Surrey CCC statement on the HPR

If there is one thing the Blast has always had an issue with, it's the fact, it's far, far, far too long. In an ideal world they'd scrape it down to just an 8 game season with 4 home/4 away and then have your knockouts etc

VicNorth wrote:Rory: "County Cricket is essentially for the betterment of the England Test team and the England side, so yeah, I agree it needs to be looked at."

NO!

I think you’re reading too much into this, Vic.

It’s perfectly fine to “look” at it (scheduling, structure, et al) but Burns explicitly states that 10 games is too few.

Mike Atherton made the same point yesterday on Sky: the proposal to play 3 non-CC FC games in August is not a substitute at all. The players might take them seriously as they count towards the averages but there’s no way members will do so.

I’m more worried about the Surrey higher-ups’ attitude and Thompson’s sell-out. I work for an MP in my day job - I can spot ludicrous spin and a cover-up from a mile away…

Our Captain, Director of Cricket and Head Coach have come straight out of the blocks to cast shade on proposals to reduce the amount of championship cricket to accommodate, as Gareth put it "celebrity cricket" (could I love that man any more!)

From our Chief Executive and Management Board? Nothing. Nicht, Nada. While a number of counties have responded unequivocally that they won't support a reduction in championship and/or T20 matches because their members don't want that, the media are reporting Surrey as saying that "the views of the majority of our members are unclear". Really? If that is the case, what do they propose to do to establish what these views are?  We have to hold their feet to the fire over this.

another thing I heard Batty mention yesterday was to do with the weather, which as we all know is unpredictable in this country (thank god we won yesterday and play wasnt needed today)

as he quite rightly said we have had a really good summer weather wise and not sure we have lost too much to weather in our games. However, if we reduce the CC down to 10 games, and we have 2 weeks of bad weather when those games are due to be played, all of a sudden it will be down to 8 games, and that is nowhere near enough

I kind of get what the proposal is getting at, BUT I am not sure 3 leagues of 6 is enough. The problem is, and always has been, the 18 counties. Ideally it would be 2 leagues of 9, but 16 CC games is too many games to play in the timeframe that the CC is being given.

The idea to 'fill' the month of 100 with festivals is a no go for me. I am not sure how serious the players would take that, it would just be an upgrade on net practice.

I also think, as much as it pains me to say this, there is no way that the proposal and any further proposal is going to please everyone (unless the 100 is got rid of which we all know isnt going to happen anytime soon)

This "proposal" is not a review as first stated. What we need before all this ECB rubbish is an independent review of the ECB itself because Richard Thompson or not, it's very clearly no longer fit for purpose as a proper custodian of the game. Really how can a reduction in red ball benefit the England team anyway? Plus most of them never play more than one or two games at the most. It's more about getting rid of red ball completely believe me. Let's start (it won't happen) by refusing to let the ECB use 1st Class grounds. Ok, but it's time for radical action before Strauss and his cronies destroy the game as we know it.

RB wrote:

VicNorth wrote:Rory: "County Cricket is essentially for the betterment of the England Test team and the England side, so yeah, I agree it needs to be looked at."

NO!

I think you’re reading too much into this, Vic.

It’s perfectly fine to “look” at it (scheduling, structure, et al) but Burns explicitly states that 10 games is too few.
…

All I meant was that county cricket does not exist solely for the purpose of creating an England team. If it stop being presented in this way perhaps more people would be encouraged to watch it?

Jackers wrote:Our Captain, Director of Cricket and Head Coach have come straight out of the blocks to cast shade on proposals to reduce the amount of championship cricket to accommodate, as Gareth put it "celebrity cricket" (could I love that man any more!)

From our Chief Executive and Management Board? Nothing. Nicht, Nada. While a number of counties have responded unequivocally that they won't support a reduction in championship and/or T20 matches because their members don't want that, the media are reporting Surrey as saying that "the views of the majority of our members are unclear". Really? If that is the case, what do they propose to do to establish what these views are?  We have to hold their feet to the fire over this.

I wonder how many cricket ‘fans’ Strauss met while compiling this garbage? None, I’ll wager.

Richard Thompson's first month as Chairman of the ECB:-

      1. Pro-hundred
      2. Wants to sell the franchises to the highest bidder
      3. In favour of reducing the number of championship games

Thompson was vocal in his opposition to all of these things when at Surrey. In truth, he was always about money over members with us but this is a new level of awful.

