|
Post by hhsussex on Feb 27, 2015 12:36:03 GMT
www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/feb/26/colin-graves-proposals-not-cast-in-stone-ecb“There’s no timescale, we want to do it openly and properly. We’re trying to do the right thing for what spectators want and the right thing for cricket. I’m prepared to put my head on the chopping block. We’ve got a massive opportunity to make a difference.”
So, how many County Chairmen, CEOs and Members actually want change? Is it possible to find a compromise when some people’s views are so intransigent and steeped in the past? How can you persuade such people the importance of change and how this change will form the survival of future county cricket? That to me is key. Perhaps, a group of respected forward-thinking speakers, from former county players to Chairmen and CEOs brought together by Graves and Harrison, should go to each county this season, offering opportunities for discussion and debate for Members and supporters to participate in. Major change as politicians know so well, is about selling the concept to the sceptical whilst offering hope and optimism to the converted. This must be done face to face rather than filling in some online deeply flawed form. People are creatures of habit - and there's a subtle difference between that and resistance to change, although the two are closely related.
I realise this recent "document" is really nothing more than a brainstorming session, but the question is - why is this happening at all? It was very clearly communicated that the current domestic structure was supposed to be the foundation for a period of stability. So now are they admitting that they got it all wrong? So, there is a big difference between change for progress and the constant chopping, changing and tinkering that goes on in the English domestic game. How are clubs supposed to promote their matches when they don't know what's happening from one season to the next? The Royal London Cup is one season old - ONE - and now it's already labelled a failure. Could anyone then blame clubs if they said: "Well, this competition's doomed, apparently. There's no point wasting time on it, on or off the field, trying to build up a fanbase to watch it in the summer holidays when it's going to be scrapped sooner or later. Let's just use it as opportunity to rest players and give some youngsters a go." In fact, that's exactly what Yorkshire did with the Pro40 in its final season. By comparison, there have been big changes in English domestic football - yet its core competitions and structure remain surprisingly unaltered - four major divisions, FA Cup, League Cup, and an "appointment to view" still largely centered around 3pm on a Saturday and Tuesday and Wednesday evenngs. Imagine if instead they kept tearing it up every few years, which is what English domestic cricket has been doing for the last 20 or so. A very good point, but the corollary to that is that people can get used to anything, given enough time and the constant repetition of simple messages, witness the demonising of benefits claimants and asylum seekers and the acceptance that 1930s standards of living and inequality are somehow natural for this country. I would hope there is a very big difference between the kind of review Graves has said that he wants to see happen, with imaginative ideas pursued, and the disastrous template forced on us by Jabba the Hutt and the Chairpolisher. Precisely because that last strategy and all of those that preceded it oin the last twenty years ago were doing what you have described as "chopping, changing and tinkering"; in other words no consistent attempt to appraise the relationship of English cricket to changes in society and to changes in the global game, but rather to attempt to present the same old worn-out economic model in another dress. Introducing the 2-division concept and inventing T20 have been the only true innovations in the game in all that time, and the first of those only bought a little breathing space for the outdated 18-county structure, whilst the latter failed to exploit its full potential while the IPL surged ahead. Time and economics have now caught up and both of those ideas need to be re-examined to see how they can once again be made relevant.
|
|
|
Post by invicta1977 on Feb 27, 2015 12:38:57 GMT
www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/feb/26/colin-graves-proposals-not-cast-in-stone-ecb“There’s no timescale, we want to do it openly and properly. We’re trying to do the right thing for what spectators want and the right thing for cricket. I’m prepared to put my head on the chopping block. We’ve got a massive opportunity to make a difference.”
So, how many County Chairmen, CEOs and Members actually want change? Is it possible to find a compromise when some people’s views are so intransigent and steeped in the past? How can you persuade such people the importance of change and how this change will form the survival of future county cricket? That to me is key. Perhaps, a group of respected forward-thinking speakers, from former county players to Chairmen and CEOs brought together by Graves and Harrison, should go to each county this season, offering opportunities for discussion and debate for Members and supporters to participate in. Major change as politicians know so well, is about selling the concept to the sceptical whilst offering hope and optimism to the converted. This must be done face to face rather than filling in some online deeply flawed form. . I realise this recent "document" is really nothing more than a brainstorming session, but the question is - why is this happening at all? It was very clearly communicated that the current domestic structure was supposed to be the foundation for a period of stability. So now are they admitting that they got it all wrong? In every job I've had, it's always been the same when a 'new broom' takes over. How can a freshly appointed manager possibly justify his existence if he looks around and says "Yeah, everything seems reasonably good....a tweak here or there perhaps but nothing radical required here". I see myself as a bendable traditionalist with cricket. I have to be convinced emphatically that a proposed change is for the game's overall good; if I am, even if it goes against my own personal preferences, I'll accept it and may even argue in favour of it. To answer S&F's question, I think it might be a good start if the new broom was utterly transparent with the "Why?" before moving on to the "How?" and "Who?". And, please, let's have a look at what English Cricket does well before slavishly accepting the notion (repeated ad infinitum since I first heard it 41 years ago) that the game is on its last legs.
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Feb 27, 2015 13:25:19 GMT
invicta, I have to be convinced emphatically that a proposed change is for the game's overall good;Some excellent points made from previous posters. Imho the ECB, oops, CEW, have made fools of themselves, again, if major changes do occur under Graves leadership. It makes a mockery of the previous 'major changes' devised from a deeply flawed online form. Imho, our overseers are running around like headless chickens, caught between the force who wish to remain in the past and those concerned by the future. Not so much Jabbas but Yabbas. I completely agree with invicta. Whatever changes are made in the next few years must be... finally... 'the right ones'. Changing for changes sake can wreak havoc on a sport already vulnerable to £90m county debt, few youngsters watching Championship cricket, dwindling grass-roots participation, and a constant conflict between the backward and forward thinkers. Until the latter is resolved, our beloved sport may not evolve and could simply inwardly collapse. I would love to see Sussex take the lead in this debate. Perhaps, a good ol' fashioned University contest where Members and supporters are invited to a grand "for and against" change argument. Invite Graves, Harrison and others from both camps to Hove, to once and for all debate the subject face to face with the people who matter the most. It should be the supporters who make the important and critical decisions for the future of our game and not the ECB who have made a hash of things in recent years. That online form was little more than a cynical series of questions created by a sly marketing company who manipulated us to say yes to the questions that the ECB wanted us to say yes to. As Bluto cajoles in 'National Lampoon's Animal House': Bluto: [standing up] HEY!! What's this lying around sh*t?! Stork: Well, what the hell we s'posed to do, you moron?! D-Day: War's over, man. Clarke's dropped the big one. Bluto: What? Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! Otter: Germans? Boon: Forget it. He's rolling. Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough . . . the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go! C'mon! [He runs out of the room screaming but then returns.] Bluto: What the f*ck happened to the Sussex I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh?! This could be the greatest night of our lives, but you're gonna let it be the worst! "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble." Well, JUST KISS MY *SS FROM NOW ON!!! Not me! I'm not gonna take this! Clarke, he's a dead man! Downton, DEAD! Hollins — Otter: Dead! Bluto's right. Psychotic, but absolutely right. [Otter stands up.] We gotta take these bastards. Now, we could fight 'em with conventional weapons. That could take years and cost millions of lives. Oh no. No, in this case, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part. Bluto: And we're just the guys to do it. [Boon and D-Day stand.] Boon: Let's do it. Bluto: Let's do it! [Everybody cheers and starts running out of the room, with Bluto still standing there.] Bluto: Go! Go! Go! Go! Go!
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Feb 27, 2015 14:17:19 GMT
"It should be the supporters who make the important and critical decisions for the future of our game and not the ECB who have
made a hash of things in recent years "
Fluffy, I know the ECB has made a complete horlicks with its previous reorganisations, BUT I would hesitate to let the 'supporters' decide about the future, if by supporters you mean CC members. IMHO, if you took a poll of the SCCC membership for example, you are likely to encounter:
- a strong resistance to change - a bitter hatred of any franchise system - a resistance to reducing the number of CC matches - an attitude driven by short term personal preference
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I see CC members in general taking the short term view - 'this is the way I like it, you can do what you like when I'm gone' - but, by then, it'll be too late.
