say, Leicestershire’s lack of success being down to population is a red herring. There’s an exponential prospect for growth in every county simply because there are so few people who play competitive cricket.
Also, merging counties will not work - Rupert Murdoch couldn’t even make Rugby League clubs merge when the Super League began. Better to make a window in the English summer next year for an EPL with 6-8 clubs, called things other than counties, and allowing English and foreign players to join the club they want (a la IPL). As it grows the new system begins to replace the county setup as the top layer of English cricket - counties remain but as a kind of division 2.
April 16th, 2008 at 4.09 pm
As a Northants supporter this sounds like the death of cricket locally and with it the withering of some of cricket’s roots.
Perhaps Northants are unlikely to win the Championship, or indeed Div. 2, anytime soon but they have produced England’s leading spin bowler. That contribution shows that the smaller counties can still contribute to the health of the game nationally.
Get rid of the smaller counties, centre the game in large towns and cities and watch much of the ugliness of football take root in cricket.
April 16th, 2008 at 11.34 pm
I’m with Matt.
Leicester a medium sized town? Not, then the 10th largest urban area in England, as I mistakenly believed. Bigger than Southampton and Brighton, both on your list. Also - three London sides AND Brighton out of 12? Got your SE-blinkered specs on?
Speaking as someone from Leicester, I would rather support a Leicestershire side that lost every game it played (sadly not that far from reality), then lose them and instead be expected to switch loyalties to a putative “Nottingham” side, which in reality I would be inclined to want to lose every fixture it played.
April 17th, 2008 at 8.16 am
Can’t ‘get rid’ of the smaller teams, like has been mentioned , teams such as Northants have produced our number one spin bowler. Then teams that haven’t been around as long like Durham have produced plenty of England players - Steve Harmison, Paul Collingwood, Liam Plunkett…to name just a few. Then with the likes of Ben Harmison coming through the ranks….
County cricket will always be secondary to international cricket. In football, it’s all about club level and if we are honest, interest in the international game is fading fast!
That simply can’t happen for cricket. I’m confident that it won’t but some of the talk here seems to be leaning towards a football mould and that can’t be healthy for the game.
April 17th, 2008 at 11.35 am
As someone who doesn’t live in a city this scheme would signal the end of domestic cricket for me. I grew up in Yorkshire so they are my team. I can’t imagine supporting a place I don’t come from.
How can it be a good idea to reduce the area covered by our domestic teams ? This would further reduce the number of people who want to watch.
Paul
April 17th, 2008 at 7.58 pm
Its all a very good idea but…
I’m from Liverpool and a huge fan of Lancashire. I’m also a proud Liverpudlain and fanatic supporter of Liverpool Football Club. Threfore, i’d rather be dead than support a team named after Manchester. It’s bad enough i have to go to that city to watch the bleedin’ game of cricket!
As Paul Jackson says above, i fear that the idea will only serve to alienate fans
April 18th, 2008 at 10.31 am
I imagine that the counties with international grounds do have a financial advantage, although the ECB have proved that this isn’t a closed shop. Cardiff, the Rose Bowl, Bristol and Chester-le-Street are all now in the hunt for England matches, which has redressed the balance.
Also, I would say that there is no need to make cities the team hubs to improve player recruitment; areas without county representation are still effectively in a catchment area. A good minor county player for Devon or Dorset will probably end up with Somerset.
April 18th, 2008 at 10.13 pm
Rubbish idea - I can assure you that even in the London-dominated South-East, mutual loathing and contempt between the fine, upstanding Men of Kent and the Surrey skidmarks is alive and well. Elsewhere this is, if anything, even more true (think of the Roses rivalry). Your argument ignores the fact that counties are far more representative than cities: Durham includes Newcastle, but also Sunderland; Lancashire includes Manchester, but also Liverpool, and so on. Major cities in all these regions already host the principal grounds, so what’s thr problem? Somerset effectively represents Devon and Cornwall, Essex East Anglia, Glamorgan the whole of Wales. None of that would be possible under your ‘cities’ scheme, and nobody is going to turn out to support a team called ‘South London’: certainly not this Kent supporter. I’ve never really understood the argument that we have too may first-class teams either. Sure, Australia has six, but we have three times their population, so eighteen seems about right, and if there were issues over competitiveness they’ve been allayed by splitting the competition into two divisions. The bottom line is that anything that makes cricket more like the disaster which is Premiership football, dull, uncompetitive (just remind yourself that in almost twenty, yes twenty years, only three teams have had any chance of winning it), in hock to foreign financiers, is a BAD IDEA.
