RB’s “better than the ECB” Blueprint for County Cricket

So, having been meaning to do this for some time, I can finally come up with my “blueprint” for County Cricket going forward. I genuinely believe this alleviates most, if not all, concerns that all parties have and is a compromise proposal that keeps everyone happy… I hope.

There are two versions - without and with the Hundred.

Blueprint for County Cricket

County Championship: 3x6, divisional. Double round robin (10 games each), thus alleviating fixture congestion. Potentially supplemented by First Class fixtures against minor counties and MCCUs to keep members happy. One up, one down. Initial divisions based on 2021 final results. A cup for winner of Div2 and a plate for winner of Div3.

One Day Cup: current format

T20 Blast: system used for this year’s Championship (thus retaining 14 games), but with groups randomly drawn at the beginning. In years going forward, group stage to be seeded.

County Challenge: end of season showcase. Winners of Championship play England, full first class fixture with England not allowed to pick any players from that county (and encouraged to pick as strong an XI as possible).
- Example, Surrey vs England:
- Potential England XI = Crawley, Sibley, Hameed, Root, Stokes, Lawrence, Buttler, Woakes, Broad, Leach, Anderson
- Potential Surrey XI = Burns, Amla, Smith, Roy, Pope, Foakes, Curran, Curran, Clark, Topley, Virdi

When ordering fixtures, following order of priority:
- Test Matches
- ODIs/T20Is
- T20 Blast
- Championship
- ODC

IPL should be considered as having an impact on the schedule, and workarounds to be found.

All Championship games to begin Thursday, Friday, or Saturday. Counties allowed to move matches by 1 day either side if mutually agreed.

Plan A - without the Hundred

21-24 Apr: CC Round 1
29 Apr-2 May: CC Round 2
7-28 May: One Day Cup Group Stage (8 games each in 3 weeks)
30 May-3 Jun: One Day Cup Quarter/Semi Finals
9-12 Jun: CC Round 3* (clubs in ODC final to move Round 3 to Mon 6-Thu 9 Jun)
11 Jun: One Day Cup final
17-20 Jun: CC Round 4
- Test Match Series 1 to be played from here under rounds 4-6
25-28 Jun: CC Round 5
3-6 Jul: CC Round 6
11-31 Jul: T20 Blast Group Stage (10 games each in 3 weeks)
- ODIs/T20Is to be played here
4-7 Aug: CC Round 7
- Test Match Series 2 to be played from here onwards
9-21 Aug: T20 Blast Divisional Stage (4 games each in 2 weeks)
25-28 Aug: CC Round 8*
2-5 Sep: CC Round 9* (clubs in T20 finals day to play Round 8 30 Aug-2 Sep and 5-8 Sep)
10 Sep: T20 Blast Finals Day (top 4 from div1)
15-18 Sep: CC Round 10
23-26 Sep: County Challenge

Plan B - with the Hundred

T20 Blast to use 2020 system, ie 10 games each + QFs

As above, until:

24 Jun-15 Jul: T20 Blast Group Stage (10 games each in 3 weeks)
- ODIs/T20Is to be played here
17-20 Jul: T20 Blast QFs
23 Jul: T20 Blast Finals Day
- (25 Jul-26 Aug: The Hundred)
28-31 Jul: CC Round 5
5-8 Aug: CC Round 6
- Test Match Series 2 to be played from here onwards
13-16 Aug: CC Round 7
25-28 Aug: CC Round 8
2-5 Sep: CC Round 9
10-13 Sep: CC Round 10
22-25 Sep: County Challenge

Lot of work here RB. Yes anything is better than the ECB, but I think next year will be a repeat of this year with more teams in the 100. If we lose against India, and bomb in the Ashes, maybe it'll wake them u p. Not keen on 3 Divisions or knockouts in the CC, and positions should be based on 2019 in my opinion. But thanks for doing this.

Reducing the championship to fewer than 14 games is a compromise too far. I appreciate that many other countries play even less, but they always have done. We have stood by and watched the classic form of the game eroded to the point where it has become almost an afterthought. One of the casualties has been outground and festival cricket, as it is hard to justify playing any of it away from HQ. The only way I would accept a further erosion to 10 games is if counties were able to select their strongest red-ball teams every time, but so far as I can see from your outline they would be involved in test matches for an even greater proportion of championship games than they are at present.

