If you always do what you’ve always done you’ll always get what you’ve always got.
The case for diversity in business is proven, business with more diverse boards (in terms of race, gender, sexuality, social background, basically all diversity) perform better. They make more money, they provide better customer service and crucially the retain and develop their staff better.
Different backgrounds mean diversity of ideas. A causal factor in the banking crises was the fact that the majority of senior decision makers were all from the same background, white, privately educated males.
We will never know for sure, but if bank boards had been more diverse, there may very well have been different voices, providing different challenges and the hole dug by the banks for themselves may not have been anywhere near as deep.
Which brings me to the ECB, and organisation which is essentially at the top ‘stale, pale, and male’.
I am not making a judgement on the truth relating to ‘KPGate’, I am not sure we will ever really now as there are so many people with so many agendas.
However what is really clear is that KP, and it seems probably other players, did not thrive and achieve their best under the standard management methods employed by the ECB.
And what is also clear is that the ECB did not handle this well. Their response seems to be that of we’ve always done it this way, we know best and its our way or the highway. Because everyone involved in the decision making process is from the same background there are no fresh ideas.
KP asking for his wife to come out at a different times, or to fly to the ipl in between tests is not really that different to a parent asking for a flexible working arrangement at a large corporate organisation. Twenty years ago the answer would have been no, and many talented women and some men were lost from the workplace.
But actually by not saying no now, companies that are open to flexible working are not losing their best talent, furthermore they are getting even better performance out of those employees, the bar is being raised.
If the ECB was more diverse in its make up, it might have been that someone could have suggested being more accommodating, being more family friendly, and feeling more supported and more valued might have performed better and would still playing cricket for England, and giving a better account of himself with the bar than he did in the last ashes, which is what most genuine fans would really have wanted to see.
And by being more diverse, more dynamic and more flexible the ECB would be looking far less autocratic and foolish than it does now. And crucially more players might have been able to deliver their best performances for England.
Joanne is a business woman who champions diversity and equality in the workplace.
The upcoming World Cup is beginning to become the focal point of the cricket world. If you read our most recent post on the event, you’re likely familiar with some of the negative attention swirling around the English team. Indeed, Graeme Swann’s voice has been loud and definitive in stating that England has virtually no chance at bringing home a title, as he largely cites roster decisions as mistakes that will hold the team back. However, while most seem prepared to agree at least in part with Swann’s general outlook, it’s worth mentioning that there are a few more optimistic opinions out there.
Most notably, English captain Alastair Cook seems to have a very positive outlook, though he was less than thrilled to hear Swann’s comments, as reported by the Telegraph. Cook referred to Swann as a “so-called friend” when asked about the comments, and he went on to say that his English team has a good chance in the coming World Cup (though he also acknowledged the need for improved form). Naturally, Cook has plenty of reason to display confidence, even if many would view it as somewhat irrational. However, taking an optimistic outlook on England’s World Cup chances does turn up a few interesting factors working in the team’s favour.
Working off of Cook’s optimism, the Betfair cricket correspondent, Ed Hawkins, dug up a few more reasons for English fans to take up a positive outlook, glossing (somewhat conveniently) over roster decisions and instead focusing on the scheduling and regulation of the tournament. To begin with, Hawkins notes that the England team is actually not viewed as a significant underdog by the betting oddsmakers, with the 10.5 line attached to the English not far from the likes of New Zealand (9.6), Pakistan (8.6), or Sri Lanka (7.8). Although, admittedly Australia, South Africa, and India are still out front in terms of expectations. Still, this placement suggests England is part of the pack, rather than far in the rear, as Graeme Swann seems to believe.
Next, Hawkins turns to scheduling as a subtle but potentially impactful advantage that England might enjoy. There’s an argument to be made that England has hurt itself in the past with difficult scheduling allowing for little rest and transition from ordinary play into the World Cup. Yet this time around, England’s ordinary trip through Australia for exhibition play has been shifted to allow both the English and Australian team to enjoy more time off before the World Cup actually begins. This is not the sort of development whose impact we’ll be able to measure, of course. Given failure in recent World Cups, though, it’s only logical to be of the opinion that a shift in scheduling certainly can’t make things worse!
