A united Championship

Matthew Engel proposes a radical restructuring of the county game

What if they gave a match and nobody came © Getty Images

There is an urgent debate going on within English cricket about the game's structure. Actually there are two debates. One is going on inside the ECB, where officials are working on reforming the fixture list in time for new TV contracts in 2006. The other is being conducted by the high-profile agitators of the Cricket Reform Group.

To be even more precise, there is no debate at all. The reform group, after what appears to be fairly skimpy research, has come up with a detailed and prescriptive scheme, none of it original, backed up by abuse from some of its members hurled at anyone who might argue, thus negating their stronger arguments. But its notion of a premiership is absurd. Such a tournament would be brilliant if it included the best England players. But it would not; they would still be unavailable 80-90% of the time. It would be a premiership for second-teamers. Meanwhile the ECB, though desperate for solutions, has initiated no public discussion whatever.

One reform group proposal seems bound to happen: less county cricket so that coaches can work with their players more. But the board wants a domestic system that is a breeding ground for Test players, credible in its own right and commercially successful. English county cricket has been failing on all these fronts. Oddly enough, I think there is a simple way we can start to put that right.

I call it "the United Championship". That does not mean we revert to one division; it does not matter for these purposes how many divisions we have. The essence is that we merge two failing competitions into one: the Championship and the National League. Who says first-class and one-day cricket require separate tournaments? It is just habit.

The advantages of a merger are startling:

Two events that struggle to find sponsors would suddenly become commercially tasty.

Public appeal will be greatly enhanced. No more would traditionalists be able to scorn the one-day game while newer fans ignore the four-day one.

Media coverage would increase because there would be real county champions and, if maintained, real promotion and relegation, not the belt-and-braces nonsense that exists now.

The pressure would increase for the same reason. No more would Sussex or Gloucestershire be able to accept failure in one form of the game to concentrate on the other.

Prize money could increase.

The fixture list would be easier to compile without the current illogicalities.

The system would be compatible with any divisional system that is required, including a premiership - and with an overlay of regional matches.

A Championship of 10 games (as the reform group wants) or even 12 would be worthless on its own as a competition, as opposed to an extended net: effectively decided by the weather and the England selectors. County membership would collapse. This way there can be less cricket but a much better competition.

Objections? You might insist that it is fairer if everyone played everyone else an even number of times. True but county cricket did not have an even fixture list of that type at any time in the 20th century, and it was never a real problem. Any unfairness that causes is nothing compared with the interventions of David Graveney and God.

It may also seem more logical that teams should play only their rivals in the same division. But there is no reason why this has to be so. It has no effect on the points system. All major American sports have cross-divisional fixtures.

My suggestion - working with the grain of the game as it is - is that counties in the United Championship would be in two divisions with two up and two down, playing 12 or 14 four-day games and 12, 14 or 16 one-day games.

The fixture list could be skewed so that counties played about two-thirds of their fixtures against teams in their own division and a third against teams from the other. This would ensure that the strong sides played mostly other strong sides but at least one day a season against every other county, maintaining variety and traditional rivalries.

Ah, but how do you work out the points? Even simpler. I suggest 10 for a four-day win with two for a draw and two more for first-innings lead in a draw, with four for a one-day win.

There is no perfect system. There might be a better idea out there. But I have not seen it.