Schoolboy Error

If state school cricket is the neglected child of English cricket; private school cricket is the spoiled one. Both have unhealthy ramifications for our game as Cameron Ponsonby explains …

Recently, I read an article that referred to a county offering a player a three-year contract before he had even left school; “It marked the certainty of his ability, but also the county’s trust in the [private] school that they would sufficiently prepare [him] for the professional game.”

In other words, the school was capable of doubling as a professional academy. Aside from serving as a glaring reminder of the disparity between those who grow up playing the game at a private school versus those who don’t, it didn’t surprise me. The quality of private schools’ facilities is well-known, often being of professional, indeed even international, quality. This gives young players the chance to learn and progress in an environment second to none, and with that comes added opportunity. I remember a friend of mine who attended Dulwich College telling me about the time he kept wicket when South Africa were training at the school. Dale Steyn, Hashim Amla and him. 10,000 test runs, 400 test wickets and ten GCSEs between them. Money can’t buy that kind of experience, except, well…yeah.

Despite momentary bursts of jealousy, in general I try to hold my nose and turn a blind eye to the advantages provided to those who play cricket at private schools. Because in reality what can be done? You can’t blame the kids, who would be stupid to not take the opportunity, and you can’t blame the schools, as for as long as they have the money to spend, they’ll continue to have the coaches and the facilities to match. All in all, it goes a long way to explaining why the percentage of privately educated players in the professional game is ever increasing. Of course, the end point of all this is that one day the sport will be played only by those named Oscar – but hey, we’ll still sell-out the Lord’s Test so it’s fine.

If that sounds overdramatic, it isn’t. Since Paul Collingwood retired in 2011 there hasn’t been a single state-educated, specialist batsman to hold down a regular spot in the England side. Furthermore, there is only one state educated, black player, currently playing in county cricket in total. One. By way of contrast, three of England’s last four opening batsmen went to the same independent school, with the fourth, by way of diversity, attending the same school as the selector instead.

Dulwich College playing fields

Some may argue that scholarships skew the stats. And, as Phil Walker wrote for Cricinfo, “there is truth in the argument. But while these gifted cricketers get access to top facilities and professional coaching, what of the mates they leave behind? All they have gained is a lost inspiration, and another reason to kick a football around. A few success stories speak of little but the largesse of private money.”

The sport has a genuine problem. However, whilst I can deal with the current gap in representation between private and state educated players, in as much that I understand why it exists (as opposed to being happy with it), what I really struggle with is the platform provided to private school cricket that serves only to stoke the fires of an already runaway train.

Some platforms are more archaic than others, with Eton vs Harrow still being played at Lord’s a prime example. For those keeping count that makes the privileges of attending Eton a licence to kill, the keys to No 10 and the chance to open at the home of cricket. The school is right underneath the flight path of Heathrow though, so, I guess it evens out.

Other platforms, however, are more recent and for that reason more frustrating.

Wisden is colloquially known as the Bible of Cricket. Their Young Schools Cricketer of the Year programme was set up in 2008 in an effort to, “help raise the profile of schools cricket, especially at state schools.” Schools submit their results and the best young performers from across the country are rewarded with their name listed in that year’s edition. A prestigious and wholesome reward that gives young players the chance to have their names alongside the greats of the game. However, of the thirteen winners to date, only one was not privately educated, instead attending a grammar school. Neatly, in a nation where 93% are state educated and 7% privately, Wisden’s award designed to raise the profile of state school cricket has produced 93% privately educated winners and 7% state. And to top it off the awards ceremony is, naturally, a blacktie event at Lords. And there was me thinking the bible was for everyone.

This was, of course, always going to be the case. Everyone knows how dominant private school cricket is within the country and therefore so too do Wisden. I emailed Wisden ahead of writing this asking (in politely veiled desperation) for any examples of programmes they had run to help boost state participation as the opening statement of their programme suggested. I received a perfectly pleasant reply bemoaning the decline of cricket in state schools, a reassurance that they encourage all schools to submit their results, the above Phil Walker article and a few directions to (non-Wisden) programmes. But, I mean…surely that’s not good enough; is it? If Wisden’s attempt to raise the profile of state school cricket is just to encourage all schools to submit their results, they’ll know full well which schools will take advantage of that and therefore which schools will end up with their names published in the most sacrosanct of cricketing texts.