The only compromise I can see which will work from where we are now involves:
-  counties swallowing the 100 format and agreeing to ditch the Hundred (there isn't room for both)
- the ECB ditching its franchise teams and allowing the counties to play in the Hundred.

There is still the issue of scheduling: I would play the group stages of the short-form tournament (100 or T20) in two 'blocks' during July and August, to allow for some championship cricket during these peak summer periods. The ECB should see it as an opportunity to expose young supporters to the best of both very different types of cricket during their summer holidays.

I understand your reservations about going to 10 games, but you have to remember this is an attempt to keep everyone onside. Since 2014 there has been fixture congestion even without the Hundred anyway.

Furthermore, many counties make financial losses on Championship matchdays so this is the lesser of two evils in that sense.

Quote in tomorrow's "Mail on Sunday" from Andy Nash, former Chairman of Somerset and former ECB Board Directo.


[size=58]‘My personal view is that 12 counties will break away from the 18. Twelve is the number you need — two-thirds to change the constitution — and I think they will break away to take control over the domestic agenda,’ he claimed.[/size]
[size=58]‘Those conversations are going on now [between county executives] on the implications of the Hundred, its detrimental effect on the county structure and its effects on the future of the game. Professional cricket as we know it is facing an existential crisis.’[/size]
ADVERTISEMENT

Has to happen otherwise cricket will not survive. The animosity is rife throughout the game. Check out the vitriol on the BBC HYS's.

Jackers wrote:Quote in tomorrow's "Mail on Sunday" from Andy Nash, former Chairman of Somerset and former ECB Board Directo.

[size=58]‘My personal view is that 12 counties will break away from the 18. Twelve is the number you need — two-thirds to change the constitution — and I think they will break away to take control over the domestic agenda,’ he claimed.[/size]
[size=58]‘Those conversations are going on now [between county executives] on the implications of the Hundred, its detrimental effect on the county structure and its effects on the future of the game. Professional cricket as we know it is facing an existential crisis.’[/size]
ADVERTISEMENT

Zero chance of that happening

The Hundred is here to stay and is the only cricket Terrestrial TV until 2024. what I would like to see is twofold.

The Hundred to revert to being a conventional T20 tournament, no reason for broadcasters to object as the BBC already shows 2 men's and 2 womens T20 internationals each summer.

Ownership and marketing of the Hundred Competition transferd to the Counties in return for scrapping the T20 blast. There should be nine franchies with two counties paired sharing the profits on a 50-50 split and deciding between them where the games are played. The number of games in the competition should remain at 4 home and away each side playing one game against each other.

Plyers for the tournament shall be from the two paired counties with three overseas building the local link.

Pairings
Oval Invincibles - Surrey and Kent
London Spirit - MCC/ Middlesex and Essex
Southern Brave - Hampshire and Sussex
Welsh Fire - Glamorgan and Worcestershire
Birmingham Phoenix - Warwickshire and Northamptonshire
Trent Rockets - Nottiinghamshire and Leicestershire
Mancester Originals - Lancashire and Derbyshire
Northern Superchargers - Yorkshire and Durham
West Ciountry - Somerset and Gloucestershire (new kid on the block)

As the Counties woul own The Hundred then they could choose a more appropriate name for the franchise if they so desired.

Cutting the Blast should also allow the Counties the ability to play and retain the revenue from challenge matches against IPL, CPL, Bangladesh or Pakistan Premier League sides. This could be either as a county or franchise.

Most importantly the 50 over competition and the four day game would be unaffected by this proposal with it up to the counties to build the link and cross-reference the other format's with their franchise.

Please note as well know Richard Gould mooted taking the Oval Invincibles franchise as part of Surrey. Though denied by Richard Thompson at the last Members meeting. Also note that Surrey has profited by taking a share of the match day revenue from The Hundred in addition to central monies from the ECB.  The £ 1.3 million is a red hering as this is the payment for all Cricket telecast not just The Hundred.

It's more likely that County Executioves are thinking along the lines I have outlined than any mad cap breakaway.

Jackers wrote:Quote in tomorrow's "Mail on Sunday" from Andy Nash, former Chairman of Somerset and former ECB Board Directo.


