CMJ: England team well backed by MacLaurin (17 September 1997)

Wednesday 17 September 1997

England team well backed by MacLaurin

Christopher Martin-Jenkins

THERE are two main conclusions to be drawn from the decisions made by the First Class Forum on the future of county cricket. First, that the counties, the shareholders, still control their own destiny; second, that the chairman, Lord MacLaurin, chastened though he may be, has suffered worse defeats than this and will persevere.

`Raising The Standard` was not the MacLaurin plan, as he has tried to explain in vain to a media who deal mainly in heroes, villains and abbreviations of the truth. But he and the co-architects of the revised blueprint for the future structure, Tim Lamb, John Carr, Terry Blake and Cliff Barker, might have been a bit depressed by their press coverage yesterday morning. The great majority of the original blueprint had been passed by the FCF and the Recreational Forums, the bodies set up in the compromise constitution for the new administration of cricket agreed last year, but all that most of the press wanted to write about was the fact that the counties had refused to accept the idea of two divisions for the County Championship.

No matter that this was in itself a late change to the original blueprint. No matter that it was only a part of a far larger whole. No matter that the counties accepted radical changes in their one-day competitions. No matter that half the pa- pers who declared MacLaurin a failure, for saying what he wanted for the four-day competition and failing to get it, give scant coverage of the championship anyway. Some of them are not even prepared to print full scorecards, but they suddenly have strong views on promotion and relegation.

So, according to the Professional Cricketers` Association poll, were 50 per cent of the players (not 75 per cent, as has widely been reported: 75 per cent said they wanted some change; two thirds of that 75 per cent said they preferred two di- visions). Well, good for them, although no doubt most of the 50 per cent were the ones who feel reasonably secure in their jobs. Quite apart from the financial fears of smaller clubs, their players, some but by no means all of them "mediocre", would have had their already deprived status further deflated by being in a second division; their chances of making the international side would have been even more negligible and their desire to move to one of the wealthier clubs increased. It is no coin- cidence that the counties with Test grounds all voted for two divisions.

Fortunately, MacLaurin will rise above the criticism. Fortunately, because he is the best thing to happen to the game`s administration for a long time: he has been the catalyst for change which was badly needed; he has given the England team and their managers confidence that a supportive organisation are behind them. He has made his mistakes, especially, perhaps, in expressing his opinion for a change to two divisions last week. He persuaded no one to change their mind and may have tipped some of the wavering clubs the other way.

He and his board ought to have known, too, that once county members were given a chance to express opinions on the three-conference idea, it had no chance of getting through. They objected to losing three championship matches but the system was inequitable anyway, so that was just as well. Nor could they have expected critics who for a long time have ascribed the relative weakness of the England side largely to a surfeit of one-day cricket, to smile at the prospect of a league with 25 one-day matches.

What has emerged is more evolution than revolution; an improvement on the status quo, with at least five fewer match days for county players and an additional financial in- centive for the clubs finishing in the top eight of the championship. The twodivision 50-over league should test the theory that promotion and relegation will add extra spice to many matches. Personally, I hope the idea of an early-season tournament between six regions will now be more seriously considered as an alternative.

What no one should want is a breaking away of counties whose additional wealth is based largely on the fact, the accidental fact, that they are fortunate enough to own grounds that stage Test matches.

Paul Sheldon, the chief executive of Surrey, however, warned that if standards did not improve, a breakaway of the richer counties into a `premier league` was not impossible. "It would be a rational argument," he said "that the best players playing against each other all the time would produce better Test players. I hope such a thing never happens but it probably depends on how the next couple of years work out."

From the other end of the spectrum, Robin Marlar, chairman of Sussex, said: "I have no doubt that if we had two divisions, it would have put clubs like Sussex out of business."

Holding the balance of power, as it were, Lamb, the chief executive of the England and Wales Cricket Board, summed up: "Let us not underestimate the changes made. We have broken the mould. Taken as a package, the proposals we have come up with will move the game forward."

Source :: The Electronic Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/)