Tradition is trampled in charge for Twenty20 gravy train

Market research by the England and Wales Cricket Board indicated that cricket lovers want more of the shortest version of the game to be played in July and August. Well, they will get that all right, with two very similar-looking competitions providing wall-to-wall Twenty20 all summer long.

I am relieved the County Championship will remain unchanged, and ambivalent as to the Pro40, but am seriously concerned that we are rapidly moving towards Twenty20 overkill.

There was great speculation about the exact format of the English Premier League. When the details of the franchise-based scheme proposed by Surrey's chairman, David Stewart, and the chief executive of MCC, Keith Bradshaw, were deliberately leaked to me last week, I expected a bit of a rumpus - but nothing like the battle within the ECB which quickly developed into something close to civil war.

Giles Clarke, the chairman, is used to boardroom disputes but he will never have faced such fierce criticism of his leadership style and there is talk of a replacement urgently being sought for next year's re-election. The fall-out from the proposal illustrates the depth of the concern about the future of the game, particularly among the smaller counties which do not stage international cricket.

The two division Championship - which has played its part in introducing competitiveness to first-class cricket in England - has created an unhealthy environment of the haves and have nots. Therefore, one sniff of a plan which appeared to involve only the larger counties was doomed to fail.

Another flaw was the continued assertion that a franchise system would work in this country.

I vehemently disagree that a cricket fan in Leicester or Northampton would drive either to Edgbaston or Trent Bridge to support a team that meant nothing at all to him, and whose identity was merely a convenience.

Like it or not, cricket in this country is based on the network of 18 counties and, because of the geographical spread it creates, is all the more viable and healthy for it. Frankly, it was unthinkable that an EPL could be established without all of its stakeholders being involved.

That said, I cannot understand why Messrs Bradshaw and Stewart were attacked so publicly in a dispute during which Stewart, who is the chairman of the finance committee, was asked to consider his position. The ECB should be encouraging debate, not stifling it.

The most serious example of the board acting in haste, in my view, is the allegiance they have forged with the Texan billionaire, Sir Allen Stanford.

The more I think about this one-off, winner-take-all game to be played in Antigua on 1 November the more tacky and vulgar it appears - and at what cost?

Stanford, by all accounts, is a man who insists on getting what he wants. He is a business man - nothing wrong with that - but cricket is merely a tool. The winner-take-all concept is merely to generate a headline, with no consideration given to the sprit of cricket, and now he suggests the match should be split into four innings of 10 overs each. Please!

Now we have the IPL, the EPL and the Champions League, do we really need Stanford and his million dollars?

I have said it before and make no apology for saying again that, if managed properly, the interest in Twenty20 should bankroll the game, and safeguard its most precious commodity - Test cricket - for decades to come.

Saturation, and the dash to make a quick buck, will destroy the greatest opportunity that future generations will ever have to enjoy this wonderful game. This announcement will not only test the stamina of those who watch Twenty20 cricket but also its long-term appeal.