That ECB Strategy Document Translated

It’s time to “come together” for the greater good. It’s time to rally behind a plan – the only plan on the table.

Sounds like Theresa May’s Brexit pitch doesn’t it? But actually this was pretty much the message conveyed by the gruesome twosome, Tom Harrison and Colin Graves, as the ECB launched their strategy document for 2020 to 2024 on Monday.

So what exactly is their plan? It’s not unlike the Maybot’s strategy really. Talk everything up but leave the detail to later. Much later.

Now unfortunately cricket doesn’t really have a James O’Brien, Iain Dale, or even a Nish Kumar to dissect the plan and really put it under the microscope; therefore I guess it’s left to ordinary supporters like me.

So here’s my interpretation of the strategy document’s key points. I hope you’re wearing your sarcasm protection vest.

Firstly the ECB believes that cricket is facing three key challenges because apparently the game is (a) too long (b) too complex, and (c) too inaccessible. This is why they’ve proposed The Hundred – although they haven’t actually got an official name for it yet. Games will be over in just two hours, plus they’ll finally be on terrestrial TV! Woohoo! More on that later.

First of all let’s challenge the false assumption that cricket is too long. I’ve talked about the rising popularity of the Tour de France before (which goes on for over twenty days) so let’s choose a new example to prove the ECB are nuts. I’ll alight on the NFL.

American football has become very popular in the UK over the last ten years or so. It’s now watched by more people than many traditional British sports. It’s also by far the most watched sport in the USA.

I’m not sure how many of you follow NFL but games last almost three and a half hours and the sport’s incredibly strategic and complicated. Try telling NFL fans that the game’s too long and complex.

And then we come to the accessibility issue. Since locking live cricket behind a pay-wall in 2006, cricket has clearly become inaccessible to most of the country. But this was entirely self-inflicted.

Fear not. The Hundred will cure all. Why? Because in their wisdom the ECB are bringing cricket back to the BBC. Pats on the back all round.

Well, not quite actually. Putting a handful of games on the BBC (whilst keeping the vast majority hidden behind a pay-wall) is like deliberately slashing your wrists for years only to congratulate yourself when you finally stop. What’s more, you haven’t really stopped. You’re still going to spend most of your time slashing your wrists – just not all the time.

Harrison also claimed on Monday that The Hundred is the thing facilitating this long overdue return to terrestrial TV:

We would not be on free-to-air TV without that new competition and we would not have the premium that we got through the media rights process had that competition not been there.

There’s just one problem with this analysis. I find it disingenuous. Free-to-air television has always retained interest in live cricket but not for the huge price the ECB wanted (and got) from Sky. Why would Sky have paid so much for its exclusivity for the last 14 years if no other channels were interested? Let’s remember that BT Sport (Sky’s main pay-TV rival) is a relatively new enterprise.

Let’s take ourselves back to 2006 when the ECB turned its back on terrestrial TV. Channel 4 wanted to retain the coverage but were blown out of the water. Here’s what they said:

Channel 4 made a full and substantial offer to try to retain the live rights to test cricket and to ensure that fans would still be able to watch the England cricket team free of charge. We were bidding as much per game this time as under the terms of the last deal, but we’ve still been substantially outbid by Sky … We hope the ECB does not come to regret its decision to turn its back on the hundreds of hours of terrestrial exposure that Channel 4 was offering.

The return of some (very limited) cricket to terrestrial TV suggests that the ECB might now regret giving Sky its monopoly. Yes Sky’s coverage is excellent, and their money has been very useful for the board, but taking the money was rather short-term thinking. After all, if cricket was on terrestrial TV then sponsorship deals would be worth more and the game would be higher profile. Revenue would have come from other sources.

Then we move on to the concerns traditional cricket fans (that’s us I think) have about the direction the sport is moving – especially when it comes to The Hundred. Apparently our concerns are all based on myths. That’s right folks. Harrison did what he called a little “myth-busting” on Monday.

Even though Andrew Strauss and Eoin Morgan said that The Hundred was for mums and kids rather than existing supporters, apparently we’ve all got the wrong end of the stick. Apparently it’s for kids AND us white middle-class boring old existing cricket fans.