Having said all that, I can't see these proposals being approved by two thirds of the counties, enough of whom, not including Surrey, already know this stinks.

Jordan and Dans little tune is cracking

Got an email saying the club will be consulting with the membership over the next few weeks

The club's email this afternoon is a step in the right direction, inviting members to send their views on the proposals in the High Performance Review to the General Committee as well as committing to hold a series of members' meetings over the coming weeks to inform the club's response. It is exactly the approach that I and a couple of others called for at the members' breakfast meeting this week.

What really matters, though, is the extent to which the club will ultimately challenge the proposals which the members are most likely to object to: reducing the number of championship and T20 matches and thus scuppering a big part of the ECB's blueprint. I have a couple of worries about this.

When Richard Thompson's appointment was announced, it appeared that the cavalry had arrived and that our "tall friend in high places" would be a game-changer. Having heard him say at the awards event that he would advise his successor to "learn to love the Hundred", I am not so sure. Admittedly, it was buried as item number 8 in an otherwise fairly light-hearted list of 10 pieces of advice he would offer, including (for example) "understand that the Garrard family are the soul of the club" and "get to know the Peter May boys", but the chorus of boos that he received in response to "item 8" didn't seem to faze him.  So my first concern is that the club will not wish to rock Thommo's boat.

My second fear is that there is a risk of "divide and conquer" by driving a wedge between those members who love the longer game and those who joined the club to follow T20. The Acting Chair implied as much at the breakfast meeting, saying "be careful what you wish for" to those of us who were calling for the club to actually find out what their members want. In other words, if a large number of members say that it is outrageous to contemplate taking away two of the T20 fixtures but a significantly smaller number say that they don't want the championship reduced, there is a risk that Surrey would claim to be representing the consensus in agreeing to a reduction in championship cricket but not to the Blast. Money talks, unfortunately, and losing two of those T20 nights would hit Surrey in the wallet; shedding a couple of championship matches wouldn't.

Having said that, we should be pleased that the club has done the right thing so far. While they are keeping their cards very close to their chest, this part of the email at least sounds encouraging:
"The HPR’s focus was on improving the performance of the England men’s teams across all formats, and therefore looked at the issues through that lens. Whilst we will always seek to support the game as a whole, our focus has to be on both Surrey players and Members, and on acting in the best interests of the club."  

The point that members need to make loud and clear is that while we accept that one of the purposes of county cricket is to create a successful England team, it has never been the sole raison d'etre. The scope of the review is therefore flawed as far as we are concerned. It is all the more flawed because it does not address the impact on England of lumbering our season with The Hundred. Any "High Performance Review" which treats this dreadful tournament as a sacred cow is frankly not worth the paper it is written on.

Very good post Jackers. I'm afraid I have very little faith in Richard Thompson already who is singing the ECB tune pretty quickly. I actually can't be bothered to read this tosh report in full. The HYS on the BBC has been removed after just about all 1400 odd posters slammed the report and the ECB.
What I would like in the first instance is an independent review on the ECB, clearly no longer fit for purpose to be the custodian of the game. If anyone has an ideas I'm all ears and I'll be in the queue to knock these imbeciles off there perches.
To be frank, I'll say it now, if the Championship is reduced to 10 games, I'm gone and finished with cricket. Hope not but there it is.

Chinaman wrote:The HYS on the BBC has been removed after just about all 1400 odd posters slammed the report and the ECB.

No, it's still there

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/62985372

Beg yours. Down the bottom of the page now. But check out the negative comments.

Alex! wrote:Got an email saying the club will be consulting with the membership over the next few weeks

In full - My bold

Dear Member,
The Men’s High Performance Review (HPR) has now issued its final report, which contains 17 recommendations. Two of these recommendations concern the structure and scheduling of the domestic competitions from 2024 and are therefore a decision for the First-Class Counties. There will now be a period of consultation within the Counties. We will consult with Members and consider the recommendations and your input carefully at our Board and General Committee.

We invite members to convey your thoughts to your elected representatives on the General Committee. This can be done by email to gc@surreycricket.com.

We will also hold a series of Members’ consultation meetings over the next few weeks, where Members will have the opportunity to discuss the recommendations with Martin Eadon - Interim Chair, Steve Elworthy – CEO and Alec Stewart - Director of Cricket. The dates for these will be advised shortly.

