I think that's a good point. I could live with 13 games, or maybe even 10, but I think there has to be some quid pro quo which is that the games taken out of the schedule are in early April / late September. You would have thought the players would have been equally keen on breaking up the long run of 4 day games through April and May which must be a strain for them (especially unusually tall fast bowlers who are getting on in age) but they don't raise.

I think the point is it simply has to remain at 14 BARE MINIMUM or else you end up with situations like in 2020 COVID season April and May were blooming lovely and the rest of the year wasn't so much. You can often get dry ISH springs followed by wet summer's. So we'd have missed out of some nice cricket weather early doors only to have to trudge through the rain to games in June and July

Temperature and warmth of summer is crucial for course but IMHO in rainy temperate climates like England you have to have 3 proper games of cricket per month right through what constitutes our summer.

Sure if they lopped off the first April game and the very last September game that'd suit many. But that would've ended up this year finishing last week in the rain and look how nice this week has been!!!

So no, 13 was a complete joke and 10 in the UK is taking the ****ing piss.

What they need to do is unblock the schedule

Play a proper mix of proper cricket and limited inferior versions of it right though the summer

PCA not ruling out strike action after county vote

Professional Cricketers' Association chief executive Daryl Mitchell has not ruled out the possibility of players taking strike action after proposals to reform the County Championship were rejected.

Full story here: https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/articles/c4g961134g2o

GerryShedd wrote:

Andy wrote:

OHD so broken by it all he can't even bring himself to play today!

I don't want to pile in on OHD too strongly because I know he has to represent the views of his members. But his own season's workload has hardly been burdensome. He has played ten four day games plus six one dayers and one t20 (max 47 days). He has bowled 334 overs in the season. Taking a year from the past at random - say, 1951 when Warwickshire won the Championship - Derek Shackleton of Hampshire, a bowler of fairly similar pace to OH-D, played 31 three day matches (max 93 days) and bowled 1171 overs.
Quite a difference!

Thing is OHD has played for Harborne CC about 6 times this season on Saturdays, but yet he's out here saying he and his members are playing too much county cricket and they need more rest and recovery time? He's give himself 6 extra days of cricket this year. Lovely lad but he might not be the brightest...

Mikkyk wrote:

PCA not ruling out strike action after county vote

Professional Cricketers' Association chief executive Daryl Mitchell has not ruled out the possibility of players taking strike action after proposals to reform the County Championship were rejected.

Full story here: https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/articles/c4g961134g2o

They won't strike
A good chunk of their membership doesn't even want fewer games let alone the silly 13 games idea
That includes all 31 Surrey players, the Derbyshire playing staff. Plus there's bound to be a fair few other counties playing staff's and players at counties that voted for a cut. Just let those that want to play play

Mitchell has failed in his scheme I'd say his days in that role are numbered

As for who voted for what, it isn't totally clear but The Cricketer says: "We know that Surrey wanted 14 games, ideally with an eight-team top flight; we know that Somerset, Derbyshire, Middlesex and Yorkshire, too, wanted 14 games, but not necessarily in the same way"

Glamorgan apparently were the county that switched last minute to a no vote. I think the ECB team that put the barmy 13 games idea together probably assumed Notts would go along with them but I presume they didn't. Lancs did of course as did our lot. They probably offered the extra couple of ODC games as a tempter to counties like Somerset and Essex but obvs they didn't bite either

It is suggested Glammy are playing the long game and have a board who would have waved through 12 or even 10 games and they reckon that prospect may crop up in another year or two. The schedule needs organising better without the cuts - Somerset should be demanding now that more July and August days of cricket are scheduled

104-8 Warks on strike already

Most counties appear to have bigger squads so using these bigger squads to give players a rest if indeed they think they are playing too much, must be the way forward. Nottinghamshire have done this during the season with their bowlers and it has obviously paid off, not many huge wicket takers but players getting a game off and being able to recharge their batteries and someone else comes in and they are fresh and eager to produce a performance. They have a few bowlers who have 25-35 wickets and no reason why next season, we shouldn't be able to do the same with the recruits we have made lately. I still don't see how batsmen with fewer inning to bat and bowlers with fewer overs to bowl, can be tired. There is a block of games where bowlers have to bowl 24 balls and therefore only leaving themselves 96 balls to field and batmen only really batting for no more than 50 balls during most innings. And when the One Day Cup is on, although the games are pretty close together, bowling 60 balls is not as taxing as playing longer formats. How are potential Test players going to manage when bowling on a flat surface for 2 days might mean they have to bowl about 30-35 overs. I don't think bowlers are getting their potential strength into their bodies because they are not bowling enough.

