In MLB the teams play 162 games over a c180 day season, including multiple long flights with games the following day.

H it's what struck me the first time I went to a ball game - the Cardinals were playing a "series" - a game every evening for, I think, 5 days or it might have been more. And of course as the USA can't conceive a draw they carry on playing until there is a winner which can take them well in to the night. Compare that to the CC where for half the 4 days players are sitting in the dressing room and even longer if it rains!
For all the T20 games they are fielding for less than 2 hours. Which leads me on to say if they can play two T20 games (80 overs max) on Finals Day why can't they do something similar or play on consecutive days.

The LA Dodgers and Colorado Rockies are due to finish a 6 game series this evening, but both sides have been resting many of their starters, especially as Dodgers start their play off games next week, after winning 110 of their 161 games.

The last game of the World Series will be in early November.

A lesson from baseball also in the rotation of players. A pitcher only starts one game in five. The fielders don't play every game either though more regularly than 20% of games. You could easily put an xx days of cricket limit on players per season. Best way to do that have two or three development rounds in August with a mandated limit of capped players or of a certain age.

Irrespective of all these comparisons with baseball the fact remains they have agreed for 2023 to be played with the same number of matches as this season.

If - and it is a really big if - there was any issue with player welfare arising from the schedule in 2022 then they would not be agreeing to arrange such a schedule for 2023.

Player welfare clearly wasn't a concern either when a random unecessary and divisive 4th format was plonked right smack in the middle of summer meaning the rest of the schdule had to be fitted into 5 months instead of 6 months

Half the players are sitting around for the bulk of August and quite a lot of June and July also - prime cricket season

Several players and coaches have already spoken out about the need for a sensible schedule rather than cuts to the schedule

This is achieveable whether or not they have championship games in August but I would prefer some in August. Just don't make them play 6 CC games in a row in April and May again that's what players have asked.

And another

"By reducing teams or games, you reduce the pool of people who play. We need boys and girls being able to watch cricket in summer not just at the test grounds but at Worcester and Chelmsford too. We need to play cricket in as many parts of the country as possible and at the highest level we can"

Well said Anthony McGrath.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0d4w5km?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

https://www.phoenixfm.com/2022/10/06/98-not-final-show-grumbler-george-dobell-mark-butcher/

Forward to 1.05 for George Dobell comments following the cricket writers dinner earlier this week

The whole radio show is good

This is on the Worcestershire official website. Counties should reject these insidious moves to shrink opportunities in the English cricket summer. It's as true for the next Olly Hannon Dalby or Ed Barnard as it is for Masihullah Qazkhill

https://wccc.co.uk/from-afghanistan-to-astwood-bank-masih-finds-opportunity-in-worcestershire/

amid all the current debates about the future of the game, maybe it’s vital to note that while the responsibilities of county cricket clubs embrace the production of England players, those duties also extend far beyond that essential role. It is a simple truth that most professional cricketers will not wear the crown and three lions, yet they will still give essential service to the game in this country.

English cricket is not solely about the England team. Rather, it is about ensuring that age-group teams are properly financed and that no players of sufficient talent are left out of them. It is about turning the player pathways into broad highways on which male and female cricketers from any background feel comfortable. And it is about ensuring that the major competitions are valued for themselves as a stern but fair test of teams across the increasingly wide expanse of the season.

According to the Telegraph, a "compromise" is being mooted:

"Talks are advanced on a new proposal to reduce the Championship from 14 to 12 games – two more than the original suggestion made in the high-performance review led by Sir Andrew Strauss.
Three separate divisions of six will also be on the table with two going up and two down between divisions two and three and one up, one down between divisions two and one.
A play-off between the bottom two teams in division one will determine which county is relegated, while a play-off between the top two in division two will decide who goes up to the top flight.
The decision to cut the Blast from 14 to 10 games is also likely to be reviewed, although there is more work to be done on how this will look. One proposal is to go with 12 games in the belief the higher intensity and better scheduling of Blast matches will work to the benefit of the counties in the long run."

Of course, if you want to get unpopular ideas agreed, starting off with something even more unpopular and then watering it down to what you originally hoped for is one way of negotiating.

I can't believe we have a major sport where the administrators want to see FEWER games played!! You would think they would be trying to cram in as many matches as possible to maximise income from spectators and sponsors.

According to the Leicestershire chairman speaking last night at their forum no date has been arranged for any vote.

