There is serious concern that next month's review by the First-Class Forum will change a familiar friend unnecessarily. Many of the closest followers of county cricket do not accept that much needs altering. They would be unanimous in wanting many more genuine four-day matches - in other words a better balance between batsmen and bowlers and between seamers and spinners and all would agree on the need for a far more coherent programme than the hotchpotch of 1998, one which allows all concerned to know which competition is going to be played on which day of the week.
They would be wary, however, of any drastic reduction of championship matches, or of the proposal, certain at least to be discussed at Lord's on Oct 13 and 14, for a regional competition in conjunction with a variation of the idea proposed and defeated last year that the 18 counties should be divided into three different conferences.
The long-serving Worcestershire secretary, Michael Vockins, has charted the results of this year's championship as if the conference system had actually been adopted. He now has no hesitation in saying that if his personal preference for no substantial change to the existing all-play-all tournament were to be over-ruled, he would give conferences a try.
He discovered that results in the three original groups of six counties - each playing 12 games against the counties not in their own conference - led to constant shifts of position which would have kept public interest high. The upshot would have been that Leicestershire, Lancashire and Yorkshire would each have won their group and would therefore have played off for first, second and third prize money, a faithful replica of what actually happened in the conventional championship.
Every county would have been involved in play-offs at the end of the season for a final position in the 18-team table and to the very end of the 12 matches at the conference stage every fixture would have been significant. ``Every game would have counted'', is Vockins' conclusion. The eventual 14 games per county would have provided a more manageable fixture list played in 21 slots, with more rest for players and heightened interest for spectators and media alike because counties would be in the running for longer within their conference of six.
Whilst applauding his initiative, however, I wonder whether they would have counted any more or less than they do in the present system. Final positions in the Britannic Assurance table were not, after all, certain until the last ball was bowled yesterday, although it would have helped if the prize money had been graded all the way from top to bottom.
Even so, there was incentive of a kind in every game, quite apart from individual ambitions amongst the players: every match offered £2,000 prize money to the winning side and spurious though next year's Super Cup may be, it still mattered greatly to counties near the middle of the table whether they would make the top eight or not, simply because they are guaranteed extra income for taking part.
Vockins admits that there would be less cricket overall for county members and less chance for players not selected for England to press their claims. In addition counties would not have at least one match against all of the other clubs and there is a particular weakness in the original proposal for winner-take-all play-off matches that a side finishing lower than another in the conference might end up with more prize money. But he insists that ``once experienced even briefly, the conference system is easy to understand''.
Leicestershire's domination of Surrey at the Oval suggests that they would have won this year under any system. Their teamwork, attitude and downright good cricket deserve unreserved congratulations. Following their own success in 1996 and Glamorgan's last year, they have proved that the championship is easier to win if your side is not disrupted by Test calls.