Neil Manthorp describes a sorry state of affairs in South Africa:
https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/sport/cricket/2025-09-30-neil-manthorp-it-looks-like-sa-has-given-up-on-first-class-cricket/
He also makes some points relevant here:
"By not selecting the best available players and not doing anything to incentivise spectators, the message is clear: domestic first-class is an irritation, like unpleasant medicine. But until cricketers believe they can prepare adequately for Test cricket by practising in the nets, it is also critical medicine for the health of the greatest format of the game. Test cricket relies on its regular doses of first-class games. Administrators at the national and provincial levels must continue the effort to sweeten the medicine, however difficult that talk might be."

Support for the PCA view here:
https://sportsgazette.co.uk/county-crickets-crossroads-quantity-over-quality-chosen-by-ecb/
The writer's credibility is not enhanced when he mentions a player that he calls George Garrot.

Bit of a wishy washy argument full stop, that

Let's just hope the following from Surrey is true. What the game needs now more than anything is three or four years where nothing much changes or is likely to change. Just allow the game to ebb and flow like it used to. Just allow people to play and watch it when they are able to. OHD and whoever is paying him to spout such garbage should just allow somebody else to play if he or they are too tired to play - and that's kinda my main point. The structure should not be dislocated by the handful of mercenaries who jet off here and there in the winter spring and autumn.

For what it is worth, what I am hearing from someone who ought to know is that there is absolutely no way that the 14 match structure is going to be revisited in the next 3-4 years. So while we have to remain vigilant, the implication is that this year's mighty efforts are not just a one year sticking plaster

.

According to the Telegraph, the experiment with the Kookaburra ball in county cricket has been abandoned - it's the Dukes ball for all 14 games from now on.

That equates to on average an extra day or two's rest the players were after. So now all sorted and hopefully everyone's happy

mad wrote:

That equates to on average an extra day or two's rest the players were after. So now all sorted and hopefully everyone's happy

Apart from the paying public who woul love to see the extra couple of games so teams play each other home and away and the CC is played throughout the summer like it used to be!

Regarding the Kookaburra versus the Dukes balls, the statistics, apparently, are:
Where matches with a Duke’s ball have averaged 980 runs, the figure with the Kookaburra is 1128. Duke’s matches have yielded 30.27 wickets against 27.72 with Kookaburra. These figures mean that the average runs per wicket are respectively 32.37 and 40.71.
On another but related topic, I am one of those who goes on about the light workloads of current cricketers (bowlers in particular) compared with those of earlier eras. However, I was interested to read in the biography of the pre-war Yorkshire and England bowler Bill Bowes ("An Unusual Celebrity" by Jeremy Lonsdale - an excellent read) that Bowes, as a pace bowler, was told not to bend or run unnecessarily. He was allegedly hauled before the Yorkshire committee for chasing a ball to the boundary.

George Dobell reports in The Cricketer that there is unlikely to be another domestic review until 2029, according to the chair of the Professional Game Committee (PGC) and Warwickshire Chair Mark McCafferty. Instead, the PGC will focus on reviewing playing conditions in county cricket, with changes likely around the type of balls used, the allocation of bonus points in the County Championship and, perhaps, the way in which pitches are judged.
So the current 14 game Championship stays in place.