Wisden’s idea is in theory a lovely one, it’s just so misplaced. If you want to give young players a chance to have their names in the book why go to schools and not clubs? The exact same programme then opens up the chance to be in Wisden to every young cricketer in the country.

It’s possible this irritates me more than it should, and yes, there are much larger issues to be addressed within the sport. However, it also just feels so indicative of the wider context of cricket that all the privileges within it seem to line up in the same direction. I recently spoke to a friend who went through the county set-up. He said the one question he always dreaded was, “what school do you go to?”, as his answer of an inner-city state school immediately placed him as the other within the group. Yes, Eton playing Harrow at Lords, or Wisden printing the names of privately educated cricketers isn’t hurting anyone. Such privilege rarely does, directly. But it by no means goes to any length to help those it could.

I started this article referencing a private school’s ability to double as a professional academy. This cannot become the norm. Academies are for the elite within cricket. Not for the elite who play it.

Cameron Ponsonby

@cameronponsonby

34 comments

  • Very interesting article with sadly a lot of truth in it. Luckily the state school in my area in Kidderminster has produced one current pro in Steven Davies, but he is one of the rarities.

  • Perhaps the England team should have a transformation agenda to make the national team representative of the broader population? As about 8% are educated in public schools, that would mean one place in the national team. I wonder how long their sacred “team culture” would survive that? However representation only applies to certain officially-designated categories so there’s no danger this would ever happen – or even be mentioned.

    • yep or there should be an inquiry info fhe disproportionate number of pfivagely educated players inthe England team or.indeed in county teams.

  • As someone who makes their living in the private school sector and who is heavily involved in cricket on top of teaching and pastoral commitments, I agree there’s a sad imbalance between state and private sectors here, and that change to that imbalance is vital for the health of the game.

    However, surely the best way out of the situation is not to curtail an aspect of the game’s development that is already working well – the breadth and ambition of private school provision – but to look to ways to enhance the provision of other organisations in a complementary way?

    The logical solution from my point of view would be for government to reverse decades of chronic under-investment in state school sport, find additional ways of encouraging the sharing of resources between state and private schools and to look at enhancing relationships between both types of school and local clubs.

    Many private schools are already making their facilities available to clubs and state schools much more widely than is commonly known and the part played by private schools in supporting the ever-expanding MCC Hub scheme should also not be overlooked. This sort of engagement needs to be further encouraged, not dismantled by objections of elitism.

    Wishing that there was less private school association with professional cricket will not make it so. Indeed, the private schools have always played a key role in the development of professional cricketers, it is an ingrained aspect of the game. You caution against it becoming the norm when it has been that for generations already. Taking aim at a page in Wisden read by very few and decrying a black tie dinner at Lord’s feels a little too much like focusing on details rather than substantive change. Seeking positive enhancement of areas of the game that are under-cooked at present and finding ways to build on the good that already exists sounds more important to me.

    • Great comment Richard. Which school do you work at? I’m an Old Malvernian myself. I throughly enjoyed the cricketing opportunities available at school. The facilities were top notch. However, I actually feel that I developed my game more when playing for my local club with good friends from the state system. My introduction to men’s cricket was a real eye-opener and an excellent experience. I agree with you that the private sector needs to keep doing what it’s currently doing, and then hopefully the government and ECB can boost interest and engagement in other areas.

      • Unfortunately what you’re suggesting is not going to happen and really naive. Investment in schools now that we have a pandemic is going to be how to ensure academically those at state schools are not disadvantaged against private school students who have better access to IT, a better teacher to student ratio making it easier to engage online with students and also the fact that private schools didn’t have to use resources to look after key worker students.

