I'D SETTLE FOR STALEMATE by Marcus Hook

Picking up where I left off in the Christmas issue of Oval World, the fixtures for 2011 were eventually released on December 14. Now, this probably shows how old I am, but I can remember a time when the schedule for the following year was available to Surrey members during the last championship game of the season. Even in those days everyone used to moan that surely it was possible for the TCCB's computer to come up with something more sensible than Surrey playing at Leeds, Canterbury and Cardiff in the space of five days, like we did in May 1983.

With all the advances in technology, one would think the job of putting the fixtures together would be much slicker, but the process now takes three months longer. Clearly, two divisions has complicated things, as has the recent review of the domestic programme, but surely it's not asking too much for the fixtures to be out by the end of October.

But it's not just when the fixtures are released that winds people up. Too many playing days in April, the lack of Saturday cricket and clusters of matches in the South East clashing with each other are high on the list of gripes. Whenever the subject of the fixture list came up at the Members' Liaison Group, Bill Snelgrove always seemed to be the first to lambast the ECB. Sadly and unbelievably, Bill is no longer with us, but his crusade lives on.

I can also remember a time when the first round of championship matches started no earlier than April 25. Surrey's first ever April start in the championship came way back in 1930. Since then, over 60% of the championship contests (involving Surrey) that have begun in April have been played at home. Far too many early season matches at the Oval was certainly one of Bill's moans. Perversely, this year, now that Bill isn't around to see it, two of Surrey's three games beginning in April are away.

But as we know, the whole reason for starting earlier is due to the counties' obsession with Twenty20 cricket. They say it's because the players need more time for rest and recuperation, but if they really cared about the players they wouldn't insist on so many T20 matches.

The fact that the biggest gaps in the schedule are during the FPt20 group phase suggests that the counties think it's more important for the players to be at their best for the hit and giggle stuff. Between June 2 and July 15 - a period of 44 days - Surrey are only due to be in action on 24 of them. How on earth would the players of today have coped with 24 three-day matches - in which the minimum number of overs to be bowled in a day was 110 - sixteen 40-over games and two more one-day competitions on top, which was what we had thirty years ago?

My ECB media accreditation means I am not allowed to bet on cricket, but I would have staked a serious amount of money on the reduction in championship games from 16 per county to 14. For all the talk about two divisions of nine teams being sacrosanct, I thought that, when push came to shuv, the counties would opt for preserving the T20's prominent place in the schedule.

But it appears that the 16-game championship will be retained, for now. The Daily Telegraph's Paul Bolton recently wrote: "What happens if you put 18 county chairmen, 18 county chief executives and their counterparts from the Professional Cricketers' Association in a room and ask them to decide on a future structure of the county game? You've got it: stalemate." Well, if stalemate means no reduction in the number of championship games and no increase in T20 cricket, I would take it. A final decision regarding the 2012 programme is due to be made on March 22.

One might have thought that a 14-game championship season would mean a later start to the season, but that's not the real reason why some counties want to trim the champo. It has nothing to do with cricket, or the welfare of the players. As always, it has everything with money - a 14-game four-day schedule will make it possible for counties to participate in the Twenty20 Champions League.

Rumour has it that if the Twenty20 reverts to three groups of six, playing ten matches each to determine the quarter-finalists, compensation will be paid to the likes of Essex, Somerset and Sussex, who have complained about the potential loss of income from having three fewer home fixtures. Again, it's all to do with money. The quicker the counties realise we are in the middle of a recession, meaning that revenue from T20 cricket will be the same regardless of whether there are 5, 10 or 15 home fixtures, the better.

But there have been reasons for cheer recently. England's Ashes victory down under was extremely satisfying; especially as it was the first time Australia had been twice beaten by an innings in a home series. The only thing that took the gloss off it, wasn't the drubbing we received in the one-day series, but the fact that for those who haven't got Sky, and were following events on Radio 4 Long Wave, the shipping forecast was on at the moment of each of England's Test victories.