By which time Test20 will have supplanted the abominable 100,
I was rather hoping Three-way Cricket would be all the rage by now lol

Congrats everyone hopefully some proper cricket in the summer months to look forward to at some stage over the next 4 years if there is a god - Cheltenham & Scarbados preserved and hopefully there'll be moves afoot to facilitate a resumption of weeks at Colwyn Bay and Southport - though sadly no Swansea any more

Lancashire Members Group

Unfortunately we’ve already been duped on the last para:

We are told that the Hundred has saved county cricket. Or rather the £500m raised from selling a month of the summer to billionaires could be a lifeline for counties.
Counties face an uncertain future. They cannot host big games in peak summer with over 100 players missing. Moved to May, June and July the Blast audiences have dwindled. Crowds of 15,000 that used to watch Lancashire play Leicestershire now go to watch the Manchester team after huge marketing spend and cheap tickets aimed at attracting different people.
Counties hosting the Hundred have been asked to play as few games as possible at their home ground during the Hundred. Surrey use 2000 capacity Guildford, Nottinghamshire play three games at Welbeck Colliery and Chesterfield, in Derbyshire, Warwickshire play three games at Rugby school.
One suspects that some host county boards prefer their franchise stake to developing their county brand. Surrey stands out, making a big effort to encourage people to watch county cricket.
Non-host counties have very few days of home cricket to showcase in peak summer. Somerset had sell-out games in the One Day Cup last summer, but only four home games were scheduled.
Even more significantly, TV rights money is being allocated to the Hundred teams without any transparency. Money going to the owners of the Hundred will not be available to the counties. Counties can expect lower ECB distributions in future. But until we see the next TV rights deal, we won't know just how hard the counties are going to be hit.
For this reason the allocation of c £25m of the sale proceeds for each non-host county is being carefully managed by the ECB. Counties have to apply to use the money. Allowable purposes include reducing existing structured debt - but not paying off debts run up by recent operational losses (Sussex).
Investment in revenue generating facilities such as a hotel or hospitality facilities are allowable. Investment in cricket facilities such as indoor nets, upgrades to the ground and possibly even a second ground are potentially possible - but funding operational losses to hire management to formulate plans are not (Middlesex).
Reports suggest the ECB is holding the money in cash and will pay over some interest earned on it to the counties each year, but again details are sparse.
For counties like Middlesex with few revenue generating opportunities open to them (as MCC rather than Middlesex own Lords) and a management/governance crisis on its hands, what can it do with the sale proceeds? £25m is not enough to fund a new ground. Its board wants to explore demutualisation to bring in extra investment. But where are the profits from county cricket going to come from to support a new home away from Lords and the probable loss of membership that will follow? Is it just to chase the dream of another Hundred team?
If counties can only spend the interest on their £25m then focus goes on where the money is actually invested on their behalf.
Stuck in cash paying around £1m a year then this income will reduce year by year in real terms. Around £0.5m a year could be paid to keep pace with inflation each year if invested in government inflation-linked bonds. Another approach is a county cricket wealth fund investing more broadly in the global economy. An income of £1m or more per county could be achievable in real terms if well run at a national level on low costs. However, if the global economy suffers a shock from war, pandemics or AI revolution then this income may need to be scaled back or even paused. Who has the expertise to manage these sums and what would be the governance rules?