April 19th, 2008 at 2.07 pm
How can someone come up with this idea and yet on the same hand call the IPL a load of bollocks. Alexander is absolutely spot on, the county system is unique in bring together local rival towns and cities under the same umbrella. Cricket is based on tradition this idea is artificial and fake. What needs streamlining in English Cricket is the number of different competitions with varying format and rules.
We need
1 County Championship (2 division, 2 up and down every season)
1 One day Tournament
1 20/20 Tournament
The 20/20 could include new teams from different parts of the country not represented in the County Championship. Devon/Cornwall, Scotland, East Anglia etc and also perhaps include guest or all star teams.
April 20th, 2008 at 12.06 pm
keep 18 counties, get rid of the two divisions (why bother going to watch a second division match with nothing to play for ALL SEASON? do you think derbyshires players have played a county championship game that meant anything apart from not finishing bottom in the past 5 years??)
segregate it into some sort of regional division structure like baseball (oh look, lancashire won’t be completely hampered by the fact it rains all the time cos it’ll rain all the time in chester-le-street and leeds too), season starting in august/september, having a long winter break so that there’s play-offs in the height of the summer, aiming for a final between the two touring test sides (at lords?). a drawn match means it’s shared.
and then you could have your beloved reduced structure by having all-star games.
put all the games on wednesday-saturday, playing twenty20 matches all year round on sundays and monday nights (sunday evenings - LOOK NO FOOTBALL!) you could even have mini-series for the twenty20. ok, perhaps i’ve watched too much baseball…
why have a reduced structure for twenty20 when it sells out at all counties?!
as for the longer limited over matches… get them out the way between the county championship seasons in a bonanza. cut the 40 over league, make sure there’s plenty of matches… get out some all-star matches…
April 22nd, 2008 at 4.13 pm
The nature of the British sports fan is tribal. The idea that they will change alligence on masse from their CC side to a city based one is “nonsence upon stilts”.
People travel, in some cases, hundred of miles to watch a club like Yorkshire play in Leeds. They simply wouldn’t do that to watch a club named Leeds, they’ll watch the local league side instead. So if you think domestic crowds are small now, this is a perfect way to reduce them further. At the same time narrowing the sports fan base and the chance to inspire talented young sportsmen to take up the game.
Plus anyone who’d happily see the end of a cricket venue like Scarborough is so out of touch with what the game is really about (it’s not money) that they don’t deserve to see another game of cricket as long as they live.
Len
April 24th, 2008 at 10.57 am
The further down these comments you get, the more people call it a “rubbish” idea and suggest the counties are sacrosanct.
I love my history and I appreciate that such a thing as tradition exists, but the future of cricket in this country looks incredibly bleak if we just keep things how they’ve always been. I’d love for Lancashire and Somerset to both be drawing tens of thousands for crunch games, but the simple fact is very few people - in the wider world beyond cricket’s current hardcore - care enough for that to happen, and even fewer actually know what the crunch games are and when they happen!
And then it all gets rained off anyway. Something must be done.
April 24th, 2008 at 11.39 pm
I’ve been thinking a bit more about it and have come up with the following.
Keep the counties for first-class, but go to a three divisions of six structure. 6 less games per team = 24 more free days per season. One up, one down.
Keep the 50 overs competition in the new format as per this season i.e 4 regional divisions of 5, followed by QF, SF, Final. Move it to the end of the season.
Keep the county Twenty20, but move it into the slot currently occupied by the FP and condense it to conclude in May.
Scrap the Pro40. That’s another 16 days, bringing the total to 40.
Test & ODI tour 1 : May - mid Jun
Test & ODI tour 2 : late July - end August
Use the space mid-Summer to introduce an EPL along the all-comers welcome line suggested by RichB, but with new city-based franchises as per suggestion in the OP. Counties to have significant financial incentives for each player they supply to both EPL and Test/ODI side.
EPL will have to be scheduled earlier in Ashes years so as not to kill the momentum.
Thoughts ?
April 27th, 2008 at 8.20 am
two problems, the major one being twenty20 concluding in may… the football season??
second one - i hate promotion/relegation. if it’s a closed league, with all sides allegedly a similar strength, then it’s pointless to put elitist divisions in. it’ll marginalise the game in 12 counties as opposed to the current 9 it already impoverishes (not that the upper 9 do much better, but they tend to have the test matches)
April 30th, 2008 at 12.45 pm
What absolute nonsense this article is. This system would alienate most of the existing support.Would people outside Manchester in Lancashire support Manchester. Would people from Portsmouth support Southampton.
Since when did counties become irrelevant, when asked where I come from I always say Kent as do most people here. This applies to most people apart from those that live in big cities.
Comments
« Blogging from the boundary | Main | Cricinfo banned from IPL »
