Apparently the ECB will step up their attempts to appoint Paul Downton’s successor this week. They’ve yet to reveal the job description, but most pundits expect it to be a narrower role than the one Downton screwed up so badly.
Instead of managing a bit of this and a bit of that – or mismanaging in Downton’s case – the new man will focus exclusively on the Alastair Cook’s XI. The ECB will give the job a fancy name, but the role is essentially going to be ‘Head of the England Team’.
Thus far, the names linked to the role include Michael Vaughan, Andrew Strauss and Alec Stewart. No new names have emerged in the past two weeks (which has surprised me somewhat). I was hoping there would be a few crazy outsiders to amuse us. Maybe we could have an election-style TV debate to settle the matter?
The ECB have appointed headhunters to find the right man, so maybe that’s why it’s all gone a bit secretive and quiet. What I do know, however, is that the ECB’s headhunters have a history of appointing the bloke who’s been under their nose the whole time. See Flower, Andy and Moores, Peter. Just think, that fat headhunting fee could have gone to charity … oh well.
My gut instinct is telling me that Strauss will get the job. He’s well respected, well organised and well liked. He would also be the wrong appointment – which must increase his chances of landing the role considerably.
The England team have needed a change of philosophy and approach for about two years now, so appointing the candidate who best represents continuity would seem like the obvious ECB move.
I bet our readers would be absolutely thrilled (in a mightily sarcastic way of course) if Strauss gets the nod. After all, the England team would be entering an exciting ‘new’ era with ….. Strauss, Flower and Moores at the helm. Talk about moving things on, eh.
The most polarising candidate appears to be Vaughan – who made the mistake of taking a media job and then actually giving his opinions (unlike Strauss, who does so much fence sitting on Sky that he often requires hospital treatment to extract splinters from his arse).
Vaughan is popular with the younger members of the England side, but apparently the senior players aren’t too keen. He’s criticised a number of them in his newspaper columns, and said Peter Moores should be sacked a few months back.
News has also emerged in recent days that Alastair Cook doesn’t particularly like Vaughan either. Vaughan was one of the pundits who wanted Cook sacked from the England ODI side last year – a perfectly sensible position – but Alastair, being Alastair, took the comments to heart and has resented Vaughan ever since. You don’t say.
Because he’s keen on the role, Vaughan recently tried to mend fences with Cook. But apparently the summit of former England skippers didn’t go very smoothly. My entirely fictitious sources tell me the meeting went something like this:
Vaughan: “I’m sorry I had a go at you last year, Alastair. I was just doing my job. Can we put it all behind us and work together for the good of English cricket”.
Cook: “‘Eff off Vaughan, something should be done about people like you”.
Obviously Colin Graves doesn’t seem to give two hoots about making controversial decisions, but I sense Vaughan is probably the outsider at this point. It would be a brave man to appoint Vaughan when so many senior players are ambivalent at best towards him.
The final candidate is probably the best one in my opinion. I like Alec Stewart. He talks a good game, has no media baggage, is far enough removed from the current England side that there’s no lingering loyalties or prejudices, yet he’s still very much in touch with the modern game.
Sounds perfect, right? Wrong. Because of his Surrey links, Stewart has always been pretty pro-Kevin Pietersen. This is bound to annoy quite a few people in the corridors of power, and it will certainly wind up certain journalists with considerable axes to grind. Call me a cynic, but I expect Stewart’s copybook might be blotted somewhat.
There are two alternative options I’d briefly like to discuss with you. These have been neglected in mainstream discussion for some reason.
The first option would be appointing an MD from overseas. There are plenty of highly experienced former coaches who would bring a fresh, objective (not to mention expert) perspective. I have no idea whether he’d be interested, but someone like John Wright might fit the bill.
The second option is the most controversial. What about appointing … nobody at all.
In my opinion this role is stupid and entirely unnecessary. I’ve never been enamoured with Peter Moores, but I actually feel sorry for the guy in this instance. How can he do his job well with someone else breathing down his neck? It’s hardly a vote of confidence.
What’s more, creating this role will make it even harder for England to attract a quality, experienced head coach in the future. Why would someone of the calibre of Tom Moody or Gary Kirsten take the England job when there’s a supremo hovering above them, diminishing their authority and hogging the limelight?
This whole idea is totally nuts. But then again this is English cricket. What do you expect?
