It is no coincidence that England enjoyed its greatest success in the years following the introduction of promotion and relegation (2000), the years when county cricket contained some of the world’s best players
George Dobell11-Mar-20156:41
Polite Enquiries: George and Mel respond to England’s demise with The Undertaker’s Edition
It is amusing – in a grim way – to reflect that, less than two years ago, England cricket beat itself up about the style with which it won an Ashes series 3-0.It is amusing – in a way that is not really amusing at all – to reflect that, less than two years ago, England cricket bemoaned the measured pace with which Jonathan Trott won ODIs.It is amusing – in a way that should actually make us angry – to reflect that it is barely two years since England cricket thought its biggest problem was a star player sending private Blackberry messages about a colleague.In retrospect, England cricket was in a golden age. Truly, you never know what you have until it has gone.Now it seems that – for all the money, for all the hubris, for all the army of support staff that now stretches to a horse whisperer and unicycling topiarist – England might struggle to give the Pitcairn Island second XI a decent game.Anger is inevitable. Not just inevitable, but positive. The day we accept a World Cup showing as dire as this is the day we have stopped caring. We do English cricket a disservice by accepting it.But, just as the ECB were wrong to try and scapegoat Kevin Pietersen for the Ashes whitewash, so it would be wrong to try and scapegoat Paul Downton and Peter Moores for this latest calamity.While the money spent on Downton, in particular, might have been just as beneficial to England cricket if it were donated to an owl sanctuary – it may well have caused less harm – it is simplistic to conclude that firing another couple of managers would bring the meaningful change required. The situation is much worse than that.Sacking Moores and co. won’t change anything. In another year or two, we will just be calling for their replacements to be sacked. Just as we did with Ashley Giles and Andy Flower a year or so ago.The change needs to be more radical than that.For a start, Graves and co would be well served trying to broaden the base of the game in England. At present, with the sport peripheral in many schools and almost absent on free-to-air TV, the counties select their teams from private schools, South Africans with British heritage and a few pockets in England – notably Yorkshire – which still develop players. If England are to challenge the best, that will have to change.Graves would also be well served improving pitches in England. At present, partially due to the amount of cricket played upon them, they are often slow and offer exaggerated assistance to medium-pacers who have little chance of prospering in international cricket. The Yorkshire coach Jason Gillespie makes the point powerfully in Dan Brettig’s recent book, .”Some of the wickets are so ordinary that it evens the playing field, so average cricketers can punch above their weight,” Gillespie said. “You get some of these little dibbly dobbly medium pacers having a real impact in county cricket. As soon as you get on a good, flat Test-type wicket they are found wanting. Invariably good players will not only survive but thrive in good cricket conditions. When you get that even contest between bat and ball, good players come through.”A lot of second XI matches on out grounds, club grounds, it can be difficult to gauge the form of second XI players on dung heaps in Bradford League when they’re going to play at Headingley.”You can talk about having all sorts of programs in place, tours, workshops. But I think if you get facilities bang on and encourage positive, aggressive cricket, the cream always rises to the top and you find out about blokes when it’s good cricket conditions.”England in need of a radical change•Getty ImagesThe international schedule will have to be cut if England are to improve. And to do that, the ECB will have to take a long hard look at their business model. Costs may well need to be cut, too. The plethora of ECB officials and the cost of Bluffborough may be a good place to start.County cricket is not the problem, it is the solution. It is no coincidence that England enjoyed its greatest success in the years following the introduction of promotion and relegation (2000), the years when county cricket contained some of the world’s best players, the years when – for a brief interlude – the domestic game was valued and cherished by its administrators. Justin Langer rated it as good a standard of domestic cricket as he had played around the time England won the 2005 Ashes.The problem with England players is that they do not play enough county cricket. Such is the bloated international schedule that England’s international players participate in almost no domestic T20 cricket, almost no 50-over cricket and, as a consequence, fall behind the latest tactics and innovations in the limited-overs game.Not just that, but it causes the gap between domestic and international cricket to grow. The England team management have contributed to the dilution in quality of the county game by pulling players out of it and focussing, instead, on preparing them at Loughborough. At the same time, work permit criteria has been toughened in county cricket, young player incentives have been introduced and the international schedule – as well as Lions games – have prevented the best England players appearing. The wisdom, in the past handed down from experienced players to juniors, has been lost.It remains perplexing that England allow their players – even the captain of the England ODI team – to miss county duty to play in the IPL. While there is some logic in the argument that players will learn from the experience, there is also logic in the reverse: that the standard of county cricket is diluted by the departures and the English game might be better served if the top players were involved more often. For the England captain to miss it on IPL duty sends a poor message.Loughborough or bluffborough?•Getty ImagesColin Graves, the incoming chairman of the ECB, would be well served empowering the counties rather than subjugating them.The danger in the current climate is that those with an agenda will exploit it to bring the changes they have always desired. Graves is already discussing ways to revolutionise county cricket with some idiosyncratic ideas. Anyone who thinks a return to one-division, three-day county championship cricket containing 110 overs a day – as is being discussed, though Graves’ views on it are unclear – is a good idea should not be trusted with its governance. They should probably not be trusted with scissors.But Graves has shown he does not fear bold decisions. His readiness to consider Kevin Pietersen’s return will be welcomed by many, but it does undermine the authority of Downton, Moores and the chief selector, James Whitaker. Whitaker, who not long ago said Pietersen would “never” play for England again, will meet the player shortly to discuss that very possibility.Equally, Graves’ willingness to consider the introduction of T20 franchises will also split those working within the game. The ECB are, after all, one year into a four-year plan to improve domestic T20 cricket in England. Record ticket sales are anticipated in 2015 yet Graves – even before he has taken office – is considering plans to change it entirely.Graves cannot claim to be a completely new face at the ECB, though. This is the Colin Graves who was assistant chairman of the ECB when Moores and Downton were appointed. The Colin Graves who was deputy chairman when Pietersen was sacked. The Colin Graves who was on the ECB board that backed the plans to improve domestic T20.But none of that need matter. His real work starts now. Sacking Moores and Downton might placate the critics for a while, but if Tom Harrison – the ECB’s new CEO – and Graves really want to help, they will have to be a little less populist and a lot more substantive.