[size=58]‘My personal view is that 12 counties will break away from the 18. Twelve is the number you need — two-thirds to change the constitution — and I think they will break away to take control over the domestic agenda,’ he claimed.[/size]
[size=58]‘Those conversations are going on now [between county executives] on the implications of the Hundred, its detrimental effect on the county structure and its effects on the future of the game. Professional cricket as we know it is facing an existential crisis.’[/size]
ADVERTISEMENT

It's nauseating that Andy Nash has positioned himself as a prominent anti-100 spokesman. He twice voted in favour of franchise cricket in 2016 and 2017 when he was chairman of Somerset. I remember reading on the Somerset forum at the time about him poo-pooing members' concerns. Nash changed his position in 2018 around the time that he found out some counties (not Somerset) were being paid not to bid to host test matches.

As for counties breaking away from the ECB and taking control due to concerns about the 100.... 17/18 counties voted in favour of the finalised version of the 100 in 2019. English cricket is in a total mess but the vast majority of county chairmen and CEOs just don't have the backbone to do anything about it.

I don't see the point of developing the 100 into something that is already in place and far more successful - The Blast. Also the ODC and CC would still be marginalised at the expense of the junk franchise, so what advantage would there be?

Play the ODC in May/ mid June when most county players are available and the Blast in August when the schools are off. If you programmed a ladies Blast in the afternoon followed with the Men's in the evening you'd probably just fill all 18 county grounds instead of 8 with the 100.
The CC could then be built around this with 2 or 3 Divisions with far more games in the summer particulary in June and July. It's not rocket science.

Don Topley, on the "County Cricket Matters" Facebook site, has heard a whisper that for 2022 the ECB are leaning towards sticking with the current format of three groups of six then three divisions of six as per 2020 and 2021 rather than reverting to the old two divisions with promotion and relegation.

I think it has worked quite well - some of the so-called "lesser" counties like Leicestershire and Durham raised their game against teams who they would not have had the opportunity to play had we reverted to two divisions this year, using 2019 finishing positions. The same could be said for our local rivals - against us, at least. I also like the fact that you are likely to play (and therefore get to watch/visit) a completely different set of counties each year in either the first or second phases. Yes, the downside is that there may be less to play for at the end of the season for 12 of the counties, but taken in the round I think it's worth sticking with.

If the rumour is true I am sure that Alec Stewart will not be impressed: he is a staunch advocate of two divisions, which he sees as much more competitive. I suspect it will help him to make up his mind to quit, if he hasn't already done so.

Yes I expect they will keep it the same. But if we have the Blast and the 100 it still means the CC is still going to remain at the bookends of the season and the ODC a second division competition. The same as this year. If that is the case, then to repeat what I've already said before, I will not continue to be a Surrey Member. There is no point.

I have spent many hours like RB trying to squeeze a quart into a pint pot. It doesn’t fit and it won’t fit.

Two things are necessary: county mergers, to bring us down from 18 to 9 - I think RB’s pairings are about right; and separate red and white ball fixtures, to be played at the same time in May-June and August-Sept. Each week should involve a 50-over game on Sunday and a County Championship game on Wednesday. The T20/Hundred should be played in July, with no other fixtures. Counties would need to maintain separate red/white ball squads with the option of having players in both.

The ECB can force this since it is effectively keeping at least 6 counties alive with its financial contributions. It could refuse any further subsidy as an alternative to them agreeing to these arranged marriages.

I thought the Hundred was good in parts and bad in others. The BBC’s coverage was firmly in the latter category. The main asset was the extra strength in the teams over the county version. Also the reduction to 100 balls meant you could go for broke from ball one to ball 100. The games still took too long, though - I would play each innings from a single end and have 10-ball ‘overs’ with no time-outs. If the home team automatically got to chase but the away team could choose ends and boundary lengths (within a set range) it would add to the tactical intrigue. Having the SFs and Final immediately is also better, making it seem bizarre that we now have to go back and finish off the Blast!

Yes but the 100 and/or T20 will be played in August when the kids are on holiday. You won't get them in in July, especially in the evenings, unless you play afternoon games every Sat/Sun. Again it has to be one or the other which ever way round you do it. Two doesn't fit.

The fixture congestion is entirely of the ECB's own making. The only acceptable solution is to remove one of the two short-form competitions: either the T20 or Hundred. The counties can and should play the remaining one.

