OPINION: How Project Darwin Risks Exacerbating the Disparity in Regionals Team Strengths

By Andy Frombolton

Over the next few months each of the new Tier 1 counties will be assembling their squads.

The obvious hope from the ECB’s perspective is the creation of 8 evenly-balanced squads (or certainly a lot more evenly-balanced than is currently the case). For the individual counties, the goal will be to assemble a powerful team capable of winning competitions (and thus the winner’s cheque which would represent a significant contribution towards running costs). The best players will be trying to ascertain which county offers the optimum mix of reward and opportunity, whilst others might simply crave certainty and some will need to accept that to continue playing as a professional will require moving to a new county.

Of all the parties involved, the greatest bargaining power lies with the best players (although they might not realise it), in second place are good cricketers at Continuity Counties (i.e. the regional hosts transitioning to Tier 1 counties), in third place comes the ‘Continuity Counties’, in fourth place come the remaining players and in last place are the 3 ‘new’ non-transitioning counties.

The most likely outcome is a further concentration of talent at a few counties and the creation of at least 2 very weak counties. And, then in 2027, if all the extant counties are clever and ruthless, the 2 additional counties being elevated to Tier 1 could find it almost impossible to assemble a competitive squad.

Here’s why…

Each Tier 1 county is required to have 15 full time contracts i.e. 120 professionals in total (vs 88 now). Hence demand greatly outstrips supply and one has to question where 32 additional players of professional standard will be found.

This makes the ECB’s mandating that each Tier 1 county shall have 15 professional contracts look more like a desire for positive headlines than the result of a rational analysis regarding which arrangements would best deliver against a wider range of equity goals. Why couldn’t the ECB have allowed Tier 1 counties to experiment with different squad configurations e.g. why couldn’t a county have 8 professionals and 14 part-time players who could combine academic, work and/or personal commitments whilst also exploring the desirability and feasibility of a full-time career? Conversely the county could give opportunities to far more players and hence would be more likely to unearth talent.  Such an arrangement could have addressed a wide range of challenges regarding making cricket accessible and viable for players with other commitments. 

Each Tier 1 county starts with a clean team sheet and conversely every cricketer (barring some Northern Diamond players – messy!) is out of contract by November and thus available.

The new Tier 1 counties have been granted a ‘closed period’ during which they can seek to retain players contracted to the transitioning regional team e.g., Viper players to Hampshire. (Presumably the 3 non-transitioning counties have the same arrangement regarding their closest non-continuing region, e.g. Sunrisers to Essex?) Counties are forbidden from approaching any other players during this time.

I posited that the top players hold all the best cards at this stage. Consider first a top player at one of the 5 transitioning regions. If they’re happy to remain, then one option would be to commit to a new contract during the closed period. But if you were one of those players, and knowing your current team wants you, why wouldn’t you wait to see what other offers might come in? Whether they ultimately stay or move, this is their best chance to secure a good deal. 

Second, consider a player at a transitioning region who isn’t one of the top players but is a steady performer. Remember each county needs to contract 15 players and it’s reverse Musical Chairs (i.e. chairs have been added when the music stopped) and so will be keen to retain these individuals. Again, these players are in a strong negotiating position and, unless they want certainty quickly or are keen not to move, they too could hold out to see what other offers emerge.  

Next consider the 5 Continuity Counties. Their goal will be to retain the majority of the squad they’ve assembled during the regional era and add judiciously. Fortunately for them, there are 3 squads of players (at the non-transitioning counties) who – faced with the necessity to move (geographically) at the end of the season – are probably going to be more open to new opportunities than players at the Continuity Counties. The top players at these 3 regions will be much sought after and should be able to secure more than one offer. 

Fourth on my list are the bottom quartile of the currently-contracted professionals who have the advantage over talented amateurs and academy graduates of being known quantities at this level. Indeed, such is the surplus of contracts on offer that, provided they’re prepared to move, they too are virtually guaranteed a new contract. (Whether being recruited primarily to satisfy mandated squad numbers will subsequently equate to a fulfilling career is another issue.)

Finally, consider the 3 non-continuity Tier 1 counties. It’s naïve to imagine that the 3 impacted regional squads will simply move en masse to the successor county. This is not intended as a detrimental observation on any of these clubs, but reflects the reality that not all players will want to move to the new Counties whether this is for cricketing, location or personal reasons. And once a player is required to move from a place where they’ve established roots and connections, then for some it may become irrelevant whether they have to relocate 30 miles or 100?