Counties like Somerset, Gloucestershire, Durham, Kent and Essex have all shown some ambition to part-own a Hundred team. But they need to expand their grounds/develop a new ground before they could be considered, even if the current Hundred owners agree to an expansion.
Somerset CEO Jamie Cox speaking to Mike Atherton said:
It doesn't feel like a lot has changed. It's a great, fortunate position that we are in, but there is jeopardy in getting it right. Twenty million quid, it sounds a lot doesn't it, but it's not necessarily transformational. I could spend that very easily in infrastructure that needs updating around here.
We don't want our focus on the here and now to be distracted but we will try to put ourselves at the top of the pile if and when that opportunity comes along. the great thing about the Hundred expansion criteria is that we tick most boxes, but we don't have enough seating capacity, so there has to be some capital work to increase that.
It's hard. We have access to all this money but the business model hasn't changed. So there is pressure to get these decisions right. There is a feeling that there is a lot more money coming into the game than is actually real. The financial challenges feel just the same.
If anything Cox is understating the challenge. Counties can expect lower ECB payments in future that the interest on their allocation may well not cover. There is a risk in spending money on private investments that may not pay dividends. Chasing the franchise dreams involves even bigger risks. Still Somerset can only host very few days of county cricket in the peak summer holidays.
In order to access funds then counties need to become private developers and expand their business models if the market opportunity exists. Balancing that challenge whilst remembering that they are still a members' cricket club at heart underlies why Lancashire's board have faced membership complaints for over 10 years.
It is fraught with risk and upfront costs too. Household finances are extremely strained and there is strong competition for leisure spend. Sussex found its business development plans for extra income hard to deliver in the current climate, despite being in a relatively wealthy area. The costs it sustained trying to grow the business model to support cricket investment has seen the ECB step in with funding alongside reprimands and penalties.
Outgoing Hampshire Chair and investor, Rod Bransgrove is clear that counties will have to demutualise to get the investment and expertise needed to transform their grounds and business models. Any club not doing that faces financial disadvantages and irrelevance. Colin Graves still wants Yorkshire to become a private business even though all its debts are paid. What is the private money going to do for county cricket and what does it want in return?
Northants is already privately owned. Arguably they have saved the club and stabilised its business but what can the Hundred money do to help the club when the draw of Jimmy Anderson fails to bring even 500 people to the ground on Easter Saturday? Counties like Derbyshire who have cut their cloth according to their means for decades will no doubt carry on in the same vein. They are looking to upgrade their floodlights with an ECB grant and use some of the Hundred money to upgrade their hospitality marquee. Leicestershire has ambitions and a big site at Grace Road with development potential. The new CEO has paused the plans previously developed.
These counties have some of the lowest membership and fan base despite improving on the field in recent seasons and investing in coaching excellence.
The ECB has some big decisions to make after the next TV rights deal is done. The host counties advantage from hosting international cricket has been boosted by the Hundred sale. Will the ECB give the non-hosts a greater slice of the pie in future? What will the ECB demand in return? The ECB is ultimately answerable to the counties.
These big questions will probably see not only the amount of county cricket being discussed again very soon but whether there is a majority support for 18 counties playing three forms of professional cricket and in what structure.
Members should think very carefully before agreeing to reduce their own ability to hold their Board to account and giving their Board even greater powers to decide who can go onto the Board.

