County numbers surface AGAIN..

Isn't it funny how, as soon as they start doing badly, the usual suspects start to blame the English system for national failings. 'We don't need eighteen counties' is the battle cry from Kevin Pietersen, keen to extend the franchises to four - day cricket.

So when England win 50 and 20-over trophies it is fine then?

I don't get this argument that reducing down to eight or ten franchises would make our game stronger. For one thing you are halving the talent pool, and removing the possibility of a player overlooked for franchises developing elsewhere.

Would Ben Aitchison be thriving in the county game, but for Derbyshire? Would Sam Conners be a regular elsewhere? Both could become international bowlers, but they need to play cricket. 

People mention us, Leicestershire and Northamptonshire as targets, forgetting that 'big' counties poach our best talent once developed. Would that happen? I doubt it.. What about the late developers, of which there are many? 

For another thing, the crucial established fan base of the game would be lost. I couldn't care less about England, broadly speaking. I feel no 'connect' with the side and would always watch Derbyshire over them. The likely 5-0 whitewash in the Ashes can be laid squarely at the door of the ECB, not the players. I have watched about thirty minutes of the series, so far. 

The ECB decided to consign the four-day game to the bookends of the season. They promoted 100 - ball cricket to the detriment of the purest form. They ensured that we went into the biggest and oldest international series with next to no relevant practice.They ploughed crazy resources into a tournament few people want. They hand out central contracts, so international players don't need to play cricket..

Part of the issue is that the jump from county to Test is now too big. If international players had to play at least half of their county matches it would be a start. Who gets better at anything by not doing it? Two quality overseas per side helps too - just ask those who plied their trade in the 70s, 80s and 90s, often facing attacks better than international ones. When you had faced Imran Khan and Garth le Roux at Hove, or Clive Rice and Richard Hadlee at Trent Bridge, there were no worries at international level. So too if you could handle Holding, Mortensen, Malcolm, Bishop, Cork and De Freitas at Derby.. there was little much stronger on the international stage. 

Sport is cyclical. Look at the West Indies, Sri Lanka, Pakistan. They had rich periods of success and they will come again, but they had their poor spells too. 

We have gone from asking Buttler. Bairstow, Malan and others to go from 50 off 20 balls to five-hour tons. It is no surprise that the only consistent player is Joe Root, who rarely plays in the short form.

I think Chris Silverwood will go, but so should Tom Harrison, who I am ashamed to say played for Derbyshire. The organisation needs an overhaul, as quite simply it isn't fit for purpose.

What price, as someone pointed out on the previous post, Mickey Arthur being seen as an option to replace him?

Not that we have seen anything of him yet and I confess to being a little concerned over not just the delay, but the massive silence from the club as to when he will be here.

I would have thought that an obvious PR win to let supporters and members know. 

Unless they don't know, and if that is the case they should tell us why that is.