Better  sporting news recently with the decision to extend FTA coverage of Rugby Union’s 6N for the next few years. A generation ago cricket’s governing body took the money, leaving the game’s future to take care of itself rather.  Not good for getting young players interested, move on  a  decade or so from the decision and the reliance on public schools for county players quite unsurprisingly started rising, more push than nudge and arguably now more shunt than push.

A game heading up-market, getting posher as well? Personally, an Etiquette Board for spectators  was a new one last summer but among  the players if posh is Eton-Harrow posh, then not particularly.  In 2005 Hampshire teams included an old Etonian but in the men’s game since 2015 none found in the archives, old Harrovians three in 2024, one of whom has since retired. But no doubting the concentrations of players from some schools, 12 from King’s College, Taunton in 2024, Millfield, 9 or the connections at some  counties. Or the (‘career entry’) cost, sums well in to six figures, times if siblings.

For the women’s game the  records  are much less complete, across the three main competitions last year  34/68 privately educated, 123 players in all, a higher % among the under-25s; so possibly not so very different to the men, albeit the span of the possible is wide. Players with a South Asian heritage not as many, no salt needed.

In 2024 the most common name on the county circuit was Singh, 5 players,  a marker for the future  maybe. In all  a (conservative) count of 55 players from an ethnic minority,  up to nearly 20% of  the under-25s in 2024, converging if it hasn’t already converged on the % in the general population. A game for all? Not that,  two minorities be better than one, or three  if players who are related to other county players are included, but also a very obvious message about state schools.