Posts
Loading ...Articles tagged as: derbyshire
Do we need counties?
By Jonathan Liew 3 months ago, 22 Comments »
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?
22 Comments »First-class ducks
By Ian last year, mid-July, 1 Comment »
I’ve been accused by venerable Corridor readers of being something of a duck fetishist, although I suspect there are more specialist websites for that. However, for the sake of consistency, it would be wrong to overlook the misfortune of Thomas Poynton, the new Derbyshire gloveman, who this week got a pair on his first class debut. But at the age of 17 years old, he will have better days and do one heck of a lot more in his career than me. In fact, he already has.
Hopefully he will be smashing the ball about in an England shirt before long, although with the recent form of English keepers, he has a lot of frogs to leap. Foster, Ambrose, Mustard, Read, Nixon all in the runs, putting pressure on Prior. Good to see.
1 Comment »Essex finally win a Twenty20 competition
By Emma 2 years ago, mid-September, No Comments; be the first!
Essex look almost certain to win the Pro40 this year, and as they cruised to victory in the Twenty20 Floodlit Cup yesterday, it was easy to see why. Derbyshire did well to contain the Eagles to a total below 200 after Irani and Pettini made 60 in just under six overs. However, the game dawdled to an end when Phantoms wickets fell to insufficient cost to challenge their target.
Whilst the result was predictable, I had forgotten how much I liked visiting Derbyshire. The former Race Course Ground is some 11,000 seats light of my usual haunt, and its team are often viewed as the minnows of county cricket, but the friendliness found from fan to steward to player gives the place a strong community feel. A Test ground might have a superior square, year of tradition or impressive facilities. But you can’t tell me there is anything purer than watching a game from a chair you’ve had to pull from a stack and place at the boundary yourself.
No Comments »Is too much cricket really never enough?
By Scott 2 years ago, mid-April, 6 Comments »
With all this media blather about over-worked cricket, I might as well put in my 0.02 cents.
Look, in one sense, it’s a bit rich for cricketers to complain that they are over-worked. Yes, Australia have played eleven Test matches and 18 ODI’s since October, but it is April, now. That is 70 odd days work in six months. Hardly the most onerous of work loads. And Australia have got a few extra days off in that lot by defeating opponents in Test matches in pretty short order. And they get paid literally millions. And they get the best groupies, as you might have noticed if you watch the Allan Border Medal night. So, you know, it’s not that hard a life being an international cricketer.
But on another level, it IS hard work. Adam Gilchrist is not only a fine keeper, passable stand-in captain, mighty batting hero and all round good guy, but he’s usually quite particular about his appearance. I’m not accusing him of being a metrosexual or a wannabe David Beckham, he’s just normally a neat and tidy guy. But in the First Test, he gave a fair impression that he was dressing like a flood victim. Overdue for a shave, too. Miss Zainub would NOT have approved.
Because it is what they are doing on those days off that really tells on the players. English domestic cricket is far more demanding because you are playing cricket day in, day out for months on end. However it takes far less of a toll on the players because they don’t have to travel nearly as much. For a player in a midlands county, away games are just a shire away. None of this intercontinental travel stuff. If you are playing for Derbyshire, half your away games are in driving distance. I’ve had daily commutes longer then the distance between Headingley and Old Trafford.
But for the international cricketer, it is a way bit tougher then that. The cricket is more intense, the pressure higher, the distances are further, and the time away from family is more crushing. Away from the field the temptations and distractions of fame slowly become a burden, the aches and pains dull the senses and it is a wonder that players stay as switched on as they do.
I’m not sure the current surfeit of international Test cricket is entirely good for the fans either. I think something is lost from the anticipation point of view, and that takes away something of the ’specialness’ of the occasion. Test Cricket, like caviar, should not be indulged in every week of the year. It isn’t good for the players or the fans. When the players identify with Bob Segar, we know we have a problem
6 Comments »