All we need now is a green light in the intervening period for supporters to attend, together with ECB scheduling that sees them played across weekends and there is much to like for the fan of traditional cricket.
Groups have been worked out based on this year's performances, thus Derbyshire are in a group with Essex, the reigning champions, Durham, Nottinghamshire (of course), Warwickshire and Worcestershire. Each will be played home and away, with the top two going into the first division of the next stage, the next two the second, etc.
The final groups will see each team play four matches, with their average points against the team they played in the first group carried through. The final positions will decide prize money and if the same format is then retained for 2022, it will decide the seedings.
I am OK with it, even though it is yet another group with our dear neighbours, who seem to follow us around. Essex will be a challenging but nice change, while few would not enjoy a trip to Worcester.
We now need to see how the next few months pan out and how the squad shapes up. By my calculation we currently have 16 on the staff, including the two overseas and two wicket keepers.
Decisions will need to be made on others in the near future, both existing staff and prospective incomers.
These changes for next year have ignited some interesting discussions online and has split followers of the county game into different camps. I am prepared to give it a go and it has merit to it, although I can see the argument against it too.
ReplyDeleteIt will give every county the chance to be crowned county champions at the start of the year, some have criticised this and pointed out that it may lead to some mismatched games between 1st division counties and those from the lower reaches of the 2nd division. This may well be the case, but players will learn from playing against the best and if we do stick with this structure going forward then this gap may close in time. The smaller counties would have more of a chance of retaining their young players and have a greater incentive to invest in red ball cricket.
The strength of the two division system is that the first division does generally pit the best against the best and the quality of cricket in the first division is of a high standard. This does come at the cost of confining several counties to the second division, with little hope of breaking into the first division and if they do, then they often come straight back down with potentially losing any players who made an impression. There are no easy answers, but surely the best structure is one that gives every county hope but retains the meaningful cricket that the promotion/relegation challenge at present provides.
The final group stage is the part that offers the most concern, will the prospect of prize money and seedings for the following season ensure that these matches in the 2nd and 3rd groups have enough riding on them for teams to field their strongest teams and to see meaningful cricket?
Having an end of season finale at Lords for the BWT trophy, possibly in October, between the county champions and the team that came second does seem to be over-egging the pudding somewhat. It would make more sense to play this game as a curtain raiser in the following season, like the Community Shield in football, when teams may have more vigour for this match rather than at the end of a long hard season.
I would in the future like to see more canvassing of the people who watch county cricket in any discussions of the domestic structure, and I must highlight that the Derbyshire Chairman Ian Morgan has done an excellent job in this regard. He did send an email to all members offering them the opportunity to share their opinions before he reported back to the ECB recently.
Let us hope that the game can find a structure that we can stick with and is acceptable to all.
What do you think this means for outgrounds? Only five games can be planned for initially. Kris
ReplyDeleteI don't know Kris. There are so many unanswerable questions on next season right now.
DeleteFor Derbyshire, I guess that it would only leave Chesterfield as an T there is option for a week. If we can't get Derby right there is no chance of anywhere else.
Suspect we will play as we normally do, but Covid 19 responses are problematic right now. Hopefully by April there will be better days!
I honestly don’t know what to make of it. I’m willing to give it next season but I detest the principle of performance based seedings. They have over complicated something that didn’t need to be.
ReplyDeleteThe first stage with 3 groups is somewhat a stroke of genius as the 2 division system was leaving about 4 or 5 teams in the doldrums. Instead of performance as indicator of groupings, why not have like a draw where the groups would be randomised every year? That way you are almost guaranteed to play each team every 5 or 6 years based on probability.
The second stage for me is merely a facade. You could have teams facing each other 3 times in the first stage with the third occasion being at the home of the lower ranked side after 10 games have been played. Using this stage as a metric for the following season also seems foolhardy as we have seen this season how quickly a team’s performance can improve and decline over the space of 2 seasons meaning you could be in the top group of this stage one season and then the bottom group in the next campaign.
As for the BWT, I agree with Adam, it should the curtain raiser for the season. They should scrap the match between the County Champions and the MCC in Dubai, or wherever it is held. If I remember rightly the MCC squad consists of players who are the ‘better’ players not currently on the international stage, but I am sure that I am incorrect about this. It doesn’t even need to be the top 2 counties, this could also be done like a draw, first 2 teams out of the hat play the match.
All in all, I am glad they are making some changes to look like they are helping the smaller counties but not all change is good and I fear the smallest counties of the 18 will still suffer.
Essex fan here, look forward covid permitting to a visit to derby and the wider area, but i dont like the format personally. i dnt think 2 divisions was that broke, it did as intended and pooled the best counties together. look at essex stuck as a at best a yo yo team for years, but get the management right and we realised our potential and some. the best will always get to the top. we suffered players being poached, chopra, wheater, topley, foakes, mills, yet managed to make the most of out talent we kept and make it despite being in a very competitive locale for players in the south east and being the poor country cousins of the southern/south eastern counties. No reason others cannot follow. the only thing the new format has is that everyone can win it so counties struggling one season still have chance to win it the next season.
ReplyDeletei disagree with paul, seeding has to be done as otherwise luck of the draw comes into it. A group of leice, glam, derby (no offence intended!) and some other div regulars would be imbalanced as would one stacked with essex, som, yorks and surrey.
if the ecb must have this format then seeding is the only fair way, as otherwise luck of the draw comes into it too much and its more like a cup competition rather than a league. (ie a lucky run against weaker teams to a final n a cup run.
i dont see the point of the BWT being retained next year, why have 2 winners, the league winner is the best clearly, the BWT is a one off and will have something of after the lords mayors show about it. it would have merit as being the season opener instead of the champion county match, as crickets equivalent to the charity shield perhaps, but again on merit not random draws as paul suggests.
essex fan
Thanks for your comments Essex fan, all very valid.
DeleteI agree with you and a few others that the BWT seems an unnecessary add-on. If you come first over a long season, why then play for another trophy against second?
exactly, this season it worked as it was a short sharp unique season. i think in the circumstances it was a sensible solution (i would say that as an essex fan...) but i genuinely think it was. it was a novel solution to a horrible and limiting situation, and being drawn up quickly when it became apparent what time frame was available to use, a final was necessary (the only thing i may have tweaked is having semi finals perhaps with all 3 group winners and best runner up)as there was lack of games due to obvious reasons, and the groups were imbalanced (i saw the average weightings based on last season finishing positions giving all counties a 1-18 rank, and the south group was the strongest on paper, giving short shrift to those saying somerset should have one as they had most points across the 3 conferences). i didnt agree with the rules of the final however first innings being a silly measure to win it on (should have been shared if a draw), but essex played it as per the regs and people who moan about us not going for the win forgot we may have made a lot more in innings one had the over limit not been applicable, that and the shocker chef got (the worst decison ive seen in years)when he was serenely taking us to the target wouldnt have been a good note to lose it on.
Deleteif next season is truncated/restricted then by all means repeat this seasons format with a few tweaks, but a full season the winners are the winners, a one off final in addition to the league, will be a poor consolation, and you have to wonder how seriously those in it will take it, given the elation of the title winners and disappointment of the runners up. if it were a knockoyr 1st class cup competon, for all then i could see the point, but that would never get signed off as too many games...
essex fan