The HPR’s focus was on improving the performance of the England men’s teams across all formats, and therefore looked at the issues through that lens. Whilst we will always seek to support the game as a whole, our focus has to be on both Surrey players and Members, and on acting in the best interests of the club.

The HPR focuses on the volume of domestic cricket played, and we need to consider the impact of this on our players, but we will also seek to ensure that the integrity of our domestic competitions is not damaged, and that the scheduling works for Members and players. To read more about the HPR and to access the full report, please click here.

We look forward to hearing your views.

In the meantime, let’s enjoy and celebrate the outstanding achievement of our men’s team in the County Championship, the competition which means so much to all of us.

Martin Eadon

Interim Chair

ll

Chinaman wrote:Beg yours. Down the bottom of the page now. But check out the negative comments.

Oh yeah, very much so!

Have sent my views to the General committee.

Chinaman wrote:Very good post Jackers. I'm afraid I have very little faith in Richard Thompson already who is singing the ECB tune pretty quickly. I actually can't be bothered to read this tosh report in full. The HYS on the BBC has been removed after just about all 1400 odd posters slammed the report and the ECB.
What I would like in the first instance is an independent review on the ECB, clearly no longer fit for purpose to be the custodian of the game. If anyone has an ideas I'm all ears and I'll be in the queue to knock these imbeciles off there perches.
To be frank, I'll say it now, if the Championship is reduced to 10 games, I'm gone and finished with cricket. Hope not but there it is.

Richard Thompson can’t change anything that has already been done. He’ll have to tread a very fine line or he could be out on his ear.

Ali888 wrote:

Chinaman wrote:Very good post Jackers. I'm afraid I have very little faith in Richard Thompson already who is singing the ECB tune pretty quickly. I actually can't be bothered to read this tosh report in full. The HYS on the BBC has been removed after just about all 1400 odd posters slammed the report and the ECB.
What I would like in the first instance is an independent review on the ECB, clearly no longer fit for purpose to be the custodian of the game. If anyone has an ideas I'm all ears and I'll be in the queue to knock these imbeciles off there perches.
To be frank, I'll say it now, if the Championship is reduced to 10 games, I'm gone and finished with cricket. Hope not but there it is.

Richard Thompson can’t change anything that has already been done. He’ll have to tread a very fine line or he could be out on his ear.

If he's that desperate to keep the gig that he would compromise his convictions he's not the man I thought he was all those years.

Mmm....he just could have a second agenda here. Something a little bird whispered to me a few weeks back comes to mind. Maybe...we'll see.

Chinaman wrote:Mmm....he just could have a second agenda here. Something a little bird whispered to me a few weeks back comes to mind. Maybe...we'll see.

Interesting comment Chinaman ... could you say any more? (My hope would have been that he knew the proposal was a load of rubbish, and also knew that the counties would vote against it, so he had nothing to lose and lots to gain by allowing it to go to a vote - it would get rejectd, and he could use that as an excuse to clear out the remainder of the Graves/Harrison gang from the ECB; having heard what he said about the Hundred and about private investment into the franchises, I'm suspicious of his motives.)

You can send your thoughts on the HPR to the General Committee members at this email address gc@surreycricket.com

My email, for what it's worth, is below:

Hello General Committee members

Thank you for the opportunity for members to give our views on the ECB’s proposals for county cricket contained in the High Performance Review.

I request that the General Committee and the Club should oppose the proposals in the HPR, and oppose any future proposals, from the ECB which aim to downgrade the county game.

Furthermore, the Club should tell the ECB to go away and reconsider the Hundred (it’s farcical this wasn’t included in the HPR, although it’s obvious why it wasn’t) - whether it is actually helping the game, if it is making money, if it is bringing in new fans and increasing participation, and whether the damage the Hundred is inflicting on the county and Test game is worth it.

In particular there should be no further reduction in county championship games - 14 is the minimum we should accept (& we should really have 16). The One Day Cup needs to keep a group stage so our players have enough opportunity to play 50 over cricket. I’d prefer to keep seven home games in the T20, but would accept a cut to five if the games were not played in a block.

The HPR, and the supporting documents, from Strauss & the TwentyFirst Group are a poorly evidenced, badly argued, partisan set of evidence. They do not show any particular problems with the current structure, and jump to recommendations that aren’t supported by the evidence.

My day job is as a strategy consultant - if one of my clients was given a report like that they’d chuck it in the bin because it’s so badly done. (And that’s ignoring the lack of consultation with members/fans, ignoring the shoddy graphs they’ve used, the conflict of interests inherent in a Sky present deciding on the county game. This is too important an issue to base a decision on such low quality evidence.)

