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

[Woodster]

As soon as a nation gets to number 1 in the World Rankings it is taken as a given that their structure is the blueprint for guaranteed success. Not necessarily the case, and in domestic cricket in England there are so many other factors hindering our progress.

For example, it is no secret that we play far too much cricket, resulting in lower intensity matches, players not being able to play flat out due the schedules, practice taking a hit because there simply is not enough time on the training ground to iron out any flaws, instead these deficiencies are persevered with until the end of the season.

The split into two divisions was in theory to get the best sides playing the best sides, obviously there are top players playing in division two, but the intensity and competition has increased. Unfortunately as a result of the divsion split, division one teams are far more likely to not risk losing a game in order to win one, result - far too many draws, as sides fear relegation. Skippers need to be braver (Easier said than done) and be more positive in their decision making in order to get more wins.

Some pitches will never lend themselves to helping win the home side the title as it is seemingly impossible to win a match over four days on such flat, lifeless tracks, and can make for pretty dull cricket.

These few points are far more pressing issues to resolve rather than a full scale re-vamp of English cricket, which I can never see happening anyway.

 

[BoyBrumby]

What the 18 counties mean is that there should be a tier between that and England/Lions selection. The idea that I would float would be splitting England into four regions, and playing three four day games during a five week period, and thus allowing a break during the year, for players who aren't involved, and whilst the Test are going on. This can put players under greater heat and test them further. This competition would be for anyone who is currently England qualified.

It's an appealling idea and from a Team England () standpoint it'd be all gravy, but I can't see the counties being too chuffed at having to give up their best non-test players for so long and centrally contracting 50+ players might be a tad rich for the ECB's now Stanford-free coffers.

Trouble with English cricket is that the ECB is essentially the counties + the MCC, so it's the old "turkeys voting for Xmas" problem.

 

[stumpski]

If it were possible to get an earlier finish to the Championship, say early August, I think it'd be an interesting experiment to get a regional competition played in the last few weeks of the season, as they did (do?) in India with the Ranji and Duleep Trophy. It would only be worth doing though if everyone selected for the regional sides was eligible for England - a waste of time if overseas players and Kolpaks were included.

 

[Richard]

It's Michael Carberry actually. I'm also fairly certain Alex Tudor is playing for Surrey at the moment as well.

Not to mention Westfield and Chambers at Essex. There's Barker at Warwickshire (he's utterly hopeless, but that's by-the-by) as well. And probably one or two more that I've never seen a picture of.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Okay, some slightly unusual and misguided ideas being thrown around here for me; Aussie's routine race card being both of those and not surprising in the slightest.

A few things that strike me immediately...

Seam Up - without want to come across as patronising, I think it is fairly difficult for an Australian/South African to appreciate the traditional aspect of the county game, reflected in the naiveté in suggesting that Hampshire and Sussex could function as a franchise. Coming from vast and relatively new countries where huge areas of land possess a common culture or identity, it may be difficult to realise that there are genuine differences - cultural, geographical, historical - between counties that are less than a hundred kilometres apart. These differences have largely been diluted as a result of modernisation (sounding like a historian here...) but the traditions and heritage that they have cultured remain among the members and in the 'essence' of English cricket, the cultural value of which, built on the foundations of the county system, penetrates far deeper into society than the professional game.

While undoubtedly for most people (even, I might guess, many county members?) the fortunes of the England cricket team outstrip those of the local county in terms of importance, that does not necessarily mean that county cricket's sole purpose is to provide cricketers for the national side. The result of the County Championship is a raison d'etre for county cricket in itself, taken in isolation from international cricket. So simply abolishing county cricket is not the answer - to do so would be to harm the game in this country, even if it did result in an improvement of the national side.

However, IMO the system as it stands still has several gaping inadequacies. The biggest problem is the vast number of substandard players. I remarked to a pretty well-informed friend the other day that I thought the gulf between Test cricket and county cricket (especially in division two) was not much larger than that between county and Premier League club cricket (admittedly I only have experience of Cheshire Premier, which I think is one of the stronger leagues). Although I'm in favour of removing Kolpak players, I can't see this really improving the quality of county cricket.

While there is undoubtedly a concentration of the better quality players in the first division, this will IMO only prove detrimental to the county game in the long-term. A higher class of county has already emerged, mostly those with international fixtures. An increasingly strong division one will be difficult to break into and a weak division two difficult to break out of. Some sides will realistically be unable to win the Championship in the next 15-20 years, which for me undermines much of the essence of the county game. Inevitably money will talk, but all should still have a chance. Shepherding the best into one league reduces this chance.

