OPINION polls have a few more days in the news, so here is the result of another one. The National Cricket Membership Scheme, surveying the written returns of 1,000 ordinary county members, found that 46 per cent were in favour of a two-divisional county championship, with promotion and relegation; six per cent were undecided; and that 48 per cent opposed the whole idea. Thirty-one per cent were strongly opposed and 23 per cent strongly in favour.
The next and more influential poll will be that of the 400 professional cricketers, whose future will be determined by whatever Lord MacLaurin and The Management committee of the England Cricket Board recommend as the best programme for 1999 and beyond. Many will be attracted by the plan first espoused by Hugh Morris in the Cricketers' Who's Who 1997 (Lennard, £12.99).
Its essential components are: two divisions of nine, perhaps randomly drawn although a north/south division would make more economic sense; each team to play the other eight in their division, plus four from the other; the top four in each group to play off in quarter-finals, followed by semi-finals and a five-day final at Lord's.
My rather more radical view of the best future format will also be presented to the players. Here it is, starting from the premise that the best programme will be one which makes the most of young talent within the traditions of county cricket, but without exhausting our international players to the point where serious stress injuries become common place.
To this end, one of the two knock-out competitions would be omitted and Sunday League matches would be of 50 overs a side, using the now standard one-day international format. In first-class cricket a regional tier would be introduced between Test and county cricket which would effectively reduce by a third the number of cricketers from which England selectors are choosing at any one time, making it far easier to sort the wheat from the chaff.
The six regional teams, comprised entirely of England-qualified players, would play the touring team once each and in a four-day league against the other five: six matches per region in all. The championship would revert to a tournament of 17 three-day matches on uncovered pitches and run-ups. Overseas players would be limited to one per county, as is now the case.
Counties would be rewarded with extra money from the central pool for every player picked for his region, and with extra still for those picked for England.
Proposed regional teams
Durham/Lancs/Yorks
Derbys/Notts/Leics
Northants/Warwicks/Worcs
Glamorgan/Gloucs/Somerset
Surrey/Middlesex/Essex
Kent/Sussex/Hampshire.
Regional matches would never clash on the fixture list with Tests or internationals. The Test squad would play only regional or international cricket except when the England coach wanted them to play in a championship or Sunday League game, or they themselves wished to do so and the county complied. The same would have to go for regular regional players not chosen for England, or they would be in danger of playing even more than now, but obviously they would play a certain amount of championship cricket during Tests.
The three counties from whom each regional side is picked would share the staging of regional matches, hosting at least one a season and two in every three. With eight or nine home championship and eight or nine home Sunday league fixtures, they would therefore stage as many days of cricket as they do now. In addition, the second elevens of first-class counties would join the Minor Counties in a 38 county national championship, involving more of the best club cricketers because more members of county staffs would be playing in the championship side earlier.
Why uncovered pitches for the championship? Because of England's failure to produce either great batsmen or great bowlers since pitches were fully covered in 1981. A pitch uncovered during the hours of play would seldom if ever hold up play more than rain already does, because neighbouring pitches would continue to be covered and play would resume as soon as a slow bowler could stand up safely. The evidence is that batsmen who score heavily in county cricket on covered pitches, which tend to be much the same in character everywhere, struggle with extra pace and spin.
England are vulnerable in Test cricket to very fast bowlers and wrist spinners, neither of whom are produced in sufficient numbers by the present county system. Experience of batting in his early years on the occasional spiteful, drying pitch is one reason why Graham Gooch was still the best batsman in England last year at the age of 43.
As for the current strength of our bowling, look what England's Test opponents scored in their first innings between the point when Dominic Cork began to look weary in August 1995 and the start of the series in Zimbabwe: 417, 692, 332, 225, 428, 244, 214, 429, 521, 340, 448 and 521 for eight declared. Seven scores of more than 400, only three of under 300. There is no denying that something would be lost to county cricket if Test players (and, for some games regional players on the verge of the Test side) were not to play, but how much has Mike Atherton contributed to Lancashire's championship cause in recent seasons? There would no doubt be times, in any case, when Test players would still feel the need to play in championship games. The consolation when they were absent would be that a greater number of up-and-coming 'second eleven' cricketers would get experience more quickly.
With a programme of two one-day competitions and two first-class competitions, counties would stage as much cricket as at present, so their members, secretaries and treasurers would be happy. Test players would get more rest and time for practice. County coaches would spread the load for the rest of their staff, not overtaxing young bowlers, but giving some currently languishing in the second eleven a chance to play first-class cricket more often. And the cream would rise to the top more naturally.