I have aired before now the arguments in relation to what would be a fundamental change to a system which has been the bedrock of English cricket for upwards of a century, in fact since the championship was extended to 14 in 1895. I happen to think promotion and relegation would have disastrous consequences for several reasons, both practical and in terms of the moral tone of the game. The views of players with an average age of 30 or less must lack perspective and perhaps a disinterested angle.

First, the practicalities of dividing the counties into two. The only fair way of so doing would be on the basis of results over a recent period. If the championship placings of the last five years, 1992-96, are accepted as a basis the order works out thus:

TOP NINE: Middlesex, Leicestershire, Essex, Northamptonshire, Warwickshire, Kent, Surrey, Nottinghamshire, Somerset.

BOTTOM NINE: Worcestershire, Sussex, Derbyshire, Lancashire, Yorkshire, Gloucestershire, Glamorgan, Hampshire, Durham.

There are various points of interest here - for instance, the level of success of two counties with modest levels of support, Leicestershire and Northants. The manifest absurdity, however, would be the down-grading of Lancashire and Yorkshire. Their average places work out at just under 11th and 11th respectively. The Middlesex and Leicestershire figures average just below fifth, while Somerset average ninth place.

The immediate effect of foisting secondary status on the nine discards could only be a general dilution of support, interest, pride and a serious loss of sponsorship. One thinks of the effect on a county with ambitious plans such as Hampshire.

The scheme proposes annual promotion and relegation of three up, three down. As the summer progresses and the outcome of each game becomes more and more vital, conflict of interest must heighten. Counties would still like to have the stars they have produced playing for their country, but scarcely if their absence might mean the great difference between going up or down. There are only 20 weeks in the season, and Tests, one-day internationals and finals occupy nine weekends. Counties with Test players can be at full strength for only about half their championship fixtures.

The argument that with other Test countries the best talent is drawn from fewer sources, and so is more concentrated, ignores the vast population differences, between, for instance, England, Australia and West Indies. The admirable chief objective of the new ECB system involving county boards is to give ambitious youth a clearer path from bottom to top. It is thus poor logic, surely, to diminish appreciably half the ultimate outlets for talent.

The upshot of a two-tier system could only be a greater rush for transfers, with the richer counties (mostly those with Test grounds) muscling in at the expense of the rest.

County patriotism, keen among all classes and the cement that has held the English game together for generations long before the days of corporate sponsorship, would be at a discount.

A factor which must exercise every governing body today is the spirit in which the game is played. The keener the edge to rivalry the greater the strain on the most important people in the middle, the umpires and captains. Many will feel that the two-tier idea with annual ups and downs would exacerbate just the growing features which authorities at all levels should be doing their best to eliminate.

It is a legitimate point of the advocates of change that as the season advances interest flags among the less successful sides. This could be largely obviated if the share-out of the Board's vast annual surpluses were to reward the first-class counties on a greatly increased scale on the basis of championship places. Higher playing standards should come from sounder coaching involving utmost use of retired Test and county players, leadership and other seminars, all centrally directed.

In his recent book, The Appeal of Cricket, Richie Benaud, whose experience of English cricket as player, broadcaster and writer is spread over a life-time, examines the proposed new structures with the eye of a friendly critic and argues strongly against a divided championship. So, I believe, would most retired cricketers if their views were sought.

The ECB have engendered much goodwill, and in general made a good start. Players and public are likely to be sympathetic to considerable changes in prospect regarding the limited-over competitions and second XI and other cricket below the first class.

As to cutting the championship in half, that would surely be going a bridge too far.