Thoughts on the Strauss Report by David Burrows

David is a regular contributor to the blog with comments and I am delighted to publish this piece for your thoughts. PF

Some thoughts on the Strauss review, now that it has finally be formally published and I’ve had a bit more chance to look at it properly.

It is both timely and ironic that the proposals are now due for implementation in 2024. I say this because I think that that year could be very difficult for the two peak outcomes of the ECB – the national team and The Hundred. 

For the national team, we have the obvious peak of the Ashes in 2023, but in 2024 tours from West Indies and Sri Lanka are unlikely to generate anything like the same interest. In addition, by 2024 most of the iconic players in the national team are likely to be missing. Jimmy Anderson will surely have settled for pipe and slippers by then, Stuart Broad may have done the same, and sadly Ben Stokes is likely to have finally succumbed to injuries, unless he has a fully bionic knee by then.

As far as the Hundred is concerned, it will have great competition as the nations sporting interest, and in particular that of the BBC, will be concentrated on the Olympics in Paris during August, so free to air cricket will inevitably virtually disappear from the screens.

Within this background there is much to like in the Strauss review, a clearer focus on the inter relationships between the various formats, better focus on player growth and development, focus on matches with meaning etc. 

Against this there is the obvious dangers to the smaller counties in particular of a big reduction in playing days, and therefore revenue. This would be exacerbated if knocked out of the One Day Cup early.

I also have problems with the proposals for festival 4-day cricket both during August and if knocked out of the One Day Cup – would non-competitive matches really have much interest/ benefit? Strauss suggests a Roses competition and a London competition. These may work but what about all the other counties – nothing much for them, I think?

What alternatives could there be then, that would still provide more focus, cut down on the overall burden, and make every match matter?

Well – if I had my way:

We would still go to a 3 league system for the Championship. After the 10 matches though, we would look to the example of Scottish football and split the leagues at that stage, with the top and bottom 3 teams playing a further 2 games against each other to determine final positions. 

This would make the mid league positions crucial at the 10 game point, with the split between 3rd and 4th place. You could also offer the 1st place the incentive of playing both their final games at home, with 3rd place both away.

The final 2 games would determine the overall champions and the promotion and relegation places. 

When would these extra games be played within the structure Strauss proposes?

My answer to this would be to split the Hundred, so that it runs through the whole school summer holidays from the last week in July to the 1st week in September with a 2 week gap in the middle.

This middle gap would be used for a national festival of county and international cricket. It could include matches 9 and 10 of the championship season, together with back to back Test matches.

Splitting the Hundred may not necessarily be detrimental on that competition either. It could give franchises an option to sign players for either a half season or a full season, which may make it more attractive for more of the best players across the globe.