ECB consultation document on the HPR

The ECB document is here https://resources.ecb.co.uk/ecb/document/2022/08/25/5ed38d62-72c0-45d3-9514-aa3b310ca067/Men-s-High-Performance-Review-Consultation-Material-FCCs.pdf

Strauss's blog on it is here https://www.ecb.co.uk/news/2759892/hp-review-consultation-update

Sam Morshead's article in the Cricketer is here https://www.thecricketer.com/Topics/countycricket/ecb_high-performance_review_proposes_county_championship_remains_14_matches_2023.html

The ECB wanted to push this through without any discussion/consultation/oversight/dissent, like they did the Hundred. They've been forced to delay by a year. That gives Mr Thompson time to sort the mess out.

I note that the actual ECB document was farmed out to a Sports consultancy, no doubt at huge cost, because they are devoid of the brains to do it themselves. The usual reason for using outside bodies who present usually not a lot more than a glossy brochure in fancy prose. Which is what this is.
Strauss seems to have changed his tone though after Thompson's reported stern talk with him. They were trying to bulldoze this through before the new Chair 's seat is warm.

Agreed, it's a total shambles. It's the first time Twenty First Group has worked in cricket ...

Where did you hear about the Thompson/Strauss meeting?

SimonH wrote:Agreed, it's a total shambles. It's the first time Twenty First Group has worked in cricket ...

Where did you hear about the Thompson/Strauss meeting?

Via a couple of unnamed Surrey officials at Welbec, and also, although unconfirmed at the Oval.

Thanks, heard the same 3x times now so it seems common knowledge & (hopefully!) true.

The document is appallingly presented and virtually unreadable

Agreed, offdrive4. Produced by these guys https://www.twentyfirstgroup.com/

saw this report from the BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/62688060

This bit puzzles me

'Although the review proposes a smaller top division of the Championship and fewer days of cricket, it does not suggest how this can be achieved'

how can they suggest an idea but not have a clue how to get that idea in practice

Coatesy wrote:saw this report from the BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/62688060

This bit puzzles me

'Although the review proposes a smaller top division of the Championship and fewer days of cricket, it does not suggest how this can be achieved'

how can they suggest an idea but not have a clue how to get that idea in practice

I thought the 8 team Division 1 and 10 team Division 2 was the best compromise (acepting two divisions of 9 means 18 rounds of Championship cricket in the calendar) 14 rounds with everyone participating in each round, all playing all home and away in the top division
frees up more space for white ball formats.

There must not be any Championship matches played with wholesale absence for franchise cricket. In the long term the franchises must be eradicated, even if we have to tolerate them until 2028.

Coatesy wrote:saw this report from the BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/62688060

This bit puzzles me

'Although the review proposes a smaller top division of the Championship and fewer days of cricket, it does not suggest how this can be achieved'

how can they suggest an idea but not have a clue how to get that idea in practice

Because it was written by a consultancy who know nothing about the game, apart from probably some scribbled notes from Strauss. These people will never tell you the best option, but will give you a list of "considerations". Apologies to any consultant on here, but most of the people who contribute to this blog would do a better job for a 10th of the price!

I misread the first paragraph from Strauss and thought he said there would now be consultation on the daft ideas, oh he said draft. Still daft was accurate. There is no discussion of the harm the hundred is doing the counties by taking the best players and grounds during prime months, fouling up the fixture list, ruining the 50 over game and pushing the blast aside. Nor is there any discussion of the effects of parasitical franchises on the counties. If you don't look at the whole picture you will come up with rubbish.
Strauss was appointed because he could be relied on to recommend what the ECB wanted.

Surrey have promised to consult their members, though without committing to their voice being decisive.

I see one-of-the proposals is to reward or fine counties for producing good/bad pitches for red ball cricket. Hopefully this will see the end of some of the roads we have played on the last few years

dougieginn wrote:I see one-of-the proposals is to reward or fine counties for producing good/bad pitches for red ball cricket. Hopefully this will see the end of some of the roads we have played on the last few years

Problem is that they consider a road a good pitch. Plenty of runs and make the bowlers bust a gut. A road is as bad as a bunsen at the other end of the scale.

SimonH wrote:Agreed, offdrive4. Produced by these guys https://www.twentyfirstgroup.com/

What qualifies them?

SimonH wrote:Agreed, offdrive4. Produced by these guys https://www.twentyfirstgroup.com/

That website is so full of corporate jargon and annoying buzzwords it's painful. I couldn't bear to go beyond the homepage.

VicNorth wrote:

SimonH wrote:Agreed, offdrive4. Produced by these guys https://www.twentyfirstgroup.com/

What qualifies them?

Delivering exactly what the client has asked for.

adelaide wrote:

VicNorth wrote:

SimonH wrote:Agreed, offdrive4. Produced by these guys https://www.twentyfirstgroup.com/

What qualifies them?

Delivering exactly what the client has asked for.

So not really a review?

A pretend review if you like,  actually the client's wishes put in flowery jargon in a glossy brochure at a ridiculous price. I've had first hand experience of Sports "Consultants" and you can do a much better job yourself at a tenth of the cost. But it looks "good"!

Aren't they just being paid to present the most profitable (for the ECB) option as the best option for cricket? For marketing, basically?

Shouldn't we be demanding some kind of independent assessment? Perhaps even looking for a legal ruling?

Counties, or at least county representatives, need to be involved in setting the terms of reference on which any such review is conducted. I hope this is something that Richard Thompson will insist on, and the year's grace before anything is implemented gives him the space to demand that the review is recommissioned on the basis of new terms of reference following such consultation.

Jackers wrote:Counties, or at least county representatives, need to be involved in setting the terms of reference on which any such review is conducted. I hope this is something that Richard Thompson will insist on, and the year's grace before anything is implemented gives him the space to demand that the review is recommissioned on the basis of new terms of reference following such consultation.

I think there is something to be said for not commissioning a fresh review, as a second set of consultants might produce something in support of the same proposals that is logically more consistent and therefore harder to argue against.

Looking on the bright side, leaving it to the consultants to make the case ought to make it easier for the ECB to draw back at least some of the way - it's not us, guv, a group of overpaid bigger boys did it and ran away.