        If we then come onto the ECB – having been involved in trying to get funding in order to keep my local club afloat then many will tell you (there is a great LinkedIn Group for Cricket Club Development Officers) that the ECB criteria made it nearly impossible to get funding from them – even the relaxation of these criteria still makes getting these funds difficult. So where is the money going to come from to help the state sector?

        We would welcome better ties with private schools to have access just to a better third ground to accommodate the many colts and senior fixtures we have but the answer is always No – as they are precious over their ground use, except one private school that decided to build a state-of-the-art astro facility on their second ground and now fight with us fixtures on our current second ground!

        While Chance to Shine is an admirable programme it doesn’t address the disparity between the opportunity, frequency and facilities that are offered between the private schools and everyone else.

        The ECB introducing All Stars is also a very different experience to the same age groups that are given cricket opportunities at private schools where they already have experience of significant match play by the time competitive cricket starts at Under 10 level (now that at Under 9s the county wide competition has been banned). It may have worked in Australia but the culture is significantly different where there is a much stronger community / connection to your local club because of the geography and the school system.

        • Marc – if I could respond to some of your points:

          1. No one is arguing that the sort of investment needed to revive school sport and properly resource club cricket is going to be forthcoming in the immediate future. Clearly, in order to make genuine progress on this area COVID will need to be significantly changed/eliminated and the hugely negative economic effects overcome. Neither of those things is likely to happen in the short term, of course, and until it does any discussion on educational funding is clearly moot.

          2. You point out that the accessibility of ECB funding is still difficult, but that it has perhaps eased recently. It is hard to predict with any certainty where the ECB will pivot next, but it can’t be denied that they spend much more time than ever before saying encouraging things about revitalising grass-roots cricket with additional funding and, while positive words need not be backed up with action necessarily, I think the ECB have set out their stall so clearly on developing the participatory aspect of the game that they are unlikely to go backwards on this easily. The reputations of those in charge are yoked to generating additional revenue to invest in the game in a way like never before. When they go (and they will) those who seek to replace them won’t get a sniff of the top jobs unless they are prepared to make similarly strong commitments to helping out junior cricket, girls cricket, urban cricket and the South Asian community. There will be no ability for anyone to walk away from these areas of focus without attracting overwhelming opprobrium. Again, this doesn’t guarantee success but it suggests that the direction of travel is at least right.

          3. I’m sorry that your club has struggled to access private school facilities. You will not, of course, be alone in that. However, I do genuinely believe that there is a sea-change starting to take hold in the independent sector. While schools have perhaps in the past sought to share facilities and expertise to satisfy demands relating to their charitable status, I think a great and growing number of private schools are moving beyond the payment of lip service to this sort of thing – and in the provision of bursaries. I am sure many will just dismiss my claims as disingenuous salesmanship, but as someone who spends a lot of my time working specifically in our bursary programme I know that those with power here are deadly serious about doing much more externally, in any number of ways. I also know we are far from unique as an institution. There will not be a headmaster or headmistress of an independent school in this country who would be able to argue that this area has become less of a focus in recent years – quite the opposite. Not all schools are in a position to do very much, but the vast majority with whom I have contact seem to be stepping up in quite a serious way. That being the case, I am really optimistic that we will see more sharing of expertise and facilities as time goes on.

          These issues aren’t going away, sadly, in the immediate future. But I do think there are several encouraging signs which may well seem like naive hopes at this stage, but that I think will produce more positive results in the long run than you fear.

    • Richard,
      Interesting post but you conveniently ignore that the

      decades of chronic under-investment in state school sport,

      hasn’t had the same effect on all sports, most notably of course soccer. I think that for a number of societal reasons, cricket has reverted to what it has been for most of its history, a sport completely controlled by, and, as a result, mainly played by elites, predominantly social and economic, and many people of influence in the game prefer it that way – especially once they become part of the elite!