Reducing the championship to 10 games is a compromise too far. There is a famous saying along the lines of knowing the cost of everything but the value of nothing. That sums up the ECB and their apoplogists' argument that championship cricket isn't profitable. It may not be, but it remains the classic form of the game, as well as being the bedrock of developing test cricketers. In what other major sport would any governing body be prepared to trash the gold standard, rather than uphold and preserve it? The irony is that championship crowds are actually healthier in many counties than they were 15, 20 or 30 years ago - despite the scheduling and absence of the world's best players. Imagine what they would be if the ECB actually got behind the championship, promoted it and played it in peak summer.

I will support Surrey with its 176 years of history being merged with Kent or Middlesex..... when hell freezes over.

If there are not enough people who are prepared to fight to save the essence of cricket in the face of a governing organisation which is hell bent on destroying it, then, like Chinaman, I would rather walk away than accept some of the suggested concessions I am reading on this thread. It would no longer be something worth investing in.

Jackers wrote:The fixture congestion is entirely of the ECB's own making. The only acceptable solution is to remove one of the two short-form competitions: either the T20 or Hundred. The counties can and should play the remaining one.

Which brings me to the second point. I will support Surrey with its 176 years of history being merged with Kent..... when hell freezes over. Like Chinaman, if there are not enough people who are prepared to fight to save the essence of cricket in the face of a governing organisation which is hell bent on destroying it then I would rather walk away than make some of the concessions I am reading on this thread. It would no longer be something worth investing in.

Two points in response, Firstly Free to Air Television is predicated on a short competition of five weeks not the length of time a county tournament would take. Regardless of what many may like to think, tha's what piques the BBC interest.

Secondly I am not posting that Surrey should merge with Kent, what is being proposed is a county run joint venture in The Hundred Franchise tournament. Both would remain seperate counties for Championship and 50 over purposes along with anything else.

The alternative to doing this would be:

a) Foreign / Private Ownership - The Oval Royals (owned by an IPL team) which would cause all sorts of issues over player contracts

b) The County T20 blast withering away over the next 2-3 years as it would come to be seen as the lesser T20 tournament with an obvious impact on county finances.

The genie is out of the bottle here, either counties get ahead of the curve and make The Hundred franchise work for them by owning it in partnership or face the prospect of someone else doing it and become ever more reliant on ECB handouts and all that will entail.

You will have noted how at the last members meeting the interim Chief Executive wistfully noted Surrey's wish to get involved in selling tickets for The Hundred as its something the club does well for T20 so I would suspect that some counties are much further down the path I am suggesting than they are currently willing to disclose in the public arena.

Yes the Genie is really out of the bottle and there are far more important things than money or idiotic style American glitzy franchises that are just a continuing eroding of any value in present day society. Not for me, there are no compromises here in my view. The very soul of the game is threatened, and you can't put a monetary value on that.

Jackers wrote:The fixture congestion is entirely of the ECB's own making. The only acceptable solution is to remove one of the two short-form competitions: either the T20 or Hundred. The counties can and should play the remaining one.

Was the calendar not congested even before the Hundred? The calendar has been congested for many, many, MANY years, not least because our cricket window is only April-September at the best of times, and even then people crow about it being played in April and September...

You cannot have a good fixture list with two short form competitions. I would be prepared to tolerate some changes to the blast if it meant abolishing the franchises, I support Surrey not some nebulous entity that puts together a different team every season. As Richard Gould said the franchise idea of player development is a cheque. The Hundred is the most damaging development I can remember in all my years of watching county cricket.

RB wrote:

Jackers wrote:The fixture congestion is entirely of the ECB's own making. The only acceptable solution is to remove one of the two short-form competitions: either the T20 or Hundred. The counties can and should play the remaining one.

Was the calendar not congested even before the Hundred? The calendar has been congested for many, many, MANY years, not least because our cricket window is only April-September at the best of times, and even then people crow about it being played in April and September...

Well, yes, it did appear rather congested, but again that can largely be laid at the door of the administrators who insisted on excessive rest periods between matches and, to some extent, the proliferation of short-form tournaments around the world which encroach on our six-month window.

But knowing that to be the case, for the ECB then to add yet another competition to the mix over more than a month of prime summer was simply inexcusable

offdrive4 wrote:the franchise idea of player development is a cheque.

