posted Sep 8, 2008

Sorry, but that is a really poor idea! For starters you think the money isn't there to support the 18 counties, then you want to introduce relegation and promotion to even less well off minor counties? You are copying the same mistake football and now rugby union has adopted. All this does is weaken the structure of the game because the money that is available hemerages out of the main teams. If anymore changes are required, and I doubt they are, it should be more in line with American teams, where there is no relegation from conferences and the money is divided equally at the end of the season.

I'm sure you would be happy to see your county hold up it's hand and say we will fold and leave the main structure of the game.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 8, 2008

Split the country into zonal teams: N, NW, NE, S, SE, SW, E & W?

Change is required as not even one man and his dog turns up to county games these days!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 8, 2008

No shortage of people posting annoyed remarks having failed to read the thread properly...

I never said I was right or that this is what would happen - merely my thoughts, inviting yours.

Yes - there won't be more money in the future will there. Cricket's gets as much coverage on TV as it ever will - nothing will push into football coverage - so the ECB need to decide how best to distribute the funds they currently get. If Counties can't get more people to pay to see them play - how will they compete? It's a cause and effect problem: poor counties need more supporters to afford to retain/recruit better players, who the County needs in order to get more people to pay to watch them. (Public Transport v Car Users is the classic example).

Fine - next suggestion mooted above: 3 zones of 6, equal money distribution - how would that encourage producing England players? (I'm not saying it won't - I'm just asking).

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 8, 2008

The four day game must be preserved by whatever means as this is purest form of cricket. However fewer sides and fewer games should be involved. Where would the money come from, well my idea is that the one day game is the answer, here there should be four leagues with promotion and relegation just like soccer. I am not sure which of the short form to propose as there would not be time for both, I have a sneaking preference for 20/20. These four leagues would include all the county and minor county sides. These games with the use of the promotion/relegation stick and carrot. If as I suspect this form of cricket would attract many more spectators and if I am correct the TV moguls would be fighting each other for TV rights and that is where the money will come from to make us the top cricketing nation again.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 9, 2008

You are right about dumb remarks, seems like the kindergarten boys have got hold of this thread 'Surrey and Yorkshire' being soooo good that a fall for one season doesn't affect them!?!! According to the opening post, these counties could be up for the chop with a shortened format; or is arrogance prevailing and they meant Derbyshire and Gloustershire are dispnsable, as they don't have International Cricket stadia?

There is little wrong with the County Circuit and money flowing in from greater revenues made from internaional games will prop it up just fine. And there is nothing wrong with proping it up as it is the feeder for the international game, one feeds off another.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 10, 2008

comment by King_Kev_Donovan_No7

There is little wrong with the County Circuit and money flowing in from greater revenues made from internaional games will prop it up just fine.

------------------

The blatant contradiction in that sentance is exactly what the problem is.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 11, 2008

Rev...you misunderstand.

The national game creates the wealth and the money flows back to the county circuit who then plough that money into training up the players to play at the national level.

This is how all sports work. In football the National team and Club team create the wealth for the Juniors to come through.

However in rubgy union, it is somewhere inbetween.

Its the way that it works.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 11, 2008

But the domestic game doesn't produce players who are good enough.

I'm not disputing that the championship doesn't do what you claim.

However, I'm not willing to accept the 40 years of mediocrity as evidence that all is well.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 17, 2008

comment by comeonbob (U2792776)
I don't see anything wrong with Div 1 as it stands. If Australian cricketers are comparing it to their domestic stuff then it can't be bad
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't know where you get that from, Ozzie domestic cricket is no-where near as good as the British game. Most of them and SA will tell you the competition is much fiercer here than in other countries.

Our domestic game is strong it's just the periferals that are a bit dodgy.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 28, 2008

First of all, congratulations to Durham on their County Championship win. Well-deserved in my book; I watched my team, Sussex, against all the main title contenders and Durham definitely impressed me most.

From Minor Counties to Div. 1 Champions in 17 years is pretty good going too, isn't it? It suggests that those on this thread arguing for the retention - or even expansion - of the eighteen-county set-up have a point.

Meanwhile, with Surrey being relegated (and Lancashire or Yorkshire looking likely to join them for a while) it's perhaps small wonder that supporters of the 'big' (ie test-hosting) counties want to pull up the drawbridge and so guarantee themselves a permanent place at cricket's top table.

Of course, they argue that they have the game's best interests at heart; that English cricket needs an 'elite' competition in which the best talent is concentrated. In case you hadn't noticed, chaps, we already have one. It's called Division One - and one member of your club-within-a-club wasn't good enough this year to stay in it.

So the suggestion that 'progress' is being blocked by the smaller counties for reasons of self-interest ("like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas" according to one previous poster) seems a little wide of the mark to me. If anything, the people acting out of self-interest are the 'haves' not the 'have-nots'. Not so much turkeys voting for Christmas as chickens looking for somewhere to hide?

add comment | complain about this comment