Some weeks ago I did my own form of lobbying by sending personal thoughts direct to Lord MacLaurin and Tim Lamb, chairman and chief executive of the England and Wales Cricket Board - for which I received a courteous reply. Here are the key points extracted.

There are only two basic ways to improve the quality of our players: By improving the framework and standard of the competitions from which they are drawn, and by ensuring the best young players have the best possible opportunity to develop.

Taking the first matter - the framework and standard of our domestic competitions - it is obvious that we are far from any kind of ideal. Three of the four major competitions are limited-overs, and with every county setting out to win at least one of these tournaments, it is natural that their selection and training of young players must be biased towards the needs of the one-day game from the start. This immediately impinges on the second requirement: to provide the best opportunity for the development of talented players.

It might not be so bad if the championship was perceived and funded as the most important of the four competitions. In fact it is the cheapest sponsorship package of the lot, so it seems we get what we pay for.

The adverse effect of so much limited-overs cricket on budding Test cricketers cannot be overstated. Our young players are often brought into county sides through limited-overs cricket and that is no apprenticeship for Test cricket, however talented or versatile they may be.

So the overall picture remains of young players, selected by counties on a false basis, struggling to offset the effects of a bad introduction to professional cricket, playing in a championship which remains important to only half a dozen teams who happen to have a chance of winning in any one season. A gloomy picture indeed.

What can be done? The championship must be made of supreme importance so counties give it absolute priority when they are selecting and training new players. The only way to do this is by money, and it is unrealistic to think any sponsor is going to receive a sufficient return on the major prize fund which would be needed to alter the counties' perception of their priorities. So a major investment by the England Cricket Board is essential.

Let us first consider how much would be needed for players to give the championship their undivided attention. If prize money was spread between 15 players with the winners receiving £18,000 each, a winning cheque for £240,000 is needed, compared to this year's £70,000. Other prizes might be £180,000 for second, £120,000, £90,000, £60,000 and £30,000 for the rest of the top six - totalling £720,000, roughly the amount golfers and tennis players play for every week.

Next comes the matter of trying to persuade counties that the championship is of prime importance. It may well be that this must come down to money as well, which leads to the notion that central distribution to individual counties should also be linked to performance in the championship. This would be controversial but should not be discarded out of hand.

Now comes the nub. Is the championship, as currently constructed, the best possible competitive exercise from which to select the next generation of Test players? Few think that it is and there are a number of proposals to alter the format, including splitting into two divisions and/or a regional competition. There seems to be merit in the idea of splitting into two equal divisions and having semi-finals and a final to establish the winner. This kind of climax to the season at Lord's could attract full television coverage, instead of the sixth Test match routine which has no cricketing value, only the extra revenue it produces.

What of the proper training of young players if all the other limited-overs competitions are retained? Again there is merit in the notion that counties agree to a qualifying process by which players must achieve certain levels in championship cricket before being allowed to play in any limited-overs matches.

These notes are by no means exhaustive. For instance, a National Cricket Academy may well have a role to play if only to demonstrate in a tangible way that we are serious in the pursuit of excellence. The whole matter of streaming young players in age groups, finishing at under-19 and then progressing to A-tours, could no doubt be looked at again with a critical eye.

The two central points remain and some of the thinking and possible solutions mentioned may be useful to those who will be taking the game into the 21st century.

Reverting to matters present, the point about one-day cricket versus Tests is highlighted by the predicament of Surrey's Ben Hollioake. After his unbeaten 46 for England A v The Rest, according to the Cricketer magazine, ``he was promptly assigned to go in at No 3 for Surrey in the Benson and Hedges Cup to take advantage of the early fielding restrictions''. What a lovely chance to go in and hit the ball without a care in the world.

He struck 30 against Kent, 69 off Gloucestershire and then that thrilling 96 in the final at Lord's. A successful appearance for England in the Texaco Cup was another feather in his cap.

Sadly, he had not done so well in his seven first-class matches this season (excluding Surrey's current fixture). Eleven innings, top score 72, average 31 is only marginally better than his elder brother Adam, and neither of them is in the batting top 50. Donald Trelford put the case for their inclusion in the Test team in these columns recently with a sideswipe at former Test selector Dexter for ignoring the similarly exciting claims of Neil Fairbrother in the early 90s. Sadly, the facts again tell a less rosy story.

At the start of my time as chairman, Fairbrother's record was four Tests, five runs. During the next four years he went on three tours, playing three more Tests at home and three overseas with a final Test total of 219 at an average of 15. Not very convincing, you may agree.

My opinion that he was a better one-day player was not given in a ``lordly'' way as suggested by Trelford, if that suggests a lack of consideration and forethought. I travelled to watch Fairbrother on the A Tour in Sri Lanka 1990-91. It was not only my impression but also the opinion of the Wisden Almanack critic that the Lancashire left-hander had a ``largely disappointing tour'', failing to match the likes of Thorpe, Hussain and Ramprakash.

In one-day internationals he was a different player completely, with 56 caps for England, a stalwart of the so-nearly successful World Cup campaign in 1992 with a high average of 37.

I only hope Ben Hollioake's career does not follow a similar path, because his talent for striking a ball is not in doubt. What he needs is three good hundreds in championship matches for the selectors to give him a chance. If only the horse had been put before the cart with a qualifying requirement in proper cricket then there would be an end to this type of argument and a better deal for young talent.