Surrey get a poor deal from The Hundred

The news Surrey have lost yet another player to The Hundred, Gus Atkinson – taking their representation in the new tournament to 11 – makes me wonder where will it all end?

Especially when you consider some counties are losing just two players.

Leicestershire, Surrey’s opponents tomorrow (Saturday) are missing three – Colin Ackermann, Josh Inglis and Callum Parkinson.

By way of compensation (mainly for lost Vitality Blast ticket revenue), each of the 18 first-class counties will get £1.3m per year from the ECB for this and the next three summers plus one sixth of the salaries paid to their Hundred representatives.

That means, this year, Surrey will receive £1.45m, while Leicestershire will get £1.32m. How can that possibly be regarded as equitable? And what incentive is there to invest in the development of youngsters who could end up being part-timers?

Speaking as a Surrey member for 44 years, there has always been a sense of pride when a player from your county represents England. It just isn’t the same when it comes to The Hundred, or, for that matter, the various T20 leagues around the world.

It’s even more galling when – with all due respect to Glamorgan – you see your side struggle to post 132 and then lose with 23 overs to spare.

The one bright spot at Cardiff on Tuesday was the bowling of Dan Moriarty, who has now taken 64 wickets, averaging 20.28 in all competitions since his debut a year ago.

How long will it be before The Hundred comes calling for the 22-year-old slow left-armer, given that, despite the calibre of the eight head coaches in The Hundred, even the best batsmen in the country still seem to be struggling against the spinning ball.

Many county members, I fear, will look at what they pay and decide whether membership continues to provide value for money, when the teams they follow are forced to field second elevens – or whether their loyalty is being taken for granted.

Indeed, at the recent Royal London game between Warwickshire v Notts, supporters had their anti-Hundred flags confiscated by the stewards, which suggests some counties are bent on protecting the new competition’s brand.

I’m pleased that doesn’t happen at the Oval. But Surrey, who were one of just three counties to abstain or vote against the introduction of The Hundred, have a delicate balance to strike; especially as packing out venues like the Oval is central to the success of the new competition.

Surrey’s website does not carry Hundred match reports and when, for instance, the club announced that Atkinson had been snapped up by Southern Brave, the release simply listed all the players they are now down by.

There is already talk of expanding The Hundred next season, with new franchises being set up to cover the west country and the north east. The prospect of 10 teams instead of eight means two things – counties having to do without even more players and the fixture schedule needing to accommodate an even bigger ‘window’ for The Hundred.

I ask again, where will it all end? My only hope is The Hundred is expanded to 18 teams so things can return to normal; although it would spell the end of the domestic T20.

To those members who are already beginning to weigh things up, ask yourself this: What would the organisers of The Hundred prefer – an exodus of county members, thus silencing the supporter’s voice, or counties with large memberships urging their clubs to hold the game’s administrators to account?