Strauss Strategic Standing Down

 

Andrew Strauss strategic departure from ECB roles

Ignoring Strauss review was a mistake that will be felt this county season.

Nick Hoult.

London Daily Telegraph.

Thursday, 6 April 2023.

There is not much long grass at Lord’s because it is so pristine, but somewhere lurking at the 'Home of Cricket' is Sir Andrew Strausss’s review into the county game that could have seen a very different championship season start on Thursday. Instead, his proposals were met with fierce opposition from supporters defending the format they love and deep suspicion over the motives of the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) that stretch back years before to the bungled selling of the Hundred concept to existing fans. But even if his proposals for a six-team premier league championship with two conferences of six sitting below, reducing matches from 14 to 10, died a death in county cricket committee rooms, there is still change in the air, it will just be done differently.

The new leadership at the ECB - chief executive Richard Gould and chair Richard Thompson - recognise that by ignoring Strauss the counties have ended up with the very thing everyone accepted could not happen - the status quo. And it is unlikely to change for 2024 either - another two years wasted when the cricket world elsewhere is rapidly evolving. Part of the problem for the Strauss review was that it exposed the gulf between the centre and the counties. By not having the Hundred as part of its remit, the review was too easily dismissed as the ECB protecting its own baby at the expense of a championship founded in the 19th century. Lovers of red-ball cricket had seen enough, impressively organised resistance and put the frighteners on county chairs to reject it.

The proposals were sound and would have increased the competitiveness of the championship with the emphasis on play-offs for promotion and relegation. However, by also proposing a reduction the T20MBlast from 14 to 10 games as well, it just came across to county fans as too much of an attack so the cricketing merits were lost in the argument. So who will put their head in the lion’s mouth again? If Strauss, the only captain apart from Len Hutton to win Ashes series home and away, cannot sell change by gathering together some of the leading experts on high performance in British sport, then who?

The answer is the ‘two Richards’ will take a different approach. Wednesday saw a meeting of the Professional Game Group (PGG), a panel made up of county chief executives, two from international grounds, two from non-Test counties, and ECB officials. The PGG is to be scrapped along with the Professional Cricket Committee which has overseen the county game for decades, and merged into a new Professional Game Board (PGB), which one source described as becoming the “definitive” decision making body over cricket in England and Wales. In theory, it will streamline the process and avoid the messiness of the board commissioning a report and then having to sell it to its stakeholders. A recruitment process and terms of reference for the PGB were to be agreed on Wednesday with the acknowledgement the county game needs to move fast and evolve.

One of Strauss’s warning shots to the counties was the growth of franchise cricket, which surprised some in the shires and highlighted how out of touch they are with the real cricket world developing beyond their own horizons. Major League Cricket is launching this summer in the United States and will lure overseas players away from the Blast. It will not contain English cricketers in its first year but it is only a matter of time (PTG 4150-20330, 24 March 2023). Players need a Non-Objection Certificate (NOC) from their counties to play in another league so potentially they could block players but the NOCs have never been tested legally and probably do not hold much water.

Counties will see a talent drain away from the championship as the better cricketers pull in more franchise deals and wonder if they need the Championship. At the moment, the players’ love of red-ball cricket and kudos of winning the title still counts for something but not necessarily to the latest generation coming through. The PGB will also be hugely influential in negotiations over the county partnership agreement - the pot of money the counties receive annually from the ECB that keeps them alive.

Strauss originally started his project hoping for change in 2023 but it was soon kicked down the road to 2024 which was the death knell for his reforms. He is said to be very disillusioned with English cricket and its refusal to change. He will not be short of offers elsewhere in broadcasting and business and it is probably time for another voice to try and persuade county diehards that unless they accept some form of change the championship will wither.

Gould has been heavily influenced by his time in football and likes the pyramid system. He knows from his time at Surrey that the current schedule is unworkable and creating a better relationship between the Hundred and county cricket benefits both sides massively; the money and new supporters the Hundred brings combined with the county game producing the players who play in it. The only changes this ECB summer are cosmetic. The trial of the ‘Kookaburra' ball instead of the Duke for two rounds in high summer is aimed at helping England take wickets overseas and the number of points for draws has been reduced from eight to five to promote attacking cricket (PTG 4126-20214, 16 February 2023). It is not a lot after all the work put in, hours of meetings, cost of consultancy fees and Strauss’s publicity drive. PTG 4161-20376

First-class counties winning the battle to preserve existing domestic calendar

NICK HOWSON: Managing director of county cricket Neil Snowball says the 2024 season is likely to look similar to 2023 and that the start of the new campaign is not a deadline for a structure and calendar to be agreed upon

from the Cricketer

The England and Wales Cricket Board admit changes to the domestic schedule may never materialise after revealing the schedule for 2024 is likely to be largely unchanged.

Two elements of the 17-point high-performance review, around the structure, standard and intensity of the three competitions, have yet to achieve universal approval.

Central to the proposals was a remodelling of the County Championship (a six-team top division, two conferences below) and a reduction to 10 matches, the One-Day Cup being moved to April and the T20 Blast fitting in between May and July.

Many of the 15 member-owned counties reported widespread dissatisfaction with the ideas, leading to a logjam in negotiations.

The Cricketer understands a meeting between the ECB and the 18 county chairs is planned for February 23 in the hope of reaching a consensus.

Chair Richard Thompson has previously stressed that the fixture list for 2024 had to be agreed upon before the 2023 campaign started, so teams had full knowledge of what they were playing for.

But it appears that the start of the new campaign on April 6 is no longer a cut-off date. Indeed, it seems unlikely that any seismic changes will be implemented next year, or even beyond.

