Back to two divisions



Which County is in what Division should be based on this years points. Can’t see why the Division’s should be based on 2019’s performances.
 
Dorlonco said:
Which County is in what Division should be based on this years points. Can’t see why the Division’s should be based on 2019’s performances.
Click to expand...

Not sure what’ll happen, but it wouldn’t be right to revert to the pre-Covid makeups of the divisions, when you consider Notts could still win the Championship this year but would be in the second tier next time round.
 
smoker said:
No doubt we'll end up in the lower division.
Click to expand...
with negative points.
Good news, I thought the decision had already been taken with conference being nailed on. So, happy its not and yea, the only sensible way to decide on which division is this year's rankings.
 
Last edited:
Prefer the 2 divisions but this conference system has led to a brilliant finish this season for the 6 teams who have been the best teams. However not sure this would be the norm.


As a footnote big problems at Sussex with the club's policy to concentrate on T20 cricket.
 
The PGG make a recommendation to ECB about a restructured format afer consulting County chairmen and Ashley Giles. As dictatorial as ECB are it would be folly for them not to act on the recommendation. PGG consists of a few county chairmen,of whom Bostock is one.
 
GordonMuchallNo1Fan said:
Which I'm entirely fine with and is the right decision. It would make things competitive again and we are making good progress. This has to happen
Click to expand...
The conference system is still competitive though! At the end of the day you have to finish in the top 2 of a 6 team conference after playing 10 games and that is a lot of cricket.
If you don't make it improve which is what Durham have done and why most of us on here are upbeat for next season. Other countries have decided to concentrate on one day cricket and payed the price.
 
A reminder of Atherton’s article last September which first revealed the proposed conference system for the County Championship. Food for thought.

“It is the best solution I have seen to a number of problems that have been promoted by a divisional championship structure, which has been in place now for two decades. A change to a divisional structure was necessary 20 years ago, to give a flabby and uncompetitive County Championship a boost, and has broadly worked in helping to create a more intense competition. It is clear now, though, that there are as many disadvantages as advantages, especially given the extension of the Lions and other programmes that are used to help to narrow the gap between first-class and Test cricket.

In particular, the two-division system has created a short-term decision-making mentality among county directors of cricket, who are constantly fearful of relegation, using sticking-plaster measures where more fundamental, long-term planning is required. Short-term deals for overseas players, Kolpak players and poaching of good young players from elsewhere are counterproductive to the development of young cricketers through county pathways.

The divisional structure has also created an isolated, graveyard feel to the bottom of the second division, which is populated by perennial underachievers who find themselves in a cycle of defeatism where any good players they produce are lost to bigger, richer clubs. These are the clubs in the line of sight of those who would reduce the number of professional cricketers across the country, which would be difficult to implement quickly without causing chaos.

There is also an audience to support. Although there has always been an understanding that there is a dedicated (remote, rather than live) audience for first-class county cricket, that has been hard to quantify — until now with all the 18 counties streaming their matches. General conclusions on the data are difficult to draw because counties are using their streaming services with different objectives in mind (some going for reach, others trying to service their membership) but there is clearly an interest in the county game.

A seeded conference system, morphing into a late-season divisional structure, has considerable advantages. The seeding means that clubs will play different opponents every year in the initial conference stage, providing the variety that players and supporters crave, and, crucially, every county would start the season with a chance of winning. Although some counties were reluctant to restart first-class this year, surely their players would have been lifted by the opportunity of starting the season on an even keel.

The divisional structure then allows for the best v best that England selectors are looking for (although clearly, September cricket is not ideal for this) and play-off type situations that fit with many modern sporting competitions. If, having been given a fair crack, the same clubs end up populating division three, year after year, there would be fewer qualms about cutting the number of first-class counties as a result, a Darwinian process having taken its course.

“Super September” and the “Race to Lord’s” would give the end of season a dramatic lift and create real interest. Once international fixtures and domestic white-ball cricket are done, it would create a climax, bringing the season to a crescendo with a showpiece domestic five-day game.

It is also an elastic solution for a post-Covid world, allowing flexibility should lockdowns limit fixtures. And it is financially considerate, given that the costly burden of short-term overseas players, often brought in to avoid relegation, would be removed.

These conversations are not new, and variations on the conference system, including the above, were discussed and rejected two years ago. However, coronavirus has focused minds, highlighted priorities and the Bob Willis Trophy this year has alerted many to the advantages of a non-divisional structure.”
 

Back
Top