Although the ECB is saying that it wants to "give counties the opportunity to further consult with players, members and other key stakeholders," the problem is not that they haven't already had the opportunity to consult but that they haven't done it. Let's hope that, if they have been granted a further opportunity, they take advantage of it.
Andrew Strauss's blog confirms:
"It will be important the First-Class Counties have the appropriate time to consider the final recommendations and to properly engage with their stakeholders. The First-Class County Chairs Representative Board has therefore proposed the 2023 LV= Insurance County Championship remains at 14 matches for each county."
That's good news. I'd just say, looking at the Club rules the club has (I think) 84 days in between receiving support from 250 members for a requisition for a SGM before it has to hold the meeting. So if you think the format of the season is something members should vote on rather than the board reaching a decision (after consultation or "consultation") I'd suggest still sending those requisitions in as it could be December before the meeting is held.
Despite this good news, I still think it’s important to force an SGM. We need to show them the strength of feeling there is about this, and that although we’ve been given a “stay of execution” we won’t go away.
I say “we” but I’m no longer a member, due to living abroad. I trust that all those who are still members will make their feelings known!
Highveld wrote:
From the Worcestershire chairman
Does this indicate there'll be no vote on September 20th or that any vote would be delayed by several months?
If they're still hell bent on pushing for a vote on September 20th to decide what 2024 will look like we need to mobilise quickly.
Worcestershire suggest there'll be several months for forums and consultation so hopefully nothing major gets decided on September 20th which would be wreckless and far too rushed
Personally I think the counties ought to be miffed at the deeply insulting nature of much of Strauss's HPR. And should therefore ready themselves to take appropriate action with regard to the ECB itself or garner assurances from the new chair
Essex CCC Board have voted unanimously in favour of rejecting any potential reduction in Championship and T20 cricket. In addition, it is imperative that the 50-over competition is retained. This view is supported by many of our fellow First-Class Counties and will be emphasised in future review meetings.
Chief Executive and Interim Chair, John Stephenson, will be part of the consultation
Why can't our board show similar backbone?
https://www.essexcricket.org.uk/2022/08/26/ecb-high-performance-review/
Some of the problems with the review are that it accepts that The Hundred is set in place until 2028 and describes it as "a clear best vs. best competition", ignoring the fact that no other country in the world plays the 100 format and, regardless of whether or not you have the best players playing, if the format is rubbish, you will get rubbish cricket.
Despite the guarantee of no reduction in County Championship games for 2023, there is a clear assumption that less cricket needs to be played. If the 100 is ring-fenced from this reduction, it has to be the Championship, the 50 over competition and/or the Blast that get reduced.
Anyway, there is clearly going to be a lively and (hopefully) largely public debate.
https://edgbaston.com/news/ecb-high-performance-review-update/
_Following Andrew Strauss’ latest blog about the ECB’s Men’s High Performance Review, Mark McCafferty, Chair, Stuart Cain, Chief Executive and Paul Farbrace, Director of Cricket have issued the following update to Members.
As you are aware, the ECB, under Strauss’ leadership, instigated a Men’s High Performance Review earlier this year in the wake of a sustained period of poor performance in the Test arena. The review’s stated aim is to seek the best outcomes for English cricket with a view to ensuring that England become the number one men’s team across all formats and that we have a thriving domestic game.The review has now reached the consultation stage and the first of four regional meetings to discuss with all 18 First Class Counties took place on Friday in Manchester. We are attending our consultation meeting at Edgbaston on Thursday (1 September). This is when we will hear first-hand the thoughts of the high performance panel and be able to see how we best balance the needs of England international cricket with those of the various counties, including ourselves.
We understand that there will be a wide-ranging set of proposals designed to create a high performance environment for the men’s England teams, under-pinned by a thriving, future-proofed domestic county structure. Some of these will involve ideas for creating a more competitive domestic schedule, elements of which in white-ball could be introduced in 2023, but red-ball elements may be deferred until 2024 to allow for further consultation. It has been agreed by the counties that the 2023 LV= Insurance County Championship season structure and number of matches (14) will be unaltered.
Following the consultation meeting, we shall prepare a detailed briefing note for the Members’ Committee which will allow it to consider the proposals and put forward its views on behalf of the Membership. We will also hold an open Members’ Forum during lunch at the Somerset LV= Insurance County Championship game on Tuesday 13 September. This will give us the opportunity to discuss the proposals and seek further the views of those Members in attendance.