James Morgan
@DoctorCopy
It gives me no pleasure to write this, or even to think it, but there are two options which you don’t mention, which the ECB would in my view be capable of going for. One is Andy Flower. The other of course is Peter Moores. I can see arguments that the ECB might well favour for both of these. I dislike both of the options deeply though!
In my opinion, the best option is no one and continue to restructure the set up. I fail to see why we need a chairman, MD, director of cricket (or whatever we are calling it), head coach, chairman of selectors and Flower lurking in the shadows.
I’ll throw a revolutionary idea out there, why we don’t employ less people who are actually capable of doing the job.
I’ve never heard of Harrison before but he must earn his salary and fulfil the role of MD. Forget the cricket director role and remove Moores and go get Gillespie to run the cricket side of things.
I’m staggered that they are using a headhunter firm….for Christ sake they are recruiting someone from within the world of cricket…something they should know a little about! Did they not learn the last time they asked someone from the city for help!!
Great post. It beggars belief that they are once again going to employ a head hunter. Is there no one at the ECB (which is groaning in people in jobs on high Salarys) who can look around the world of cricket and find 4-5 names and then approach them ,and interview them for the job? Is the ECB so incompetent that it can’t even recruit for a single job? Why do people in organisations get paid huge money and yet when major decsions are needed to be made they have to go outside to get someone else to make them?
The fact noises coming out of the team is they don’t want Vaughn reveals part of the problem, and confirms KPs claims that there is a dead hand clique in the England set up. Interesting that the younger players have no such world weary view.
Strauss is completely the wrong choice. In appointing him you have effectively reformed the old band. Strauss, Moores , and Flower. The same old faces and the same old claptrap about trust and building bridges and having a face that fits rather than talent.
If this job is only to focus on the England first team why have the job in the first place? We have a coach/ and a selector, (not my choices by the way) what will this new job do all day?
Get a good coach, a good captain, and put money( the money you save from all the high profile appointments, and outside agency’s) into attracting and producing more young talent.
Vaughan’s to lose for me, and I’m fine with that: not a massive fan of his media presence but since when did that mean he wouldn’t be suitable for the role? He was a great captain and man-manager and with the right coach could get the side playing exciting cricket again. Graves is implementing exactly the same set-up Yorkshire has, interestingly: there, Gillespie is head coach under Martyn Moxon’s DoC, so if done right it can be a good way forward. As you said though, the problem would be attracting the coach in the first place: it’d likely have to be someone from the county game (assuming Moores doesn’t stay on of course). You’d have to think with such a strong Yorkshire connection both in the side and behind the scenes now that they’d throw everything at Gillespie to try and lure him to the dark side and I’d be ecstatic if it happened, but Graham Welch and Mark Robinson would also be great candidates I think. Strauss is far too close to the current set-up to be seriously considered, and with the way Graves & Harrison have been ruffling feathers, it doesn’t feel like a decision they’d make either. Stewart feels a bit ‘meh’ to me, a sort of halfway house between Vaughan and Strauss and I’d just find it hard to get too excited about the thought of him taking over, even if I loved him as a player.
I would also quite like Vaughan, but I’m not sure it’s a good idea if he’s unpopular. Ideally it would be someone without any baggage so the slate can be wiped clean.
Not popular with the team? Why might that be? Because Vaughan was honest about the team, especially Cook? Makes Vaughan a good choice in my opinion. He knows the game, he’s a good man manager, he’s a proven winner. Who cares what Cook thinks? I certainly don’t. He’s shown himself to be a pathetic schoolboy who cannot grow up who believes what he has been taught: “you are the chosen one!” So they choose Moores, Flower, Strauss? Bloody hells bells, can it get any worse? Flower says he doesn’t want it as he doesn’t want the politics. Strauss is a damn weasel and Moores’ best friend is his computer. Gee whizz. I think we all need to remember that most of the senior players are on their way out of the door. Cook can’t buy a run, Broad is all over the place, Jimmy is coming to the end of his prowess. Probably the reason why players like Cook is because he is a nice guy to them. However, a leader he is not and he can no longer bat. “Nice” doesn’t necessarily win matches. It’s not a beauty contest nor is it popularity contest. Time to get a bit of straight talking and kicking some arses into touch. This team has been mollycoddled enough. Since when did the team make such a decision anyway? Let’s hope Graves will have the bottle to appoint someone who can do the damn job and not some “respectable & acceptable establishment wallah.
Don’t sit on the fence, Annie LOL!
Well I do get fed up with hearing about Cook whinging. They all need a good kick up the rear end.
