Promotion gubbins

Warwickshire are going back up to Div1 after just one season of standing in the corner staring at the floor! Well done boys, especially the Frosty, who's gone from deputy assistant bucket holder to Steve Rouse to standing in with the gloves for Tiny Tim, and ending up a very very attractive #3 for the rest of the season, with a 242* last week helping to outright secure promotion.

But should they actually be promoted? Is there really a need for a default promotion and relegation between the divisions? With all these points being thrown around, should they not be being used to decide on promotions and relegation, rather than outright positions? Looking at the tables with some teams still yet to finish all their matches we have...

Surrey. Poor buggers. Now they were, going by the official metrics rather than Jrod's opinions, shabby. They are going to probably 30 points adrift of the next worst team. They clearly deserve to go down. If only for that terrifying picture of Ramps painted up like something that belongs in formaldehyde at Christies. No wonder he's looking to jump ship now.

The two WCCC's. Similarily, they have ended with genuine clear air between themselves and the rest. Northants still might close that gap to around 10 points if they win, but Warwickshire are just so nailed on to add at least 10 more of their own, they'll still look great. Worcestershire meaning have bagised 2nd to themselves, but maybe not by quite as much as they'd like.

Just about everyone else in Div1. Here's the main issue as I see it. There's only 5 points between #5 and #8. That looks like a fairly close competition, and as such does any one of those teams actually deserve to go down? I'd expect whoever that is to bounce up again next year (in exchange for Worcs hopefully.)

So shouldn't there be something more intelligent, something more David Barry shaped to define how many teams should go up or down? Indeed if each divisions only had 20 points from top to bottom, why promote anyone at all?

Regional County leagues?

When I was at school I generally hated sport, and was picked last. Always. Unless Steven Bond (no relation of Shane's) was there too. I didn't like competing, and so now maybe I have found my calling by playing in the County Championship. Yes, who wants to have to compete after all? It's pretty ungentlemanly and also frowned upon by many a former bed wetting child psychologist.

Regional teams. Super, so it's no longer about getting the best at all, just about filling up time and doing theory. Reduce it back the tree days and you don't need to ever even have a result at all, let alone allow the best teams to compete against each other.

Three leagues could make sense, but not regionally. I mightn't have the slightest bit of respect for them, but footballers from over 100 teams regularly travel the length and breadth of the country to play just for 90 stinkin' minutes multiple times a week. Cricketers somehow can't even manage this?

If three leagues were to be used as a tool to reduce the amount of County cricket played for the EPL then that's a seperate story, and potentially also as bad, but if you want blocks of 6 teams, as opposed to the current 9's then surely those teams should be of equal quality nationally? Indeed wouldn't that be a way to get towards something like a 6 major team thing, a la city franchises? Give more money / support to the top league, and those teams should surely start to rise above the others and become counties for any england wannabe to try to get into. And once you have three leagues, why not allow other leagues, minor counties to tag on the bottom, for 6 national leagues in total?

It's pretty underhanded I admit, but hey, that's the ruthless world of Cricket. Cut throat business these days.