This is classic spin. You say one thing, get ridiculed, and then pretend you actually said something else, whilst implying that it’s everyone else’s fault for misunderstanding. Clever, eh?

Another apparent myth is the concern that The Hundred – or whatever it’s going to be called – is costing a lot. After all, 180m smackers over 5 years is a king’s ransom. But there’s no need to worry apparently. According to Harrison the TV rights package (of which The Hundred is a part) is so huge that the competition is already making a profit.

Well that’s ok then. Except that it isn’t. The costs for the tournament have already doubled and if The Hundred flops then English cricket will be in deep poop. Obviously he didn’t mention that.

But that will surely never happen, right? With the fans on-board it will be plain sailing. Even the players have warmed to the idea:

I think new players will really want to test their ability in a format of the game which we think will provide more pressure at those key moments in games.

Excuse my cynicism here but the above is nonsense. The players will come because they’ll be paid handsomely to do so. And – prepare yourself for a shocking revelation here – professional athletes quite like money. And who can blame them?

Next we come to the scheduling congestion and the potential for cricket overkill. Again we need not worry. The very popular T20 Blast will coexist alongside The Hundred easily because < insert drumroll > the cricket market has room for growth!

Obviously this is crap. All markets arguably have room for growth. Even the market for cigarettes in western countries arguably has room for growth. The actual question is whether the market will actually grow. And it’s incredibly difficult to build demand if there’s already too much of something about.

We keep reading that the ECB are introducing The Hundred to emulate (or even out-do) the IPL and the Big Bash. The lesson from the latter, however, is that you can indeed have too much of a good thing. Cricket Australia recently increased the number of matches and the tournament’s popularity slid for the first time.

Anyway less of the reality and back to the fantasy. We must now discuss the county championship – the event that means more to most traditional cricket fans than anything else. According to Harrison the domestic first class competition is still the ECB’s “blue ribbon event”.

Pull the other one, Tom. The Championship is the ECB’s priority in the same way that a prize garden gnome that’s put on display in April and September, but then hidden away for those high summer BBQ parties, is a homeowner’s prized asset. If the Championship was the board’s priority then there would be far more championship cricket scheduled for weekends, bank holidays and other times when, you know, people are actually free to watch it.

What a shame that The Hundred – which Harrison claims is simply designed to do “a certain job at a certain part of the season” – is going to marginalise first class cricket further. After all, by “a certain job at a certain part of the season” what he really means is “raise shit loads of dosh during the best part of the season”.

Talking of money there’s apparently loads of it for the counties by the way. They’ll get the princely sum of £450m to share in direct funding. So that’s why they voted for the idea. Make sure those turkeys enjoy a five star spa experience before they head off to the slaughterhouse, eh.

And then we come to Sky again. The ECB obviously have to thank Sky for injecting so much money into the coffers. In fact, moving forward Sky will apparently take a more active role and become less of a broadcaster and more of a strategic partner. This prospect has Harrison salivating.

When addressing the fact that live cricket will now be shown on both satellite and terrestrial television Harrison boasted that “In terms of scale and reach, it’s a powerful combination that we haven’t been able to talk about before.”

This would be a good point if it were true. But obviously it’s not. Everyone knows that cricket used to be shown on both subscription and free-to-air television in the 1990s. England’s home games were on the BBC and the winter tours on Sky. It was a pretty good balance really. And it seemed to work ok. I wonder what happened to that arrangement?

Finally – and this bit had me in stitches – Harrison promised to do more to shed cricket’s middle-class image and it’s “curious tag of elitism and privilege”. As if!

This is the governing body that made Waitrose its primary sponsor, approached the poshest journalist in the land to become its National Selector, sold out to an expensive satellite broadcaster, sets sky high ticket prices (especially in London) that ordinary families cannot afford, and whose former chairman once praised Alastair Cook because he was from “the right sort of family”.

Good luck with that one, Tom. One suspects you’ll need a lot of luck with most of it.

James Morgan

43 comments

  • Are there examples of other sport tournaments succeeding with some rounds on free TV and some on pay TV?

    Formula 1 tried it, split between the BBC and Sky. It went so well that the 7-agreement ended after just 4 years. Then it was split between Channel 4 and Sky, something which has now ended, too.

    And that was for a sport which had until the split deal been on free TV — so the free broadcasts had an existing audience.