The only senior players in the side are Cook, Bell, Anderson, and Broad, three of whom are a whisker away from the end of their careers. Does it really matter whether they like him or not?
Exactly right. If Cook doesn’t like it then he can do what he told Vaughan to do: Foxtrot Oscar! Simples.
Martyn Moxon anyone?
A robot operated by KP supporters.
It really shouldn’t be either of Strauss or Vaughan. Strauss, because he couldn’t be trusted not to give a reasoned and objective decision regarding the management set up to which he has not long since been part of. Vaughan is a little more removed, but the fact that he has a ‘history’, even if this appears not to be entirely his fault with some of the senior players is enough for him to not be given the role.
The remit of the job is not clear and needs to be made so. I suspect us plebs won’t know until the person is in place.
Vaughan or no post.
“History?” Everyone has history. Vaughan unless it is someone like Kirsten. The rest of them can go take a hike. The idea that Strauss would be acceptable is utter madness. Too close to the establishment and he certainly has more history than any of them.
Rahul Dravid?
If someone like that is interested, it’s got to be worth a conversation, surely. Not sure if he’s involved with the IPL in some capacity.
With all the money in its coffers it might be worthwhile for the ECB to entice Dravid here for 2-3 years.
Good idea. One of the greats, and sufficiently outside English cricket (see what I did there?) to be impartial in making decisions.
Please NOT Andrew Strauss. Most boring man ever. Cooky obviously learned his speech skills from his captain. And he is too close to the current set up. Would be jobs for the boys all over again
Do his public speaking skills matter?
Yes it does, especially when he trots out the rubbish he’s been spewing out of late. If Strauss got the job it would be an absolute disaster for this team and the future of England Cricket.
How about Boris Johnson? My other choice is nobody.
Ha ha ha! It’s an idea of course. He’d probably talk ’em to death.
There are a number of foreign coaches (Kirsten, Moody, Whatmore spring to mind) who have in the past not wanted the England job in part because of the travel schedule and the disruption to family life. I could see the point of this post if it attracted someone like that.
Otherwise, as you say, it seems rather destined to undermine the role of the coach – and it’s hard to see what positives it brings.
As for the typical crop of candidates, Strauss should be ruled out just because he’s too close to his playing career which included a number of still current players. Vaughan I’m not sure about, he has a good cricket brain, but I’m not sure he can be hands off enough. Stewart looks more sensible for the post, he’s worked as DoC before.
Which, not to belabour the Yorkshire connections, brings me to Martyn Moxon. Along with Stewart he’s the kind of candidate that should be near the top of the queue (for the domestic list anyway) – he has experience and knows how to work with a coach and make things better, not worse…
Stewie for me. Btw reported in the press that flower is on 300,000 pounds per annum
Graeme Smith.
Vaughan for me too. It’s probably a huge plus to be unpopular with the senior pros, after all, they’ll soon be yesterdays men anyway, and since when has a senior management post been filled with the winner of a popularity contest? If the seniors don’t like it they should just concentrate on winning cricket matches, or fuck off…how hard can it be??
His role, as I see is as a conduit from the team and it’s set up, to the board. Vaughan is apolitical, as far as I can make out, and thus the communication line between the two will be direct and without being clouded with political bullshit and weaselry!
Strauss is already on the fringes of the Establishment, and hopefully, that particular boys club is slowly but surely being shoved out on it’s ear!!
Call me crazy, but how about this as a totally left field choice: Paul Downton for me!
Having failed so miserably in the role in the past, Downton is surely the obvious choice. Worked for Moores :-)
You need a lie down in a darkened room Rav!!!
Absolutely right.
Vaughan or Stewart, certainly not Strauss.
The problem here is that the current England set up is TOXIC. Look what is happening to George Dobell as he gets close to them:
Pressure on Cook to end rough run http://www.espncricinfo.com/west-indies-v-england-2015/content/story/864309.html
Dobell is losing his objectivity, he’s becoming a Cook junkie
Just imagine what a new MD might do
Cricket in England is beyond redemption
I felt the same too.
George has long been a Moores supporter so I’m not surprised he’s saying some positive things about Cook. The fate of the two men seems entwined. I think it’s natural to have a little sympathy for someone under huge pressure. However I don’t think it’s lost on George that he used stats as evidence Cook’s form isn’t that bad, but a few paragraphs later used stats to demonstrate that his record since 2013 is awful. So which one is it? Is his form good or poor? We all know the answer.
