Why the 'Strong Yorkshire, Strong England' Is No Longer Relevant

The saying "Strong Yorkshire, Strong England" dates back to the days when many, if not most, of England's Test players were produced and nurtured in Yorkshire.

Indeed, Yorkshire are the most successful county team in English cricket history, with 32 County Championship titles. 

However, what could arguably once have said to have been the truth is now nothing more than a hollow cliche. A strong Yorkshire does not necessarily mean a strong England, just as a weak Yorkshire does not necessarily mean a weak England.

Of course, if Yorkshire are producing hordes of talented players, then that can only be of benefit to England, but the fortunes of the two are no longer intertwined as they used to be.

Richard Heathcote/Getty Images

This season is something of a red herring. Yorkshire won the title again and England beat India well with key performances from Yorkshire born-and-bred players.

However, to call England "strong" would be something of an overstatement; only last winter they were thrashed 5-0 by Australia in the Ashes before being humiliated at the World T20 in Bangladesh in the spring and losing to Sri Lanka in Tests and ODIs.

The crux of this debate, however, actually lies away from England and from Yorkshire and in the growth of the country and ECB infrastructure over the past 25 years and in particular the past decade or so. 

Paul Gilham/Getty Images

In the 1960s, when Yorkshire were arguably at their strongest, the county scene was nowhere near as strong as it is now. There were 17 counties, but many of them were poorly run, managed and administered and facilities were awful.

More recently, a wave of professionalism and modernisation has swept through the game in England. The mean performance level has been raised and the median narrowed. Teams are far better than they used to be, and the gap between the best and the worst has narrowed. 

A strong Yorkshire used to mean a strong England because Yorkshire, a huge county with a large population, were a well-developed, well-funded county capable of generating players for England. Nowadays all the counties boast similar facilities—indeed, Yorkshire can no longer claim to be the best, with the likes of Surrey, Middlesex, Lancashire, Nottinghamshire, Glamorgan and even Hampshire with similar if not better resources at their disposal.

Only recently, during England's successful era under Andrew Strauss, the theory that a strong Yorkshire means a strong England can be seen to have been debunked.

Only one of England's XI that played at the SCG as England completed their 3-1 series victory over Australia—arguably the peak of that era—was from Yorkshire: Tim Bresnan.

The county system, 18 teams broad and equally deep in talent, is perfectly capable of providing for a strong England without the assistance of Yorkshire.

Of course, Yorkshire being strong and generating talent no doubts helps England, but the two are not mutually inclusive.

An interesting point to extrapolate from this debate is that since the introduction of central contracts at the end of the 1990s, a strong Yorkshire could be seen to precede a strong England; i.e. Yorkshire produce high-quality young players, the young players help create a strong Yorkshire, before they are poached all season long by England who go on to be successful while Yorkshire's performance dips.

Now that's a new theory to consider...