Also of note is the change in venue this time around, and indeed looking at the 2011 World Cup, there was a clear advantage for the hosts. With India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh jointly hosting the event on the sub-continent, India and Sri Lanka played in the final, with nearby Pakistan also reaching the semi-final (along with New Zealand). Now, these are all strong international sides, but it’s also fair to say that the home climate and familiar wickets could certainly have helped most of these nations. The 2015 World Cup will be hosted by Australia and New Zealand. While this is of course still far from home for the English team, it’s unquestionably more familiar ground. It’s not quite the 2019 World Cup (which England and Wales will host), but it should feel closer to home ground in terms of familiarity.
Ultimately, factors such as the host nation and scheduling tactics probably still don’t make for a good sign. One would prefer to simply look at the England roster and determine that the talent listed should be enough to compete for a title. But given that this team will clearly be facing an uphill battle, these factors can provide at least a glimmer of optimism,. Also, while Graeme Swann may be right in the end,
Graeme Swann doesn’t believe England “have a cat in hell’s chance” of winning next year’s World Cup and thinks England have made a mess of their selection. Again.
“It’s absolutely crazy not to have Ravi in the team” Swann said on TMS during the washed-out Bristol ODI “Hales should have been in this side for three years. He scored 99 vs the West Indies in a T20 at Trent Bridge in 2012 – how the powers that be didn’t see him as the future in ODI?”
He went on to articulate what many fans have been saying for years – namely that England’s approach to ODIs is old-fashioned, outdated and they’ve been left behind.
“I used to sit in the changing room and I always felt we were so far behind other teams because we play such an old-fashioned brand. Some of my best mates Cook, Bell, Ballance are not one-day players who are going to win you a World Cup. Hales is going to win you a World Cup. Vince, Roy, Buttler, Morgan. They’re players I wouldn’t want to bowl at, who can build a total of 360-370″.
He’s absolutely right. England still believe that 280/290 is going to win you a one-day match. Those days disappeared years ago. Every other team in the World understands that. They load their batting with big hitters with big strike rates. It may feel like we’ve become strike rate obsessed in recent times, particularly when we were going through the endless discussions about Jonathan Trott’s.
But strike rate is important. Not every one of your top six has to have an SR of 90+ but most of them do. You can only afford to carry one Cook/Bell/Trott.
To illustrate the point, I’ve listed the SRs of the main batsmen from some of the top ODI teams. (taken from their most recent team selection). I’ve highlighted the players with SRs over 85. The difference between the teams is subtle but important. On the face of it – England don’t look that far off the pace although the difference between 5 of your top 6 having strike rates in the 70s as oppose to Australia who only have one of their top six with a strike rate of lower than 80 can make all the difference both in setting a score of 350 or chasing a score of 350. And on fast Australian pitches, you get the feeling that sides are going to do that more often than not.
Do England really have the sort of batsmen who will be 170 off 30 overs? Or are they more likely to be 120-2 having spent the last 15 overs nurdling it about?
[I know I haven't yet looked at SA, WI or NZ -I will add in later]
|Player||No of ODIs||Strike Rate|
|Hales||0||100.28 (list A)|
That’s Test cricket over and done with for England until April. So now we look forward to 14.5million One Day Internationals in preparation for the World Cup.
The preparation kicks off next week with 5 ODIs against India.
Those who are expecting sweeping changes to the side will be disappointed but will be heartened by the likely inclusion of Finn and Hales in the side. The rest of the squad will look very much as it has.
Broad is obviously rested because of his on-going knee injury and it seems likely that Anderson will sit out at least the first three matches – he may return for the final two (unless the series is already wrapped up in which case there would seem little point).
Jason Roy has performed well for the Lions but is likely only to make the T20 squad.
The squad for the first three ODIs likely to be (in no specific order)
10) Moeen Ali
Tomorrow sees the start of the new Royal London 50 over one day cup.
After 5 years of a domestic one-day competition of 40 overs a side, the revamp of the English domestic schedule sees a return to 50 over competition.
The rationale by the ECB is clear – to mirror domestically what is played Internationally.
It’s fair to say, however, that the move back to 50 overs hasn’t met with universal approval from the counties, the supporters or indeed the players.
There are 8 group matches which will be played in a block over the next 3 weeks with matches starting at 10.30 am or 2/2.30 for day/night matches.
