County Championship Re-Structuring News: Option Z How Would it Work?

 

County cricket’s restructure: what is being proposed and how will it work?

The County Championship could be transformed with a 12-team top division split into two pools of six

Matt Hughes 30/08

It feels symptomatic of English cricket’s dysfunctional nature that, having started the summer with five different options for a restructured County Championship, the 18 first-class chairs will conclude a tortuous process next week with a sixth on the table. International peace treaties have been negotiated quicker than talks over whether, and how, to cut a handful of playing days from a domestic calendar that, with four different competitions and formats to accommodate, is bursting at the seams.

The tongue-in-cheek words of the England and Wales Cricket Board’s managing director of the professional game, Rob Andrew, when announcing the review in April have proved prophetic. “We have 18 counties that agree it’s not right, but 19 different versions of what the answer is,” he said.

Unlike the previous attempt to remodel the English summer three years ago that was commissioned by the ECB and led by Andrew Strauss, the current review has been undertaken by the counties themselves under the aegis of the Professional Game Committee [PGC], chaired by Warwickshire’s Mark McCafferty. Consequently, the emphasis has been on a widespread consultation that has resulted in seemingly ever-changing plans. The Strauss Review had a clear, single recommendation for the Championship: to be split into three divisions of six with a reduction from 14 to 10 matches in each. This, however, was comprehensively rejected by the counties.

What is the plan?

After a long summer, the most radical proposals have been dismissed, including three conferences of six, a single 18-team league with a Champions-League Swiss model fixture list, a mid-season split similar to that of the Scottish Premier League and several different variants of the current 10/8 divisional makeup. It has left two options on the table. At a meeting at Lord’s next Tuesday the 18 county chairs will be asked to choose between keeping the status quo – 10 teams in Division One and eight in Division Two each playing 14 matches – or adopting a new structure that involves a 12-team County Championship being split into two pools of six, with the remaining six clubs in a second tier beneath this.

A vote will follow the meeting later next week if the PGC judge there is a realistic prospect of it being passed, which is not guaranteed.

With 12 votes required to alter the structure, Surrey, Yorkshire, Middlesex, Essex and Somerset have already stated they will oppose any reduction to the current 14-game season, with the voting intentions of Derbyshire, Sussex and Kent in the balance. The 10 other counties – an unlikely alliance of Test match grounds and Division Two sides such as Leicestershire and Northamptonshire – are broadly in favour but need two other clubs to come on side.

“A small number of chairs have worked very hard to deliver the best solution for the game,” one advocate of the new structure told the Guardian. “It would be a real shame if this opportunity is missed.”

How would it work in practice?

The selling point of the final compromise is the fact 14 of the 18 teams would play 13 matches each summer due to a series of September playoffs, on top of a 12-game regular season. The Championship would consist of each team playing 10 games home and away against the five opponents in their pool, plus two additional matches against sides in the other pool determined by seeding. At the end of the season, all the Championship teams would play a 13th game against the corresponding side in the other pool – first v first, second v second etc. While these matches were initially billed as playoffs for the title and wooden spoon, it is now envisaged that they would each be worth the standard 24 points and added to those in the regular season to determine final league positions.

As a result, it is theoretically possible that the top-of-the-table clash could prove meaningless, if one of the sides has 24 points more than their opponent after 12 matches. Although this feels unsatisfactory to some and would remove the spectacle of a grand final at Lord’s, the proposed new structure would guarantee jeopardy at the wrong end of the top tier, with the bottom sides in each pool relegated.

The winners of the second tier – Championship 2, consisting of 10 home-and-away games plus two additional loop fixtures – would be promoted automatically, with second facing third in a playoff for the right to join them in the top flight.

Key stumbling block

The refuseniks are chiefly acting out the wishes of their vocal but relatively small memberships. Totalling about 70,000, of which Surrey contribute by far the most at just over 20,000, they vociferously oppose any reduction in championship matches. The influence of this lobby group is a huge source of frustration to the Professional Cricketers’ Association, whose members want a cut in cricket on the grounds of player welfare and quality.

In a last-minute attempt to win over floating voters the PGC is understood to have offered to add an extra fixture in the 50-over One Day Cup from next season to appease members and provide additional gate receipts, a proposal which will form part of the Championship vote.

County cricket’s overhaul plan as clubs to vote on cutting season by one match

Exclusive: Championship could adopt 13-game structure after resistance from members forced 12-match proposal to be scrapped

Will Macpherson

County chiefs are set to vote on a 13-game structure for the Championship from next summer after plans to cut the schedule to 12 matches were shelved.

The County Championship, the 135-year-old first-class competition, has been played over 14 rounds in a two-divisional structure since 2017.