The important views of the Membership will inform the Board, and ultimately the Chair, on how Warwickshire should vote with regard to any recommendations requiring a vote in September.
For more information on thee High Performance Review and to read the Andrew Strauss blog, visit _ecb.co.uk.__
All I'll add is this "sustained period of poor performance in the test arena" was primarily away from home wasn't it and therefore outside of factors that can be mended by pruning the county championship.
In fact at home England have been very strongly competitive for about 20+ years now.
Overall the club's tone is better here it does feel as though members views will be taken account of.
I hope they understand how much members have already compromised already up to this point from the shrinkage of CC down from 8 home games to 7 and the loss of weekend and holiday cricket to watch. So they need to meet us half way this time. To see any further shrinkage down to 6 or even 5 home CC matches would represent a big kick in the teeth from a club that prides itself on superb championship victories in the past and then 1994, 1995, 2006, 2012 and 2021. I also recall good performances in 1991/92 and going so close being robbed by Sky TV choosing our game at Southampton in 2011. Reducing games going forward would cheapen any future victory and cannot be a more serious misjudgement of the mood of Warwickshire members
I agree that the tone of this statement is much better than past offerings.
I hope that the ECB and some of the counties have had a bit of a wake-up call because of the response from supporters and members across the country. The ECB offered lots of money to counties to vote for The Hundred and may have thought that (with the exception of Surrey, who voted against) they could count on them to roll over again when asked. And some of them would have done but for the outcry from members and supporters.
I do note that there is reference to a vote in September so although the County Championship is being left at 14 matches for 2023, the vote in September could well propose changes for 2024 onwards so there is not too long to make views known.
It would be nice to think that, after having tried hard to perform the quart-and-pint-pot trick yet only succeeded in provoking uproar, the members of the HPR would now grow a pair and go back to the ECB with the view that as long as The Hundred exists, there is no prospect of a sensible domestic season.
It would also be nice to think that their brush with Allen Stanford would have taught the ECB that when you sell cricket's soul to wandering mercenaries, you are likely to regret it in the long run. Sadly, I don't think they care. Money first: cricket nowhere.
https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/cricket/county-championship-points-b1021709.html
Bonus points would only be available for batting – and if the team wins. If a team won with a score of 325-399 in any innings of the match, they would receive one bonus point. And if a team won with a score of 400-plus in any innings of the match, they would receive two bonuses. So a maximum of five points is available to winning teams, while the losers receive nothing.
Not totally against changes to points system but no way should they cut the number of games in the championship
Also should rain wipe out 2 and a half days in any given game and only a draw is possible - what then? Joke bowling to ensure high scores for both sides?
What planet are they on? So many flaws in the suggestion. Surely they understand cricket is not just about high scoring, hitting sixes. Or perhaps they don't
Yorkshire update
The Yorkshire County Cricket Club would like to update Members on its involvement in the England and Wales Cricket Board’s (ECB) High Performance Review.
Yorkshire, among other First Class counties, were invited to the first stage of the consultation process in Manchester on Friday where the ECB held the first of four regional meetings.
The Club expects to receive proposals on 12 September to ensure that English cricket, whether at international or domestic level, remains highly competitive. It is important to clarify that the counties have agreed that the LV= Insurance County Championship structure will remain the same in 2023. Yorkshire will play 14 County Championship matches next season. The proposals on 12 September will be related to the current white-ball structure ahead of the 2023 season. Any proposals regarding red-ball cricket will be deferred to allow time for further consultation.
The Club will update the Members’ Committee following the consultation process and inform Members after the upcoming EGM at 9.30am on Tuesday 13 September in the Long Room, Headingley. Yorkshire Chair Lord Kamlesh Patel and Interim Managing Director of Cricket Darren Gough will be in attendance to relay the recommendations and to answer Members’ questions.
It is important to stress that Members will be consulted on any votes that may occur in September and the Club will be sending a survey to Members that we hold an email address for. Members views will influence the decision of the Board to mandate the Chair to vote appropriately.
Thank you for your continued support.
Relieved they won't make knee jerk decisions about the County Championship this side of September 20th but we must still be on our guard
Yorkshire above all must realise any fewer than 14 (7 home CC matches) and it wouldn't be a championship any longer. Also impact on Scarborough which currently hosts 2 CC games leaving Leeds only 5 already is immeasurable
I wonder why the Warwickshire statement above didn't make this clear? Are they going to share red ball changes with us at this forum 12th September even though they won't be voted on until well after September 20th - not simply deferred till 2024 which Warks suggested but quite possibly (more likely I'd say) knocked back altogether by the counties and the members
My concern is that any decisions about T20, The Hundred and 50 over cricket that may be decided this September could well restrict the options for red ball cricket.
As Gerry says, difficult to see how the formats can be separated out for decision in September. Has anyone seen the report or got a link to it? I had a rushed effort at reading it sat on a concrete slab, supervising a toddler while watching Kings Heath CC at the weekend. And Inhabe nownlost the link. So my attention wasn't absolute and can't refer, but it had the goals of getting England to the top of all three formats. So not as if they can neglect one. I think it's more likely the whole lot goes back to 2024. Additionally, it seemed to me to be light on suggestions. There might be some hidden ones that are adapted and then presented after consultation?
I haven't been a member for 20 years, the amount of time I've been outside Birmingham, so not able to influence this. But it seems most clubs have the same goals - no reduction in red ball or 50 overs cricket. If this simple goal is the single battle line then its hard to see what the ECB will do. They can't impose a structure the clubs don't want and I cant see them being bought off forever. So the outstanding issue is how much are the counties objectives and the goal of a strong England men's team across all formats aligned?
I don't think the counties have the same goals to be fair. Many will say they want to retain the CC and most will be loathe to lose any Blast games.
Leicestershire probably value the Blast and RLODC higher than the championship for instance. Their CEO updated on their website a couple of days ago and I expect he'll be attending the CEO's briefing at Edgbaston tomorrow but as you can see his expectation was along what you suggest which is no change until 2024.
I along with our Director of Cricket and Chair are due to meet the ECB at the beginning of September to hear these proposals. I am also looking to see how we can get further input from our members as to their thoughts. Our board are currently considering how we do this but please keep an eye on the website as I am sure details will be announced soon. As it stands my understanding is that changes proposed will not be implemented until the 2024 season but will report back as soon as we know. I am pleased to read that any comments of reducing the number of counties is untrue. The ECB have indicated that the 18 FCC will remain in place. For people that follow me on social media will see I am an advocate of growing the game, not reducing it.
I think the 50 overs game is most vulnerable and has less support shored up for it and in terms of international mood music might be the one to be sidelined. So a drop to a shorter group stage (2 home + 2 away games) and proper quarter finals, semi finals and Lord's final likely I'd expect. Also having the group stages April/May with the final in June. These changes would give more breathing space for the championship and blast games - potentially 2 more weeks of wiggle room for rest
The big disagreement between the counties (pre COVID) was always over the scheduling of the Blast. Big city based counties like Warwicks and Lancs prefer once a week Friday nights. Smaller provincial counties like Somerset and Essex prefer it in a block or two mini-blocks playing 3 Blast games per week.
The blocks will probably stay the big thing to sort out will be rest slots for players these should be easy to schedule if there's fewer 50-over games. Warwickshire this season had a week off in mid April and also have next week off. Add two spare weeks to that by only playing 4 RLODC group games instead of 8 and that's at least 4 whole weeks rest in the schedule without any need to trim the CC or the Blast.
Meanwhile Derbyshire have changed the date of their members forum interestingly the formal ECB proposal not now expected until September 12th not September 9th as previously set.
The Club’s next Members’ Forum has been moved to Thursday 15 September (7pm) to allow Members the time to review any formal proposals following the High Performance Review ahead of the Forum. The event, which is exclusive to 2022 and Life Members, is being held to provide Members with the opportunity to express their views and ask questions about proposed amends to the county structure and schedule. It has been pushed back by 72 hours with Derbyshire now understanding that any formal proposals following the High Performance Review will be sent to clubs by 12 September, as opposed to the original 9 September target. Documentation which is released for consideration by counties will be issued to Members via email. The Forum on 15 September, which will be held in person in the Members’ Lounge at The Incora County Ground and remotely via Zoom, will offer the opportunity for Members to discuss any formal proposals with the Club’s Supervisory Board. Chief Executive, Ryan Duckett, said: “As a Club we’re keen to engage with our Members throughout this process using our regular Members’ Forums. “We believe that by pushing the next Forum back by 72 hours this will allow the Supervisory Board, as well as the Club’s Members, a suitable window to consider any proposals before what I’m sure will be a productive meeting on the 15th. “This is an important time in County Cricket and I’d urge our Members to be a part of the debate whether that be in person or via Zoom.”
