Posted by You’re no doubt aware that the counties are currently having a big old argument about how to alter the County Championship for future seasons. (And if you aren’t already aware, you’d surely assume that was the case anyway, because when have they not been arguing about that?) It’s been said that there are 18 counties that agree the structure’s not right, but 19 different versions of what the answer is. Allow us to throw a 20th option into the mix, which we’re sure would satisfy a lot of counties, if not anyone else.
The primary goal of any change in structure would be to play fewer games. You’d think this detail might count against the multiple options that have been suggested which would result in the counties playing exactly the same number of games, but no, apparently not. Despite that, it is, as far as we can tell, the central thing being argued here.
The most straightforward way to achieve a 12-game season would be by reducing the size of the top flight to seven teams and having each county play every other county twice. This would be nice and balanced and even if it left you with an awkwardly-sized second division, the first division is where the sporting integrity of the competition matters most.
Alas, even an eight-team first division has been deemed unacceptable on the basis that not enough counties would be in with a chance of being champions. (That’s actually how we ended up with the current magnificent setup where 10 first division counties play some opponents once and others twice.)
An alternative
If that particular flavour of madness is acceptable – indeed desirable – to the counties, then let’s roll with it. We’ve got another benefit they could throw into the mix.
Special Correspondent Dad got in touch with us after we wrote about this subject last week. (See below.)
Dad said that back when he started playing first team cricket for Northwich, they competed in the Manchester Association. This not-wholly-accurately named competition included clubs from places as far afield as Lytham and Buxton.
“The list of clubs in our league was as long as your arm. Our fixture list was established years before. Some clubs we played twice, some once and some never. In 1969, or thereabouts, we won the league. Huzzah and lots of back slapping.
“All clubs organised their own fixtures and I’m sure, if we wanted to, a match against Wigan could have been arranged, but they were the strongest around at the time so we never played them.”
This strikes us a perfect solution for the knotty problem that is the County Championship. Stick everyone in the same league and let each county draw up its own fixtures list. Everybody’s happy.
You don’t want to play Surrey because they’ve been the best team in recent years? Don’t play them.
You want to play Kent three times instead? Go for it.
You want to continue playing 14 matches instead of 12? Knock yourself out. Hell, play 16 if you want.
Once you’ve allowed competitive asymmetry into your sporting competition, why bother striving for any illusion of balance. Just go full Manchester Association: a big free-for-all and most points wins.
Alas, North-West club cricket in the 1970s was a little more enthusiastic about running a balanced and meritocratic competition than contemporary county cricket. Northwich therefore became founder members of the Cheshire County League, a much more sensible pyramid system, which still exists to this day.
Dad says that this move did not come without cost for Northwich. “While initially we were protected against relegation, eventually the full force of a sensible system hit us.”
Some buttons to ‘smash’
You always ‘smash’ subscription buttons these days. You can smash these if you want – or merely click them if that’s more your style.
Up until 1946, the way proposed by Special Correspondent Dad WAS the way of the County Championship, with table places determined based on averages rather than points.
That is also the way that the World Test Championship is being determined at present.
Bleating about unfair outcomes would abound, of course, but might that issue be less problematic than the myriad issues surrounding the various proposals on the table at the ECB right now.
And wouldn’t it be funny if no-one chose to play against Surrey?
They wouldn’t mind. They’d just do self congratulatory slo-mo videos of games between the first and second XI.
Good point about the WTC! Although it’s asymmetry seems more about *wanting* to play the best/’biggest’ teams because they bring the most money with them. Might not be such an issue in county cricket.
It would be a bit funny if the structure of the competition changes just as Leicestershire have been promoted for the first time in ages.
Poor old Leicestershire.
I don’t care how next year goes (although I expect relegation). After the last 22 years I’ll take promotion happily regardless of what follows.
I’ve played Manchester Association games in Lytham, Bolton, Bury, Wigan, Widnes, St Helens, Newton le Willows, Warrington, Salford, Widnes etc etc. My teams were based in actual Manchester (Chorlton and Whalley Range).
Maybe this hints at another solution. Counties can play teams from nearby countries, maybe even a European Super League. After all, football has found it very straightforward to arrange sensible structures for European competitions.
At one point when the County Championship was in its early days, the winner was decided by arguing about which county had done best in the letters page of The Times. Can’t remember the details, but have a strong suspicion each team decided its own fixtures as per your article. Read it in one of those long Wisden articles on the subject. Personally I would be happy to go back to that system.
While only now unofficial, surely we can all agree that’s still the ‘real’ system.