The ECB has brought the scheduling problems on themselves by introducing the Hundred and requiring it to have a window in August. That is what is causing the fixture pileup, and that is what is causing the (claimed) player burnout issues (although given we played 22 different players in the county championship, I’d question whether that is really a problem - my guess is it’s an excuse to force through these changes).

The introduction of the Hundred also clearly shows the ECB’s direction of travel - they want to continue to diminish the importance of the county championship & the county one day competitions while promoting the plastic franchises teams in the Hundred.

The end game is obvious to us (the members and fans) even if it’s not often openly discussed & it might make the Club uncomfortable and unwilling to challenge the ECB. The ECB clearly want to end up with 8-10 first class teams (probably franchises), with outside investors allowed to invest in them. That will be a disaster for the Club (and for the county game).

You must stick with 14 CC games. If anyone proposes 12 CC games or 10 CC games + some festivals as a muddy compromise, they must be resisted. If you vote to go to 10, or even 12, CC games then the ECB will come back again & again and suggest more changes & more reductions - and eventually one day there will be no county championship and Surrey won’t be playing first class cricket.

Members' clubs clearly have no future in the ECB's blueprint, they will be replaced by privately owned franchises. Surrey and the other 14 member-owned county clubs are in a battle for their very existence. This is the next round in that battle.

Surrey tried to oppose the Hundred and lost honourably. Perhaps we’ll lose this round too but we must oppose these proposals.

I know you’ll consider all views, but I urge you to totally reject, and vote against, the ECB’s HPR proposals.

Thanks
Simon

Simon - that's an excellent counter pointing out the folly and dubious validity of the proposals from someone in the pay of Sky.

At a Surrey AGM three or four years ago, our then Chair and now ECB Chair referred to the County Championship as ''the gold standard''. Those words were true then and we need to ensure they remain true into the future.

As an additional point - and this goes far beyond whether we like or loathe the Guildford ground - a further reduction in the number of Championship matches would inevitably result in the demise of all outground cricket. That is something else conveniently ignored in the Review and which should be opposed.

SimonH wrote:

Chinaman wrote:Mmm....he just could have a second agenda here. Something a little bird whispered to me a few weeks back comes to mind. Maybe...we'll see.

Interesting comment Chinaman ... could you say any more? (My hope would have been that he knew the proposal was a load of rubbish, and also knew that the counties would vote against it, so he had nothing to lose and lots to gain by allowing it to go to a vote - it would get rejectd, and he could use that as an excuse to clear out the remainder of the Graves/Harrison gang from the ECB; having heard what he said about the Hundred and about private investment into the franchises, I'm suspicious of his motives.)

Simon your comments above are terrific to the GC,  and just sum up the whole sorry state and split that is happening in the game. You know your stuff and it's obviously been well researched and thought out. Well done.

As to my comment: I can't reveal the source but your on the right track. It's possible that if something along these lines does not happen, the door could open very wide on, well let's say, dubious practices of the ECB that could result in an independent review, and indeed may ultimately tear it apart paving the way for an alternative way of governing the game .

There was a book in the '90s called "War Minus The Shooting" by Mike Maquese if I've spelt that right on the then problems in the game, perhaps rather minor compared to the present. Well a fight is coming for the very soul of the game, I'd rewrite  it as " War Plus The Shooting". Afraid it's going to get very nasty and bloody before this is resolved. Either way the current ECB is not fit for purpose and must go otherwise I fear cricket is gone as we know it.

To address the point being discussed by Chinaman and Simon H, the ECB are legally obliged by their own constitution to seek the approval of two thirds of the first class counties before making 'material amendments' to the regulations that govern the competitions which those counties play in.

Two of the 17 proposals in the High Performance Review fall into the 'material amendment' category - reducing the number of championship matches and reducing the number of T20 games.

It isn't a shrewd tactic by Richard Thompson to put the ECB proposals to a county vote, he had no other option but to put it to a vote. I suspect he knows the vote will fail but that doesn't come into it at this stage.

A similar principle applies to an issue touched on by Jackers a couple of days ago about Surrey now agreeing to meet with members to discuss the proposals. The club are legally obliged by their own constitution to do this if 250 or more members request it. I suspect that happened a couple of weeks ago after the Lancs Action Group appealed to members of all counties to do it.