Andrew Strauss County Cricket review falls at first fence - Chris Waters

Like a drunk throwing at a dartboard down the local pub, it not only misses the target completely but almost takes out someone’s eye in the process as they walk back from the toilets.

To not begin from the premise, as one simply must, that The Hundred is a steaming pile of horse manure that must be removed from the middle of cricket’s lawn is to render all improvements to the surrounding shrubbery of limited value.

It is, by definition, a review that falls at the first fence rather like a horse in the Grand National which has to be put down; oh that we should be so lucky with this particular document.

The review, in fairness, does make some good points, such as the recommendation to cut the number of T20 Blast group games from 14 to10.

Some counties may baulk at that idea but, hey, let them do so; they’re not the ones working to a tight deadline when Team A suddenly scores 107 from the last six overs to win by one wicket with one ball to spare, forcing a complete re-write.

Not all games are so exciting, of course, and 14 can feel like a sentence, a bit like when the mother-in-law invites herself round for a few days at Christmas.

Assisted by unholy quantities of alcohol, one can put up with the old biddy for a couple of hours before the urge to bundle her into thenearest taxi becomes overwhelming.

The most contentious proposal in the Strauss paper is to cut the number of County Championship games from 14 per county to 10.

Quite how this equates with the desire to make England the best Test team in the world is unclear; you don’t get better at playing first-class cricket by playing less of it - or perhaps you do if, in so doing, the standard of cricket is simultaneously raised.

But does anyone really believe that this would happen?

Unless the Championship is suddenly going to become infused with regular appearances by England players, and more top-class overseas signings, surely it can only be a case of cutting it in its existing form to accommodate white-ball games – i.e., The Hundred.

The fact that there is more money flying around in white-ball does, of course, have nothing to do with the underlying motives of the Strauss paper.

A word on Mr Strauss… he seems to be regarded as some sort of guru, a man of rare intelligence and wisdom, as though he should be pontificating from a hillside somewhere while wide-eyed pilgrims look on agog.

But is there any evidence that Strauss, great captain and cricketer that he was, is not actually as thick as the rest of us, a sort of Ed Smith-type figure but with less of the philosophical piffle?

Anyone who regards The Hundred, as Strauss does, with fondness must at once be treated with the utmost suspicion and not allowed under any circumstances to be left unattended with a family member - the mother-in-law excepted.

It is precisely because of The Hundred that the rest of the schedule is in such a mess, with the Strauss review really little more than an effort to make the best of a bad job.

Cricket would be better off throwing The Hundred down the bogs, if you pardon the expression, rather than giving it August, a prime month of the season, when the notion of playing a separate red-ball tournament is frankly absurd.

At least the symmetry suggested in a Championship top-flight of six clubs, followed by two conferences of six, is to be welcomed.

Any competition must surely be symmetrical as a basic starting point, and it was quite ridiculous that this year’s winners, Surrey, did not play second-placed Hampshire home and away.

My main objection to the Strauss review, though, is not just the content but rather the premise - “the review was established following last winter’s men’s Ashes defeat in Australia with the goal of establishing England Men as the world’s best team across all formats within five years”, or so the press release stated.

To me, that sounds at best like corporate white noise and, at worst, like the cricketing equivalent of a James Bond baddie outlining his plans for world domination, while stroking an evil-looking cat.

What about the idea that county cricket should exist, first and foremost, or at least just as much, for the people who pay to watch it?