All around the counties, debate rages over the championship, the most precious and prestigious of the four competitions, and the one which feeds the England team. MacLaurin has made it clear that the England team matters most and that his priority is to provide a structure which serves them best by improving the standard of championship cricket and making it competitive, in the very best sense of the word, until the last match is played.
Seventy five per cent of professional cricketers in England have voted for the most controversial option, the split to two divisions. This is a staggering number given that 50 per cent would be playing in the second division. By voting in such a majority, the players are saying they are not satisfied with a structure that gives them little or no chance to recover from a poor first half of the season.
They are saying that, although pride and statistics have their place, what matters is winning. They clearly understand that it is better to be in fifth place in division two and have a chance of promotion than it is to be in 14th place in division one and to play without expectation.
In these columns last week, E W Swanton's stirring warning against ``a bridge too far'', in which he reiterated his concerns about a two-tier championship, suggested ``a dilution of support, interest, pride and a serious loss of sponsorship'' and he mentioned the effects on a county with ambitious plans such as Hampshire.
Hampshire began work on their £17 million project in the spring; the work is going apace. Funding from the National Lottery is confirmed and the sale of sponsorship is about to begin. It will be based around involvement with a new 'Cricket Village' in the south of England, rather than around the team. Rugby and football, Richmond and Newcastle respectively, for instance, have thrived on sponsorship that arrived when the team was were at a low ebb, but when ambitions for off-the-field development and expansion and ultimately on-the-field glory were led by people who were keen to start at the bottom and create something new and fresh.
From my own experience of the playing side, I would have found it more compelling to prepare an ordinary, or young, team for the very real possibility of promotion rather than for the likelihood of finishing in the second half of a league of 18 teams.
Since 1994, after the loss of key players such as David Gower, Malcolm Marshall and Jon Ayling, Hampshire have begun each season with hope most especially in the one-day game - but if we were honest with ourselves, the championship title was in fantasy land; survival, i.e. emerging from the season with confidence and pride intact, was the reality. I fully understand that this was the norm for a number of counties in the 1950s and 60s but it does not satisfy either the young cricketer of today or, more importantly, his committee, who regard a successful season as a trophy-winning season. I would have preferred that my last two years, 1994 and '95, were spent challenging for promotion rather than vaguely aiming for the top half of the table.
During the late 1980s and early 90s, the two football teams in Hampshire attracted contrasting support. Southampton were near the bottom of the Premier Division and Portsmouth were gunning for promotion from the First Division. The local interest and excitement came from Portsmouth's efforts, not from Southampton's.
The problem, it seems to me, with accepting the idea of two divisions comes with two arguments. The first is the culture. English cricket has only known a one-dimensional championship. For more than 100 years, 14 to 18 teams have challenged for the same title without fear of finishing last. It is a fine tradition with its generally replete feeling, its charming festivals and its time-honoured rivalry, and some smaller clubs, Essex and Worcestershire most obviously, have made something of themselves against the odds of competiton from the bigger, more monied counties.
But tradition should apply to standards and to morals, not to structure, which should never be cast in stone.
The second argument is against the transfer system which, opinion claims, would be inevitable if the split came. Why? Would Michael Atherton leave Lancashire to play in the first division, or Graeme Hick leave Worcestershire, or Robin Smith leave Hampshire? I doubt it. There may be the odd stroppy younger player who fancies the big time, but with promotion and relegation of three up and three down, or even of four up and four down, for how long could a county guarantee the big time?
The present rules restrict lavish movement of players and there is no reason why they would not continue to do so were they left in place. In addition, compensation could be given to counties who lose players that they have developed.
Two divisions would provide inspiration and impetus for a county game that is falling flat. This is not change for change's sake. It is change for the sake of English cricket, which has under-performed at international level for too long.