Members of counties are inconvenient.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s the bottom line. It\u2019s an outdated system and it makes it difficult for the counties and
\nfor the ECB to take control. But the reality is that fifteen of the counties are member-
\nowned. They hold the power to elect or to sack the Board, and this is a precarious position
\nfor the governing body. Their answer? Set about wrong-footing that membership.<\/p>\n
A 4-0 drubbing down under, followed by poor selection decisions for a West Indies tour in
\nMarch, led to the commissioning of a High Performance Review to look at cricket in England
\nand Wales. After drip-fed leaks throughout the season, Sir Andrew Strauss\u2019s final proposals
\nwere published on 22 September. Their purpose \u2013 \u2018to make England the world\u2019s best team
\nacross all formats within five years, for a sustained period of time\u2019. There are many
\nrecommendations, but I will concentrate on those directly concerned with the county game.<\/p>\n
Whatever you think about the review it\u2019s been driven by a genuine desire to improve English
\ncricket: it\u2019s just that the orchestration is so complicated and inevitably weighted by personal
\nbias. As Strauss says, \u2018it\u2019s impossible to keep everyone content\u2019. You can\u2019t solve one thing
\nwithout un-solving another thing. But it appears that, despite a complete turnaround in the
\nfortunes of the Test side following a change of coaching staff and captain, the thing to
\n\u2018solve\u2019, the scapegoat, is the county set-up. On 7 September, Strauss warned the counties
\nthat \u2018English cricket faces an exodus of its playing talent unless reforms to the domestic game
\nare adopted\u2019, and Michael Vaughan followed up (again in a Daily Telegraph interview with
\nNick Holt) with a stark warning that \u2018counties have a simple choice, back Andrew Strauss\u2019s
\nreforms or watch red ball cricket die\u2019. This feels like bully-boy tactics, loading the blame
\nonto the counties, with the aim of forcing an eventual outcome that it seems to many of us,
\nthe ECB always intended \u2013 fewer counties at first-class level.<\/p>\n
On the face of it a top tier of six teams, with one team relegated each year, sitting above
\ntwo conferences of six teams, has some merit, but the reality is potentially really damaging.
\nIt may make mathematical sense of the ten-game format, but five home games only! This is
\na major problem for the smaller counties in particular. How do they sustain their local
\nrelevance, and how do they actually survive? If the playing days are reduced, must the
\nplaying and behind-the-scenes staffs be reduced, too? And what about membership fees
\nand the kinds of deal offered to members, the stakeholders and to sponsors? Essentially, it
\ngives the team fewer chances to actually play games of cricket. Is it wise to devalue the
\nChampionship so radically? I\u2019ve heard from many current players that it is still the format
\nthey hold above all others, the prize they most want to claim. Popular with players and with
\nmembers, where is the call for the cull coming from?<\/p>\n
What the Strauss Review proposes is shrinkage, pure and simple. It envisages a 6 or 8 \u00e9lite
\ndivision of counties, all or most of which will also host the 100. The remaining 10\/12
\ncounties will become feeder clubs, playing cricket against similarly placed counties. How do
\nwe stop top players gravitating to the top six teams, as is the reductive way of modern
\nsport? This is already the whole premise of the 100: to create teams of \u2018the best of the
\nbest\u2019. Such non-aligned elitism ignores a key point of County Cricket, the fact that each new
\ngame not only belongs and adds to a rich history but also contributes to the work every
\ncounty does in the local community. Sean Jarvis, CEO at Leicestershire CCC, who has spent<\/p>\n
all season engaging with his community, chasing new audiences and working with diverse
\ngroups not traditionally engaged with cricket, feels that \u2018It really does, potentially, put a nail
\nin a coffin \u2026. it feels like we\u2019re being bullied\u2019. In an interview with BBC Sport Leicester, he
\ncalculated that the Strauss proposals could lead to a fall in income of \u00a3250,000, which would
\nultimately threaten the Club\u2019s survival.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/prostinternational.comwp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/20220925_231224.jpg\")
\nThe Strauss proposal that the Royal London One Day Cup be played in April as a straight
\nknock-out competition will find defenders. We all love the lottery of the FA Cup. But a small
\ncounty, already confined to a total of 10 Championship matches, may find itself knocked out
\nin Round 1, with no further prospect of gate money that month.<\/p>\n
And then there is the T20 Blast, to be \u2018played in a single window in dedicated blocks with
\nmore fan-friendly prime-slot fixtures over 10 group-stage matches per team\u2019. In effect, this
\nreduces home games from 7 to 5, with significant loss of income from a growing fan-base
\nwith a taste for \u2018carnival cricket\u2019. The short-changing of this group in counties that don\u2019t
\nhost the 100 is an unspoken by-product of the Strauss Review.<\/p>\n
One final piece of flummery is a proposed Festival Cricket Tournament, described in the
\nReview as \u2018the new concept to provide opportunities for our specialist red-ball players and
\ndeveloping talent\u2019. Martin Bicknell, ex-Surrey and England player, admitted on Twitter that
\nhe could think of nothing worse than playing such \u2018meaningless, low-grade cricket\u2019. It is, in
\ntruth, not difficult to see through this transparent attempt to fob off the Counties with a bit
\nof August jollity while the real business of high summer, the 100, dominates our television
\nscreens. And this was the nub of Sir Andrew\u2019s problem. He was not asked to review ALL
\nASPECTS OF THE GAME. He was obliged to regard the 100\u2019s possession of August as
\nsacrosanct. It must have occurred to him that this was a flaw in his brief, that it
\ncompromised the objectivity of his Review. Can it be good for English cricket that there will
\nbe no home county (or test) matches in the best month of summer?<\/p>\n
Finally, back to the membership. Counties are right to be concerned that their membership
\nwill drop with the reduction in first-class cricket on offer, but I urge you to use the Strauss
\nReview as a call to arms and a chance for the membership and the counties to work
\ntogether more cohesively, because if we want to see county cricket ultimately thrive then
\nwe need to be united in our endeavours.<\/p>\n