  • I share the disquiet about the lack of opportunity available to state-educated youngsters relative to their privately-educated counterparts. It is disturbing and a terrible indictment of attitudes towards sport within state education.
    However, a couple of points: Firstly, it is often stated that 7% are educated privately, but this is not strictly true. At 6th Form level in fact about 15% attend private schools. Secondly, we should not overlook the enthusiasm within the private sector to entice very talented games-players attending state schools (those in England junior squads, for instance) into their Sixth Forms on very generous scholarships. A significant number of our young professional cricketers and rugby players have in effect been shipped into private schools for two Sixth Form years, significantly skewing the statistics……

    None of this should mask the critical need to see sporting opportunity prioritised and re-energised right across state education.

  • Most teachers in state schools are not interested in putting in the time after school and at weekends necessary to develop a cricket team. The outcome of the pay strikes in the 1980s made it plain that schools could not oblige them to do so. In independent schools, coaching teams remains part and parcel of the job.

    • Very interested you have been in touch with “most teachers” in State schools. When did you do this? Was it part of a systematic research project? Or are you talking through your hat?

  • Hi James.

    I teach at Marlborough. I agree with you about the importance of club cricket – it does give that excellent early experience of the older game to many and it’s where cricket is usually at its most enjoyable too. We always encourage all of our kids to throw themselves as fully into club cricket as they can, though I feel we never quite manage to persuade as many as we would like.

    As a whole sector, private schools are opening their doors more widely than before to pupils of less-privileged backgrounds through bursaries. This is an area that will only increase (and will do so significantly) in the next decade, as it should. I’m not saying this to try to curry favour with people critical of the system – and nor am I arguing that we couldn’t bring this change more quickly as a sector. However, I mention it in order to point out that such change is also being matched with more of an open door approach to collaborations with state schools over facilities, so that they can provide their pupils with access to the sort of facilities (and specialist expertise) that they once had but no longer possess.

    Maintaining wickets requires enormous space, good drainage, constant care and huge expertise – which are nowhere near being budgetary priorities in the state sector, even for those very few who still have the land. Until that changes – and I really think it would be money well spent if sport was seen more widely as the excellent teaching tool that it is and funded accordingly – those institutions which do possess such facilities need to be prepared to share what they have more readily.

    I know my attitude is widely shared by colleagues here, especially senior ones, but I ought to point out that the views here are mine, and not those of the College.

    Anyway, keep the good work going with the blog – always enjoy it.

  • I don’t think it matters particularly what happens at school. My experience of cricket at a grammar school in the 1960’s was minimal compared to joining a local club and playing in their 3rd team which comprised mostly of youngsters with a couple of old stagers thrown in to show Ian the ropes.
    These days with insurance, a lack of special facilities and the old chestnut of not encouraging competition in case some poor soul can’t deal with losing, state school cricket is a dead duck, as are most state school sports. You also need someone with the knowledge and interest to give up their spare time. How many comprehensive teachers do that out side of the curriculum.
    Let’s set about putting more resources into club cricket to make it more appealing to the young. Here there is no threat of the PC killjoys gate crashing the party. You learn fast to compete and be stimulated by that competition. This is also a relevant life skill you need to develop when young. In my experience most adult club cricketers are excited by the enthusiasm of the young and see it is an opportunity to pass on their knowledge of the nuts and bolts of the game.

    • The reason that many State schools had to drop cricket is that pitches were sold off to developers In the Thatcher era in the belief that asset stripping was good for business and therefore good for the country! Cricket wasn’t the only sufferer. Thatcher hated the arts as well as sports and there was plenty of asset stripping forced on arts organisations. Some of it foolish to the point of insanity if looked at from long term instead of short term perspectives.
      Thatcherism still drives state education hence the emphasis given to science and the reduction of sports and arts including music from the curriculum. The humanities is also downgraded. It is laughable that a couple of people on this forum cite the shortage of teachers ready to back sports as a reason for its absence! It was due to the educational ‘reforms’ introduced by Gove and his side kick Cummings that we have this deplorable state of affairs.
      Our current government is an old boys network so not much chance of change there. Thank god then for the clubs who open their doors to state school kids. Our current most famous cricketer went to a state school and was scouted by Durham to attend their Academy at 16. Yes Ben Stokes! He’s a product of the Durham Academy! And he still plays for Durham although you never hear it mentioned. The cronyism in the cricketing system reflects the cronyism in government and in our society. It doesn’t lead to the best cricket team or the best ministers either!