|
|
|
Post by invicta1977 on Feb 27, 2015 14:19:20 GMT
I completely agree with invicta. Whatever changes are made in the next few years must be... finally... 'the right ones'. Changing for changes sake can wreak havoc on a sport already vulnerable to £90m county debt, few youngsters watching Championship cricket, dwindling grass-roots participation, and a constant conflict between the backward and forward thinkers. Until the latter is resolved, our beloved sport may not evolve and could simply inwardly collapse. I suspect we shouldn't set the bar too steepingly high. Whilst f-c cricket fans are perceived as intransigently traditional, the limited overs audience has proved fairly fickle down the years. Twenty years ago, there were Kent and Lancs members struggling to get in to the B&H Cup Final....these days, one can stroll along the Wellington Road two minutes before play commences and pay on the gate. The massively popular 40 over game - originally viewed by some as an abomination of brevity and thrash - eventually came to be regarded as a dull format with falling crowds and had to be augmented by a yet shorter, snappier version. So, it may come to pass that an attractive and initially highly successful T20 structure is laid out for the end of this decade, but starts to falter by the middle of the next. In which case, further reorganisation will be inevitable...all the more reason to get it as right as possible first time of asking.
|
|
|
Post by invicta1977 on Feb 27, 2015 14:41:23 GMT
"It should be the supporters who make the important and critical decisions for the future of our game and not the ECB who have
made a hash of things in recent years "Fluffy, I know the ECB has made a complete horlicks with its previous reorganisations, BUT I would hesitate to let the 'supporters' decide about the future, if by supporters you mean CC members. IMHO, if you took a poll of the SCCC membership for example, you are likely to encounter: - a strong resistance to change - a bitter hatred of any franchise system - a resistance to reducing the number of CC matches - an attitude driven by short term personal preference Perhaps I'm wrong, but I see CC members in general taking the short term view - 'this is the way I like it, you can do what you like when I'm gone' - but, by then, it'll be too late. Yes, I'd prefer a proper consultation exercise with members instead - by which I mean meetings rather than rubbish surveys. I believe county members deserve that - we are, after all, the ones stumping up money at the start of the season, turning up in all weathers to physically support domestic cricket. But, more importantly, if people are engaged and invited to take shared ownership of a matter, they'll be far more likely to respond to new ideas and maybe even assist with selling them on to others. Some of us are receptive to almost any suggestion and I'll be most amenable to having detailed proposals laid out for discussion when that day arrives.
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Feb 27, 2015 16:26:13 GMT
"It should be the supporters who make the important and critical decisions for the future of our game and not the ECB who have
made a hash of things in recent years "Fluffy, I know the ECB has made a complete horlicks with its previous reorganisations, BUT I would hesitate to let the 'supporters' decide about the future, if by supporters you mean CC members. IMHO, if you took a poll of the SCCC membership for example, you are likely to encounter: - a strong resistance to change - a bitter hatred of any franchise system - a resistance to reducing the number of CC matches - an attitude driven by short term personal preference Perhaps I'm wrong, but I see CC members in general taking the short term view - 'this is the way I like it, you can do what you like when I'm gone' - but, by then, it'll be too late. Yes, I'd prefer a proper consultation exercise with members instead - by which I mean meetings rather than rubbish surveys. I believe county members deserve that - we are, after all, the ones stumping up money at the start of the season, turning up in all weathers to physically support domestic cricket. But, more importantly, if people are engaged and invited to take shared ownership of a matter, they'll be far more likely to respond to new ideas and maybe even assist with selling them on to others. Some of us are receptive to almost any suggestion and I'll be most amenable to having detailed proposals laid out for discussion when that day arrives. Exactly: a conversation with all of the stakeholders from occasional purchasers of tickets on the gate, through members, elected and salaried officials of clubs, regional and national associations, other relevant bodies including Local Authorities, designed to stimulate ideas leading to a strategy for producing an agreed set of results. The conversation itself should also reflect on what those desired results should be. We seem to have one element of this in whatever was leaked by Dobell and others, a collation of ideas gleaned from discussion with those "within cricket" in the Downtonian manner. What is needed now - and I think that forums like this one help to ventilate some of these ideas - is to broaden out that discussion and involve those who are outside cricket in the sense that they have jobs or interests not dependent on salaried or elected roles in the game, but who care about it The third element is to use the ideas generated to research into what might appeal to those who don't currently watch cricket at all, those who might occasionally get involved, and those who would like to who are thwarted by circumstance - location, transport, cost, lack of facilities to take part, etc. I do agree that presentation is important to get people involved, as many as possible. Inevitably there will be many, even among the members and the officials, who will take the view that this is all a waste of time and somebody else's problem - but that's the same in any society or undertaking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2015 18:46:59 GMT
The last people who should be consulted are county members. There are now only 50,000 of this endangered species left, their average age is mid to late 60s and the simple laws of human biology tell us that by 2030, 90 per cent of them will be in McCarthy & Stone homes or pushing up daisies (you might call it depreciation of the asset base) .
