Championship a source of strength

It couldn't happen in any other sport.

Imagine it was the football season starting this week. And imagine the Premier League announced that half the fixtures would be squeezed into the first two months of the season. And that the entire FA Cup would be played in December. Then imagine them announcing that the season would finish early in order to accommodate a foreign league's competition. A competition in which English clubs may not even compete.

Then imagine them announcing that the best English players were to be withdrawn from domestic competition. Not just the best, but the best up and coming players. And not just so they can play for the national side, but so they can spend more time in the gym. Or resting. Or playing in another foreign league. And that there will be penalties imposed for fielding overseas players. Or experienced English players. Oh, and the fixture list is designed to be so unpredictable and unaccommodating that pretty much only affluent pensioners - not the largest demographic - can attend matches.

Sounds crazy, doesn't it?

But that, by and large, is the scenario facing the County Championship this week. While the developments listed above have - by and large - been brought in with the best of motives, the end result has been to compromise the strength and the credibility of the Championship.

And that's dangerous. For if we weaken the Championship, we weaken every facet of English cricket.

The Championship is not just some charming memento of a bygone age. It produces fine international cricketers. How else can we explain the fact that Alastair Cook, Andrew Strauss, Jonathan Trott and Matt Prior all scored centuries on Test debut? Or that Kevin Pietersen and Ian Bell scored half-centuries? How else can we explain that cricketers plucked from the county game, the likes of Chris Tremlett and Steven Finn (who both play for Division Two clubs, incidentally), Tim Bresnan and Graeme Swann, proved themselves good enough to play crucial roles in England's Ashes success? The County Championship works.

It matters, too. Ask a player or spectator their priority for the domestic season and the vast majority will reply 'the Championship.'

Why? Because, over the course of a season, nothing in the domestic calendar tests cricketers' skills as thoroughly as a 16-game, four-day Championship. It's hard, it's intense and, on the evidence of last year, it's entertaining.

True, spectator numbers at games will not be impressive. Lazy news editors will, doubtless, mark the season's start by publishing pictures of banks of empty seats and repeat that old lie about counties surviving on hand-outs. But, across the land, supporters will check websites and newspapers in their millions to keep abreast of the latest scores. The backlash that followed the ECB's suggestions to alter the Championship last year prompted surprised those in cricket management and prompted a rethink. It now appears the 16 game, two-division structure is safe for the foreseeable future.

It's simply not true that county cricket is subsidised, either. Or that it relies on T20 revenue. The whole English game actually relies on money from the TV deal and, without a successful Test side, that deal would be worth far less. Try building a strong Test side without the Championship: it remains the foundation for everything else in the English game.

County cricket comes in for a great deal of criticism. Like parents and the NHS, its familiarity has earned it contempt. But where was List A cricket born? Or T20 cricket? County cricket has endured through wars, through recessions and though many a fluctuation in fashion. It produced Hobbs and Hutton; Botham and Bedser; Gooch and Gower; Trueman and, now, James Taylor. Given half a chance, it will go on producing fine players, too.

Last season was the most entertaining for years. With the points system adapted to encourage teams to play for wins and the heavy roller banned after the start of games, there were far more outright results. Whether this proves helpful for the development of Test cricketers is debatable, but it was a breath of fresh air for spectators. And it is meant to be a spectator sport after all. Some have even suggested that the heavy roller is removed from Test cricket, too, though that looks highly unlikely.

No-one is pretending that the county schedule is ideal. With the clubs committed to one more season of 16 T20 matches lumped together in prime summer, the championship has been pushed to the margins and the schedule, for players and spectators, is demanding.

There are other options. This 2011 season ends 10 days earlier than the 2009 season, while the UCCE fixtures - some arbitrarily granted first-class status, others not - could be cut from the schedule. Those two steps alone would create 14-days extra breathing space. The T20 could also be played across the season, easing the burden on spectators, who are sometimes confronted with the prospect of three home games within a week. Many would still welcome a return of an FA Cup-style knock-out competition, too, perhaps played over 20-overs and incorporating the minor counties and closest associate nations. It could, with just a little imagination, be given to free-to-air television.

There are other developments pending. The ECB is likely to freeze the rise in incentive payments for clubs fielding young, England-qualified players. They won't abolish them - not yet, anyway - but they are unlikely to increase them, as was originally scheduled for the start of the 2012 season.

A re-think is also underway over whether the Clydesdale Bank competition should be contested over 40 or 50 overs. With the recent World Cup apparently reviving the 50-over game's fortunes, it does seem odd that English players don't experience the format at domestic level.

Meanwhile, on the pitch, it may well be that the Championship trophy has a new name upon it by the end of September. Somerset, runners-up in all three competitions last year, have recruited wisely and have the strength and the balance to challenge in all three trophies. The acquisition of Steve Kirby fills the only hole in their attack last year: a quality fast bowler. Kirby may just be the best contemporary player not to have represented England. Somerset will be hard to beat in all formats.

Yorkshire, too, look strong. Partly out of necessity - few clubs are as deep in debt as Yorkshire - the club have relied on their home-grown talent. With all but two of the squad either born or brought up in the region, it suggests the county is teeming with talent. If they escape injuries and England calls, they could go close. Hampshire and Durham may prove to be the other contenders. Essex and Kent will surely be pushing for promotion from Division Two. Surrey and Leicestershire could push them. But it wouldn't be nearly such an intriguing sport if we could predict what was going to happen. It promises to be an exciting summer.

