The Cricketer Magazine – June 2018

George Dobell

Dobell take

Why a conference system is not the answer

It is, apparently, a myth that a goldfi sh’s memory lasts

just a few seconds.

I say ‘apparently’, as I’ve not tested it myself. But I

like to presume the experiments involved piping Shane

Warne’s commentary into a goldfish bowl and timing

how long it took for the poor creatures to either jump out

or bang their heads on their ‘no fi shing’ archway until

the merciful release of sweet death drowned out the

monotony. Truly, Warne hasn’t commentated on 50 Tests,

he’s commentated on the same Test 50 times.

Even goldfish must be shaking their heads and

wondering what the ECB are up to with their latest plans

for a restructure of the county season. It seems memories

at Lord’s are very short.

Take the window proposed for the new 100-ball

tournament. We tried playing the domestic T

tournament in a window before, you know. And there’s a

reason we abandoned it. After a particularly wet summer

it was concluded that a window left the competition

at the mercy of not only a bad spell of weather, but

competing attractions such as the Olympics and the

football World Cup. And, while it seems to be forgotten

now, the Morgan Report – a review which actually

bothered to ask cricket lovers what they wanted – found

that hosting too many games in too short a time-frame

required too much of spectators’ time and money.

The new ECB regime seems unencumbered by concerns

over what existing spectators think.

Now their attention appears to have returned to

the idea of promotion and relegation in the County

Championship. While many might recall that, not so

long ago, the introduction of two divisions was hailed

as a key factor in the development of an England side

that rose to No.1 in the Test rankings, now it is blamed

for encouraging short-term decision making. It currently

seems likely the Championship will restructure along the

lines of a conference system.

It is true that counties can be seduced into making some

short-term decisions in the race to achieve promotion or

avoid promotion. So a new Kolpak registration might be

signed instead of an opportunity given to a young player.

And it is true that, in theory, a conference system provides

at least the illusion that every side in the competition

starts the season with a chance of winning. This, it is

argued, will inspire some counties who have appeared to

prioritise the shorter formats to redouble their efforts in

fi rst-class cricket.

But it is equally true that counties will always have

to juggle the development of young players with the

desire to fi eld their strongest side. And it is also true

that, without the target of promotion or the warning

of relegation, counties could coast without obvious

milestones or consequences. County cricket works at its

best – as both an entertainment product and breeding

ground for international cricket – if it is intense,

competitive and tough. Over-promoting too many young

players risks diluting both aspects of that. It has to be

more than a training ground. It has to matter.

The conference idea seems to be a classic example of

diluting a product to appease the weakest. Like ensuring

there are no losers at a school sports day, it will allow

the mediocre to hide their failings and the strong to be

dragged back into the pack. Two divisions was introduced

to encourage the best versus the best; conferences

will undo that. It could well increase the gap between

domestic and international cricket by producing too

much consequence-free cricket.

There’s a bit of a logic gap here, too. There are many

variations on the conference formula, but it either ends

with play-offs (fourth plays fourth in each conference,

for example), in which case we end up with finishing

positions from 1–18 and all the same problems as two

divisions – the temptation for short-termism – or the

season ends with mid-conference sides able to hide

behind being ‘third in conference C’. All that does is allow

poor sides to escape the unequivocal judgement of an end

-of-season table.

Either way, it will do nothing to help build a narrative

through the season. The media already fi nds little space

for the Championship. Take away the drama of promotion

and relegation and that will dwindle further. And while

there could be some interest in end-of-season fi nals, it

could prove a long slog before we get there.

Think back to the way things were. In 1999, the fi nal

year before promotion and relegation, England sank to

the bottom of the Test rankings. They were knocked out

of their own World Cup before the tournament’s theme

song came out, and the county game had too many

matches where sides with little to play for put in weak

performances. More than half the teams were treading

water by the end of June.

So they introduced promotion and relegation in 2000.

The cricket became tougher and more intense. Overseas

players such as Justin Langer rated it as high quality

a first-class tournament as they had experienced. An

England team developed that took to Test cricket with

relative comfort: four of the top seven that carried

England to the top of the world rankings (Alastair Cook,

Andrew Strauss, Jonathan Trott and Matt Prior) made

centuries on debut, while two more (Kevin Pietersen

and Ian Bell) made half-centuries. James Anderson took

a fi ve-for on his debut and Graeme Swann claimed two

The conference idea seems a classic example

of diluting a product to appease the weakest

NEW

COLUMN

 | thecricketer.com