I think Cook’s missing the point if he’s going back and looking at old videos of his early days. It’s not what’s Cook’s doing differently (he’s always had a dodgy technique, which is why he rarely performs well against the best bowlers) the important thing is what bowlers are doing differently ie pitching it up and rarely letting him cut and pull. A lot of people are saying he’s simply been worked out. Personally, I’m amazed it’s taken this long. My eyes have always told me he’s nothing special.
James,
I know we’ve gone down this road but “nothing special” is a county player averaging in the mid 30’s. It’s not a bloke who’s hit 25 hundreds and scored 8500 test runs.
Sorry – Anonymous is me.
Nothing special by test standards, Kev. His average of 46, compared to his contemporaries around the world, would make him approximately the third best batsman in a typical/average test team. Players averaging over 50 are special.
I’d still like to see the average runs per wicket ratio in tests in England over the last 10 years. Even with the advent of “Chief Executive pitches” I still reckon it would be a touch lower than Australia or South Africa, for example.
I think you’re an incredibly harsh judge – or maybe just harsh in your use of words. Regardless of Cook, by your reckoning KP is nothing special. Bell is nothing special. Warner? Williamson? Nah. Nothing special.
Very very harsh IMO.
You’re putting words into my mouth Kev. I’ve said a thousand times that I think Cook is a good but not great test batsman. I don’t see how that is harsh at all. I think 80% of cricket fans worldwide would agree. That’s the story his test average of 46 tells. That’s what the breakdown of his test tons says too. He scores most of his runs against the weaker attacks.
My long standing position on Cook – and I’ve said it a thousand times and I’m getting a little bored of being called ant-Cook – is that he’s on a par with Bell and Trott, both of who I also think are good but not great players. My last article when into this in depth. I rate KP as a player of great inns but not a great player, and one who’s career record reveals he’s slightly better than the other three.
There is nothing controversial about any of this analysis. The only area we disagree on, as far as I can see, is the extent to which Cook is given special treatment. I think he has – because no player (whether captain or not) has gone through two years of terrible form without being dropped or resigning – and you think he hasn’t. Agree to disagree. Time to move on.
This time two years ago I would have said Cook was well on the way to becoming a great player. However the last two years have happened and I could do nothing but concur with the view that he is not as such. As well as this, he is a poor leader as well and I blame him as second among equals for the decline of the England team in that period. The first place would go to a certain Andy Flower.
It’s not that he’s been worked out – Glenn McGrath worked him out on his first Ashes series in 2006/07. Cook went away and worked on his game and in his best period between 2009 and 2013, he learnt how to leave the ball. Because he had confidence, his foot movement and judgement of what to play was secure and decisive.
He waited for balls to score off behind square on the off and on the leg side. In test cricket he didn’t have to play anything good and full outside off. I’m convinced his problems stem from his attempt to master one day cricket – he had to go looking to score off balls through the offside, found he wasn’t that great at it, and the changes he made have left him struggling with his natural, more conservative game.
I think Dobell’s is a well balanced and fair piece. The captaincy has improved, the batting has not. The stats show that in the recent past Cook did well against India, the last full test series England played, something that was forgotten in the midst of the ODI debacle. They also show that over a longer period since 2013 his average is poor. This series and against New Zealand, he has to get back to scoring 100s – I’m not convinced he will.
The point about Cook and old videos, is that he had the patience to wait for the balls in his zone and in many ways outlasted the bowler. He would never have jabbed at that ball that got him in the second innings. It’s not his technique, it’s the fact he’s thinking about his technique.
I disagree Hamish. It’s well documented that bowlers are now pitching it up to Cook a lot more, and this has coincided with his long, painful slump in form. The phrase ‘worked out’ is not mine. It belongs to both Nasser Hussain and Bob Willis. The latter just said it again one minute ago on Sky.
All the talk about Cook playing well last summer is pure fantasy. His 95 at Southampton was scrappy, painful to watch, and he could’ve / should’ve been out several times. The two 50s that followed weren’t much better. The were case studies in a batsman struggling with his game. Even though India’s attack was average at best.
Cook averaged approximately the same as Robson (who did actually make a ton) last summer, when you put the India /SL series together, yet Robson was dropped. Cook’s average was also boosted by a big not out.
I can see some logic in your argument that ODIs have damaged Cook, but those who say his recent test form is good are delusional.