Going into the rubber, Duncan Fletcher said that Australia could be beaten. His comments certainly touched a raw nerve with Tim Nielsen, the coach of Australia, whose words now make him out to look pretty stupid. Nielsen said: "You can quote me on this: we could not care less what Duncan Fletcher thinks about anything or anyone. His opinions on most things in Test cricket are irrelevant. To be honest, Duncan Fletcher would not know the first thing about playing Test cricket in Australia. Have a look at his record here. His record speaks for itself. He doesn't know what he's talking about, but that's no great surprise."

Ricky Ponting's captaincy came in for a lot of criticism, but, for me, Australia's selection policy did him no favours. The only time vice-captain Michael Clarke looked undroppable was when he was driving the ball to short extra cover, and what was going on with the spinners? Australia's spin threat was expected to come from Steve Smith and Nathan Hauritz, but Smith was played as an all-rounder (I can only assume that's why he invariably came in ahead of Brad Haddin) and Hauritz didn't get a look in until the one-dayers.

Instead, and to everyone's amazement, the Aussies turned to Doherty and Beer. Brad Hodge, the Victoria and former Leicestershire batsman hit the nail on the head when he said: "Xavier Doherty got picked averaging around 48 in Sheffield Shield cricket. Michael Beer is averaging 40. My spin bowling average is 41 and my spin bowling is horrible." When Beer played at Sydney it was the first time he had ever been inside the SCG. It was fitting, perhaps, that Duncan Fletcher had the last word when he summed things up by dryly saying: "In the next few years England will need to beat better teams than Australia."

Having, it would seem, not learned from the Ashes, Australia's selectors then chose to omit Mike Hussey from their squad the World Cup. Now that Hussey has been called up as an injury replacement, I cannot help feeling that Australia have the tools to go on and win the tournament. I wouldn't completely rule out England either. Despite some indifferent performances against the minnows, they have shown they can raise their game when it matters, against the likes of India and South Africa. The loss of Broad and Pietersen to injury is a blow, but there are far worse replacements than Eoin Morgan and Chris Tremlett. If misfortune were also to befall Matt Prior, then England really would have a chance!

Sad though it may seem, something else that cheered me up recently were the lengthy spot-fixing bans handed to Salman Butt, Mohammed Asif and Mohammed Aamir. Does Butt really expect us to believe his explanation for why so much cash was found in his hotel room last summer? He said: "£2,500 was given to me for the opening of an ice cream parlour in Tooting." Notwithstanding the bans, given the way Pakistan seemed to gift New Zealand 92 runs in four overs the other day, a dark cloud remains over the integrity of their cricket.

As I mentioned earlier, I am not allowed to bet on cricket, but that doesn't stop me having a regular flutter on the horses. Looking at my bank balance, perhaps it's too regular a flutter! Anyway, each year I preview the Grand National for the benefit of my family, friends and work colleagues. But this year I thought I would share two stats with you that could well point to the winning horse on April 9. The last Grand National winner with a "Z" in its name was Zoedone way back in, wait for it, 1883. Another letter that has not been represented for while is "W", which hasn't been attached to a National winner since West Tip came home in front in 1986. As luck would have it, two of my fancies are one of Philip Hobbs's entries Quinz and Alan King's nine-year-old West End Rocker. If one of them triumphs I'll be expecting you to donate 10% of your winnings to a needy cause, starting with me!

Finally, I think we should all acknowledge what a great job Paul Sheldon has done over the last 15 years as Surrey's chief executive. Paul has always been a friend to the Supporters' Club, unlike his predecessor Glyn Woodman. I know it's tenuous, but as sad as I am sad to see David Stewart and Paul Sheldon standing down within a few months of each other, the last time Surrey went into a season with a new chairman and chief exec they ended a barren run of no silverware.

BACK TO: