I think the MCC elevated themselves as an independent body not conflicted by the responsibilities of all of the International and Domestic Cricket Boards, ICC, T20 owners, IPL owners, FCCC's, Broadcasters, Players Union, in hosting this forum (and who were present at Lords)......and addressed the most important issues in cricket. Importantly, Mark Nicholas went out of his way to constructively encourage debate and observations from the most important stakeholders in cricket. He succeeded and should be applauded. And I was present on behalf of Oakwell Sports.
The day was not about providing solutions to ''cricket' , merely it was to to have an elevated debate at a time when cricket is seemingly enjoying 'massively good times' but at its core has some structural issues. And quite possibly, the ICC, because of its non independence ( represented by major cricket stakeholders/Boards), may not the appropriate forum to discuss 'said issues'.
My main take-aways were:
-Governance structures, which are at the heart of all domestic and global cricket decisions, have not been modernised to adapt the changing consumption patterns in cricket.
-Fans and players are more important than ever in shaping/driving change to the different format of cricket.
-Technology is accelerating different consumption changes and broadcast medium.
-Fans are not being listened to. 1 Day game viewership is down 23% over the last 3 cycles (12 years) , we play the same amount of Test Matches,.........
-Bilateral cricket is NOT wanted by our cricketing icons (players) and Indian broadcaster. Too many meaningless games. (This is a challenge for the ECB which relies on 75% of its revs from Bilateral cricket. oops) .
-Players are more important than team brands ( same with all the major global sports fyi today)
-Players will ultimately determine change.
-60% of players (on central contracts) would not now sign central contracts.
-Whilst the BCCI were not present, this was not a snub. I would have done the same. There were 1million Indian fans lining Marine Drive to celebrate India's T20 team arriving back from the Caribbean. Amazing scenes and something to embrace.
Well done Mark Nicholas. And the MCC.
What is the exam question: Will anything change as a consequence? Knowing many stakeholders , as we at Oakwell do, I believe so.
Who else but Michael Atherton. Thick as thieves those 2! GH by the way my book "A View From Fine Leg" will be out on the streets next week featuring GH, PL, AF and JTH.
What the ICC has been unable to do, fear not, the dollar will be able to. What other sport has 4 formats, even 4 and a bit if you count the Impact Player rule in the IPL. In some countries, who for this exercise shall remain nameless, it appears that those who profit from the game are, if not the same people, then are somewhat entwined with those who govern the game. For the likes of CA and the ECB I suspect the dilemma is how do those who govern the game get to profit from the game. They have tip toed with variances on the theme without grasping it by the horns. A bit of franchise cricket here and a bit of pseudo franchise cricket there. I suspect in time if they don't move quick enough then player power and franchise power will do it for them.
Fascinating and illuminating stuff, as always. Forgive me blowing my own trumpet, but my mind went back to something I wrote for you in -- what was it? 2000? -- in the green Wisden about Kerry Packer and World Series Cricket. "The real meaning of his victory was that never again would the game be beyond price." I had no idea how true that would turn out to be, how quickly.
I rarely put a great deal of faith in polls, particularly anonymous ones, but this poll five years ago saying that 86% of players found test cricket the most important format, and now it’s 49%, is rather telling, it’s obviously a big drop, even allowing for inaccurate and/or misleading data. I said to a friend five to ten years ago, some of the current cricketers will write books in years to come and will say that they never really liked test cricket all that much, they were virtually forced to play this 'outdated and archaic' form of the game, and it cost them a lot of money.
They’re not quite brave enough to say this yet, it's a bit early, although we’ve now long had many players, players not by any means over-the-hill, dismissing red-ball cricket and concentrating on white-ball cricket (read T20 cricket) which is almost saying it by stealth. Cricketers are a bit like actors. Actors always say, or used to, well most of them, that acting in the theatre is the ultimate, but it’s also the least lucrative. Television and movies not only pay a lot more but are also far more popular with the public.
It's misleading for not including India, Pakistan or Afghanistan either; I'm sure there's some peer group pressure involved also. But I think you're wrong. If players really wanted to turn their back on red ball cricket, there's nothing much to stop them. Yet, although this may change as more leagues spring up, vanishingly few cricketers so have specialised in T20 cricket, as we thought they would a few years ago. Even Maxy would still kill to play Test cricket. The fact is that if you play red ball cricket, you can play white ball; but it doesn't work the other way round.
Another lovely piece, GH, that further underlines the escalating influence of India on all this. The fact the Indian team ended up in Barbados longer because of Beryl is just a nice confirmer - the WC schedule was determined by the IPL calendar rather than the notional annual weather patterns. On the "spirit" and "conduct" of the game matter, I heard a whisper you might have some insight on - that it was only at the very last moment the organisers of this august meeting realised there was no scheduled inclusion of the umpiring fraternity. If that was so, it reinforces your point about Mammon rather than Mother Cricket being the driver. And re Jay Shah - not only did he need to be next to the trophy, of course, but his dad's political power needs a bit of a buffing at present. Thanks for the great observations, as always.
