Counties Abolished

[Richard Bates]

Aha! I'm a bit slow this morning, so do we need to change the Counties rules to allow more flexibility? We do need to revise the rules, so this is the time to suggest changes.

I assume you meant to use the word "review", rather than "revise", there?

[David Sedgwick]

Isn't it the other way round? Counties who might like to run a team but don't have enough qualified players of the required strength?

Are there any such counties? It's not true of any of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire, is it? All of them can and do run teams. However, they choose not to enter the official competitions, but to play in the Chiltern League instead.

That's their privilege, of course.

Edit: This was written before I read your latest post about Buckinghamshire teams, but I've allowed my comment to stand so that you can respond.

The Counties Competition has probably lost the debate anyway. It's simpler for counties to enter teams in the 4NCL as Oxford and Nottingham have done.

I don't think that your first sentence is true at all. When the 4NCL was established seventeen years ago, concerns were expressed that it could have a drastic impact on the Counties Championships. In the event they're in a much better state than was feared; in fact they're probably healthier now than they were then.

It's the National Club Open Championship which has lost this particular debate.

[Adam Raoof]

Aha! I'm a bit slow this morning, so do we need to change the Counties rules to allow more flexibility? We do need to revise the rules, so this is the time to suggest changes.

I assume you meant to use the word "review", rather than "revise", there?

I am sure that a review might lead to a revision of the rules, but yes probably.

[Brian Valentine]

This seems to be a reasonable measure to put in place to avoid a player who would like to play county cricket from being deprived of any opportunity at all.

Obviously the ECB is better funded can support a more complete infrastructure, hence this situation does not apply. In the U17s, all 39 boards compete and Scotland makes 40 entrants. In the over 50s (also covered by these generic rules) all compete, and the channel islands makes up the 40th. In junior cricket the players from the channel islands can be picked by anyone (for the first game).

In the over 50s the birth certificate has been required for some young looking athletes - more to prove age than place of birth though!

[David Sedgwick]

We do need to revise the rules, so this is the time to suggest changes.

Why do we need to revise the rules, or even to review them? Significant changes were made in 2008 and these are working out well. I can't see any need to revisit the subject so soon.

It's not desirable to change the rules of any competition too frequently; organisers, captains and players tend to forget what the current rules are. The 4NCL has had several disputes stemming from people not having read the rules, but I'm sure this would be less of a problem if they didn't change their rules almost every year.

One of FIDE's more sensible decisions was that they would only change a given set of regulations every four years, except in clear cases of an urgent need.

I've said this several times already, but I'll say it just once more. As I promise it will be the last time, I'm taking the liberty of shouting.

IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT.
THE COUNTIES CHAMPIONSHIPS ARE FAR FROM BROKE.
SO DON'T FIX THEM.

[Roger de Coverly]

Are there any such counties? It's not true of any of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire, is it? All of them can and do run teams. However, they choose not to enter the official competitions, but to play in the Chiltern League instead.

I have the idea that the Oxford decision was rather more about travel than availability. Even that would have been influenced by the number of defaults for away matches. A key issue on withdrawal for the Open teams of Berks and Bucks was a shortage of competitive players particularly those willing to travel to places like Catford and Charlton House and the inability of even enterprising match captains to recruit players for teams and stay within the rules.

So you don't have enough players of the necessary strength, you aren't allowed to recruit any specifically for Saturday afternoon matches, you have the 4NCL on your doorstep or not more than two hours away, what choices are there?


The Chiltern league competition was originally designed as a second team event to run in parallel with the SCCU open. It was rating limited as a consequence. When the SCCU open teams were withdrawn a relative handful of players stepped down from the open teams into the Chiltern ones. Both Berks and Bucks have players whose rating is too high for the Chiltern. This isn't regarded as a serious problem (which it might have been twenty years ago) because of the 4NCL (and Congresses for that matter).

[Paul McKeown]

I think the ECB rules 3.4.4 and 3.4.5 are quite reasonable and could readily be applied to the ECF counties competitions. To whit:

3.4.4 A player may play for a County for whom the player is not qualified only if the player has not been selected by the County/Counties for whom the player is otherwise qualified and has obtained the written consent of that County/those Counties. Such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. There is no requirement to obtain the consent of the County of birth. In the event of a dispute the matter shall be referred to the ECB, whose decision shall be final.
3.4.5 A player who has played for a County, with a valid qualification for that County, during a season can continue to play for that County, if selected, the following season even if the player no longer has a current qualification (for example following a change of school). The qualification remains valid from season to season, but lapses if the player does not represent the County during a season.

I note the boundaries applied to Middlesex by the MCC are metropolitan only, which would exclude Staines, Sunbury, Hampton, etc.! This is NOT to be recommended!

[Roger de Coverly]

Obviously the ECB is better funded can support a more complete infrastructure, hence this situation does not apply. In the U17s, all 39 boards compete and Scotland makes 40 entrants.

Noticing that there are 18 first class cricket counties and 20 minor ones,
http://www.cricinfo.com/minorcounties/c ... 39733.html, I wondered who was missing - it's the Isle of Wight.

Have there ever been instances where a first class county or a minor county was unable to field a team of the necessary strength? Presumably the "transfer" rule above means that players and counties form a natural equilibrium.

[Ian Thompson]

Both Berks and Bucks have players whose rating is too high for the Chiltern. This isn't regarded as a serious problem (which it might have been twenty years ago) because of the 4NCL (and Congresses for that matter).