Also aligning with the wishes of their members the Leicestershire chair and CEO have stated they will vote as follows;

No - to moving the RLODC to April

No - to the proposed schedule of fewer championship games

No - to reducing the 7 T20 blast home games they currently have

That is a county engaging with its membership fully. Leicestershire members were also very vocal about the need to resist any moves towards creating divisions of six. You can't have a county championship where 2/3rds of the counties are unable to win it.

The situation at Warwickshire is far from clear.

Members at the forum in September were unanimously opposed to reducing championship matches. Yet the club wishes to portray the members as being broadly aligned with the committee??? This appears to be not the case if the committee think 12 is any workable compromise. 14 was the compromise.

If Warwickshire decide to vote for reduced championship games they will do so against the clear wishes expressed by their membership

This needs clearing up

A play-off between the bottom two teams in division one will determine which county is relegated, while a play-off between the top two in division two will decide who goes up to the top flight.

???

What on earth is the sudden obsession with play offs all about???!!!? It'd represent yet another week in the schedule where 4 teams get to play while the other 14 are sat twiddling their thumbs. I'm guessing mid-September??? Or else played overseas??? And if they're drawn matches??? Ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous!!!

What we want is proper season long leagues and proper knockout cups like we had in the 1990's

Lancashire had their SGM during the week and Somerset had a forum

Lancs appear to be committed to preserving 14 FC games in the season and will push for some CC cricket in August to facilitate this. They are deeply opposed to the idea of a tiny top tier of just six teams. At one point they mentioned a 12 team division as being their preference but I can't see how that would work. Like Warwickshire they are not too fussed if a couple of T20 Blast games were cut from the schedule.

Somerset's forum suggested they are angling for a 100 franchise to be hosted at Taunton so at least they get to cash in on some of that while it exists. I personally cannot see the other counties agreeing to expand it as it generally flopped ratings wise last year. They are looking at ideas to have some CC cricket on during the Hundred - THIS IS POSITIVE NEWS as it would be less pressing to cut fixtures.

I saw some some interesting comments about only having six teams in the top division;

One thing I have grave reservations about is how a six-team top division is going to help England's cause.

It was mentioned on the Northants - Essex commentary yesterday that when there was an 8-team top division it was intensely competitive. Yet this has actually since gone up to 10, presumably to reduce the risk of "big" counties going down to Division 2.

It's obvious that with only room for 6 clubs in the top division, that risk of not being in it will increase substantially. The basic maths is that 12 teams won't be in that league.

One might say that the likes of Lancashire, Surrey and Yorkshire are the core resource when it comes to producing England players. But what if, rather than the assumption that it will be the likes of Leicestershire "marooned" in the feeder divisions, it is those big clubs? Let's face it, all 3 have spent time in Division 2 before, so it's far from a given that they will stay in a top division of 6. And once out, it could take years to get back in, especially if all 3 ended up down there.

On top of this, you then also have the other side of the coin, that the big clubs are by no means the sole providers of England players - far from it. As things stand, there is sufficient incentive for all the county clubs to try and get into Division 1, which means they build stronger sides. But with the proposed set-up, it may be that more clubs "do a Leicestershire" and privately admit that they will give-up on trying to build red-ball team capable of challenging for the top flight.

These combined effects could actually end up seeing the supplies to the England Test team worsening, not getting better.

Food for thought I reckon.

I gathered from the report of the Lancashire meeting that the two resolutions up for debate were voted down but I couldn't find exactly what they were. Does anyone know?

I've had a quick search and can't find them I'm afraid Gerry. I am in a Group with Alan Higham who was chiefly responsible for getting their meeting called and have asked the question of him. He does seem to have gone a bit quiet though since the motions were voted down.

I am new to this group and understand that its members may be spared far and wide. With regard to the more local members are most attending our forum on the 26th October? I fear that now being out of season it might not be that well attended. I hope I'm wrong because as with a number of people on here I'm not convinced the members committee do a particularly good job of representing the wider membership!

Gerry,

Please see below for details of motions:-

_

Lancashire CCC SGM request_
We the undersigned members of Lancashire County Cricket Club require a Special
General Meeting (SGM) of the club to discuss the following business:

1. To fully update the membership and respond to questions of clarification on the
ongoing discussions amongst the counties and the ECB on the potential options to
alter the schedule or structure of domestic cricket.

1. To understand in detail the views of club management and the board on the
   merits of the various options being considered.

2. To extend to the members attending the meeting the opportunity to explain their
   priorities if any changes to the schedule/structure are to be made.

3. To discuss the club management and board’s handling of the members’ concerns
   in points 1 to 3 above and understand the details behind multiple inconsistencies in
   their public statements.