"We haven't got a cliff edge where we've got to make any big decisions between now and the start of the season because the volume of cricket will probably carry on as it is through 2023-24," ECB managing director of county cricket Neil Snowball said. "We will continue to have discussions with the counties over how we can increase the quality and intensity of those competitions.

"There are no big decisions still to be made. We're sticking with the volume of cricket in 2023 and will most likely roll through 2024.

"The conversations around structures and formats will continue but there are no big outstanding decisions that have to be made before the start of the season. We've got a pretty good idea of what that is going to look like in 2024."

He added: "In terms of any further work that we need to do, there is not a lot outstanding. There were a couple of bits around promotion and relegation, we've got discussions ongoing, but I don't foresee anything dramatic happening."

Asked whether a further delay in approving any changes could lead to the proposals being permanently kicked into the long grass, Snowball accepted a lack of county support remains a stumbling block.

"Potentially, yes," said the ex-Warwickshire chief executive. "That is for us to continue to work on with the counties. Any changes to format structures have to get the support of the counties and we'll continue to look at that.

"We'll continue to work with the counties to see if there are any improvements we could make but that has to be with their support.

"They could all continue the same which I think would be disappointing but that is something that we will continue to work on and make those changes in the future.

"There is a determination to do that but as always it is about finding something people can get behind.

"I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with the three competitions - I still think we have some of the best domestic competitions in the world - it is just how it fits together and that is the bit we need to challenge ourselves on."

21/12/2022

After telling to those assembled in the Randall Suite that he would do better and keep members informed, even when nothing much has happened, Chair Jeffery has thus far not been in touch since the EGM (01 Nov). So, it falls on Lancashire's Chair to keep everyone in the loop (see below) on this occasions.

If allowed the luxury of  asking a question, I would be interested to know how "the needs of the Counties with Test Match venues are sometimes diametrically opposed to the needs of the others"? Are the views of the members of those Test Match venue counties equally opposed and if they believe so, how would anyone know as there has been any consultation?

The brief message also reads as though the Chair of that county is not aligned with the views of the membership of Lancashire (or any county), but LCCC members do get a binding vote on proposed changes to structure.

Dear Member, I hope that this message finds you well and looking forward to the Festive Season.

I wanted to take this opportunity to update you on developments relating to the ECB’s High-Performance Review (HPR), and its impact on the domestic cricket schedule from 2024 onwards. Since the Special General Meeting took place in October, the Club has remained in conversations with the England & Wales Cricket Board (ECB) and our fellow 17 First-Class Counties on this subject.

Following those conversations – and whilst no official vote has since been called for or taken, and no official communication on the subject has been published – it has been widely accepted by the ECB, and authors of the HPR, that the main recommendations specifically relating to the domestic schedule have not been agreed or accepted by a majority of the First-Class Counties.

As a Club, we understand that the other 15 recommendations which were raised as part of the overall HPR process, have now been approved by the ECB Board.

However, the HPR’s more contentious recommendations, such as splitting the County Championship into a top division of six and reducing the number of matches from 14 to 10, have not been approved by a majority of Counties. A vote (requiring the support of 12 out of 18 Counties) is only needed for changes to the schedule and given the clear strength of feeling, there has not been a need for such vote to take place. A sub-group of County Chairs have been collating the preferences of each individual County and will make a 2024 schedule proposal to the ECB. It must be said that we are not always aligned with our County colleagues. The needs of the Counties with Test Match venues are sometimes diametrically opposed to the needs of the others.

Discussions for the 2024 schedule therefore remain ongoing and, as we have previously stated, once discussions with the ECB arrive at a final proposal on reform of the schedule, we will publish details of those proposals in full to update Members. If any new proposals come forward which constitute a change to the existing domestic competitions, then, as previously promised, the Club will bring this back to a Members’ Forum with an associated binding Member vote.

However, at this stage, we are not expecting any material changes to the schedule to be brought forward. This will continue to challenge our Cricket Department, specifically our Medical Team, due to the intensity of the scheduling of the 14 County Championship matches at certain times of the season.

I would like to thank our Members once again for your passion on this subject and your co-operation throughout what has been a long and complicated process.

I would also like to wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and, as a Club, we look forward to seeing you at Emirates Old Trafford for some cricket in just over 100 days’ time.

Andy Anson,
Chair, Lancashire Cricket

On 1st November Notts members were told that the club would in the future try to keep members better informed. Well no word has been communicated as yet by NCCC, so here's what Kent's Chair has told Kent members and the world.

Kent Cricket’s Chair, Simon Philip, has provided an update on the two High Performance Review recommendations which concern the structure & scheduling of county cricket.

Yesterday, I attended a virtual meeting for the 18 First-Class County Chairs to discuss the High-Performance Review.

As previously stated, there are two key areas for our Club – structure & scheduling.

For any changes to be enacted to these, 12 of the 18 First-Class Counties must be in favour. As previously covered in the cricket media, it is clear that there is no requisite majority for a reduction of LV= Insurance County Championship or Vitality Blast cricket or for the One-Day Cup to be played at the start of the season.

We are committed to finding solutions that improve the performance of England Cricket – there are 14 other recommendations in the Review that are non-contentious & may well have a significant positive impact on the performance of our Men’s International teams. However, at this time, there are no proposals or votes on the table concerning the amendment of the domestic schedule & structure.

Until this changes, the status quo prevails.

If any proposals do emerge in future, they will be assessed by the Board & the impact on the Club, our Members, supporters, players and stakeholders will be considered.  Members will be consulted in that eventuality.

However, in the absence of any proposals currently, there is nothing on which to consult.