The top-line of Andrew Strauss’s long-awaited high-performance review on the future of county cricket is no change – for the immediate future. But the underlying message is clear: change is on the way if – crucially – the counties vote for it.
The 18 first-class counties will continue to play 14 Championship games in 2023, after a submission from the First-Class County Chairs Representative Board to delay change until the 2024 season to allow more time to consider any final recommendations. But a number of proposals were put forward in a consultation document which, if implemented, will considerably alter the current hotch-potch of a summer season.
Perhaps the most important proposal in the 37-page document put together by the “sports intelligence agency” Twenty First Group, is that county teams should play less cricket – with the current average of 79 days this season (excluding the Hundred) more than teams in any other country.
The rationalisation of this aim is what much of the rest of the document tries to work out – with analysis proving that England cricketers “struggle more than players from other countries to transition from domestic to international cricket”. The highlight proposal is for a smaller County Championship top division “to ensure higher standards and more intense best v best red-ball cricket” – a suggestion which will strike fear into the hearts of many county members, who are wedded to the current status quo of 14 games a season.
The 50-over cup, currently played almost as a second XI competition during the Hundred window, is primed for a revamp and a move to the beginning of the season. Playing red-ball county cricket during the Hundred window is also suggested (with analysis showing that the best red-ball cricketers are not playing in the Hundred), alongside rewarding counties with bonus points for producing good pitches. The document also suggests experimenting with different balls – another kick in the teeth for the much-maligned 2022 version of the Dukes.
Other proposals aimed at bridging the gap between domestic and international cricket include revamping the Lions programme to ensure more overseas cricket for young players, reinstating international matches at under-17s level, plus the rebirth of the short-lived North v South series, with pre-season red-ball matches proposed in the UAE. There is no carbon analysis of any of these schemes.
There is also a proposal for more money and multi-year contracts for multi-format cricketers, presumably to stop players from specialising and zipping off for a quick pay-day in any of the blossoming number of franchise competitions around the world – a reality that the document acknowledges. It also calls for England to have a clearly defined way of playing and winning — a positive allignment with the Test team’s current Bazball whizz-bang.
The HPR, which came into being after England’s disastrous Ashes tour of 2021-22, aims for England to be the world’s best men’s team – being “No 1 in one format, top three in the others and sustaining that over a long period” alongside a domestic game which is “commercially viable, meaningful to players and supporters and has respect for the game’s traditions”.
In what could be good news for the purses of smaller clubs, the HPR proposes potential reward for the first-class counties based on, “impact: performance, inspiring generations, talent development etc to align with English cricket objectives”.
The Hundred, whose existence has caused much of the current log-jam in the fixture list, is written in stone until 2028 (when the current TV deal is up) while the HPR did not look at “and will not seek to change” the number of first-class counties.
In a blog that was published alongside the consultation document, Sir Andrew Strauss wrote: “I am looking forward to a healthy and constructive debate over the coming weeks before the men’s high-performance review produces a final report, which will provide the game with a clear and well-researched pathway to sustained England men’s success and a healthy, vibrant, domestic game.”
During that consultation stage, initial findings and ideas will be put to the first-class counties, the Professional Cricketers’ Association and directors of cricket as well as the Cricket Supporters Association, who will in turn feed back to the HPR.
Lancashire have promised their members a binding vote on the final proposals after a long-running campaign, Essex’s board has voted unanimously in favour of rejecting any potential reduction in Championship and T20 cricket, while other counties, like Middlesex, have promised member forums. Membership numbers vary wildly across the 18 counties.
County chairs will meet on 20 September and potentially vote on the HPR’s final proposals on men’s domestic cricket, with a two-thirds majority needed – though that vote could yet be postponed till later in the year.
All other aspects of the review, central contracts, Lions tours etc, will go to the ECB board for approval.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 300 words to be considered for publication, email it to us at guardian.letters@theguardian.com
