It feels symptomatic of English cricket’s dysfunctional nature that, having started the summer with five different options for a restructured County Championship, the 18 first-class chairs will conclude a tortuous process next week with a sixth on the table. International peace treaties have been negotiated quicker than talks over whether, and how, to cut a handful of playing days from a domestic calendar that, with four different competitions and formats to accommodate, is bursting at the seams.
The tongue-in-cheek words of the England and Wales Cricket Board’s managing director of the professional game, Rob Andrew, when announcing the review in April have proved prophetic. “We have 18 counties that agree it’s not right, but 19 different versions of what the answer is,” he said.
Unlike the previous attempt to remodel the English summer three years ago that was commissioned by the ECB and led by Andrew Strauss, the current review has been undertaken by the counties themselves under the aegis of the Professional Game Committee [PGC], chaired by Warwickshire’s Mark McCafferty. Consequently, the emphasis has been on a widespread consultation that has resulted in seemingly ever-changing plans. The Strauss Review had a clear, single recommendation for the Championship: to be split into three divisions of six with a reduction from 14 to 10 matches in each. This, however, was comprehensively rejected by the counties.
How would it work in practice?
The selling point of the final compromise is the fact 14 of the 18 teams would play 13 matches each summer due to a series of September playoffs, on top of a 12-game regular season. The Championship would consist of each team playing 10 games home and away against the five opponents in their pool, plus two additional matches against sides in the other pool determined by seeding. At the end of the season, all the Championship teams would play a 13th game against the corresponding side in the other pool – first v first, second v second etc. While these matches were initially billed as playoffs for the title and wooden spoon, it is now envisaged that they would each be worth the standard 24 points and added to those in the regular season to determine final league positions.
after newsletter promotion
As a result, it is theoretically possible that the top-of-the-table clash could prove meaningless, if one of the sides has 24 points more than their opponent after 12 matches. Although this feels unsatisfactory to some and would remove the spectacle of a grand final at Lord’s, the proposed new structure would guarantee jeopardy at the wrong end of the top tier, with the bottom sides in each pool relegated.
The winners of the second tier – Championship 2, consisting of 10 home-and-away games plus two additional loop fixtures – would be promoted automatically, with second facing third in a playoff for the right to join them in the top flight.
Key stumbling block
The refuseniks are chiefly acting out the wishes of their vocal but relatively small memberships. Totalling about 70,000, of which Surrey contribute by far the most at just over 20,000, they vociferously oppose any reduction in championship matches. The influence of this lobby group is a huge source of frustration to the Professional Cricketers’ Association, whose members want a cut in cricket on the grounds of player welfare and quality.
In a last-minute attempt to win over floating voters the PGC is understood to have offered to add an extra fixture in the 50-over One Day Cup from next season to appease members and provide additional gate receipts, a proposal which will form part of the Championship vote.