Publicly, the counties and their chief executives will tell you they are fully backing this new competition. Privately, they are a little more worried. They are worried that people won’t come to watch because they are far too long. Kids won’t sit through 100 overs and the day/night matches finish far too late at night for all but teenage kids.
Aside from that, it seems very odd that we would remove the block of T20 cricket previously held in July only to replace it with a block of a different sort of cricket – and one that is far less popular.
It disrupts the County Championship meaning there is no red ball cricket right at the time when the Test side really might need to be on the look out for guys in form to come into the England side.
And into that that this is the time of year when spinners come into their own – far more than in April and May. It’s no wonder we have a spin problem if we remove red ball cricket from the fixture list at exactly the time of year when they are most likely to get a lot of overs.
The County championship is just starting to get interesting at this time of year as positions in the table are firming up and each match carries so much significance – especially this year with the counties being so close. It disrupts the flow, disrupts the players and means some counties won’t play another Championship match until the first week in September. Essentially – there is next to no county championship cricket for the entirety of the school holidays. How we’ll ever get kids into the longer form of the game if we don’t even offer it for them to watch I’ll never know.
Moreover, the competition will be without any England stars and the first half of it a further 13 of its best players will be missing due to England Lions duty.
This is not a good start.
It’s a shame – because actually there may well be some very good cricket, one-day cricket for all it is maligned can be very entertaining. And within the context of a tournament, it has even more excitement (as oppose to endless One Day Internationals which are played without any meaning or context).
The rationale behind mirroring what is played Internationally is a sound one but only the most naive would think that adding in an extra 10 overs to the domestic competition will sort out England’s ODI woes. The Royal London 50 over competition isn’t going to mean that England suddenly will win next year’s World Cup. England’s whole approach to one day cricket needs to be looked at. The tactics employed by England are ones that other countries were employing a decade ago.
But this tournament must be a shop window. The England selectors must take notice of the players that do well in it and genuinely think about what they might bring to the England ODI team. There’s very little point at all to the whole thing if it’s going to be played in front of small crowds, if it’s unpopular with spectators and players and if it isn’t going to be used by England as a selection ground for possible future ODI success.
I’ll reserve judgement – it could be a fantastic tournament. If the sun shines and the pitches are good, there will be some very good cricket. The final few group matches of the T20 blast have seen some fantastic matches with incredible hitting and impressive bowling. If that carries on into the other white ball form of the game, we may be in for a fun three weeks but the whole tournament comes with a pinch of scepticism from the county faithful.
The squad for the first Test match of the summer and the first under the new Moores/Cook regime will be announced tomorrow.
It’s set to be one of the more exciting and hard to predict announcements we have had in years.
Upwards of twenty names have been discussed in dispatches for the various spots and they all have a good case for inclusion.
Leave aside Cook, Bell, Root, Broad and Anderson – they’re nailed on. The rest is up for grabs.
To open alongside Cook – the candidates are Carberry, Compton, Robson and Lyth.
To be the middle order batsmen (to bat five and six) are Stokes, Ballance, Vince, Morgan. Moeen Ali, Scott Borthwick, Samit Patel
To spin: Moeen Ali, Simon Kerrigan, Scott Borthwick, Samit Patel
To be the third seamer: Chris Jordan, Liam Plunkett,Finn
And the wicket-keeper – Prior, Buttler, Bairstow, Foster, Kieswetter and an outsider of Read.
What a conundrum> I imagine today’s selection discussion at Edgbaston took longer than 20 minutes.
My best guess on the way they’ll go is a squad of 12 (although they might pick 13 just to cover a batting position and a seamer)
Cook, Robson, Root, Bell, Ballance, Stokes, Prior, Ali, Jordan, Broad, Anderson with Plunkett and possibly Buttler in the squad.
The Buttler Mankading incident has caused something a furore. An inexplicable furore in my view. He was out of his crease, he was run out fair and square. He didn’t even need to be warned although out of politeness they did – twice.
The crux of the problem is that the laws say one thing, the ICC playing conditions 2014 say another and the unwritten code of etiquette (the dreaded spirit of cricket) say another.
Yes – an unwritten code of etiquette. The set of rules that aren’t written down that are “just not the done thing”.
