My radical plan to save England’s first-class game
A proposal to overhaul County Championship does not go far enough given format’s problems
The Ashes debacle has, inevitably, started people thinking about how we better prepare cricketers for first-class cricket. Last month, Mark Arthur, the chief executive of Yorkshire, and Martyn Moxon, the county’s director of cricket, suggested a three-division conference system to replace the existing two-division format. The workings seem to require a degree in either maths or philosophy, so bear with me.
Taking 2017 as the base, the teams who finished first, second and third would lead the three conferences (A, B and C), with the fourth, fifth and sixth going into each next, finishing with the 16th, 17th and 18th. Each side would play the other at home and away.
Having played those 10 games, the teams would then divide into three new conferences (D, E and F), the top two in each original conference going into D, the third and fourths into E and the fifths and sixths into F. Points won in the first 10 games would be carried forward, but this time the teams who came first, third and fifth play
If the game splits into two codes then the best first-class players would always be available
three home games and two away, the seconds, fourths and sixths playing just two at home.
Having played 15 matches in total, the winners would then be determined by the total number of points in the two-conference system. To give stragglers some incentive to keep trying, a larger pot of prize money (Arthur and Moxon suggest £1million against the present £550,000) would be shared among those coming first to 15th. In a refreshingly devil-take-the-hindmost approach, they reckon those coming 16th, 17th and 18th do not deserve anything.
It is easy to mock the proposal, and while I disagree with aspects of it – notably its complications – I certainly would not. The present championship must change for the blindingly obvious reason that it is not working: if it were, we would have a better Test team. But Arthur and Moxon had another reason for wanting change.
They noted that some counties felt threatened by the forthcoming city-based T20 competition, and they saw their championship plan as a means to bind the 18 first-class counties together. The purpose of reviving and improving the County Championship should be twofold: to create a more competitive game that produces better players and, therefore, makes England a more formidable Test opponent; and it should stimulate more interest in the long-form game. The bigger context is whether cricket moves towards two separate codes, as I have argued here before that it should. The desire to pack in lucrative short-form cricket to the fixture schedules has driven championship cricket to the margins and diluted the quality of the national Test team.
There is no point in having a discussion about what form the championship is to take unless the competition is to be taken seriously: so demarginalising the game, and playing it at the height of summer as well as in freezing April and chilly September is essential.
Over the past 50 years, the argument has been that as people have stopped watching the championship, it should shrink. Why have people stopped watching it? As is often said, there are too many other things to do in the cricket season: foreign travel, computers and ipads head the list.
Also, the failure to show Tests on terrestrial television has driven away a generation of potential fans. But the cricket authorities have given up marketing the first-class game; and it is staged in a fashion entirely inimical to most rational people who are not schooled in the game, but might want to sample it.
The four-day game can be slow and attritional. Over rates are needlessly slow: it all makes for tedious cricket, especially when the best-known names so rarely play in it. All this must change.
Games should be three days each, with 110 overs a day. Given the need to develop both batting and bowling skills, there seems less reason than ever not to play these games on uncovered wickets. They should be played on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, starting at 1pm on the first day (finishing under lights if necessary) and noon on the second and third.
There would be one division. If feared that sides near the bottom would give up the ghost halfway through the season, then make it clear – as Arthur and Moxon have done – that prize money will be proportionate to where a side finish: though they are right to suggest nothing at all for the bottom three.
It may even be that one or two sides do not survive more than another few seasons: if that is how market forces work, so be it. The main reason to have a single division championship is to expand the pool from which Test players are chosen: it is very hard to get into the Test team from the present Second Division.
Every side should play each other once, alternating home and away between seasons. Each side should be given a three-day tourist match, in which they are under obligation to field their best players: a financial incentive to touring sides should ensure their cooperation. If the game splits into two codes then the best first-class players would always be available, unless a Test is on.
Those who wish to watch T20 cricket can do so under lights on weekday evenings. Every team would have at least 18 first-class games a season, providing abundant match practice.