I would agree James and McGrath retired in 2007 so never had the opportunity to test out Cooks so called better leave.
Someone , and it is often attributed to McCullen came up with a plan to bowl full to Cook, and not give him anything short or wide. Cook found himslef with no balls to either cut or pull.
That plan has now gone global and all teams seem to have latched onto it. What might help is if Cook can improve his driving down the ground. It would open up scoring opportunities and force the bowlers to bowl a little shorter. Whether he can do that remains to be seen.
So what you two are trying to say is that after McGrath & Stuart Clarke worked him over so publicly, that nobody bothered to bowl full outside off to him for the next 6 years and instead fed his square cut until McCullum decided to try it again in 2013, in the meanwhile watching him accumulate about 20 of his 25 centuries and 6000 of his 8000 runs?
Wow….
In the Telegraph it is saying that Cook spent all winter working with Gooch!!! Maybe that might be something to look into.
Spot On James, Plus the fact that the pathetic way India played made it look that they would have preferred being in the IPL!
Heaven forbid he has a different opinion to you.
Balanced and reasoned comment.
Indeed.
While I disagree with your assessment of Cook – I think the truth lies somewhere between you and James – Dobell is an excellent journalist.
I too would be happy with Vaughan or Stewart but definitely not Strauss.He is far to close to ECB and I just don’t trust him.You can’t believe everything he says Two faced.
Tony Blair or Alistair Cook.
They are both from a rotten borough
Stephen Fleming for me. Has the imagination and man-management skills of Vaughan but without the baggage. And if he could persuade Shane Bond to come as bowling coach, so much the better. Surely he’d take the job over coaching the Melbourne Stars? Can’t see him being offered it though.
Am a big Strauss fan but I agree that we need some new thinking and a break from that attritional mindset. That said, I agree with James that he’s the most likely pick. My impression of Vaughan, albeit from far away, is that he’s a populist who changes with the wind a bit too much. And Stewart, while admirable and solid, wouldn’t bring much originality.
If available and interested, Fleming is a great shout.
Vaughan.
If you’re not having this MD thing, then he should be chair of selectors:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/england/11550966/England-must-be-bold-in-second-Test-against-West-Indies-and-gamble-on-Adil-Rashids-X-factor.html
Headhunters? Jeebus, don’t the ECB have a functioning website upon which they could stick an advert? To me, headhunters mean they know who they want, they just can’t be overt about approaching them. Would they really need headhunters to pull in Stewie, Vaughany, or Straussy?
How much do headhunters cost? Might they be from a company run by a dear family friend of, say, James Whitaker or Giles Clarke CBE? Hey, just asking!
I have a very real fear than Mr Building-4-2019, Andrew Strauss, will get goldenhandjobbed into the supremo role, hurtling us towards a 6-nil loss in a 5 test series v the Aussies. I said it before the World Cup and I’ll repeat it now: funeral attire will be de rigeur for fancy dress Saturdays throughout the Summer.
One more outside bet: Allen Stanford. With only 107 years left in chokey, he’s practically rehabilitated! Put a monkey on it, if yer turf accountant will still take a primate.
Moxon.
But I agree with the sentiment that the post is a waste of time, at least if you are going to have a head coach.
What’s the point of Moores and Fabrace if you have someone above them running the side.
Flemming should be in charge of the whole damm thing.
Looks as though WI will play their leg spinner.
Will Cook/Moores have the guts to play Rashid ?
Vaughan:
“If you’re not going to play him on a wicket like this or in Barbados next week, I don’t see when he will ever be trusted for England in a Test match,”…. “I think the surface will suit his bowling.
I don’t mind them playing Rashid as a second spinner but I don’t think Michael Vaughan is doing him any favours. When one of your biggest supporters goes on radio and tells everyone that 2 out of 3 spells you bowl are rubbish – let’s just say if I was Adil, I’d be asking Vaughany to keep his trap shut!
There’s an interesting article about Michael Vaughan here – https://voicefromstands.wordpress.com/2014/12/10/always-stay-true-to-yourself/
I don’t have anything against Michael Vaughan – he’s a fairly canny operator, and was a good captain but I think he seeks the limelight a bit too much (that’s not a criticism), and this role is a behind-the-scenes, administrative role. I think it’s also a real detail-orientated job, because for me this is the role that sorts out all the crap that should be taken off the hands of coaches / selectors / captain so they can concentrate on getting the best out of the team. Liaising with counties, Lions team, all the sort of unglamorous rubbish that I can’t see Vaughan wanting to go near. I have bad memories of the Ray Illingworth ‘cricketing supremo’ role, which pretty much destroyed English cricket in the second half of the 90s.