    Whereas The 100 is apparently trying to win a new audience who don’t currently follow cricket but will be enticed by a contest in which they don’t get to see 3/4 of the matches.

  • Very little to disagree with in James’ analysis from me.

    I’m kinda disappinted James is still referring to “counties” – they’re “delivery networks” now!

    Another example of the nonsense about T16.66 being for established fans is when Morgan said the point of it is to “upset people that already come to a game”. Morgan wouldn’t have sent out that message without knowing it was what was wanted (remember he was one of only three players in the initial consultation). Contrast the way current and former cricket players say nothing but the agreed line and the rocket Andy Murray delivered to British tennis’s governing body overnight. Maybe it’s one reason why Murray has almost universal respect and England cricketers look more and more like the sporting equivalent of the Stepford Wives.

    The argument about simplifying the game is just ridiculous when it already has four formats (T10 has to be included now) and they want to create a fifth. They want a format they can copyright and rake in the dosh every time it’s played. Revamping the NWB or introducing a T10 competiton both had arguments going for them – but not this.Harrison’s blithe assertion that there’s enough audience for the new competition and the NWB will make many wonder whether he’s a fool or a knave.

    Finally, a new CEO of the ICC has been announced to replace Dave Richardson and he’s like Harrison, only worse. The bloke has no cricket experience (which is certainly unusual for people in the role and may be unique) and his background is entirely one of negotiating global TV rights. There also appears to be some scandal in his past although it’s too unclear to say yet if this amounted to much. He was appointed unanimously which is usually a bad sign. Mr Sawhney takes over after the WC.

  • Good piece as always James.

    High time we sent out a hit squad to take out the ECB. I’ve said before it is the worst “governing” body in sport, pandering to the must have instant society mentality of more is better.

    I hope its ideas fail miserably and these ex bankers, shopkeepers and “business” men go and negotiate Brexit.

    Roll on April 11th for the first game of proper cricket. If this continues their won’t be any in 10 years.

  • What a lot of negative nonsense, based on a complete distortion of the ECB’s strategy and blatantly dishonesty in many cases.

    I’m not pompous enough to “translate” your travesty of the truth back into reality but “Free-to-air television has always been interested in live cricket but not for the huge price the ECB wanted” proves you haven’t got a scoobie. Disengenuous? Downright dishonest more like, as former BBC D-G Mark Thompson would tell you if you bothered to ask him (I did).

    And your ridiculing of Andrew Strauss (one of the most decent men in the game) is cheap and silly. Have a look at the crowd shots in the BBL (games on BT Sport not Sky), and there are more mums and kids than adult males – and, in stark contrast to English cricket crowds, hardly anbody under 50. That’s the audience the ECB’s new comp (and I don;t think it will be called the 100, by the way) has to attract and Strauss – and Morgan,too – are totally correct in that aspiration.

    You weren’t even born at the time but your droning and moaning reminds me of dear old Mona Lott in ITMA. – it’s being so cheerful as keeps me going…

    • Andrew Strauss is so “decent” his strategy is beyond criticism? Are we discussing him or cricket? Well not sure Graves and Harrison the current apologists who cooked up the Hundred care about decency given their flagrant destruction of Durham who were in the way of the 8 Test venues required. The current understanding is that now the squalid deed is done the ECB think they were too draconian in destroying a first rate team! This is the murky dark side of money deals which are side lining cricket. Sky and betting both enjoy the benefits of legal gambling to the extent the Hundred is merely a vehicle. If you think Strauss is so naive he wasn’t aware of it then so be it. But Graves is a wheeler dealer and Harrison is his front man. They’ve spotted a chance to turn cricket into a cash register. If it dives then so what? They don’t care about the future of cricket – Graves the man who doesn’t like Test cricket. Such a man shouldn’t be in charge. James Morgan is spot on.

    • Where did I ridicule Andrew Strauss? I’d rather have him in charge than Giles.

      If the ECB want to tap into a younger audience that’s absolutely fine with me. I have an 8 year old son and I’d love him to fall in love with cricket. But why do they need to do it with a new 100-ball competition that makes no sense and then run it alongside the already very popular T20 Blast? You talk about the Big Bash. But both the Big Bash and IPL are T20 competitions – a proven recipe for success.

      Re: terrestrial TV there are plenty of channels not just the BBC. And live cricket is an opportunity for 5 whole days of relatively cheap programming. It would be better than making a host of new dramas or showing more re-runs of Ironside.

      C4 wanted to retain the TV rights in 2005 but were blown out of the water by Sky. The BBC was also interested in showing live cricket in 2008 but they could not afford to compete. And, as we know, the BBC were also involved in the bidding in 2017 and they’ve secured 8 (?) Hundred fixtures. The only time Sky seemed to bid unopposed was in 2013 when they again offered a very attractive package which the ECB snapped up in the midst of an economic downturn. But again, why would they bid so much if nobody else was interested? Sky aren’t stupid. They put in a bid they felt no terrestrial broadcaster would be able to match.

      It’s all there on Google for those who wish to research it.

    • “and, in stark contrast to English cricket crowds, hardly anbody under 50.”

      And you claim that Mr Morgan doesn’t “have a scooby”?

      Jesus Wept. You are Tom Harrison and I claim my £5.

    • Did Mark Thompson say any more–reasons why they weren’t interested, for example–or did he just say they weren’t and that was it?

  • Agree with all of that James. The IPL & BBL are successful, so India & Aus don’t need a 2nd competition.
    The ECB should have looked into revamping the domestic T20 competition. 2 divisions, promotion & relegation, games on FTA BBC, involving all 18 COUNTIES. If, say after 5 years of a proper sell, it failed, then try something ridiculous like the 100.
    The priority for me, is the preservation of championship cricket, with games in high summer.
    The only good 100, is its less than 100 days until the real cricket starts again, enjoy it while it’s still around.

    • But that’s the whole point and Harrison’s comments give the game away. Of course revamping the T20 would have been better,but the ECB were never going to own that. The whole rationale behind whatever The Hundred is going to be called is that the ECB own the name, the format and all of the associated marketing, media and merchandising rights. This new format is solely about money. Cricket by comparison is irrelevant to the ECB.

    • Spot on Kevin. I’ve read that some of the suits have argued that the broadcasters were only interested if the ECB put forward an entirely new concept. But I find this extremely hard to believe. Why take a risk on a new format that has been ridiculed by most cricket fans when T20 is a proven money-spinner?

  • James I completely agree with you. Well done with every vital point you make.
    As a Durham member I would like to highlight the hypocrisy of Harrison’s attack on the so called “middle class” and “elitist” supporters of cricket and his deep concern to extend the range of cricket beyond white middle class males – I think that’s the gist.
    However you would think then that the working class county of Durham offered the perfect springboard for this deep desire of the ECB. Most of its local cricket teams come from ex pit villages – cricket was very popular with the mining community and the teams have survived pit closures. I’m sure they could do with more money and more support. Their strength is well appreciated in Durham’s excellent Academy. What happened? Durham cricketers have strong local accents. Pass that test. The now admitted draconian destruction of Durham’s great side was orchestrated by the ECB and one of the beneficiaries was Hampshire whose chairman is a mate of Graves in the millionaires’ club.

    We all share a love of the game. But the hypocrisy needs challenging because the opposite has happened. Free to air TV is more democratic and token games on the BBC doesn’t address that. The current government has withdrawn funding for arts and sports in the state school curriculum and there is already a legacy of selling off playing fields under Thatcherism,
    The Hundred is pandering to the idea that populism is the answer – a cheap version is better than the real deal which is too complicated for the masses. But even the market shows that real enthusiasts can change all that – real ale instead of lager for example. How long before real cricket makes a comeback?
    I applaud James who tirelessly propounds his love of the game in the face of all provocations from the ECB. Their marketing ploys are blatantly dishonest.

  • I have to object to one bit – the comparison with the NFL. The reason we are all happy to watch 3 hours plus of the NFL is, obviously, because we enjoy seeing Americans trying to kill each other – and the more they attempt this and the longer they go at it the happier we are. And, if they somehow survive the steroid-fuelled mass assaults there is even a spin-off benefit; they can become so brain-damaged that they may qualify to enter Congress or – if the damage is at the vegetative level – the White House.
    Otherwise a splendid analysis.