        • Jackie makes some excellebt points and deserves more than a ‘yawn’ reply. I live and work in one of the most deprived areas of the country (in Scotland rather than England) and the imbalance in resources available to local children and schools – in all walks, not just sport – is shocking. Cricket’s problem is symptomatic of a much wider social problem in the UK. And I must say that seeing folk on here name dropping which school they went to doesn’t help!

          • Double yawn !
            Like most sports in this country, cricket is, and always has been, elitist. (It’s one of the reasons I find the achievements of the women’s netball team so refreshing). The one major exception is soccer, which, as long as you define angling as a pastime, is one of the few democratised English sports.
            The social structures which produced working class greats like Larwood, Trueman, Statham, Close et al, who succeeded despite the best efforts of the establishment to thwart them, are now long gone. Public schools have now reassumed the role which they have had throughout most of English cricket’s history. If you doubt that regional, educational and class considerations remain the key driving forces in English cricket, just look at what has happened to Durham.

            • John….I’m not sure what ‘double yawn’ means given you reinforce my points! As I say, I live and work in an area of deprivation the likes of which I suspect many on this blog have never experienced, so I need no convincing about the social and class divides within this country. I see it every day.

    • Agree, but what is interesting, is I would say that at youth level, the incessant leagues and overt competition actually can be stifling for playing cricket. Sometimes, it’s just good to play.

  • In the scheme of things, it’s a small point, but the number of black state-school educated county players isn’t quite as dire as you make out–although they are under-represented and a third of them weren’t brought up in the UK. I can think of three and probably four (I can’t find out anything about Ben Mike’s education, which is usally a sign that someone didn’t go to a public school!) I agree, though, that the issues you raise are likely to militate against finding more black county-standard cricketers, simply because most of the public-school population is white.

    In comments I’ve read online (and I have no personal experience of this), one of the villains seems to be the county pathway system–not only because it’s sometimes, at least anecdotally, prejudiced against state-school participants, but also because it’s organised in a way which makes it much more difficult for lower-income families to participate for any length of time. Anyone have any experience of it?

    • Marek
      I suspect that more cricketers in England have been held back by prejudice on those closely related factors of geography, education and class, than they have by colour – ask any Yorkshireman !

    • …I’m not entirely convinced that the claims to have been sidelined of a county that has produced one eighth of England’s test cricketers while there have generally been seventeen teams should be taken too seriously, mind…:-)

  • Jackie makes some excellent points and deserves more than a ‘yawn’ reply. I live and work in one of the most deprived areas of the country (in Scotland rather than England) and the imbalance in resources available to local children and schools – in all walks, not just sport – is shocking. Cricket’s problem is symptomatic of a much wider social problem in the UK. And I must say that seeing folk on here name dropping which school they went to doesn’t help!

  • ECB staring at losses of a minimum of £100m and possibly as much as £180m (if any matches are cancelled or they can’t sell tickets for next year). Anyone noticed that the current series doesn’t have a sponsor?

    Well done all you useful chumps who accepted the lockdown and the “it’s just three weeks watching Netflix, it’s not the gulag” narrative. Who could have anticipated that shutting down most economic activity would lead to carnage down the road? Well, we’re part of the way down that road now. The only hope is that a few people will have learnt not to temble before the likes of Ferguson and his “models” in the future (it can be hard to remember that in the current climate we’ve been manipulated into of any alleged case of Covid is unacceptable that it was the prediction that 0.5m were going to die that justified all this). Fear makes rational thinking difficult – you think they don’t know this? Take your face-nappy off (which is only there as a visible reminder to be afraid, it serves no other purpose) and start thinking again….

    • