Anatomy of a failure part 1 – The ECB

When England were knocked out of the European Championships on penalties last year, most people blamed the manager – failing to realise, of course, that most England mangers since 1966 have been sacked after failing miserably. Were they all rubbish?

Largely overlooked was the fact that Gerrard and Parker, the only two central midfielders left standing, were running on empty after a gruelling domestic season in which they, unlike players from rival nations, didn’t get a mid-season break.

Was it Roy Hodgson’s fault the team was exhausted? Hodgson doesn’t create the fixture lists. And was it his fault the team couldn’t string two passes together? He works with the players for a few weeks a year – and he certainly hasn’t coached them since they were nippers.

When I became a football fan in the late 80s, everyone blamed our dismal form on English players’ lack of technique. It’s the same today. Nothing has changed. Is it any wonder when the people running your national sport are muppets?

And so we come to the Ashes. Alastair Cook isn’t the best captain, Andy Flower’s regime is stale, Graham Gooch and David Saker have nothing more to offer, but to blame them would be to blame the micro. And I’m a macro man.

Yes, England performed badly in the Ashes, but the ECB made their job infinitely more difficult. That’s because English cricket’s authorities, much like the FA, have been handicapping the national side for years.

We’ve played some good cricket in the last ten years, but how much of that was down to the ECB’s production lines? We were fortunate that Trott, Pietersen (and now Stokes) moved to the UK when they were young. Would we have been so successful with Key and Bopara batting at 3 and 4 respectively?

Apart from the introduction of central contracts and a two tier county championship – the only two good ideas the ECB have come up with in decades (and they were long overdue at that) – the English cricket authorities have done naff all to improve our team.

Not enough young people play the game in our country. There are few players ready to step up and replace our ailing established stars.

And talking of our established ‘stars’, why exactly have they performed so badly in the last two years? It’s because Jimmy Anderson is Steven Gerrard, that’s why.

Here’s the most pertinent fact you’ll read today: no bowler has bowled more deliveries in international test cricket since December 2011 than Jimmy Anderson; and that includes all the spinners too. Is it any wonder he doesn’t look the same bowler?

What’s more, no batsman has faced more deliveries in test cricket during the last two years than Alastair Cook. And that’s despite the fact that Cook’s form has been inconsistent to say the least. He would’ve batted twice as long as any other player had he actually managed to score some bloody runs.

A round of applause for the ECB please! They have their plentiful beans to count. Australia have the Ashes.

Now we move on to the concept of back-to-back Ashes. I bet nobody at the ECB, especially those who count the beans, thought to themselves: “hmmmm, maybe back-to-back Ashes will favour the side that plays their home series last”.

Both teams are sick of the sight of each other now. They were put through the irrelevance that was this summer’s Ashes – the winner got to keep the trophy for all of a few weeks – and the Aussies were probably targeting the return series down under anyway.

This Ashes series now is the one that really matters; the winners keep the trophy for fifteen months. Nobody in Australia gives a toss they lost 0-3 a couple of months ago.

The Aussies have been able to regroup at home, motivate themselves with thoughts of revenge, whilst England’s weary crew – jaded by the thought of defending a trophy they only just retained – have to go overseas, away from their families for four months, suffering from Ashes fatigue and burnout (they have, after all, played far more test matches than any other country).

I bet you Alastair Cook and Co would love there to be another Ashes series in England, starting in eight weeks time (if the weather allowed for it). I’d make England big favourites if such an event took place.

The Aussies would have to travel to the other side of the world to defend a trophy they’ve just worked so hard to win. England will be refreshed, amongst friends and family, and motivated by revenge. The two teams might start playing according to their career averages again – much like in the previous three Ashes series.

Now we’ll move away from scheduling and on to the other aspects of planning.

I’m not going to dwell on England’s lack of preparation time – this has been a problem for about a decade – I want to concentrate on things we haven’t said a million times before.

Hands up who thought it would be a good idea to play on slow, low featherbed pitches throughout the English summer? This was classic English cricket thinking. Only consider the short term; think no further than the next match.

Yes, this strategy helped us to win the Ashes at home, but as we’ve already established this series was utterly irrelevant. By preparing a constant diet of pitches for Graeme Swann, we made our batsmen’s lives almost impossible in the return series.

After playing on low bouncing tracks in India, New Zealand, and then seven home test matches, did nobody think we might get surprised by the pace and bounce of Brisbane?

There’s a reason why India play well at home but poorly outside Asia. Adjusting to bouncy pitches takes time, no matter who you are. As far as preparation for this winter goes goes, England might as well have played on Mars.

Nice one ECB.

So what does the future look like? Fortunately, because Australia have a dearth of quality youngsters coming through – Alex Doolan and Peter Nevill, the next two cabs off the rank, are 28 year olds who average 38 and have scored a meagre nine centuries between them – England should win future Ashes series by default.

However, should we really be judging ourselves by Australian standards? It wasn’t long ago that the Aussies were contemplating structural changes too. England’s goal should be to become world number one, not to merely beat one rival.

Is the ECB capable of achieving this? I’ll remind you of a few things while you make up your mind:

• Live international cricket continues to be broadcast exclusively on Sky – that means more money in the coffers to help a dwindling pool of players; we won’t increase the number of kids playing cricket, but the rare nuggets we produce will have a better chance to maximise their talent. Hmmmm.

• The best thing the ECB have done is introduce a two-tier county championship. The cricket became more competitive and standards increased. There’s just one problem: the ECB, in their wisdom, restricted battle-hardened overseas pros and introduced incentives for playing English kids (the lack of which is clearly evident). Suddenly, standards in the championship have fallen again. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

• Next year, English domestic cricket will include 50 over matches again. Hallelujah! But what kind of idiots abolished it in the first place? It’s hard to have faith in a board that makes such boneheaded decisions.

• Ten years ago T20 cricket was going to save us all. It was the golden goose than swelled county coffers. Games were a real event to look forward to. The crowds lapped it up. Now, just like the Ashes, it’s been done to death. The golden goose, or should it be the golden cow, has been milked to death. Nobody gives two hoots anymore.

What we’ve seen over the last few years is a record of abysmal failure. Hugh Morris has resigned, thank heavens, but do you have any faith that Paul Downton will do a better job?

Unfortunately, incompetence seems ingrained at the ECB. But never fear, I’m sure another Allen Stanford will emerge to save the day.

James Morgan