  • Lots of interesting views and comments! Particularly liked the NFL analogy. I’m a cricket fan who prefers the CC and Test cricket to the other formats. I think that, like the NFL, this is because it IS so ‘complicated’. So many variables during the longer format games which encourage discussion, prediction, friendly banter and joy or disappointment depending on the result. That or throw the willow at everything for an hour or two?

    There is an opportunity for a short-format game but why sideline the ‘proper’ game to the fag-end of our normally (for cricket) dismal summer?

    • Surely one of the great ironies of this lunacy is that a format that set out to appeal to people who couldn’t understand a scorecard, let alone sit still for 120 balls but would be transfixed by 100, are now going to be confronted by a format which, when compared to any other limited overs competition, makes medieval alchemy look positively simple.

  • Good piece James. I may have mentioned before having twice seen Gordon Hollins (COO of the ECB) address Worcester members and say very clearly that they new competition was not for us. We also heard about the vast, hitherto untapped audience that was ‘out there’ and which would be attracted to the game by the innovative proposal. From the start many people were hugely skeptical about the Mythical Millions and it rather sound as if Harrigraves now realises that they were fed what I can only describe as marketing bollocks. In that sense they may be a little more flexible than Maybot but I await the day when they realise that you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

  • We all know it’s a load of spin (apologies for the pun) but it’s going to happen anyway, so let’s see what effect it all has on the existing structure of the game. Don’t pre-empt it because of what might happen, which is what all the negativity points to. The public may take to it, who knows. It may all pan out differently from what we fear because it develops a momentum of its own, who knows. Certainly no one on this blog.
    I know a couple of fellow bloggers will call this ‘Pollyanna’ stuff drivel, but the truth is, like Brexit, no one will know anything until it happens, so we have to wait for facts to base our judgement on.
    You can’t dismiss all the game’s hierarchy in this country as a bunch of self seeking marketeers, looking to put their ‘new broom sweeps clean’ mark on the game. There is plenty of concern about the future of the red ball game, which most players still see as the ultimate test of their skill set.

    • Well argued Marc. And without insults either. Obviously we’ll see how things play out but I do think the odds are against the new tournament. And if it does succeed, I cannot see how damaging / overshadowing the existing competitions would make it worth it in the long run. The England test team can never succeed if we only play Championship cricket in April, May and September.

      I think what annoys me is that we all know why cricket has become invisible in this country: the decision to put the game behind a paywall. This was a crisis of the ECB’s making. Instead they only blame social changes etc which in my view is utter rubbish as other long sports are still popular.

  • No country has 4 domestic competitions. It simply won’t fit in. More is rarely better in life. The ECB will no doubt charge about 50p for tickets to this garbage to get people through the doors. At the expense of what? Well the Blast of course which will probably be killed off if the”instant gratification society” watch the 100. Just what the creeps at the ECB are about. It would be better if they didn’t associate it with cricket because it isn’t, and play it in football stadiums. Mum’s and kids? Are they serious? And no I don’t like anything Strauss did at the ECB. He is partly responsible for selling out crickets soul.

    • India has many domestic competitions. A first class competition, a 50-over competition, and a T20 competition. All three of those are state based. All three of which count towards FC, List-A and T20 records. And then there is the IPL of course. There is no overlap in time frames, unlike the situation in England with the Hundred / Blast. So there are a number of Indians that play all 4 of those major competitions.

      Add in the likes of the Duleep Trophy, Irani Cup, zonal tournaments, and a fair number of competitions on the state level (various states also have T20 competitions). These tournaments tend to be shorter (Irani is the Ranji champions vs. Rest of India, so consists of just one match).

  • For the 100 competition which starts in the year 2020, what are the teams going to be called? There will be 8 teams playing at 8 Test grounds but I heard last year that The ECB will not name the teams based on geography! So the team based at Headingley will not be named Northern Stars but are more likely to be called The Panthers! For us middle-aged cricket fans how do we identify with these new teams? As a Yorkshire County Cricket Club member if the team does not have Yorkshire in it’s name then I’m not going to support them..I’d think Lancashire, Surrey and other county members at all the 18 counties feel the same as me. Another worry for me is that this 100 competition will be played whilst the counties contest The Royal London One-day Cup, the 50 over competition will effectively become a 2nd eleven competition as there will be a host of players missing as they’ll be taking part in this new competition . Also am I right in saying that this 100 gimmick competition will drag on for six weeks?