The following motions will be put to the meeting for a vote:

A. The club’s management will oppose any reduction in the number of first-class
fixtures for future seasons, unless it has the prior consent of the membership
from a further SGM or an alternative member forum with a ballot that is binding
on the club in the same way as an SGM. Either meeting must be arranged to
maximise the opportunity for members to attend and all papers circulated in
advance of the meeting must provide a balance in arguments for any proposals
under discussion.

B. The members agree that the club’s management’s handling of the members’
concerns in 1 to 3 above fell short of the standard they expect to be achieved.
Proposals to improve member relations and communications especially around
those areas where significant differences of opinion exist within the membership
should therefore be brought forward to the 2023 AGM for approval.

They may not have won the vote but that will have been mainly down to Lancs CCC throwing the kitchen sink at defeating it. What they have done however is help open up a few eyes to what they're after and their members (rather condescendingly described by the club as "small but significant") were right to call the SGM in the circumstances as information was far from forthcoming in August. They've also helped awaken members at other counties and wangled us an extra year - if nothing else - so well done Alan and the volunteers.

If I'm reading it right in an ideal world what the board of Lancashire County Cricket Club would prefer is one division of 12 or 13 (or perhaps 14?) counties playing each other once per season with no relegation or promotion. This would necessitate demoting 3 or 4 counties to minor county status forevermore.

They don't like small divisions of six

They don't like playing some teams more than once but other teams only once

They don't think smaller counties should have any say in the matter

They don't think they should ever be relegated

Yet they somehow agree with the warped view of the ECB report that there's somehow too much cricket presumably so they can fit more concerts in at Old Trafford and more slogball too

It might be what many of the supposed bigger counties are after at the end of the day.

Getting far too big for their boots at Old Trafford especially considering they've won precisely 1 county championship title in close on 90 years

It's not just Lancs however. This'll likely reflect how other so called big counties think

14 games CAN fit into the 5 months outside the 100 window they just won't admit it and they keep inventing stumbling blocks. It is is pure deflection tactics

The 100 can be played with CC alongside it. I'd actually prefer this and in the light of this there ought to be efforts made to increase the CC back up to 16 games if this is the case not reduce it to a shrunken disheveled status

Where there's a will there's a way. They just want to shrink the game and it needs opposing still

Annie Chave posted this on the Somerset Facebook page yesterday

"Hello All

Just to say on the back of the forum last night - I'm afraid I wasn't able to be there but I did meet with Gordon Hollins during the day along with Mike Unwin, Chris Winkleigh (apologies Chris I know I've got your surname a bit wrong) and Alan Higham to discuss the High Performance Review and we had a three hour meeting where we looked at the proposals as a whole. There are many aspects of the review that need to be looked at and Gordon was very definite that the Somerset CCC Board would not be agreeing with ANY proposals until the ECB had looked at the Somerset response and agreed to their points.

We will be meeting again in November to talk again about Members & fans concerns and so do get in touch with me if you have anything specific or if you're just worried or want to let off steam.

It is an incredibly frustrating time to be a County Cricket Fan at the moment and the delay in any decision making is very hard for the counties to get on and sell membership or make informed decisions but it's important we feel that we are aiming for the same score and I'm really really trying to ensure that we are keeping Winviz 50/50% and our projected score is heading for that tie...."

The Lancashire website includes the following statement "For this reason, our preference remains to hold a Members’ Forum with a binding vote once, and only once, we have a concrete proposal emerging from the ECB-led discussions with the First-Class Counties."

So I think the board is still claiming it will ballot members on any ECB proposal. I think the issue at Lancashire is a breakdown of trust where some members simply don't believe the board will have a vote and wanted an upfront commitment to 14 CC games, plus some internal reforms.

Certainly don't buy the Lancs line that the SGM costs them any more than a binding vote would.

The board there do have issues with trust

And what will a binding vote entail exactly?

Vote X 10 CC matches and 14 Blast matches
Vote Y 12 CC matches and 12 Blast matches
Vote Z 14 CC matches and 10 Blast matches

Something along those lines when what members could well insist on is retention of 14 CC and 14 Blast matches to show solidarity with the Worcestershire's and Sussex's

What I think Lancs members fear is there will only be option X or Y.

Or perhaps option X - yay or nay?

No change to the volume has to remain on the table with an insistence on the schedule being sorted so there are games for all the counties throughout June July and August as opposed to the huge gaps we've had to put up with - some counties worse affected than others in 2021+2022

Vote A 14 CC matches and 14 Blast matches (but get the blinking schedule sorted out)