England: Regional route into a two-phase championship (14 October 1998)

14 October 1998

England: Regional route into a two-phase championship

By Christopher Martin-Jenkins

CHAMPIONSHIP cricket is a tremendous step up at first for a player coming out of the second XI. For Mike Atherton, and others like him, it is no longer a challenge and therefore not the best preparation for opening the batting in a Test against Australia.

A regional tournament in May, involving all the best England qualified players except when there has been no time for them to have a rest after a major tour, would add interest to the first full month of the season and give a focus for aspiring England players. Six regions, their players chosen from groupings of three of the 18 first-class counties, would play each other once: five four-day games.

The tournament would be sponsored and televised and prize-money would be serious. With places in the national squad at stake, the cricket should be intense; selection would be easier with the best qualified players in the country in competition together. Interest should be considerable and though county members might not immediately associate with a region, they would go along to support their own representatives in the regional team.

To keep cricket going on county grounds not staging a regional match, and players not selected in practice, a spring championship between counties would be possible; relatively low-key but as competitive as possible, especially for young players hoping to make their mark and establish a place in the full county side later in the season.

From June, the championship proper would begin. If every county is to continue to play the other 17, time available would dictate either a return to three-day matches on uncovered pitches; or that half the matches should be of four days, as at present, half played over two days under Australian grade rules, a type of cricket - single innings but with extra points if one side bowls the other out twice - which is now familiar to under-19 county players.

An attractive alternative, and the one I suggest, is to split the 18 counties into two groups of nine until mid-July, playing eight four-day matches each, under present rules except with two extra points for a draw - five rather than three - to stiffen the resolve of sides who too often fold under pressure.

There would be 12 points for a win unless all 20 wickets have been taken, in which case the reward would be 18 win points. The groups of nine would be split roughly north/south: i.e., Kent, Essex, Middlesex, Surrey, Sussex, Hampshire, Glamorgan, Gloucestershire, Somerset in the southern group, the remainder in the northern.

The top four from each group plus a ninth county, according to which of the two finishing fifth in their group has more points, would then form a premier division from late July to mid-September, their matches televised and prize-money considerable. Those left to contest the county plate would also have as much financial incentive as the overall budget will allow. Eight more matches would be played, making 16 championship games in the season.

Clearly, the highest rewards for the top team in the plate would have to be lower than those available to counties who make the premier league, but for the players, with winter touring places still at stake for some, and for spectators and sponsors, the plate (or whatever it is called) would need to be something worth winning.

Crucially, every county would start equal the following season to dissuade the transfer system and probable domination by a few wealthy counties, which would be the inevitable consequence of a conventional two-division format.

Polarisation is a serious possibility. The Test grounds have just formed a consortium to deal jointly with the England and Wales Cricket Board when they discuss the financial terms of staging matches and five of the counties concerned - Lancashire, Yorkshire, Warwickshire, Nottinghamshire and Surrey - have also agreed a joint approach to the future structure of county cricket.

They want a two-division championship of nine counties in each section, two being promoted and relegated each year, and believe it would be no bad thing if most of the best players graduated to a few top clubs.

They suggest 12 games a season, playing four of the other eight counties in their division once, the other four home and away. They also want 25 rather than 16 National League games, preferably of 40 or 45 overs, not 50.

They somewhat highhandedly dismiss the argument that as all internationals are of 50 overs duration, the bulk of one-day county fixtures should be played over the same distance. They are opposed to central England contracts and they favour six Tests and 10 one-day internationals a season. In other words, they want what is best for themselves.

From a more objective standpoint, my feeling is that an early-season regional tournament and two-phase County Championship, plus the National League and the NatWest Trophy, would have a proper balance between first-class and limited-overs cricket, allowing a little extra breathing space for players and sufficient room for, say, six Tests and seven one-day internationals. More international cricket than that would only reduce the status and morale of county cricket.

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