The critical mass

The chairman of the ECB, David Morgan, was returned unopposed for a second two-year term of office © Getty Images

At the last count, there were three reports claiming to be a panacea for English cricket. In chronological order, these are called: A Cricketing Future For All; Making English Cricket Great - for Everyone; and Lifting Cricket's Fortunes. The titles might have been racier, but you can see where they are coming from: things could be better and if you do it our way they will be simply fantastic. (Yes, even more fantastic than winning 10 out of 11 Test matches and being runners-up in the mini-World Cup in the same year).

Only the first paper is official. It was published by the ECB in 2001 as the National Strategy for Cricket. The other two are also national strategies for cricket, completely unofficial but hardly less lacking in a tone intermingling authority and chutzpah. In short, they are telling the ECB what they have cocked up and how they can put it right by reforming their management and administration.

They are remorseless in their dissection of the purported shortcomings and dogmatic in their proposed solutions. They have several valid and persuasive points, particularly about the direction of the county game and the funding of the recreational game. But that seems to be that. In September, the chairman of the ECB, David Morgan, was returned unopposed for a second two-year term of office. Not bad for the head of an organisation in apparent need of radical surgery and drastic reform.

There was not a whimper of formal opposition from the groups calling so stridently for change. When nominations for the chairmanship closed neither the Cricket Reform Group, which gave us Making English Cricket Great Again, in November 2003, nor The Sports Nexus, which was behind Lifting Cricket's Fortunes, published this September, had bothered to try to have its representatives nominated, let alone elected. Instead of trying to get inside the camp and agitate for the changes they sought, they were still seemingly happy to stay outside occasionally banging on the door and hoping somebody would not only hear but listen as well.

The CRG has the marquee names. Bob Willis and Michael Atherton, former England captains both, form two of its founding quintet. The others are Michael Parkinson, sports columnist and chat show host; Nigel Wray, entrepreneur and owner of Saracens Rugby Club; and Willis's brother, David, the group's driving force and long-established administrator in club cricket.

The Sports Nexus came from nowhere to announce itself as a sports lobbying group, choosing cricket as its first target. Its chairman is Jonathan Marland, a self-confessed sports nut who became a millionaire in the city. He hired two directors who did some research, enlisted the support of influential movers and shakers, commissioned a couple of surveys and emerged with his prescription. He was also shrewd enough to get the funding body, Sport England on his side.

Neither bunch has an entirely convincing argument for fomenting revolution while themselves resolutely refusing to enter the fray officially. Bob Willis said that standing for selection would be next to impossible. "You have to be nominated by the first-class counties and as part of the thrust of our argument is that the counties should have less influence over the running of the game the chances of that happening would be next to nil."

Michael Atherton (top) and Bob Willis: giving up their day jobs is not an option © Getty Images

But Willis could have had a high old time going on the stump and failing to secure backing. He would be an impressive candidate as chairman because while he often gives the impression that his glass is half empty he is unafraid to speak his mind. He is also known to everybody in the game. Some of the same might be said for Atherton. But the fact is that it would be impossible for them to combine ECB work with their roles as television pundits and since they are both on lucrative contracts giving up the day job is not an option.

Marland was slightly fazed by the suggestion that he might have considered pressing for change from within. "Good point," was his good-natured but slightly bemused reaction. Nexus is lining up to have a pop at a range of sports but when Marland becomes more familiar with the lie of the cricket land - something he might have done before rushing into print - he might realise that effective change could only come from within.

If either the CRG or Nexus had truly wanted to do anything other than snipe from the sidelines (they cannot in all honesty have expected their papers to be adopted) they would have pursued Morgan to the polls. Atherton and Willis presumably could have stood for their county committees and taken it from there. Marland might have been the sort of rich man to appeal to many counties.

While Morgan was measured in his response to the lack of opposition, Giles Clarke, the chairman of Somerset, was utterly dismissive of the opposition groups. His simple, direct point was that if they had something to say why did they not come to cricket's existing administrators to say it? Failing that, why not get elected? He was scathing about The Sports Nexus. "Who are these people? I've never heard of them, they've never asked me or anybody else in the game what we think or how they could help. I and a few other county chairmen are well known to the City. Are these people?"

From this, it can be gathered that Clarke is not easily to be browbeaten. The founder of Majestic Wines, an entrepreneur and proud of it, he has risen seamlessly through the cricket hierarchy since he was asked to become chairman of Somerset. "Until November 2002 I had no direct involvement in the professional game but less than two years after becoming county chairman I was invited to become chairman of the ECB's marketing advisory committee. These people who stand outside and criticise don't appeal to me. The Sports Nexus report is badly researched and because of that their conclusions are completely misguided. Why did they not ask the people involved for their opinions before doing this? If I saw them, I'd tell them to get lost."

Mike Soper: something of a loose cannon in the past © Getty Images

As chairman of the marketing advisory committee, Clarke has spent the last three months heading the ECB team negotiating a new television rights deal for cricket. He has thrown himself into the role but has scoffed at suggestions that he stand as chairman of the ECB itself. Time is a factor. Clarke is a passionate fellow who does not suffer from low self-esteem and will fight cricket's corner where it matters. He has some of the charisma of Morgan's predecessor, Lord MacLaurin.

Within the existing organisation, it had been expected that Mike Soper, the deputy chairman and chairman of the much-derided First Class Forum, would oppose Morgan. Soper has been something of a loose cannon in the past, making outlandish, unscheduled pronouncements, on one occasion crowing that cricket could become bigger than football. He too cares but the definite feeling at ECB headquarters was that he did not possess the necessary gravitas to be chairman. He did not risk standing.

Thus Morgan's hand has been strengthened. He has been diligent in dealing with his opposition, politely asking the CRG to meet him, and while he was politely sceptical about the Nexus Report, he would not be opposed to a meeting with its authors. In short, he has managed to outflank everybody.

Earlier this year, his stock was low because of his perceived role in the Zimbabwe issue. He was given a dreadful reception at an ICC meeting in Auckland. But somehow, Morgan managed to survive that. With flak also flying in the direction of Tim Lamb, the ECB chief executive, the pair realised that one of them at least would have to go. Details have never been revealed and both men are much too discreet to talk about it, but it is understood that over lunch one afternoon in June, they talked in depth about their respective positions and where English cricket stood. The upshot was that Morgan survived and Lamb resigned. Morgan has been solicitous in his defence of Lamb since and helped to ensure that the outgoing chief executive was given suitable recompense without too much haggling over contractual clauses.

Strengthened or not, Morgan is not in for an easy ride. If the ECB does not change the way it runs, at least reducing the power of the First Class Forum, it faces a genuine threat of losing future grants from Sport England. That amounted to almost £12m this year, and although it is not likely to be as much in future and a new television deal will be worth much more, the money is largely used for helping recreational cricket. It would be in neither side's interest to reach a stand-off but Morgan and the ECB will alienate Sport England at their peril.

It remains to be seen what the ginger groups will do next. So far, not a single one of their ideas has been adopted - or even been on the table. A Cricketing Future For All - mission statement: "to ensure that England becomes and remains the most successful and respected cricket nation in the world, and to encourage the widest possible participation and interest in the game throughout England and Wales" - is likely to outlast them. So might David Morgan.