By whom? Has anyone asked any of the 30 players who are shown in the current grading list as eligible for one or more of Hampshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire or Oxfordshire graded over 200 what they think?

[David Sedgwick]

I note the boundaries applied to Middlesex by the MCC are metropolitan only, which would exclude Staines, Sunbury, Hampton, etc.! This is NOT to be recommended!

My memory may be at fault, but I don't think that was the case at the time of the episode in the SCCU to which I referred up thread. That was about fifteen years ago.

[Roger de Coverly]

By whom? Has anyone asked any of the 30 players who are shown in the current grading list as eligible for one or more of Hampshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire or Oxfordshire graded over 200 what they think?

I can only speak for Bucks players, none of whom are lobbying to play in the Chiltern. You can judge opinions by relative noise, there was a lot of it from the strongest players when there was a possible proposal that compulsory adjournment be reinstated in Berks. If I were over 200, it wouldn't bother me that I couldn't play in the Chiltern. In fact I turned down the odd invitation without regret some years back when it was a under 180 event and I was the other side of that barrier.

[David Pardoe]

An interesting thread....
I wonder how many players here are speaking from actual practical experience of running county teams, ie..team captains...?
Adam...you mentioned rule changes. There have been many suggestions on various threads about this, and about restructuring of counties/Unions & boundary recognition, etc. I think a key issue is that almost any change involves `winners & `losers`, and no-one wants (is bold enough), to risk upsetting the apple cart.
My eligability rules would be on two-tiers.
Level 1.... players who `currently` (recently) live, work, or actively play chess in the `said` county.
Level 2.... the other criteria currently used.
I would stop the rule allowing players in leagues spread across several counties for playing for neighbouring counties.
I`d use the tiers to decide `tie breakers`, and maybe even to say that player scores for `tier 2` players should count as `quarter point`less than bona fide Tier 1 players.
The essence of this is to make these county events more targetted at players who currently actively particate in that county`s home scene. ie, they are `currently` actually part of that local community.
This does not restrict players....it might change `who` some players can play for.
I`m in favour for some `give & take`..ie, if a player lives on a border, he should have choice about what suits his situation (say within a couple of miles).
I would encourage `inactive` counties to merge (teams/players) with neighbouring counties.
I have in mind here counties like Herefordshire, Cumbria, Northants, Durham, Northumberland (a Tyne & Wear team might be interesting).....and various others, who currently cannot raise teams, but might like to participate.
I`m definately not in favour of `bussing in` outsiders...... to create `super teams` of world beaters. This is not good, in my opinion. Im really keen on the concept of local players getting `first crack` at playing for there `home` area....and not being excluded because some gung ho captain has the muscle to buss in a few top guns from across the border, derpriving the other county of a valuable player....just so they can play for the `big boys`. We see the extreme effect of this in the NCCU where the two big guns dominate and everyone else just sits and watches...very depressing.
Theres another group of events to consider at weekends....local leagues, such as the Woodhouse in Yorks, which seems to be the heart and soul of there chess...great stuff...hats off to those guys involved with such events.
Yes, the 4NCL and county matches offer totally different chess delights......the counties stuff will appeal to the Saturday afternoon chess reveller, who might not have a weekend to spare for Congress or 4NCL chess...or who does not want to cash out for hotels, etc.

Talking of Congresses...the Manchester Congress is coming soon.. w/e Sept 4th 5th...get your entries in soon...tell your friends...it at the Owen Park complex in South Manchester..near to the Armitage centre..
Read all about it http://www.manchesterchessfederation.co.uk/page2.html Tell your friends !!!
And..for those conissuers who want a late holiday in the South West...there is the Brilliant Diamond Jubilee event at the Oldway Mansion at Paignton...an event not to be missed on the South Devon coast. Check out the ECF Calander... Plenty for all tastes...!!!

[Paul McKeown]

conissuers???

Love that word, must start using it myself.

[Roger de Coverly]

We see the extreme effect of this in the NCCU where the two big guns dominate and everyone else just sits and watches...very depressing.

I think the point of adopting "cricket-style" eligibility rules would be that "other" NCCU counties would be able, if they so desired, to assemble teams capable of taking on Yorks and Lancs on equal terms. At present they would be thwarted by the eligibility rules. These would be all-star teams of course - but how else can you get a competition where all teams representing counties can have an equal chance of winning?

[Kevin Thurlow]

I'm not sure the cricket eligibility rules are always that good. Azeem Rafiq was declared ineligible when he played a one-day match for Yorkshire as he held a Pakistani passport (although he has lived in England for years). Strangely though, this had not made him ineligible when he had played for England U15 and U17, and U19 (as captain!) (Actually he probably won't captain them again as he has just been banned for tweeting, that the manager was useless -see cricinfo site for actual words, with asterisks.)


"It's not desirable to change the rules of any competition too frequently"

Hockey certainly suffered from that. The Laws changed every year (sometimes to what they had been a couple of years earlier) which made it very confusing for players and officials alike.

If players want to play county chess and are not eligible for any county in the competition, I would think it reasonable that they could contact the overall organiser and seek permission to play for some suitable (hopefully local) county. Surely, that should be treated sympathetically? If about 30 such players asked to go from county X to county Y, it could be suggested that they start a County X team.

Eligibility rules should be there to stop abuses, not to stop people playing.