England has a chronic problem with one day cricket.
Does it exist to succeed as a domestic game from a financial perspective, or is domestic cricket the training ground for developing players to succeed for England at International level?
England’s ODI performances have been ordinary, and at times have bordered on being woeful, for nearly two decades. Not since the 1992 ICC World Cup in Australia/New Zealand, when Graham Gooch’s team lost to Pakistan in the Final, has England been competitive in World Cups. The most recent, in India last March, added to the perception that England is stuck in a time-warp with regard to strategy, skill-level, and (arguably) the quality snd selection of its’ personnel.
The highly-respected Andy Flower has done a superb job as England Coach since assuming the reins in January 2009. The team has won two Ashes series, one ICC T20 World Cup, and some back-to-back ODI Series, but the reality is, England appear to be behind other countries when it comes to developing the all-important mix of successful tactics, and the personnel who can deliver against them. So why is this?
My personal opinion, is that one-day cricket has never been regarded as a priority in the psyche of English cricket’s top brass.
Commercially, the one day game is a priority for them, but as an art-form, not likely. It is possibly regarded as a necessary evil, and a ‘cash-cow’ which, in the opinion of many respected observers, has been de-valued over time, by an ‘over-egging’ of the pudding.
For example, The Gillette Cup begat the one-day format and was a great success – it no longer exists.
The Sunday League saved county cricket from near extinction by bringing in the crowds on a weekly basis in the 1970’s – it no longer exists.
Twenty20 was another initiative to ‘save’ county cricket. The original (highly successful) format of playing only a few games to packed houses, in which each match really meant something, no longer exists. The original version had an intensity to it (which the crowd responded to), but it got changed: the fixture list expanded. Whilst I accept that novelty may have been a factor in its’ initial success in 2003, there is now a big danger of it becoming a duller game because of the increased number of matches being played. The fact that teams are playing on pitches of less quality has altered the psyche of the players – it is about stopping the opposition from playing rather than out-performing them. It has become less of a ‘hit it out the park’ or ‘send the stumps flying’ game – the very attraction to ‘neutral’ supporters (who were previously ambivalent to the sport) seeking a good social night out after work with clients and friends. The idea was that ‘fun cricket’, wedged into the summer’s cricket schedule in the height of summer to make the most of hot summer nights, would bring a new audience, and a much-needed cash boost to a struggling county game.
Unfortunately, the commercial success of the format has fed a greed in many administrators who are faced with rising player costs and ground improvement costs. T20 has been seen as the answer to the debt problems facing the majority of clubs, and their dire need for cash flow. In turn, it has led to an extended fixture programme, and a prioritising of theT20 format over 50 over cricket – this despite the 50 over game being the very format England needs to become better at, if it is to make a proper impact in future World Cups.
Sadly, the constitution of English cricket (which requires a ‘yes’ vote from a high majority of the 18 County Chairman on major decisions) means that the decision-making process at the heart of the game will have a tendency to become weighted in favour of a short-term, commercial argument. designed to improve the finances of the 18 First-Class counties – hence the increase in T20 Cricket. A more far-sighted decision, from a cricket perspective, would be the prioritising of 50 over Cricket. Bizarrely, England no longer plays 50 over Cricket at domestic level. How can that decision best support the future success of the national team whose very success underpins the domestic structure of the game?
Maybe a solution is to re-draft the constitution and propose an independent Board of Directors as opposed to those selected from the County Clubs who are elected as committee members, and are required to make the major decisions in the English game, even if they may conflict with their own clubs’ needs. If individuals are representatives of their constituency, then they have a moral responsibility to vote in the best interests of those who elected them to represent their electorate. Voting for ‘the best interests of English Cricket’ may cause individuals to cast their vote in the opposite direction.
The argument is flawed if the County Chairmen have to vote themselves out of power to bring about a change in the constitution to allow for a Board of Independent Directors. However, if it were to be so…….. who could fill the breach?
Men like Mike Atherton, who have a breadth of perspective plus a desire to see England be successful (and the experience of the problems facing an England international cricketer/captain at the sharp end), have a big contribution to make. By paying such men (and ’properly’) for their wisdom and strategic input, it would require them to avoid a conflict of interest and forcesome to give up another professional role such as media work. Some may say no, possibly an individual like Mike Atherton being one, if he prefers to continue his outstanding journalistic career. However, if the role was sufficiently attractive, who knows who may put themselves forward for consideration to be part of the think-tank and decision-making body to shape and nurture the future of the game?
