The case for three divisions

When the county championship was split into two divisions with the aim of promoting a more competitive environment, it did so with the best of intentions. However there is a case that in fact it didn’t go far enough with its changes, and further changes may need to be made to improve the championship. One of these proposals is to further split the championship into three divisions.

With the competition already split into two divisions, making the change into three divisions would not mean a huge logistical change. In fact it has been argued that the three up and three down system goes to far and that it means to great a change each season, given that the leagues are only separated into teams of 9. A change to three divisions therefore should in my opinion have a one up and one down system in place, thus making the league potentially more competitive, and also keeps the changing of teams amongst the teams at a sensible level.

The main aim of changing the league structure would be to ensure that the best players ended up playing in the top division. The problem with the current system is that although this was one of the aims, it hasn’t really been achieved to a major extent. The amount of teams changing divisions it could be argued doesn’t help but also the fact that players remain at one county for the majority of their careers also creates an uncompetitive system. The talked about introduction of a football style transfer system would go a long way to ensuring the best players end playing for the best teams. By allowing a greater movement of players and if the majority of the better players end up at the top end of the league, it will only help England in the long run. It will mean that every team in the top league will have a whole host of quality players, playing against each other. At the moment the number is more like 4 or 5 quality players in each team, an unacceptable number.

4-day championship cricket, as a spectator sport is dead. The crowds are so low that without the financial inputs clubs make from hosting one-day cricket, and the substantial sum from the ECB, many counties would have suffered financial ruin. There is little sense, therefore in running the competition in a way to attract spectators. What it should do is ensure a system that pits the best players in the country against each other on a regular basis, meaning every run and wicket must be earned. Also by having a three-tier system it gives those at the bottom incentive to fight there way up. Through accepting that England players will be selected from those playing at the top it gives players at the bottom either the motivation to get there county up the leagues, or move to a better team, thus again ensuring the best play the best in the top division.

By creating this new system it means less championship games and hence less games to fit into the fixture schedule. Changing the league into two divisions still didn’t actually reduce the games being played considerably. The number of 4-day games went from 17 to 16, hardly a significant reduction. However by changing to three divisions of 6 teams, would mean only 10 4-day games needing to be scheduled. This would create a number of advantages in terms of scheduling. Firstly it would allow a greater difference between fixtures, ensuring that players get the opportunity to actually practice between games. This has long been bemoaned by those involved with English domestic cricket, that there are so many matches, that players have little opportunity to practice. Also given that there are less games, it will be possible to fit in more first-class games around international fixtures. This would mean that England players might be able to be scheduled to play in more first-class games than they do currently, meaning a further increase in the quality of the play.

Less 4-day fixtures would also give the clubs the opportunity to really sell one-day cricket. Given that the players would be needed less for 4-day fixtures, it allows fixture planners to have one-day games at peak times, i.e. weekends and bank holidays, ensuring a greater audience. The hugely impressive start made by the 20:20 cup shows the potential for developing the one-day game. Clubs can increase their marketing and PR departments and use the clubs one-day games to increase revenue. In a sense this would mean using 4-day cricket to develop cricketers for test cricket, and use one-day games as an opportunity to increase revenue and awareness. In this sense I believe that the current one-day system works well, and doesn’t need a lot of fundamental change. The NCL, C&G cup and 20:20 all give enough opportunity for good one-day cricket to be sold to the public, and helping players develop skills in the shorter form of the game. By using one-day cricket to increase their turnover, it may lead to counties relying less on the ECB for financial support.

Making changes to the game always seems to anger the traditionalists, but the introduction of the ODI and the World Series cricket, were both rejected by crickets old guard and yet both were to make significant improvements in the game. The world has changed since cricket was first introduced and England are not the best test team in the world. Therefore there is certainly a case for change. It could be argued that now people have less leisure time than previously, but more to do in that leisure-time. The world has become one big market place; this is simply a fact. Therefore to keep track with the times, English cricket has to ensure that it has to have the best product. The key is a winning national side, but to achieve this the structure must be in place from lower down. A competitive 4-day championship game and one-day bringing in the fans would help make English cricket more appealing.

The changes I suggest are not a comprehensive list, they are also not wide-scale revolution. But I think by changing the system to encourage a winning team would be a good thing for not only English cricket but also would be of huge benefit to world cricket. Despite everyone seemingly loving to hate England, the benefits to the world game could be huge. In terms of interest and economic potential to promote the game, it would be hard to make a case against India and England being the two sleeping giants of world cricket. Despite England not always covering themselves in glory in global sporting terms, the biggest tennis and golfing tournaments in the world are both held here, and the football Premiership television contract is worth a staggering £1 billion. The England Rugby union team shows a case in point of what cricket could achieve. Despite only being a marginal sport, after becoming popular due to better performances from the national side, it now attracts a larger following and a lot of money is spent on its promotion, and England are now the best side in the world. If English cricket can truly light the public interest and recoup some of the huge potential earnings which are available in this country the benefits are there for all to see. I am not claiming that tinkering with the county system will achieve all this, but Rome wasn’t built in a day. There is however a massive potential which is not being realised, and anything which can make the game better need to be looked at.


Posted by ChrisS