• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

18 county system isn't the way forward for English cricket

SeamUp

International Coach
This may be a bit controversial for some but I feel its the way England can get back to the top and continually compete at the top.

I seriously believe the heart of the problem with Englands cricket is selection of the squads due to the difficulty to judge how good someone actually is if they do well domestically in county level.

I say the 18 counties need to be ditched and franchises created to get the best-v-the best scenario in imho if England are to improve. Lets say because there are more pro players in England maybe 8 or 9 franchises need to be formed.

You see with so many players playing you may have players like Mahmood and Plunkett who are averaging 20-25 range and get selected for England. But the less teams there are and more strength vs strength the range increases and you will see the good county bowlers be seperated by the bowlers with international potential.
 

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Completely agree... too many of the counties are just full of Kolpaks and/or nobodies. 8 or 9 from 18 may be a bit extreme but 12 would be good. Something around that number, should aslo introduce rules with regards to having to play a certain number of U23 English qualified players or something along those lines IMO.
 

SeamUp

International Coach
Completely agree... too many of the counties are just full of Kolpaks and/or nobodies. 8 or 9 from 18 may be a bit extreme but 12 would be good. Something around that number, should aslo introduce rules with regards to having to play a certain number of U23 English qualified players or something along those lines IMO.
I don't think its actually the Kolpaks that the problem mate and I'm not saying that because I'm South African. They're actually keeping up the quality of your cricket with so many counties.

If the franchise system was put in place like in SA which has done wonders for our cricket I believe then the Kolpaks must be restricted.

You see players like Key, Denly, Tredwell from Kent and Taylor from Leics should be playing with best v best scenario.

At the end of the day you only find out who is the best if they continually play against the best.
 

stumpski

International Captain
Because obviously, tradition and history are things that English cricket should have nothing to do with. :dry: My own view is that any reduction of teams won't mean the reduction of foreign players - it'll just mean counties, sorry, franchises, taking the field with two or three (if that) qualified to play for England.

I'm not saying it'll never happen, but if it does I imagine I'll just find another sport to follow. It would certainly mean the end of attending live matches. Cricket in England does not begin and end with the England team.

Zaremba, over to you.
 

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Because obviously, tradition and history are things that English cricket should have nothing to do with. :dry: My own view is that any reduction of teams won't mean the reduction of foreign players - it'll just mean counties, sorry, franchises, taking the field with two or three (if that) qualified to play for England.

I'm not saying it'll never happen, but if it does I imagine I'll just find another sport to follow. It would certainly mean the end of attending live matches. Cricket in England does not begin and end with the England team.

Zaremba, over to you.

See I agree that it doesn't begin and end with the England team but surely that should be one of the main purposes of the County Championship? To blood new players for the England team.
You speak of history and tradition and IIRC you're a Surrey man? Surely it would give you much greater sense of pride if it was a rookie batsman from Surrey who hit a match saving century rather than some West Indian who has come over as a Kolpak?
Kolpak's aren't the only issue.. there are too many genuinely poor cricketers floating around the system. If the deadwood was to be cut, like I said I'm not calling for the shediing of over half our teams, then the quality of the competition would increase dramatically, it would make for much better following and much better cricket.
 

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I don't think its actually the Kolpaks that the problem mate and I'm not saying that because I'm South African. They're actually keeping up the quality of your cricket with so many counties.

If the franchise system was put in place like in SA which has done wonders for our cricket I believe then the Kolpaks must be restricted.

You see players like Key, Denly, Tredwell from Kent and Taylor from Leics should be playing with best v best scenario.

At the end of the day you only find out who is the best if they continually play against the best.
Yeah that's kind of my point, there shouldn't be a need for Kolpaks.
 

SeamUp

International Coach
STUMPSKI

I was waiting for this counter-argument.

Tradition tradition...only gets you so far. The point is county cricket is there to produce international cricketers.

Do you think there was no tradition in SA domestic cricket. There is tons of tradition with Natal, Wetern Province and the old Transvaal just to name the kingpins since the early 1900's. It was hard to form our domestic franchises because I grew up watching a brilliant WP side that included so many stars and the WP culture.

But thats not the point...the point is English cricket cannot continue to pick Ravi Bopara's and so on.
 

stumpski

International Captain
Just out of interest, does anyone actually watch the franchise teams? I know it's early days, but I wonder if they have any genuine support. The counties have loyal hardcore supporters who follow the team up and down the country; some of them have been members for decades. Where are they all supposed to go? Or don't they matter. I know plenty of people like that at Surrey who wouldn't cross the road to watch England. People like that identify more strongly with their county because they choose them, they stay with them through thick and thin, Supporting England isn't a choice if you're English and into cricket, it's just a default setting.
 

stumpski

International Captain
I'm not saying incidentally that there isn't scope for trimming, I reckon 14 counties would be better than 18; but there's no way I'd go 150 miles to watch 'South East England' or whatever dreadful sponsor's name they'd be given.
 

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yeah I agree. Don't really agree with the idea of Franchise cricket but some counties clearly aren't good enough. Could they go back to being minor counties?
 

SeamUp

International Coach
Just out of interest, does anyone actually watch the franchise teams? I know it's early days, but I wonder if they have any genuine support. The counties have loyal hardcore supporters who follow the team up and down the country; some of them have been members for decades. Where are they all supposed to go? Or don't they matter. I know plenty of people like that at Surrey who wouldn't cross the road to watch England. People like that identify more strongly with their county because they choose them, they stay with them through thick and thin, Supporting England isn't a choice if you're English and into cricket, it's just a default setting.
Thers no problem supporting franchise teams in SA because most identify them with the past provincial sides who merged. List A and T20 games are well supported and sure 4-day cricket isn't well supported but thats because most people in SA cannot attend due to being at work.