As already noted, the top players at the 3 new non-continuity Tier 1 counties will be in hot demand from Continuity Counties and some will be tempted. Ditto some of the good players. For instance, a top Western Storm player might receive offers from Somerset, Hampshire and Warwickshire. From a purely-cricketing perspective, before deciding which offer to accept, they’d want to know what their envisaged role in a squad, who else was in the squad and might even make some assumptions regarding the potential for earning a share of win fees. For a Northern Diamonds player, there’s an added complication that some might have their heart set on a return to Yorkshire once they’re elevated to Tier 1 in 2 years and hence see any move as only being temporary. Leeds to Durham is 88 miles whilst Leeds to Manchester is just 44 miles and Leeds to Nottingham is 71 miles; the latter 2 options having the geographical advantage of not being in the opposite direction to all the other counties. 

The worst-case scenario for the 3 new counties is that only a rump of the donor region squad, stripped on the top and some of the good players, is prepared to move.

And let’s add one final curveball. The next round of central contracts. Without seeking to speculate about names, there’ll inevitably be some churn amongst that group at the end of the year. Perhaps a couple of current England players might already be working on the assumption that their contract won’t be renewed and be putting their name into the hat with certain counties, but for the majority their fate won’t be known until the domestic international season and the world cup is concluded. What happens to those players who lose their central contract? All the Tier 1 counties will have assembled their squads and will have allocated their budgets. Consequently, most teams wouldn’t have any funds left by the time any England player loses their central contract (unless one of their squad was simultaneously awarded a new central contract. But even then, a county would probably want a like-for-like skill swap – so a county losing one of its premier batters is unlikely to want to contract a released England bowler.)

Extrapolating the likely outcome of all these moving parts: Surrey, Hampshire and Lancashire will undoubtedly seek to position themselves as premier Tier 1 counties – with the contacts and connections to facilitate winter overseas placements, the chance to earn extra money from coaching, personal sponsorship and (in theory) a better chance to share in tournament winnings. Warwickshire and Notts should be well positioned to retained most of their current young squads and could use cleverly-targeted offers to entice top players from the 3 non-transitioning counties (whether cricket-focussed, such as guarantees about being first choice keeper, specific batting or bowling roles or captaincy or better personal security e.g. longer contracts or support for post-playing life via coaching qualifications). 

Of the 3 new counties, Essex are possibly best placed – able to offer incentives to persuade Sunrisers to move, plus draw on the deep talent pools in their own county, Kent and possibly discarded Oval players. Unfortunately, this scenario leaves Durham and Somerset starting with a diminished core of transferring players and subsequently fighting over a pool comprising primarily players who no other county has offered a contract to.

If they’re going to avoid this fate, these 2 counties will need to be part-visionary and part-moneyball and to act quickly. Durham, of course, faced a similar issue when their men’s team joined the county championship. What could they do? Grab a marque overseas player from a country which doesn’t tour much and isn’t coming to the UK for the next 2 years (or who has retired from international cricket); avoid anyone likely to be on England’s radar for the next few years; target a couple of good older players who can act as player-coaches; recruit 5-6 good players who are frustrated at their current club and guarantee them then roles they crave; and, then complete the squad with the ‘best of the rest’ (prioritising academy / local players with roots in the area over a player who’d be looking to leave at the first opportunity.) Somerset have deftly recruited Heather Knight and it will be interesting to see whether this has the same magnetic appeal as the Charlotte Edwards effect at Southern Vipers.

And finally, whoever each Tier 1 county ends up with, they should all offer everyone in their squads 2-year contracts in 2026 through to the end of 2027; thereby ensuring that Yorkshire and Glamorgan will have a tiny pool of proven players to choose from, thereby probably condemning them to be the 2 weakest teams in Tier 1 for years to come.

It’s going to be fascinating, messy and probably going to result in some massive variance in squad strengths. For the sake of the game, I hope not.

One thought on “OPINION: How Project Darwin Risks Exacerbating the Disparity in Regionals Team Strengths

  1. Excellent analysis by Andy F yet again. So much likely to go in favour of certain better placed counties, and others so likely to get squeezed for years to come.

    Like

Have Your Say...

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.