It would be wrong to permit this tiny demographic to block change in pursuit of their own narrow sectional interest.
The whole point of the Graves/Harrison exercise has to be outward-looking as well as forward-looking.
Who are going to be the cricket-watchers of 2030, whether it is by attending county grounds or paying a subscription to Sky Sports/BT Sport? Because those are the people we have to identify and the game has to be restructured to suit their preferences.
|
|
|
Post by invicta1977 on Feb 28, 2015 0:38:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by invicta1977 on Feb 28, 2015 1:10:54 GMT
The last people who should be consulted are county members. There are now only 50,000 of this endangered species left, their average age is mid to late 60s and the simple laws of human biology tell us that by 2030, 90 per cent of them will be in McCarthy & Stone homes or pushing up daisies (you might call it depreciation of the asset base) . It would be wrong to permit this tiny demographic to block change in pursuit of their own narrow sectional interest. The whole point of the Graves/Harrison exercise has to be outward-looking as well as forward-looking. Who are going to be the cricket-watchers of 2030, whether it is by attending county grounds or paying a subscription to Sky Sports/BT Sport? Because those are the people we have to identify and the game has to be restructured to suit their preferences. But... you're a county member, aren't you, comrade? One that clearly has a passionate opinion that the ultimate aim is to ensure the wellbeing of English Cricket in the coming decades. Can you be sure that The ECB under Graves shares that vision? That it won't go barking up wrong alleys with skewed short term perspectives in the same manner as its predecessors? There seems to be a presumption that the 'new broom' will adopt a radical (and flawless) scorched earth policy and rebuild anew . But what if its proposals turn out to be another load of fudge and hogwash? Would you not welcome the opportunity to at least register your disappointment? Besides, as anyone who has worked in Local Government will testify, a consultation is not a referendum, it's a non-binding exchange of views. A risk-free exercise for the proposing body.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2015 10:41:35 GMT
County members blueprint for cricket circa 2030:-
1. One division in the county championship, 18 counties to play each other twice, 34 three day matches per county to be played on uncovered pitches.
2. A 40 overs Sunday afternoon league, played with a red ball and white clothing.
3. A 60 overs knock-out competition, played with a red ball and white clothing.
4. Five tests per summer and England players released to their counties for all other games.
5. All floodlights to be dismantled.
6. The ECB to be rebranded as the name has become toxic. Let's call it, say, the Test and County Cricket Board (TCCB).
This Narnia-shire world would get my vote. But as I keep saying , it isn't about me as I'm far from certain I shall still be here in 2030!
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Feb 28, 2015 11:38:55 GMT
fb,
BUT I would hesitate to let the 'supporters' decide about the future, if by supporters you mean CC members.
I got a bit carried away but what I suggest is that a group of people representing Graves and Harrison go around the counties this season putting forward their ideas for change to both Members and general cricket supporters, as well as to the staff, hierarchy and, most importantly, the players and coaches who are the ones who have to chop and change and play these different formats.
An open discussion and debate face to face where an evening is put aside which is well publicised and marketed for everyone to attend. From this, the ECB can gauge better the mood of the people and listen to further ideas and suggestions from the floor.
Of course, there will always be a hardcore group of Members who wish to remain in the past, and that is quite understandable. The key is to explain to them why the sport must now evolve alongside the 21st century and why change must take place.