There are some very good men, from a wide variety of successful professional backgrounds, who care deeply about the future of English Cricket, are currently not serving English at committee level, and would not have a conflict of interests. Despite some good men involved currently, many could be accused of having such a conflict. It cannot be regarded as good corporate governance when individuals in key positions can be justifiably accused of having a conflict of interests.
The other major factor is developing the personnel with the requisite skill-set to succeed consistently in modern ODI 50 Over Cricket. Powerplay overs require players to force the pace and take advantage of the field restrictions placed on the opposition. Hitting through, and over the in-field, requires skill, and mental courage. England seem paralysed by fear, or alternatively become consumed by a degree of recklessness and lose their wickets, when confronted by such situations.
If players aren’t facing these tactical and skill challenges at domestic level, it creates two problems. Firstly, they aren’t going to develop them, and secondly, they won’t be aware of the thought-process they need to go through if they are to execute their skills successfully over time.
Also, if the English domestic season continues to play its one-day fixtures in anything other than the middle of/late summer, then the conditions will suit seam bowling. The nature of such conditions means that batsmen have to play more cautiously to build a competitive total. Such caution may be successful’ in the moment’, and help their county team to win the match, but it is hardly conducive to developing the style of play needed to succeed in ODI matches, especially on the sub-continent where the bulk of international tournaments are likely to be played as the BCCI has proved how financially successful it can be as a host of ICC events.
If county cricket continues to be subsidised almost exclusively by the England team’s commercial success (aided by a successful England team and the isubsequent increased value of the shared broadcasting rights sold for ICC World Cups), then the duty of the counties should be (surely!) to agree a domestic schedule which supports the development of the skills required to succeed at international level.
The opposite is what we have: an over-crowded fixture list designed to fulfil the wishes of 18 County Club Treasurers and each Club’s members, who (understandably) want the maximum number of domestic Cricket days to view between April and the end of September each year.
The other point about the English domestic schedule is that, if one day fixtures are just ‘tagged’ onto the end of a First-Class match, it is not a priority, in terms of player preparation. However, if there is a ‘blocked-off’ period in the calendar, the focus can be exclusively on developing and preparing the skills needed for the one day game. In contrast, if players are physically and emotionally ‘spent’ after a 4-Day game in pursuit of victory in the form of the game which is regarded as the pinnacle (an assumption based on history and disproportionate value of the prize money) then ‘getting up’ for a one day becomes very difficult on a regular basis.
If there are too many domestic fixtures, there is the possibility that some defeats become almost ‘irrelevant’ to progress in a competition. If there are too many ‘dead’ matches in qualification for the latter stages of a tournament, the teams not in contention may rest their leading players (especially if they are senior in age and their team is in contention to win the Championship) which in turn, affects the quality and integrity of the competition.
Such ‘meaninglessness’ is a cancer in a country’s sport. The opposite is in boxing, where normally, the loser of a fight faces a period in oblivion. When every result matters, a sportsperson’s temperament is tested more. When the stakes are highest, then only those with the mental as well as the physical courage, win the contest.
How can selectors judge the best players if the performances in domestic cricket are compromised poor quality of opposition. Performing against the best is fundamental if one is to succeed in sport.
When one day cricket began with The Gillette Cup in 1963, it was a knock-out tournament with the Final at Lord’s.
Many teams did not take it seriously, but Sussex Captain, Ted Dexter, did. His tactics were ahead of their time. Slowly, as the years rolled by, more clubs took the opportunity to embrace Cricket’s version of The FA Cup. Big crowds came and the money began to flow into the County Club’s coffers. Performing in the Final at Lord’s on the first Saturday in September was often rewarded with a place on the England winter tour. Quite why, nobody knows, because a match-winning performance in a 60-over match should not have influenced selection for a touring party selected for 5-Day Test Cricket, but such was the thinking at the time. Sadly, the 60 overs ‘FA Cup-style’ knockout format is no more.
I wonder whether the problem at the core of England’s consistently poor one day performances are down to some form of snobbery. Maybe English Cricket has only ever viewed the one day game as a ‘cash-cow’, and a necessary evil? It has never been seen as an art-form in itself.
Other countries see it differently, and have seen the one day game as a platform to establish their credibility at international level. Sri Lanka are one such example. They are feared opponents in ODI’s and have been increasingly competitive in the longer game over time.
Perhaps the legendary spin bowler Jim Laker was right all those years ago when he said:
‘‘The aim of English cricket is, in fact, mainly to beat Australia.”