I'm not one to judge but I find it strange how someone can support their county over their country.

At the end of the day I like to watch the quality cricket at international level where you will find it and the emerging talents in the domestic structure.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
the point is English cricket cannot continue to pick Ravi Bopara's and so on.
So if there were fewer teams the likes of Ravi Bopara wouldn't be picked? Then presumably there are better players waiting in the wings yet to be discovered? Who?
 

stumpski

International Captain
Thers no problem supporting franchise teams in SA because most identify them with the past provincial sides who merged. List A and T20 games are well supported and sure 4-day cricket isn't well supported but thats because most people in SA cannot attend due to being at work.

I'm not one to judge but I find it strange how someone can support their county over their country.

At the end of the day I like to watch the quality cricket at international level where you will find it and the emerging talents in the domestic structure.
There is a direct equivalent to what I was referring to in football I think. Particularly with the lower-league sides who don't have expensive foreign players; fans will go all over the country to watch them play but at the same time regard the England team as a bunch of pampered millionaires; they might watch internationals on TV but wouldn't bother to go to Wembley. Anyway I'll leave the counter-argument to the likes of Fertang and Zaremba who can argue the case for the defence far more eloquently. :)
 

SeamUp

International Coach
So if there were fewer teams the likes of Ravi Bopara wouldn't be picked? Then presumably there are better players waiting in the wings yet to be discovered? Who?
This is the key question Zaremba. Because Bopara has been found to be a good county batsman and was chosen but not up to the very top level.

Hence the range for the best of the best batsman to good county batsman would be found out.

I'm not going to say who is better than him because its hars not only for me but the England selectors as well. But I certainly know the pecking order for SA due to having a franchise system in place.
 

SeamUp

International Coach
There is a direct equivalent to what I was referring to in football I think. Particularly with the lower-league sides who don't have expensive foreign players; fans will go all over the country to watch them play but at the same time regard the England team as a bunch of pampered millionaires; they might watch internationals on TV but wouldn't bother to go to Wembley. Anyway I'll leave the counter-argument to the likes of Fertang and Zaremba who can argue the case for the defence far more eloquently. :)

I support Nottingham Forest so I know how that feels.

But I still feel its difficult to compare the 2 sports because there are far more people who play football than cricket and therefore more people who have the required qualities to keep the fans going to watch their football side.

Cricket is a funny sport, being and individual within a team and individuals get found out a lot more easier and hence the there aren't enough criketers who have brilliant qualities unlike in Football there are quite a few footballers playing international football.

That is why there is more international cricket than international football. To get the best v the best and to watch quality really really quality cricket.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
I'm not one to judge but I find it strange how someone can support their county over their country.
I know plenty of supporters who put county above country. The same happens in football - many many football fans would put their club above England.

Anyhow my club has been in existence since 1839. The Club Committee should be very reluctant to sign the club's death warrant by agreeing to merge with, say, Kent / Surrey / Hants to form the McDonald's SouthEast SuperCricket franchise. I can't see myself feeling any particular attachment to such a franchise. Cricket at venues such as Hove (where Sussex has played since 1872), Horsham, Eastbourne, and Arundel would die out. Not an appealing prospect for me.

Anyhow the system is not as badly flawed as some people make out. The likes of Ravi Bopara whom you use as a byword for crapness just regained the Ashes. England are competitive. They have no God-given right to be the best in the world.
 

SeamUp

International Coach
I know plenty of supporters who put county above country. The same happens in football - many many football fans would put their club above England.

Anyhow my club has been in existence since 1839. The Club Committee should be very reluctant to sign the club's death warrant by agreeing to merge with, say, Kent / Surrey / Hants to form the McDonald's SouthEast SuperCricket franchise. I can't see myself feeling any particular attachment to such a franchise. Cricket at venues such as Hove (where Sussex has played since 1872), Horsham, Eastbourne, and Arundel would die out. Not an appealing prospect for me.

Anyhow the system is not as badly flawed as some people make out. The likes of Ravi Bopara whom you use as a byword for crapness just regained the Ashes. England are competitive. They have no God-given right to be the best in the world.
Look as I said this may touchh a nerve with some and it seems to have done just that.

Those venues wouldn't die out because a franchise will have 2 venues.

Sure you may have won the Ashes and a win is a win but wheres the consistency going to be found for the future.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Look as I said this may touchh a nerve with some and it seems to have done just that.

Those venues wouldn't die out because a franchise will have 2 venues.
No it hasn't touched a nerve, it's just that I heard stumpski's call-to-arms and I responded :)

As for the cricket grounds, think about the maths of it. Let's imagine Kent, Hants, Sussex and Surrey merged to form the aforementioned McDonald's SouthEast SuperCricket franchise. 2 venues from that lot? Well the Oval would be an automatic choice. Then pick one from the Rose Bowl (an international venue) and Canterbury (established 1847). Hove wouldn't get a look-in. Let alone Arundel, Horsham, Eastbourne.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
I think 18 counties probably is too many. The fact that so many are reliant on Kolpaks and EU passport holders to prop them up would seem to support this.

However, where the counties are really culpable is their their collective failure to consistently produce locally-sourced talent. One might speculate as to the reasons for this; the utter hegemony of association football is perhaps one & (without wishing to seem too much of the chippy socialist) the sale of school playing fields under the Thatcher government in the 80s is maybe another.

Regardless of the root causes this is an issue that needs to be addressed from the bottom up so I'm not sure reducing the number of counties would be a panacea.
 

Top