It seems inevitable that this season will be overshadowed by concerns over the finances of county clubs. Only four of the 18 first-class counties reported an operating profit in the last financial year, with some in unprecedented trouble. Yorkshire, for example, are utterly reliant on the benevolence of their chairman. Others, such as Leicestershire and Kent, simply seem to have an unsustainable business model. Indeed, the auditors of Leicestershire's accounts expressed concern over the business' ongoing viability. Worcestershire, acting decisively when they detected trouble in the air, have trimmed around £500,000 from their budget. Others will have to follow suit.

On the face of things, there's little help at hand. The ECB have clarified that they are not, in David Collier's words "a lender of last resort for any county" and will not bail out clubs in financial trouble.

That's understandable, too. Giving money to some clubs is like pouring water in a black-hole. The salary bill of player at Kent, for example, has gone up 90% since 2002. Simply giving them more money isn't the whole answer. They also have to learn to cut their coat in accordance with their cloth.

Realistically, however, the ECB are far more obliging. Glamorgan and Yorkshire are among the counties to have been awarded advances on the perimeter advertising deals they have with the ECB, while all clubs are eligible for up to £300,000 if their stadia achieve 'model compliance' of ECB standards. Some will tell you this is the ECB's way of helping the clubs through the current storm; the cynical will tell you it was a scheme devised by the current management to see off a leadership challenge.

There is, perhaps, a chink of light at the end of the tunnel, anyway. After hosting attractive Test series against India this summer and South Africa next, England (and Wales) will host home Ashes series in 2013 and 2015, the World Test Championship in 2013 and 2017 and the World Cup in 2019. Put simply, there's enough attractive cricket scheduled to ensure the game remains solvent.

That doesn't change the fact that there isn't enough appealing international cricket to satisfy the requirements of nine Test grounds. Over recent years, the international venues have been encouraged to spend huge sums on improving their facilities while also bidding against one another for the right to host games. While this has increased the ECB's revenue, it's encouraged unsustainable spending and driven several clubs right to the brink.

The ECB, to their credit, are changing that system. In future, major matches will be allocated through clubs applying for fixed-price packages. Not only will this end the need for excessive spending, but it will allow clubs to plan and budget more effectively.

It may be too late for some, however. There is, at present, a ferocious battle on-going to secure the right to host the so-far unallocated Ashes Tests of 2013 and 2015 and some of the losers may be left in a position where they're unable to meet their debt repayments. It is understood that The Oval, Lord's and Edgbaston will fare well when the announcement finally comes. Cardiff, too, is tipped to host another Ashes Test. Some of the others will be left fighting over the scraps. While it's inconceivable that county cricket will not survive in some format in some of our most historic venues, it may be in mightily different shape. For those that find such talk alarmist, take a walk through Longbridge in Birmingham. Or through the coal fields of Staffordshire and Yorkshire. Times change. No business is immune.

Might there be other options?

Well, the 18 first-class counties currently receive only about 30% of the ECB's budget. They could be given more. While such claims will, understandably, draw protests from those seeking to protect spending on the international set-up and grass-roots cricket, there are other areas where savings could be made. Not so long ago, an ECB official submitted an expenses claim for an overseas tour that was worth more than 10% of the turnover of some counties. Several officials at the ECB are on six-figure salaries, with at least one earning over £300,000 a year. Some are, no doubt, worth every penny (for all the flak they receive, the current ECB management have turned a deficit into a surplus and steered the English game through some choppy waters); others may not be. There's plenty of fat in the English game. It could be trimmed tomorrow and no-one would notice.

There was a time when county cricket offered an opportunity to see the greatest cricketers in the world at close quarters. To get to know them, even. From Sobers to Sachin, Lillee to Lara, Marshall to Miandad, just above every world-class cricketer of the last 40 years enjoyed a spell in the county game. We were lucky to have them.

Those days have just about gone. While there are still some fine cricketers visiting this summer, a combination of tougher work permit criteria and the increased international schedule has robbed county cricket of the biggest names. It's inevitable that just a little of the excitement - and some of the quality - has gone with them. It's no-one's fault; just the way of the world.

Is it understandable that some are calling for overseas players to be outlawed completely from everything other than T20 cricket. Bearing in mind the financial plight of some clubs, it does seem odd that they continue to invest in luxuries they can't afford. Compare Essex's financial loss last year - around £40,000 - with the cost of bringing Dwayne Bravo to the UK for T20 finals day. The counties' complaints about poverty will find more sympathetic ears if they at least try to live within their means. Incidentally, a rule change brought in this year means that counties will no longer be able to sign overseas players for finals day unless they have played in the qualifying rounds. Ironically, Essex were the instigators of the change.

The disingenuous behaviour of some players - and their agents - hasn't helped. There is growing resentment at some counties that their best-laid plans can be disrupted when players simply have a change of heart. The example of Younis Khan and Warwickshire springs to mind.

But while it may be an understandable that some want to ban overseas players, it's also wrong. With so many other facts coinciding to take leading players out of the county game (central contracts, the IPL, changes to work permit criteria etc), there's a stronger case than ever for welcoming players who may not be England qualified; Kolpaks et al. Without them, the gap between the championship and the international game could grow uncomfortably large.

Under existing criteria, Viv Richards wouldn't have been able to play for Somerset; Graeme Hick, at least initially, wouldn't have been able to play for Worcestershire and the likes of Imran Tahir, Murray Goodwin wouldn't have been able to play county cricket over the last few seasons. Would that really have been for the best?

Besides, while the likes of Usman Khawaja and Kane Williamson (both of whom are representing Division Two teams) might not be a household names at present, they may well be within a few years. Their presence will entertain county spectators and provide a benchmark for county players. It would harm us all if they were barred from participating.