Bob Willis Trophy to stay
- Thread starter Parkside
- Start date
Struts
Winger
This is what I was thinking earlier.
Best method would be for each of the 3 groups to be make up of; 2 Northern counties, 2 Central and 2 Southern counties. 4-day group stage games and 5-day KO stage games.
I'm pretty ambivalent to the thought of the CC turning into a round-robin tournament. I do think 10 is about the right number of games though.The sport is being killed.
Last edited:
brandon
Striker
Last edited:
Given the limited number of weeks of the season and the necessity to get a decent amount of T20 in (that TV cash is required to fund grassroots so I’m all for it) the ECB had little option.
There was t time for a semi then a final unless you finished a further week into October
scaly_piscine
Goalkeeper
I don't see how it would make any sense unless you made it two groups of 9. 8 games. Then semis & final for top 2 from each region. I guess you'd favour the group winners if a semi was a draw.
Yeh if they drew groups and formated a knock out style to progress to would be all for that
Bri
Striker
But it would be unsustainable surely. Counties would get knocked out early on and the cricketers would sit idle and there's be no income coming in .... luckily that doesn't seem to be the plan.
It seems winning teams progress to play each other, but teams that don't make it play for lesser trophies, so all teams have something to play for the duration of the competition.
" The top two teams in each conference would proceed to Division One, where they would play the top two teams from the other two conferences. Other teams would advance to Division Two and Three"
Sounds reasonable to me although of course I'd prefer the two div. set up but with 16 games per season.
Silly Point
Winger
It’s served it’s purpose to get first class cricket played in the midst of the pandemic but I feared when it was announced that it may become a permanent fixture. Plenty on the Yorkie forum felt the same
scaly_piscine
Goalkeeper
Agree that three divisions sounds absolutely crap. Who's going to care about winning division two or three? It has no meaning whatsoever without promotion/relegation etc.
You're also diluting the tournament by presumably having both stages presumably decided by 5 games.
You're also diluting the tournament by presumably having both stages presumably decided by 5 games.
This is the full article by Mike Atherton. I think it makes a lot of sense. 10 games each in the first phase involving all 18 clubs in three groups (organised with Group A clubs being those who finished last season in positions 1,2,7,8,13,14, Group B, 3,4,9,10,15,16 and Group C, 5,6,11,12,17,18.). Group finishing positions then determine the make up three divisions for the 4 further games in September‘s second phase, then a 5 day final at Lords. Everyone gets a crack of being champion every year, and those who prosper less well in the early stages get a crack at the second and third division titles (based on points - no final). No promotion; no relegation. Everybody starts again the following season with groups organised according to last years finishing position with an equal chance of a trophy. You can finish 18th one year and be champions the following year. Whats not to like?
“A key debate is looming in English cricket on the future of the domestic first-class game. With the effects of coronavirus projecting a £100 million-plus shortfall in finances, county chiefs are grappling with how to navigate a precarious, uncertain future, with Colin Graves, the outgoing ECB chairman, having publicly stated a desire and need for fewer first-class counties.
One solution, among a variety of options, is being worked on by the Professional Game Group, a body that includes the chief executives of Durham, Surrey, Sussex and Nottinghamshire. The outline is for a super-charged conference system that would improve the chances of smaller counties retaining a first-class future, while encouraging the type of elite competition that helps to breed England cricketers, within a vibrant programme that would appeal to its audience.
In essence the plan is this: there would be three conferences, initially seeded on 2019 County Championship standings, and changing according to finishing positions thereafter, so that counties do not play the same teams each year. Between April and July, each conference of six will involve five home and five away first-class fixtures.
After the key summer months of the school holidays are given over to one-day cricket — to a combination of 50-over, T20 Blast and Hundred fixtures — the first-class season resumes towards the end of August and then into what could be called “Super September”. Super September will produce the eventual winners of the championship and a “Race to Lord’s” for a five-day showpiece, an end-of-season finale for the Bob Willis Trophy.
For Super September, the final standings in the three conferences would morph into three divisions: the first and second place in each of the three conferences become the first division; third and fourth in each conference become the second division and the fifth and sixth become the third division.
The teams then each play four more first-class fixtures, two home and two away (obviously avoiding the side who have come from the same conference), and the top two in division one play each other in the final at Lord’s. To avoid dead games in the other divisions, differentiated prize money will be paid down as far as 14th position. Those finishing positions then determine the seeds for the following year’s three conferences.
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.
Decisions need to be made by November, when next year’s fixture list is drawn up and they require a two-thirds majority among counties and a nod of approval from Andrew Strauss’s ECB cricket committee. Ian Watmore, the new chairman, begins his stint in office next Tuesday.
Some advocate not wasting a good crisis by a brutal culling of players and teams; others want a return to a pre-Bob Willis Trophy world and to the status quo. The first seems unmanageable, the second unlikely.
The scenario outlined above is the best attempt I’ve seen to create a vibrant domestic programme, encouraging all counties and appealing to its audience, without damaging the production of England players.“
“A key debate is looming in English cricket on the future of the domestic first-class game. With the effects of coronavirus projecting a £100 million-plus shortfall in finances, county chiefs are grappling with how to navigate a precarious, uncertain future, with Colin Graves, the outgoing ECB chairman, having publicly stated a desire and need for fewer first-class counties.
One solution, among a variety of options, is being worked on by the Professional Game Group, a body that includes the chief executives of Durham, Surrey, Sussex and Nottinghamshire. The outline is for a super-charged conference system that would improve the chances of smaller counties retaining a first-class future, while encouraging the type of elite competition that helps to breed England cricketers, within a vibrant programme that would appeal to its audience.
In essence the plan is this: there would be three conferences, initially seeded on 2019 County Championship standings, and changing according to finishing positions thereafter, so that counties do not play the same teams each year. Between April and July, each conference of six will involve five home and five away first-class fixtures.
After the key summer months of the school holidays are given over to one-day cricket — to a combination of 50-over, T20 Blast and Hundred fixtures — the first-class season resumes towards the end of August and then into what could be called “Super September”. Super September will produce the eventual winners of the championship and a “Race to Lord’s” for a five-day showpiece, an end-of-season finale for the Bob Willis Trophy.
For Super September, the final standings in the three conferences would morph into three divisions: the first and second place in each of the three conferences become the first division; third and fourth in each conference become the second division and the fifth and sixth become the third division.
The teams then each play four more first-class fixtures, two home and two away (obviously avoiding the side who have come from the same conference), and the top two in division one play each other in the final at Lord’s. To avoid dead games in the other divisions, differentiated prize money will be paid down as far as 14th position. Those finishing positions then determine the seeds for the following year’s three conferences.
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.
Decisions need to be made by November, when next year’s fixture list is drawn up and they require a two-thirds majority among counties and a nod of approval from Andrew Strauss’s ECB cricket committee. Ian Watmore, the new chairman, begins his stint in office next Tuesday.
Some advocate not wasting a good crisis by a brutal culling of players and teams; others want a return to a pre-Bob Willis Trophy world and to the status quo. The first seems unmanageable, the second unlikely.
The scenario outlined above is the best attempt I’ve seen to create a vibrant domestic programme, encouraging all counties and appealing to its audience, without damaging the production of England players.“