So I think an idea similar to Jack's is the best method forward: keep the Championship as it is. No more Kolpaks; instead each county could register three overseas players per season, of whom any two could play at once (fairly minor details though, not 100% convinced by my own idea, but that's not really the point). Then adopt a Duleep/Deodhar-style zonal tournament, to be played when all the internationals are available - separate first-class and one-day tournaments. I'd personally go for four sides (any more than ~50 English cricketers would risk lowering the quality too much), playing each other in both four-day and one-day round-robin formats = maximum 12+3 days of cricket per side. The sides could be based on geographical zones, to encourage local interest, and be played at non-international venues to compensate in part those counties who do not have international cricket.

All a bit rough, but thoughts would be appreciated. Not sure how you could fit it all in though with all the current domestic/international cricket.

 

[aussie]

It depends who your friends are, I suppose.

Of my friends of Asian origin, I can't off the top of my head think of any that don't support England at cricket.

Some of them have a strong attachment to an Asian team with which they have a family connection, but it doesn't stop them supporting England.

Anyhow if we're looking at whether the Asian communities provide their fair share of England cricketers atm, the answer is obviously yes.

Yes they are & have taken over from where the afro-caribbean was in the 80s & 90s. But that doesn't mean cricket has tapped into the Asian community the way football tapped into the black community.

You just got to look at international matches when ENG play. You dont see Asian at the grounds, but when IND & PAK tour they flock the grounds in support.

Well that's a completely different point to your previous one (ie that the talent pool is restricted to white people). And this point is, in my view, a better one. The main problem is that, in England, football is god.

It is limited. Just the whites, a small portion of the Asian community & plucking players from other nations & calling them English. The fact the we could have a ODI middle-order fairly soon of KP, Trott, Morgan (although i'm glad we have them) really shows whats up.

 

[GIMH]

Pietersen, Trott & Morgan are in the team ahead of "naturally English" white folk as well as the blacks and Asians, you do realise this right?

 

[aussie]

A quick glance down the lists suggests to me there are around 30 English players of what i will clumsily describe as "of Asian extraction" in the county squads - are you saying they
don't have an ambition to play international cricket?

No of course they want to play for England. But as i just explained to zaremba, that doesn't mean cricket has tapped in fully to Asian population, the way football has with the black community. Generally Asiasn support IND & PAK more than England in this country, thats pretty obvious.

Lol at the mention of 9/11. Clearly has nothing to do with anything whatsoever.

What??. It has everything to do with it. If since then 9/11 the politicans didn't streotyped them as terrorist & make them feel like inferior citizens, psycologically thats the biggest reason why most Asians don't want to represent England. You need to get out more.

It's Michael Carberry actually. I'm also fairly certain Alex Tudor is playing for Surrey at the moment as well.

Tudor is injured all the time, so its useless mentioning him. But the fact that you mentioned him further backs up my point that blacks dont want to represent England currently. Since Tudor would represent the 90s clan of black cricketers like Alleyne, Headley, Benjamin etc.

Not to mention Westfield and Chambers at Essex. There's Barker at Warwickshire (he's utterly hopeless, but that's by-the-by) as well. And probably one or two more that I've never seen a picture of.

Richard Chambers is from Jamaica. Just like Robbie Joseph & Chris Jordan he is a poached talent. Westfied & Barker are hopeless so they dont represent "talented black" cricketers playing county cricket.

Okay, some slightly unusual and misguided ideas being thrown around here for me; Aussie's routine race card being both of those and not surprising in the slightest.

Haa, stop lime with Alice & come into the real world.

 

[aussie]

Pietersen, Trott & Morgan are in the team ahead of "naturally English" white folk as well as the blacks and Asians, you do realise this right?

Yes which shows our problem. I dont mind KP any country would love to have poached him, just like how we got Greig & Lamb in the past. But Morgan has been picked ahead of all the young talented batsmen. While Trott with our test middle-order really in shambles has leap frogged all the English options. Plus Kiewsetter is very likely to become a fixture in ODI team when he qualifies next year.

 

[fredfertang]

No of course they want to play for England.

I was responding to a post where you said they didn't

 

[GIMH]

Yes which shows our problem. I dont mind KP any country would love to have poached him, just like how we got Greig & Lamb in the past. But Morgan has been picked ahead of all the young talented batsmen. While Trott with our test middle-order really in shambles has leap frogged all the English options. Plus Kiewsetter is very likely to become a fixture in ODI team when he qualifies next year.