I’m not entirely sure how one is supposed to know about these unwritten rules but woebetide if you go against them. The cricketing fraternity will call you unsportsmanlike, ungentlemanly or worse – a cheat.
It’s precisely this sort of nonsense that make sports like cricket and golf seem elitist, snobby and inaccessible.
It’s exactly the same sort of furore we have when players nick off and don’t walk.
It is time to put an end to these grey areas and cut out the arguments about ungentlemanly behaviour
1) If we don’t want people to mankad, it needs to be explicit in the laws. Or make the laws explicit that the non-striker shouldn’t leave their crease until the bowler has released the ball (that would soon stop them going walkabouts and gaining an unfair advantage which is essentially what backing up is)
2) Make sure that the laws are the laws and the playing regulations are merely to set out differences in formats such as playing times, points, the colour of the ball and powerplays etc.
3) Either make the spirit of cricket clearer or get rid of it all together. The nonsensical “pre-amble” to the laws is neither one thing nor t’other. We don’t need to write down that people shouldn’t abuse each other or the umpire. They don’t have a “spirit of darts” or a “spirit of table tennis”. Why? Because there’s no need. We all know that you need to not abuse officials, players or spectators and that dissent towards an umpire is not on (and indeed this last one should be put in the actual laws).
Make the laws explicit on mankading, walking or not-walking, claiming a catch and all the other things that cause furore’s and then let the umpires make their decisions based on these.
In the case of mankading – nowhere does it say you have to warn the batsmen; that is merely another of these “unwritten matters of etiquette” that do nothing but cause hassle.
If we continue with all these grey areas, differences in laws and playing regs and bizarre romantic notions of gentlemanly behaviour I really don’t know how those who are coming new to the game have any idea what’s going on? Even those of us entrenched in the game find it beyond ridiculous at times.
The return of Freddie is great. It matters not whether he gets any runs or wickets. It doesn’t even matter whether stands on one leg at mid-off without moving for 20 overs. What he does on the pitch isn’t the point.
Freddie Flintoff is a name that even the most of casual of cricket watcher can roll off the tongue. Ask them to name who’s in the current England ODI XI and they’d probably struggle.
That a man who retired 5 years ago can still cause such hype and publicity even though his comeback may just be for a few matches in the domestic game demonstrates how truly box office characters English cricket has.
Perhaps Freddie and KP are the only two truly box office English names of the past decade. Certainly the past few years, whilst they have brought success on the pitch, they haven’t brought us, KP aside, any truly household names.
Of course, most people can name Cook, Bell, Broad, Anderson but they aren’t celebrity in the way that KP is, or in the way that Freddie was or Botham before him.
Our cricketers simply aren’t famous enough anymore. They aren’t household names, they aren’t appearing on chat shows, panel shows, in the front pages as well as the back pages.
And it isn’t as simple as putting this down to cricket not being on free-to-air TV, although that’s certainly a factor.
In the last few years England cricket (again KP aside) has been dominated by nice but ultimately not very interesting blokes who the producers of the Graham Norton show aren’t going to be chasing to appear on his sofa.
So without Pietersen, the public are latching on to the return of a man who when he retired 5 years ago could barely walk.
Cricket needs Beefys and Freddies and KPs. And at the moment, we’ve got a bunch of Gail Platts.
Despite my natural cynicism and my continuing annoyance at the KP decision, I have a feeling this new England era might actually be far more likeable than the old regime had become.
There’s clearly been a conscious decision taken by Peter Moores, Paul Downton and Alastair Cook to try and be more open, a little more honest and less chippy with the media.
The #askmoores twitter Q+A was bland and inane in the content but the intention to try and engage with supporters was clearly there and that’s to be applauded.
At the waitrose sponsorship launch last week, Moores recognised that the way to get England supporters back on side was to “re-connect” with them and the way to do that was primarily through the media. Leave aside the corporate nonsense phrase, it was a glimmer of hope that under Moores, England cricket might just be more enjoyable, more relaxed and more fun.
Alastair Cook looked more relaxed than I’ve ever seen him, he talked fluently, he smiled, he joked. Despite his protestations that Flower wasn’t too controlling, we all know differently. Unleashed from the Flower shackles and with fatherhood perhaps having put cricket into some sort of perspective, we might well see a captain who feels empowered to be in charge and relaxed enough to allow his players the freedom that adults who are good enough to have been picked for the country should be afforded.
The addition of Farbrace can only be a good thing too. From all I know of him, he’s a straight talking man who enjoys his life, he’s a man more often than not with a smile on his face and who clearly loves cricket but not at the expense of life.
If Moores can learn to speak English rather than coach as his first language, we have the makings of a new era that even if it takes a while to have sustained success will be more likeable, less chippy, less arrogant and much more enjoyable to watch.
Supporters are much more likely to be forgiving of failure if the management and team are seen to be open, honest and doing their best. And they might even manage to exorcise the ghost of KP with the right approach – even if the on field results aren’t perfect.
It’s been more than a little disappointing to read Trott being accused of being a bottler or a quitter after his interviews in which has said he wasn’t depressed – he was burnt out and exhausted.
At the time, the ECB described it as a “stress-related illness” and one that he had battled with for some time.
Perhaps, with hindsight, it would have been better to describe what Trott was suffering from a little more clearly and accurately. The term “stress-related illness” is interpreted as a serious mental illness which could range from depression to anxiety to a full on breakdown.
In reality, what Trott was suffering from was mental and physical exhaustion which rendered him unable to play to the high standards he expected of himself and that we had come to expect from him. He and the ECB medics took the decision that he needed a break from cricket and he needed to come home.
I spoke to a GP friend to ask what he would do if someone came to him describing the symptoms that Trott has said he was suffering from. He said that almost certainly he would sign the person off work for a while to start with and see if rest and a break resulted in recovery. If it didn’t, he would investigate whether a more serious mental illness was the cause and then recommend appropriate treatment.
That’s quite pertinent – Trott leaving Oz was the equivalent of you or I being signed off work by the GP for a bit. Where’s the controversy there? It happens daily to hundreds of people in the country.
The notion that Trott was scared of fast bowling is, quite frankly, ridiculous and something cited by people who’ve clearly forgotten the years when Trott has been very successful against fast bowling. Short memories by some.
Trott was mentally and physically exhausted. It had rendered him incapable of being able to play cricket or cope with the pressure of the international sporting arena. In some part, the ECB must take some blame for this. What we expect of our cricketers is ridiculous. It’s too much. It’s a serious miracle that more of them aren’t burnt out.
It is surely a braver decision to admit that you’re struggling and that you need a break than to try and guts it out in a macho bravado way. In the male sporting environment, it’s not easy to admit a weakness. It takes some guts to hold your hands up and say “it’s no good, I’m going to have to stop”. This applies to Graeme Swann’s retirement as much as it does to Trott’s decision to quit the tour.
It’s not a weakness, it’s brave. It goes against the grain of the testosterone filled macho environment of the sporting world.
It’s here I have to declare an interest. I struggle to be entirely objective when discussing Jonathan Trott for this reason.
Earlier in the year, a great friend and the owner of SPIN cricket magazine, was diagnosed with terminal cancer and given weeks to live. Jonathan wrote this friend a very personal, hand written letter. I won’t divulge the contents as they were personal. But despite everything that was going on with Jonathan at the time, he found the time and the compassion to write a heartfelt letter and make a phone call and in our friend’s darkest hour – when he was dying – Jonathan brought some light and a smile.
Trott is a straightforward and honest man. Cricket is and has been his life – to his own detriment. There’s no conspiracy here. There’s no hidden agenda. There was no attempted. cover up of a man quitting cos he couldn’t hack it.
It really is very straightforward. Trott was exhausted – mentally and physically. He’d burnt out and stress was a factor. If he’d been a “normal” person, he’d have gone to the doctor and the doctor would have signed him off work for a bit. How is this any different?
It isn’t. He had some time off to rest and recuperate. And now he’s ready to get back in the saddle.
He hasn’t assumed that he will walk straight back into the England team – he has merely thrown his hat into the ring for selection. He knows that he needs to demonstrate to the selectors and the public that he’s back firing with the bat and inside his head. He wants to do that.
It’s really not sinister – it’s a simple thing.
The ECB may want to think about how he got into that state in the first place and whether they way they described things to the media and public at the time was the correct way but Jonathan himself has nothing to feel guilty or sorry about.
It’s disappointing that some are so ready to cast stones.