No-one ever agrees on everything but if explained properly I believe a majority will accept the fact, perhaps grudgingly, that for our beloved sport to survive in 20 years from now, changes have to be made and whatever these changes are, once implemented must remain. This constant chopping and changing every few years is a nonsense and only makes things worse.
I echo Bms view: This Narnia-shire world would get my vote. But as I keep saying , it isn't about me as I'm far from certain I shall still be here in 2030.
|
|
|
Post by invicta1977 on Feb 28, 2015 16:30:29 GMT
what I suggest is that a group of people representing Graves and Harrison go around the counties this season putting forward their ideas for change to both Members and general cricket supporters, as well as to the staff, hierarchy and, most importantly, the players and coaches who are the ones who have to chop and change and play these different formats. An open discussion and debate face to face where an evening is put aside which is well publicised and marketed for everyone to attend. From this, the ECB can gauge better the mood of the people and listen to further ideas and suggestions from the floor. Of course, there will always be a hardcore group of Members who wish to remain in the past, and that is quite understandable. The key is to explain to them why the sport must now evolve alongside the 21st century and why change must take place. Yes...Graves and Harrison have an opportunity not just to reshape domestic cricket but to reshape the relationship between ruling body and stakeholders - to break from the recent tradition of loaded surveys and the ECB autocratically telling us that two plus two is ten only to insist a few years later that two plus two is five. I don't share borderman's view that all county members are self-serving reactionaries who cannot be convinced of the need to change. I'm assuming most of the regular contributors to this board are either members or diehards of some other description; the consensus here - and on other MBs I visit - seems to suggest an openness to dialogue and fresh ideas. A measure of cynicism too, but I don't think that necessarily an unhealthy thing. Get the members involved....they could be much more useful assets to cricket if properly engaged.
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Feb 28, 2015 19:00:49 GMT
what I suggest is that a group of people representing Graves and Harrison go around the counties this season putting forward their ideas for change to both Members and general cricket supporters, as well as to the staff, hierarchy and, most importantly, the players and coaches who are the ones who have to chop and change and play these different formats. An open discussion and debate face to face where an evening is put aside which is well publicised and marketed for everyone to attend. From this, the ECB can gauge better the mood of the people and listen to further ideas and suggestions from the floor. Of course, there will always be a hardcore group of Members who wish to remain in the past, and that is quite understandable. The key is to explain to them why the sport must now evolve alongside the 21st century and why change must take place. Yes... Graves and Harrison have an opportunity not just to reshape domestic cricket but to reshape the relationship between ruling body and stakeholders - to break from the recent tradition of loaded surveys and the ECB autocratically telling us that two plus two is ten only to insist a few years later that two plus two is five. I don't share borderman's view that all county members are self-serving reactionaries who cannot be convinced of the need to change. I'm assuming most of the regular contributors to this board are either members or diehards of some other description; the consensus here - and on other MBs I visit - seems to suggest an openness to dialogue and fresh ideas. A measure of cynicism too, but I don't think that necessarily an unhealthy thing. Get the members involved....they could be much more useful assets to cricket if properly engaged. Agreed completely - that would be a major achievement in itself, because it would restore faith between supporters and the autocrats, and that is the saddest thing, that despite the successes in recent years, of winning Test series, of interesting and challenging championship seasosn there is a complete disconnect between the two. This disconnect has shown itself most strongly over Pietersen and the direct issues of the action that took place have been lost in the welter of mistrust, planned leaks and lousy media relations. As to whether county members is interchangeable with "diehards of some other description" that's a matter of opinion. This forum is open to all, members of Sussex, or any other county, or any other institution it pleases them to adhere to, and the healthy scepticism that is shown here is probably a result of our choosing to be independent from a more binding alliance. Individual preferences and consciences fit more comfortably than the yoke of conformity.
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Mar 1, 2015 11:38:58 GMT
Did anyone else hear the interview with Colin Graves on Five Live this morning? He said that the discussion paper was leaked and wasn't intended for public consumption at this stage. He also said he was not personally in favour of 3 day CC cricket, but that it wasn't just his opinion that would count in the end. Unfortunately, I fear the journos will focus primarily on his comments about KP. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/31681746
|
|