As it stands Warwickshire members will only have 24 hours to review the proposal before our forum on the 13th
True, the specifics what each county wants is different. But I think all of them are agreed they don't want any less cricket. While the report makes it pretty clear a strong England men's team needs less.
This just occured to me overnight but I wonder if there is scope to keep the amount of cricket, but reduce the seniority of it. For instance: make three county championship games (in August or other time) officially development rounds, official quota of players who most be, for example, under 18/20 or fewer than xx first class appearances. Still gives scope for senior test players to play with them. Its what I've liked about the Royal London comp.
English domestic rugby has a similiar situation and turned its knockout cup into an, admittedly unofficial, development competition too. It was fine but you had the problem of some teams re-introducing first teasers for big games and some not. The solution to that I guess is formalising quotas. The pity is I'm not sure this competition is in place anymore. Could be pandemic, could be finances, could have been it was just a flop.
Don't take me too seriously, I'm just spitballing to help test my opinions.
mad wrote:
I don't think the counties have the same goals to be fair. Many will say they want to retain the CC and most will be loathe to lose any Blast games.
Leicestershire probably value the Blast and RLODC higher than the championship for instance. Their CEO updated on their website a couple of days ago and I expect he'll be attending the CEO's briefing at Edgbaston tomorrow but as you can see his expectation was along what you suggest which is no change until 2024.
I along with our Director of Cricket and Chair are due to meet the ECB at the beginning of September to hear these proposals. I am also looking to see how we can get further input from our members as to their thoughts. Our board are currently considering how we do this but please keep an eye on the website as I am sure details will be announced soon. As it stands my understanding is that changes proposed will not be implemented until the 2024 season but will report back as soon as we know. I am pleased to read that any comments of reducing the number of counties is untrue. The ECB have indicated that the 18 FCC will remain in place. For people that follow me on social media will see I am an advocate of growing the game, not reducing it.
I think the 50 overs game is most vulnerable and has less support shored up for it and in terms of international mood music might be the one to be sidelined. So a drop to a shorter group stage (2 home + 2 away games) and proper quarter finals, semi finals and Lord's final likely I'd expect. Also having the group stages April/May with the final in June. These changes would give more breathing space for the championship and blast games - potentially 2 more weeks of wiggle room for rest
The big disagreement between the counties (pre COVID) was always over the scheduling of the Blast. Big city based counties like Warwicks and Lancs prefer once a week Friday nights. Smaller provincial counties like Somerset and Essex prefer it in a block or two mini-blocks playing 3 Blast games per week.
The blocks will probably stay the big thing to sort out will be rest slots for players these should be easy to schedule if there's fewer 50-over games. Warwickshire this season had a week off in mid April and also have next week off. Add two spare weeks to that by only playing 4 RLODC group games instead of 8 and that's at least 4 whole weeks rest in the schedule without any need to trim the CC or the Blast.
Agree with Leicester Exile about it being flawed to only give the batting side who wins any bonus points
There will be a lot more unfair point allocation draws in that case. Rain hasn't gone away despite the last 3-4 years.
Team "A" could get 600, then bowl team "B" out for 200, then it rains for the rest of the match. Is that fair that both sides get just 1 point instead of 9 points to the dominant side and 1 to the side that was on the back foot?
Unless they're proposing bringing in winning draws and losing draws like in Saturday league Cricket perhaps?
Also people moan already about batsman friendly strips so bat first and bat for three and a half days two batting points plus one for the draw as good as a win. You need bowling points for a healthy competition.
Suggestions such as 3 points for a win and no bonus points without a win remind me of top down approach to urban post world war two planning where you get in the 1960's all manner of neat tidy modern urban developments replacing the tangled but lived communities but lack specific detail. The existing bonus points system has developed over time from lived experience within the first class game. Turn up to watch on day two of a game and there are points to see being accrued by both sides. It might be the only day of the game that spectator gets to see too. Take bonus points away and some enjoyment is lost not only for the spectator but also for the players/teams gaining bonus points likely keeps them motivated.