On the eve of this season, which concludes next month, the England and Wales Cricket Board’s Rob Andrew announced there would be a “county-led” review into the entire domestic calendar following pressure from players and some administrators over the condensed schedules. This follows the doomed “Strauss Review”, which proposed radical changes to the county schedule following an Ashes debacle Down Under.

“We have 18 counties that agree that it’s not right, but 19 different versions of what the answer is,” Andrew said when announcing the latest review, which has been led by Mark McCafferty, the Warwickshire chairman, who was once chief executive of Premiership Rugby.
Any change requires a vote with two-thirds (i.e. 12 out of 18 counties) in favour. Counties announced earlier this month they had agreed to cut the Vitality Blast schedule from 14 group matches to 12, with the knockouts and Finals Day following straight after, before the Hundred.

On the County Championship, a number of options were mooted, with a strong push to cut the schedule to 12 games. However, it became clear earlier this month that, after resistance from their members, enough counties would oppose the proposals. Counties who told their members they would not support a reduction were: Middlesex, Surrey, Somerset, Kent, Essex, Derbyshire and Yorkshire.

That left a 12-game structure dead in the water, but McCafferty wrote to counties in the last week inviting their chairs to a meeting in London on September 2 to discuss a tweaked 13-game structure, with a view to having a formal vote by September 8. Changes would kick in next season with the aim of keeping the same structure in place until 2031.

In an email seen by Telegraph Sport, McCafferty wrote: “Based on the feedback received from the 18 PCCs [Professional County Clubs], it’s clear that there continues to be mixed views on the volume of matches to be played in the County Championship, but the majority of PCCs support some reduction from the current 14 matches. Given this, and alongside the clear position of the majority of players and the PCA, the proposal to PCCs for vote will likely be based on a 13-match schedule, as an appropriate balance.”

Exactly how a 13-game structure would operate is still being worked through, but it seems highly likely to include a top flight of 12 teams split across two pools of six, above a lower tier “Championship 2”, consisting of six teams. The top 12 for 2026 would be made up of the 10 Division One teams for this year, plus the two teams promoted from Division Two. The two pools would be seeded based on ranking from the previous season.

One option is thought to include a 12-match regular season then a “13th round” against teams in the equivalent position in the other pool to decide final standings. Another is a 10-match regular season (home and away against the other five in that team’s pool), plus a three-match series against a team in a similar position in the table to determine final placings and prize money.

It appears highly likely the system would remain “first past the post”, rather than involving knockout finals (like Australia has in the Sheffield Shield, for instance). There would also be high turnover of teams, with two promoted and two relegated each season.

McCafferty believes there is “significant support for a version of the 12-6 format”, with one major positive thought to include that 12 teams begin the season with a chance of winning the Championship title, rather than the current 10.

Unlike an earlier discussed option, which would have had some counties playing a 13th match (tantamount to a final), this proposal would include all 18 teams playing 13 games. Inevitably, some teams would play seven home matches and others play six. Effectively, counties would earn a seventh home match at the sharp end of the season through their performances through the summer.

Change unlikely for 2026 as counties hit championship impasse

Lizzy Ammon 12/08

Eighteen first-class clubs fail to find way forward despite general agreement change must happen, but T20 quarter-finals and finals day will be brought forward to July

The 18 first-class counties still cannot agree on a new structure for the County Championship and it is looking increasingly likely they will have to settle for the status quo remaining in place for 2026.

At the start of this season an official review began into how to restructure the domestic game, with every county and the players’ union agreeing that the existing format was not working.

Numerous alternative arrangements have been proposed and rejected since, with only two now remaining on the table, both of which would involve a reduction in first-class fixtures from the present 14. However, at least seven counties, including Somerset, Surrey and Middlesex, have already stated publicly they will not accept a reduction. Any restructuring requires a minimum of 12 of the 18 counties to vote in favour — hence the impasse.

All 18 first-class counties have been asked to indicate their preference on the two remaining options by this Friday. A decision on changes — or no changes — ideally needs to be made by the end of the month so counties know before the start of the final block of Championship matches in September what they are playing for in terms of promotion and relegation.



Of the two remaining options, the first is the most radical. It involves creating a 12-team Division One divided into two pools, with a six-team Division Two underneath. Teams in Division One would play ten games, home and away, against their five pool rivals, plus two additional fixtures against teams from the other pool. The teams who finish top of each pool would then take part in a play-off final in September for the County Championship title. The bottom team in each pool would either be relegated or play off against the top two teams in Division Two. This model would at least allow for an additional two one-day cup matches in August, giving county members another home match to watch as well as six home red-ball matches and potentially a play-off fixture.

It is believed that Gee Cee met on Wednesday (again on the day of a Nottinghamshire away game) - the result from which we hope to hear favourable news. The Options C and D from the original options table shared with members (the 2 remaining options on the ECB's table) were universally dismissed as unsuitable, in the first rounds of "consultation".