Why exactly is he very likely? Because a few people on CW have called for his selection? This is the same logic which was used with Pothas a few years back. Davies is much more likely to get the gig.

 

[Richard]

Richard Chambers is from Jamaica. Just like Robbie Joseph & Chris Jordan he is a poached talent. Westfied & Barker are hopeless so they dont represent "talented black" cricketers playing county cricket.

That's Maurice Chambers. And yes they're all pretty hopeless, but they're still black players. There are also plenty of hopeless white players around the county scene.

 

[Richard]

Why exactly is he very likely? Because a few people on CW have called for his selection? This is the same logic which was used with Pothas a few years back. Davies is much more likely to get the gig.

I for one won't be happy if he does. Kieswetter is clearly a much better one-day batsman than Davies. Davies is probably better in the longer form, but Kieswetter has plenty of promise there too.

 

[Richard]

But the fact that you mentioned him further backs up my point that blacks dont want to represent England currently.

Nothing to do with not wanting to represent England; simply to do with not wanting to play cricket. I've read no more than a handful of articles on the black-boys-in-cricket-in-the-UK question, but I still know full well what the story is. By-and-large, Caribbean-descended lads are into football rather than cricket. Nothing whatsoever to do with who they want to play for on the international stage.

 

[GIMH]

I for one won't be happy if he does. Kieswetter is clearly a much better one-day batsman than Davies. Davies is probably better in the longer form, but Kieswetter has plenty of promise there too.

Hmm, not seen much of Kieswetter but plenty of stats posted round here lately back Davies' case. I'm not one who is against Saffas playing for us per se, but if there is a very promising young English alternative then he gets first choice as far as I can tell - if there's not much between them - and again, most reports etc that I've read suggests that "clearly" better is a bit of an exaggeration

 

[Richard]

Kieswetter's performed since he came over here basically (was that 2005? 2006?) and Davies has performed for basically a season (2008). Not entirely sure how he's gone this season but don't think it's particularly spectacularly.

Kieswetter clearly the better OD batsman for mine.

 

[GIMH]

He averaged 52 at a strike rate of about 116, so I think you're a bit wide of the mark to suggest he only had one good season. Should be called up for the South Africa tour.

edit - just to give a bit of context - that's a better average and SR than Kieswetter, who, as you all know, plays his home games at taunton.

 

[marc71178]

Yes which shows our problem. I dont mind KP any country would love to have poached him, just like how we got Greig & Lamb in the past. But Morgan has been picked ahead of all the young talented batsmen. While Trott with our test middle-order really in shambles has leap frogged all the English options. Plus Kiewsetter is very likely to become a fixture in ODI team when he qualifies next year.

So Morgan has been picked ahead of all these talented young batsmen yet in the next sentence the middle order is really in shambles - who are these young talented batsmen you speak of?

And what makes you so sure Kieswetter is going to become a fixture in the team when there's better performing players who haven't had a chance yet?

 

[aussie]

So Morgan has been picked ahead of all these talented young batsmen yet in the next sentence the middle order is really in shambles - who are these young talented batsmen you speak of?

Well technically they are no "young" English batsmen who are ready for test cricket. The likes of Northeast, Goldeman, Denly etc aren't ready yet. But of English batsmen in county cricket the top performers was old Ramps & Trescothick.

Blokes like Shah, Hildreth, Carberry, Afzaal etc aren't seen as international quality by many. Key probably should tour SA, but i dont think many people have high hopes for him either.

And what makes you so sure Kieswetter is going to become a fixture in the team when there's better performing players who haven't had a chance yet?

Kiewsetter for ODI which i would be picking him has outperformed his main rival Davies. Based on what i've seen of them on TV (which is the best way to judge players in our domestic structure instead of averages), he is better ODI batsman than Davies.

 

[aussie]

He averaged 52 at a strike rate of about 116, so I think you're a bit wide of the mark to suggest he only had one good season. Should be called up for the South Africa tour.

edit - just to give a bit of context - that's a better average and SR than Kieswetter, who, as you all know, plays his home games at taunton.

Although scoring runs @ Taunton can be a bit of an abberation, thats why Hildreth isn't taken seriously. You can't write off runs there totally or else Trescothick may have never played for England.

If England want a keeper/bat to open in ODIs or even T20s who can really take adavantage of the power-plays like a McCullum or Haddin, based on what i've seen i'd say Kiewsetter could do that for us better than Davies - who is not a power-player.