At last week’s meeting presenting the KNCB’s restructuring proposals, Roland Lefebvre, the director of youth cricket, outlined the case for introducing multi-day cricket into the Dutch domestic game.

Lefebvre is well qualified to speak with authority on the subject: one of the most talented players The Netherlands has ever produced, he had himself to make the adjustment from the Hoofdklasse to English first-class cricket, appearing in 77 first-class matches for Somerset, Glamorgan and Canterbury, and since returning to his native country he has as a coach seen at first hand the limitations which afflict the current generation of young Dutch cricketers.

So when he talks about the skills and techniques which batsmen and bowlers have to develop in the longer form of the game, and the concentration, consistency and technical and tactical awareness which are required – qualities whose absence are all too evident on the Dutch scene at present – you might expect his audience to sit up and listen.

‘There’s no doubt about it,’ he said last Wednesday evening, ‘from a coaching perspective this change is absolutely crucial.’

Yet within minutes of his finishing his presentation, the first question from the floor was: ‘What’s the aim in proposing the introduction of two-day domestic cricket?’

The proponents of bringing a two-day component into the top level of the Dutch domestic game have a lot of work to do to persuade the bulk of the cricketing community not only that the move would enhance the sport, but that it is essential for the long-term health of the shorter forms of the game as well.

In all top cricket countries, the skills which the leading players exhibit in the one-day game, and now in Twenty20, have been developed, honed and refined in two-, three- or four-day cricket, of which the shorter forms are basically a concentration. The Associates face a huge handicap because they are trying to reverse that process.

If the argument for multi-day cricket simply has to be won if Dutch cricket is to progress, it’s less obvious how it can most effectively be introduced.

The fundamental choice is between adapting the existing league structure to make room for two-day matches alongside the current 50-over format – the option proposed by Top Cricket Nederland – and creating an entirely new, regional competition between the Hoofdklasse and international cricket.

TCN spokesman Derick Maarleveld stated last week that the latter idea had been explored by his group, but that despite its attractions they had rejected it.

‘We didn’t dare put forward a four-team regional structure,’ he admitted. ‘We didn’t believe that it would have any chance of success at this stage.’

Yet there are grounds for suspecting that, while the introduction of five two-day games per team would be beneficial in itself, the proposed system of six-team Champions and Premier Leagues is unlikely to achieve another of TCN’s key aims, the concentration of the best players into a smaller number of teams in order to make the highest echelon of domestic cricket more competitive and more demanding.

The prospect of promotion to the top flight is likely to ensure that the second tier of clubs fight to retain or attract good players, so that the presence of cricketers who simply aren’t good enough in all but a few Hoofdklasse teams would be unlikely to change.

In a sense, Dutch cricket is at the same point now, and is affected by the same problems of conservatism and self-interest, that English cricket was at in the mid-1990s, when Lord MacLaurin’s proposals for restructuring, and more radical ideas such as the introduction of a regional competition, were rejected in favour of a two-division County Championship.

There, too, the prospect of promotion has worked against the much-needed concentration of talent in a few major clubs, and it is arguable that were it not for the masking agent of ‘Kolpak’ players it would be apparent to all that the English county game has actually deteriorated over the past decade.

In the end, it may be that the idea of an opt-in ‘Centres of Excellence’ approach, where the leading clubs are given the alternatives of joining in the process of change or consigning themselves to a second, business-as-usual tier, will have to be adopted in order to overcome the negativism which is all too prevalent in Dutch cricket.

The Netherlands has no God-given right to the privileged position it currently enjoys among the Associate countries, and the margin of failure is as narrow now as it was in 2005, when victory over the UAE earned the Dutch the final place among the qualifiers for the 2007 World Cup.

Associates cricket has become much tougher and more competitive since then, and precious time has been wasted in responding to the challenges presented by the ICC High Performance Program and the short-sighted policies of the ECB.

The current national side is good enough to ensure that The Netherlands stays at the top table for a while yet, as its success at the World Twenty20 qualifier in Belfast last month demonstrated. But the warning signs for the longer term are clear enough for all to see, and if the present consultation process does not result in a much tougher domestic – and for that matter, international – schedule for the best young players, and fast, then there will be little reason for optimism.