I always thought that Hugh Morris pitched the role right both as chief exec and MD – he worked in the background and rarely stuck his head above the parapet. Where Downton got it wrong was trying to take centre stage with his ‘decisive’ action over Pietersen (a mistake he then compounded about 20 times over)
If it hadn’t been for the Pietersen affair, I actually think this role would be perfect for Flower, because the detail and administration is his thing, and still think he would do a better job in this type of role than as coach. He did a lot of good things as coach up till the last 12 months. There’s a lot of talk about his Machiavellian influence over current proceedings from Loughborough, but I’ve yet to see any evidence of it.
I like Stewart, I always thought Angus Fraser talked a lot more sense than James Whittaker in his role as selector. I think Strauss would be good but is too close to the current set up. The key thing is identifying the roles and responsibilities of coach, selectors and MD, which is where the waters are all too muddy.
Vaughan comes across as a good motivator/man manager and knows the game very well, more suited to a coach role than a white collar administrator, that is of course, if that’s what the job description is…
That’s the problem though – what is the role?
“What is the role?”
This is the crucial question. There seem three main possibilities:
1) The Australian model – their equivalent is purely an administrator in charge of logistics and co-ordination. The incumbent doesn’t even have to be from a cricket background (currently a rugby bod holds the job).
2) The Indian model – this would be more of a figurehead in the Ravi Shastri mode. The main role would be communication with the public. This is the one they’ll go with if they think nothing much is wrong and they just need to present things better.
3) The football model – this is more the supremo role. This figure would be more in charge of team selection on-field strategy with the head coach relegated to a purely technical role. The head coach and/or the chairman of selectors could be abolished entirely.
The first possibility seems unlikely given the way the post has been discussed so far so the choice looks between 2 and 3. Where the power to appoint coach and captain resides will be the key issue.
If the post is more like 3, it is extraordinary that Strauss or Vaughan would be even considered. They have performed nothing like this role at any level. If they are committed, where are their hard yards? Only Alec Stewart has any experience of a broadly similar role – and not with a huge amount of success. I can’t believe that anyone who hasn’t done the job for a county and in at least one other format (IPL, BBL, A team) could be even considered. Darren Lehmann is sometimes presented as walking into the Australia job and just getting everyone playing with a smile but Lehmann had coached Queensland, Deccan Chargers in the IPL and Australia A (among others). Rugby fans can’t help having a certain Martin Johnson flashback at this point…..
As I said above, the spectre of another Ray Illingworth style cricket supremo fills me with dread.
I actually think this is a non-role and that Graves should be looking to reform the first class structure. Too many counties, too many average players.
Kevin Pietersen is supposedly auditioning for an England recall against an attack of Wagg, Carter, Meschede, Lloyd and Cosker this week.
staggered Duncan Fletcher hasn’t had a mention for this role – he might be rather good at it…
Fletcher’s a coach rather than an administrator.
Vaughan and Fletcher. Now that has a success written all over it!!!
I hear David Cameron might be in the running after May the 7th if they wait until then!
Ha ha ha! I don’t think he will put his hands up for the job as he has already declared that he won’t be resigning until he third term! He’ll be lucky aye?
Graeme Fowler ?
I’ll take the job. I will present my case with the following Manifesto
1) To speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth
2) To be impartial, fair and take every decision for the benefit of the game of cricket
3) Pick each England team with a view to winning each series and not trying to build it like a club side
4) If I get anything wrong, I’ll say so, appologise, give my reasons for the decision and hopefully make the correct one next time
5) sack Clarke, Moores, Flower, all the data analysts, close Loughborough, campaign for less counties, campaign for increased funding for amateur clubs (all those outside teh top 4 divisons of any ECB structure), wouldn’t prioritise any form of cricket(ie disabled, womes, asian etc, all are equal and MUST be part of the ECB pyramid to be assisted), counties wouldn’t receive subsidy any longer
Closing Loughborough seems like a daft idea to me.
Oh, and I’ll do all this for 40k a year plus expenses (I’ll have a nice new Kia Sorcento too please.. and a bag of crips.. Oh and I’ll sack most of the employees at the ECB and would immediately ban Shelvey, Pringle and any other pointless journalist.
You’ve got my vote!!!