I think the MCC elevated themselves as an independent body not conflicted by the responsibilities of all of the International and Domestic Cricket Boards, ICC, T20 owners, IPL owners, FCCC's, Broadcasters, Players Union, in hosting this forum (and who were present at Lords)......and addressed the most important issues in cricket. Importantly, Mark Nicholas went out of his way to constructively encourage debate and observations from the most important stakeholders in cricket. He succeeded and should be applauded. And I was present on behalf of Oakwell Sports.
The day was not about providing solutions to ''cricket' , merely it was to to have an elevated debate at a time when cricket is seemingly enjoying 'massively good times' but at its core has some structural issues. And quite possibly, the ICC, because of its non independence ( represented by major cricket stakeholders/Boards), may not the appropriate forum to discuss 'said issues'.
My main take-aways were:
-Governance structures, which are at the heart of all domestic and global cricket decisions, have not been modernised to adapt the changing consumption patterns in cricket.
-Fans and players are more important than ever in shaping/driving change to the different format of cricket.
-Technology is accelerating different consumption changes and broadcast medium.
-Fans are not being listened to. 1 Day game viewership is down 23% over the last 3 cycles (12 years) , we play the same amount of Test Matches,.........
-Bilateral cricket is NOT wanted by our cricketing icons (players) and Indian broadcaster. Too many meaningless games. (This is a challenge for the ECB which relies on 75% of its revs from Bilateral cricket. oops) .
-Players are more important than team brands ( same with all the major global sports fyi today)
-Players will ultimately determine change.
-60% of players (on central contracts) would not now sign central contracts.
-Whilst the BCCI were not present, this was not a snub. I would have done the same. There were 1million Indian fans lining Marine Drive to celebrate India's T20 team arriving back from the Caribbean. Amazing scenes and something to embrace.
Well done Mark Nicholas. And the MCC.
What is the exam question: Will anything change as a consequence? Knowing many stakeholders , as we at Oakwell do, I believe so.
rgds, Andrew Umbers
Thanks Andrew. Yes, I thoroughly enjoyed the day also, and I see you've repeated many of the takeaways I reported.
Who else but Michael Atherton. Thick as thieves those 2! GH by the way my book "A View From Fine Leg" will be out on the streets next week featuring GH, PL, AF and JTH.
What the ICC has been unable to do, fear not, the dollar will be able to. What other sport has 4 formats, even 4 and a bit if you count the Impact Player rule in the IPL. In some countries, who for this exercise shall remain nameless, it appears that those who profit from the game are, if not the same people, then are somewhat entwined with those who govern the game. For the likes of CA and the ECB I suspect the dilemma is how do those who govern the game get to profit from the game. They have tip toed with variances on the theme without grasping it by the horns. A bit of franchise cricket here and a bit of pseudo franchise cricket there. I suspect in time if they don't move quick enough then player power and franchise power will do it for them.
White man's blabbering. This author recently called Ahmedabad crowd during India vs Pakistan match as Nazi.
Thanks for subscribing, Ajay.
Fascinating and illuminating stuff, as always. Forgive me blowing my own trumpet, but my mind went back to something I wrote for you in -- what was it? 2000? -- in the green Wisden about Kerry Packer and World Series Cricket. "The real meaning of his victory was that never again would the game be beyond price." I had no idea how true that would turn out to be, how quickly.
I remember it well, Greg!
Yes Gideon, this Purist is despondent. Reading of Sanga's response multiplied that feeling
Pleasse can l have your autographs & newsleters
I rarely put a great deal of faith in polls, particularly anonymous ones, but this poll five years ago saying that 86% of players found test cricket the most important format, and now it’s 49%, is rather telling, it’s obviously a big drop, even allowing for inaccurate and/or misleading data. I said to a friend five to ten years ago, some of the current cricketers will write books in years to come and will say that they never really liked test cricket all that much, they were virtually forced to play this 'outdated and archaic' form of the game, and it cost them a lot of money.
They’re not quite brave enough to say this yet, it's a bit early, although we’ve now long had many players, players not by any means over-the-hill, dismissing red-ball cricket and concentrating on white-ball cricket (read T20 cricket) which is almost saying it by stealth. Cricketers are a bit like actors. Actors always say, or used to, well most of them, that acting in the theatre is the ultimate, but it’s also the least lucrative. Television and movies not only pay a lot more but are also far more popular with the public.
It's misleading for not including India, Pakistan or Afghanistan either; I'm sure there's some peer group pressure involved also. But I think you're wrong. If players really wanted to turn their back on red ball cricket, there's nothing much to stop them. Yet, although this may change as more leagues spring up, vanishingly few cricketers so have specialised in T20 cricket, as we thought they would a few years ago. Even Maxy would still kill to play Test cricket. The fact is that if you play red ball cricket, you can play white ball; but it doesn't work the other way round.
Another lovely piece, GH, that further underlines the escalating influence of India on all this. The fact the Indian team ended up in Barbados longer because of Beryl is just a nice confirmer - the WC schedule was determined by the IPL calendar rather than the notional annual weather patterns. On the "spirit" and "conduct" of the game matter, I heard a whisper you might have some insight on - that it was only at the very last moment the organisers of this august meeting realised there was no scheduled inclusion of the umpiring fraternity. If that was so, it reinforces your point about Mammon rather than Mother Cricket being the driver. And re Jay Shah - not only did he need to be next to the trophy, of course, but his dad's political power needs a bit of a buffing at present. Thanks for the great observations, as always.