SPORTS LETTERS

New ball game

From Mr K Flett

Sir: On the same day that an article appeared in a national newspaper noting that the Tottenham-based London Cricket College was again in financial difficulties, five of the larger first-class counties announced their plans for a cricket Superleague. The two are not unconnected.

The future of the London Cricket College, which coaches black and white youth, some of whom have gone on to play county cricket, could be permanently secured by a fraction of the money that is now being staked on the Superleague. The Test match ground counties say that the new English Cricket Board should look after all cricket from the "playground" upwards. This is an admirable sentiment, but it is not the reason for the Superleague. The bottom line, as ever, is money. The Test match counties and the facilities of their grounds are the bedrock of commercial cricket. They provide the infrastructure for the playing and televising of international matches which bring in the majority of the money that there is in English cricket.

As a socialist I feel ambivalent about any proposals for radical change in the structure of English cricket. The existing set-up seems to have been around since feudal times, although it was in fact constructed as sport was commercialised in the second half of the nineteenth century. Anything which shakes up the stifling conservatism of county cricket must be welcome. Perhaps the Superleaguers are right and the changes will stimulate interest in the game.

What it will certainly do before very long is to create a "Premier League" of counties and a First Division with counties who find it increasingly hard to continue as going concerns. Why not therefore, be really radical, abolish the absurd "First Class" tag and move straight to a four-division structure involving the minor counties and anyone else who can manage at least a semi-professional team structure?

Yours,

KEITH FLETT

London N17

Anti the antics

From Mr N Jotischky

Sir: Andy Mitten in his "Fan's eye view" highlights the reason why Manchester United are disliked so much around the country. It is the arrogance of the piece summing up the attitude of directors, manager, players and supporters alike that is so appalling.

Clearly, there is an element of jealousy from supporters of other teams, but I do not remember Liverpool being so disliked during their great era. Under the Liverpool management (and I am no Liverpool supporter) there was no time for arrogance from players or supporters. However, it is not just this arrogance that upsets people, but also the antics of Ince, Keane, Hughes, Schmeichel and, of course, Cantona on the pitch which degrades football. Of the present team, only Brian McClair shows any dignity and humility.

Yours faithfully,

NICK JOTISCHKY

Twickenham

Sound as a Bell

From Mr J Weltman

Sir: Trevor Haylett argues that ... "bookmakers (are) refusing to accept bets on a possible successor (to Brian Horton), believing (Francis) Lee has a replacement lined up." (Horton Joins Premiership Casualty List, 17 May). The reason is clear.

The successors to Horton and David Moss, his assistant, are two members of City's backroom staff directly under Lee's nose. Two football heroes whose combined pedigrees exceed any partnership managing a Premiership side. No it is not Rioch and Todd, but Mike Summerbee and Colin Bell. Now if only I could get the bookies to take my money ...

Yours,

JEREMY WELTMAN

London W1

Letters should be marked "For publication" and should contain daytime and evening phone numbers. They should be sent to Sports Editor, The Independent, 1 Canada Square, London E14 5DL. They may be shortened for reasons of space.