Little England Mentality Stands In Way Of Progress (21 Dec 1995)

Electronic Telegraph Thursday 21 December 1995

Little England mentality stands in way of progress

Bold blueprint entangled by red tape of committees and constitution, says Christopher Martin-Jenkins

THE Test series in South Africa is not the only cricketing matter which has ground to a halt this winter. The appalling weather earlier in the week tried the patience here, but so too has the painfully slow progress at home towards a more competitive sport from school to professional level, administered by a more efficient governing body capable of taking a broad national view.

It may be recalled that the Test and County Cricket Board held a special meeting on May 31, then announced: "The Board were unanimous that a base had been established to move into a detailed planning stage to enable a final recommendation to be presented to the Board for adoption in the autumn." It was intended then that the English Cricket Board would come into being on Jan 1, 1996. Now, the earliest estimate is April.

Well, it is better that they should get it right than not get there at all, and persuading the members of the TCCB to vote themselves out of existence, in order to form a more streamlined body better able to run a modern game from the playground to the Test arena, like the Australians and South Africans, was never going to be simple. The formation of separate boards to oversee cricket in the 38 counties and to receive and distribute funds is naturally taking time too.

This is not the only piece of procrastination, however. The National Cricket Academy has evidently been postponed again, a delay the more surprising for the latest evidence of the efficacy of the Australian prototype. As for the "comprehensive review of all aspects of the first-class game" undertaken by the Board`s cricket committee over the last six months, the result is a few cautious tinkerings with the status quo.

In short, a mistaken sense of priorities and human intransigence have proved every bit as deleterious as the rain did in Durban. The new national Board has been postponed because of a combination of inadequate communication from the centre and small-minded men in the shires; the Academy apparently lacks the necessary finance, despite a ready-made cricket centre at Shenley, Hertfordshire, and high-calibre coaches like Peter Philpott and Mike Gatting eager to get cracking; and the reshaping of county cricket has, as predicted, been postponed until 1999.

The minor counties also have to be persuaded that they will gain.

The reason, in the words of the Board`s admirably detailed report (full marks, at least, for that) is that "any radical alterations to the existing domestic structure during the term of the current television broadcasting contracts are to be avoided." Yet the Board offered assurances last spring that the new agreements with the sponsors of county cricket, and of England`s Tests and international programme, could be altered if this winter`s review recommended broader changes.

That was not so much dishonest as naive. The conscientious and well-meaning men who administer the professional game from Lord`s try to achieve a proper balance between running a national sport and a successful business, but they, and the many who work on cricket`s behalf voluntarily, are bound by the abundance of committees and a constitution which needs to be radically overhauled.

Little by little, they will get there. The ECB has been postponed, not abandoned, and a working party (yes, another) under David Morgan, of Glamorgan, will discuss areas of disagreement.

For the first-class counties there are three main areas of uncertainty: first, the new constitution, under which counties will no longer have a direct representation, except through voting for the executive board of 11; second, the method of distributing the vast central pool of money; and third, the details of how the various county boards will be able to receive development money from the Cricket Foundation.

The minor counties also have to be persuaded that they will gain, both financially and through more competitive cricket, by joining a national (38-county) competition.

A senior Board spokesman pointed out that the Minor County Championship "is not exactly bursting with young blood" but the partly hostile reaction of their Association to the prospect of being disbanded has something to do with the vagueness of the Board`s proposals for a new championship.

It has not been decided whether matches will be of two days or three and the minor counties are quite right, surely, to want the mainly professional second XIs of the major counties to be involved, not amateur third Xis.

The question of whether there should be points for a draw has been left until March.

So much for the birth-pangs of the ECB. Meanwhile, the thorough analysis of David Acfield`s cricket committee has, at least, resulted in some small but interesting changes to county cricket in the next three years. They have rightly refuted the fashionable support for a two-division championship and instead increased the prize-money for the main county competition by $5,750 overall.

With prize-money ranging from $365,000 for the 1996 champions (compared with $342,500 for the winners of the NatWest Trophy) to $35,000 for the county finishing ninth, plus $31,000 for winning each match, there should be sufficient incentive for "competitive" cricket.

The question of whether there should be points for a draw has been left until March. The drop down from 110 to 104 overs for the first three days of Championship matches and 96 on the last day is, however, agreed. It answers a plea by players that quality should be preferred to quantity. Unfortunately, fewer overs does not in itself guarantee quality.

The majority of players will approve, too, of the decision to play Benson and Hedges games under ICC regulations, but while there is probably little difference between a 50 and a 55-over game, it seems a shame that England, where off-spinners have traditionally thrived, should have been forced to agree to the artificial regulation that there should never be more than five fielders on the leg side.

I am not sure, either, about the wisdom of starting Championship matches on Wednesdays from 1997. Apparently the cricket committee think this will force counties to prepare pitches which will last until Saturday. Wishful thinking, I fear, especially if a county needs to win a game to keep in the championship race.

The intention to have no overseas players from 1999 is another one with which the majority of county members will disagree. Sixty-five per cent of the County Cricket Supporters` Association voted for the retention of one overseas player per county in a recent poll. Although the majority of the players disagree, it will be a surprise if the change goes through.

As for the idea that county chairmen will willingly rest their England players at the request of the chairman of selectors, the appropriate phrase again is `wishful thinking`. It happens in South Africa and Australia because of rules that the national team should take priority. Only when the national interest takes precedence over the parochial will we ever make similar progress in Britain.

Source :: Electronic Telegraph (http: www.telegraph.co.uk)