Lancashire Members Group

Unfortunately we’ve already been duped on the last para:

We are told that the Hundred has saved county cricket. Or rather the £500m raised from selling a month of the summer to billionaires could be a lifeline for counties.
Counties face an uncertain future. They cannot host big games in peak summer with over 100 players missing. Moved to May, June and July the Blast audiences have dwindled. Crowds of 15,000 that used to watch Lancashire play Leicestershire now go to watch the Manchester team after huge marketing spend and cheap tickets aimed at attracting different people.
Counties hosting the Hundred have been asked to play as few games as possible at their home ground during the Hundred. Surrey use 2000 capacity Guildford, Nottinghamshire play three games at Welbeck Colliery and Chesterfield, in Derbyshire, Warwickshire play three games at Rugby school.
One suspects that some host county boards prefer their franchise stake to developing their county brand. Surrey stands out, making a big effort to encourage people to watch county cricket.
Non-host counties have very few days of home cricket to showcase in peak summer. Somerset had sell-out games in the One Day Cup last summer, but only four home games were scheduled.
Even more significantly, TV rights money is being allocated to the Hundred teams without any transparency. Money going to the owners of the Hundred will not be available to the counties. Counties can expect lower ECB distributions in future. But until we see the next TV rights deal, we won't know just how hard the counties are going to be hit.
For this reason the allocation of c £25m of the sale proceeds for each non-host county is being carefully managed by the ECB. Counties have to apply to use the money. Allowable purposes include reducing existing structured debt - but not paying off debts run up by recent operational losses (Sussex).
Investment in revenue generating facilities such as a hotel or hospitality facilities are allowable. Investment in cricket facilities such as indoor nets, upgrades to the ground and possibly even a second ground are potentially possible - but funding operational losses to hire management to formulate plans are not (Middlesex).
Reports suggest the ECB is holding the money in cash and will pay over some interest earned on it to the counties each year, but again details are sparse.
For counties like Middlesex with few revenue generating opportunities open to them (as MCC rather than Middlesex own Lords) and a management/governance crisis on its hands, what can it do with the sale proceeds? £25m is not enough to fund a new ground. Its board wants to explore demutualisation to bring in extra investment. But where are the profits from county cricket going to come from to support a new home away from Lords and the probable loss of membership that will follow? Is it just to chase the dream of another Hundred team?
If counties can only spend the interest on their £25m then focus goes on where the money is actually invested on their behalf.
Stuck in cash paying around £1m a year then this income will reduce year by year in real terms. Around £0.5m a year could be paid to keep pace with inflation each year if invested in government inflation-linked bonds. Another approach is a county cricket wealth fund investing more broadly in the global economy. An income of £1m or more per county could be achievable in real terms if well run at a national level on low costs. However, if the global economy suffers a shock from war, pandemics or AI revolution then this income may need to be scaled back or even paused. Who has the expertise to manage these sums and what would be the governance rules?
Counties like Somerset, Gloucestershire, Durham, Kent and Essex have all shown some ambition to part-own a Hundred team. But they need to expand their grounds/develop a new ground before they could be considered, even if the current Hundred owners agree to an expansion.
Somerset CEO Jamie Cox speaking to Mike Atherton said:
It doesn't feel like a lot has changed. It's a great, fortunate position that we are in, but there is jeopardy in getting it right. Twenty million quid, it sounds a lot doesn't it, but it's not necessarily transformational. I could spend that very easily in infrastructure that needs updating around here.
We don't want our focus on the here and now to be distracted but we will try to put ourselves at the top of the pile if and when that opportunity comes along. the great thing about the Hundred expansion criteria is that we tick most boxes, but we don't have enough seating capacity, so there has to be some capital work to increase that.
It's hard. We have access to all this money but the business model hasn't changed. So there is pressure to get these decisions right. There is a feeling that there is a lot more money coming into the game than is actually real. The financial challenges feel just the same.
If anything Cox is understating the challenge. Counties can expect lower ECB payments in future that the interest on their allocation may well not cover. There is a risk in spending money on private investments that may not pay dividends. Chasing the franchise dreams involves even bigger risks. Still Somerset can only host very few days of county cricket in the peak summer holidays.
In order to access funds then counties need to become private developers and expand their business models if the market opportunity exists. Balancing that challenge whilst remembering that they are still a members' cricket club at heart underlies why Lancashire's board have faced membership complaints for over 10 years.
It is fraught with risk and upfront costs too. Household finances are extremely strained and there is strong competition for leisure spend. Sussex found its business development plans for extra income hard to deliver in the current climate, despite being in a relatively wealthy area. The costs it sustained trying to grow the business model to support cricket investment has seen the ECB step in with funding alongside reprimands and penalties.
Outgoing Hampshire Chair and investor, Rod Bransgrove is clear that counties will have to demutualise to get the investment and expertise needed to transform their grounds and business models. Any club not doing that faces financial disadvantages and irrelevance. Colin Graves still wants Yorkshire to become a private business even though all its debts are paid. What is the private money going to do for county cricket and what does it want in return?
Northants is already privately owned. Arguably they have saved the club and stabilised its business but what can the Hundred money do to help the club when the draw of Jimmy Anderson fails to bring even 500 people to the ground on Easter Saturday? Counties like Derbyshire who have cut their cloth according to their means for decades will no doubt carry on in the same vein. They are looking to upgrade their floodlights with an ECB grant and use some of the Hundred money to upgrade their hospitality marquee. Leicestershire has ambitions and a big site at Grace Road with development potential. The new CEO has paused the plans previously developed.
These counties have some of the lowest membership and fan base despite improving on the field in recent seasons and investing in coaching excellence.
The ECB has some big decisions to make after the next TV rights deal is done. The host counties advantage from hosting international cricket has been boosted by the Hundred sale. Will the ECB give the non-hosts a greater slice of the pie in future? What will the ECB demand in return? The ECB is ultimately answerable to the counties.
These big questions will probably see not only the amount of county cricket being discussed again very soon but whether there is a majority support for 18 counties playing three forms of professional cricket and in what structure.
Members should think very carefully before agreeing to reduce their own ability to hold their Board to account and giving their Board even greater powers to decide who can go onto the Board.