Symbiosis - the franchises (globally) need their “normal” teams to give them the next gen of players, whilst at the same time affecting those teams.

I'm more than a little surprised to see anyone who claims to be a supporter of any county calling for mergers or for the Blast to be scrapped.

The Blast is a success and growing. It's where counties make a large chunk of their money - scrap it and you kill counties.

Mergers achieves much the same thing - hundreds of job losses and something very important taken from the lives of thousands of members and supporters.

All county members should have solidarity with each other. A cricket calendar of 8 or 9 counties, losing Sussex, Kent and others and County Championship ever further marginalised is a miserable prospect.

The calendar hasn't pleased everyone for many years but I felt the balance between three competitions was about right. Shoehorning a fourth competition and, worst of all franchises, cannot work.

My only hope is for the franchise novelty to fizzle out or for Harrison and Patel to pocket their bonuses and leave the ECB to ruin something else, then someone who cares about cricket fixes their mess.

I don’t think it takes too much imagination to foresee that there are a number of counties that may be viable if they only play in white ball formats. I think those who want to keep everything the same underestimate just how much trouble the game is in. Staying the same isn’t an option. Red ball cricket is under serious threat and I would accept the reduction of some counties to white-ball only status as a price worth paying. In any event, the sentimentality about counties is misguided: Surrey includes part of Greater London in its ’territory', Middlesex is no longer a county at all, Sussex is two counties, Yorkshire is three counties. There is no purity in the idea even at the moment. I could transfer my allegiance without too much ado to a Sarf London or Sarf East team, if it were that or nothing.

Don't like change for changes sake. The reason red ball cricket is under threat is because of the ECBs ridiculous obsession with white ball. £80m or so on the bloody 100 is starving both counties and grass roots cricket of funds.That isn't a price worth paying in my view. And you know it's just more of the malaise that's infecting the dumbing down of society to appease today's instant gratification generation. Stuff it and the ECB.

David W wrote:I'm more than a little surprised to see anyone who claims to be a supporter of any county calling for mergers or for the Blast to be scrapped.

In response, you now have free to air TV exposure for the game through the franchise tournament - I assume everybody agrees we need to keep that. This however is over a four/five week period and whatever way you cut it 18 Counties do not fit in.

Who would object to a 9 county premier league - The nine counties excluded from it that's who, and how would you determine the nine counties?. One solution would be for the top nine in the Vitality Blast that year but of course that:

• Reduces the blast into being a feeder compoetition for the new Franchise Tournament
  
• The quality of sides in the North and South Group varies so if your in the South group your in the harder group
  
• This would also accelerate the trend towards counties (including Surrey) prioritising the T20 ahead of the other format's.
  

So a joint venture between two counties would appear to be the logical solution for these reasons

• It would transfer control over the Franchise Tournament from the ECB to the Counties
  
• It would end the divisive conflict between the Test Match Grounds and MCC v the other counties over revenue generation at the Tournament and end accuasations of "contract bundling" in recruitment.
  
• By cutting the blast you free up space in the calendar for the Championship and 50 over game.
  

The Counties would remain as they are for The Championship and 50 over game. and the Franchise tournament would be a T20 one, as originally intended

With the Blast gone there will be space in the calendar for moving the Championship back into high summer and for a proper 50 Over Competition. There is also nothing stopping the Counties arranging their own set of T20 fixtures either against IPL, CPL or other franchise teams or organise their own tournament, which Surrey did with the Women's London Cup.

THere is a lot of froth and anger on messageboards, but few alternatives being offered and I do like the irony of those who normally deride the T20 competition now portraying themselves as its biggest defenders.

Like it or not the Franchise tournament is now with us. The Counties erither get in front of it or risk being dragged behind.

Dump franchise and the 100 for a starters. There is no need to dumb down anything.
CC all counties from late April, part of May, June, July and September.
Blast in August when the kids are off comprising both a men and women's competition and maximising attendance
ODC in May and June when most county players are available. Try and fit some games in where possible adding on to a CC game to maximise away supporters.
I don't see where the free to air 100 on TV helps the proper game.
Premier League CC? Smacks of football.
I doubt if it will happen unless the counties dump the ECB or hire a hit squad to take them out, and form their own breakaway cricket association and Governing Body. The alternative you can keep because I and many others won't be watching it. And Christ sport just isn't about bloody money.