    • Great point. The ECB have made winning the 50 world cup a priority later this year but then they’re suddenly turning their backs on the format by drastically eroding the quality of our domestic 50 over cricket. This will obviously make the world champions (if we win the thing) second rate quite quickly.

  • No mention of women’s cricket, yet the 100 as it stands will have a seriously detrimental effect on the women’s T20 game. Yet it’s supported by one particular£y prominent and voca£ fema£e cricket administrator. I can’t for the £ife of me work out why she wou£d do that. Can anyone e£se ? I think we shou£d be to£d!

    • “No mention of women’s cricket” , you say John? Do you mean in the tawdry, ill-informed article above or in the ECB’s five year strategy – which I’m guessing you haven’t read?

      The ECB document commits a total of £500 million to grow our game between 2020-2024 with six distinct priority areas – one of which is “transforming women’s and girls’ cricket”. Wonder why whoever the moaning minnie is who wrote the negative nonsense above didn’t mention that? Perhaps, like you, he or she hasn’t read the document ? It makes you wonder…

      The Board’s strategy document outlines 26 different projects, designed to expand the game’s reach , and 22 of them will be driven by the counties with funds supplied by the ECB, via an Infrastructure Investment Fund and a Community Investment Fund .

      To that end the ECB has today appointed Gordon Hollins as the managing director of county cricket to overee the 18 counties in the delivery of the strategy.

      Gordon is a top guy, with a great record over the last five years as the ECB’s chief ops man and is hugely admired and respected around all of our wonderful county grounds from his previous role as MD of the professional game when he helped the counties design and improve their business plans.

      • I’ve had the misfortune to hear Hollins speak twice. Your final paragraph is totally at odds with my view and that of others I know. Are you Colin Graves?

      • That’ll be “impact negatively” as in “destroy”, I presume.

        It will leave England Women without a domestic version of one of the two formats that really matter in women’s cricket, if I understand correctly. That has been done in the men’s game before for a short time….but it was equally stupid.

      • I’m sorry but you seem to have rose tinted glasses on. The ECB has published a strategy document that, much like a political document or manifesto, gives a one sided view which portrays policy makers in the best possible light. The media (which includes social media) then critiques it. My piece is symptomatic of the cynicism many fans feel at the moment. To moan about this seems a bit like May or Corbyn moaning at Have I Got News For You. Ps I was actually worried that my article was too trite, because it pretty much says what the serious media have already been saying albeit with a little more sarcasm and satire.

      • Blimey. Surely you don’t believe what you read in “strategy documents”. There generally fictitious , definitely so if their written by a terrible sporting “governing” body such as the ECB.

  • It bears re-stating that the ECB have never published the market research this was based on.

    If it was so “meticulous” as The Analyst claims, let’s have a look at it.

    • Simon, of course market research consultants will tell you black is white if you pay them enough!

      • This is true. Just like polls.. a poll will simply only tell you what the instigator or paymaster wants it to say..

        A level maths.. statistics ..

        Lies
        More lies
        Then dam statistics

  • Wow. This is getting like the BBC threads on Brexit. People shouting each other down because they can’t accept a different opinion and discuss it rationally. It’s a game of cricket folks first and foremost, remember that. Lovelifelovecricket? You need to change your name I reckon.

    • Wow

      Something sensible.. it’ll never catch on

      Brexit is amusing me if I’m honest, you literally have two sides who simply will not accept the other sides view and want to simply ignore them., one side is rude and abusive and the other dismissive.

      What everyone is lacking in all this is looking at the best way long term for the game (format irrelevant) AND a way to provide as many formats for each and every player/viewer to pick. If someone wants to play draw or watch test cricket it should be there.. if someone wants T10 on the tv, beer head Friday nights or have a Saturday slog on Astro.. then that should be an option to.

      • Well what the ECB does and proposes definitely isn’t in the long term interests of the game. I’ve been involved in sports on a amateur basis admittedly for many years. But this is the first time I’ve come across a governing body who seems actively trying to destroy the game it proposes to represent. Clear out the ex bankers, shop lepers and hangers on and replace them with people who love the game. Pity the counties gave up the right to vote them out.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting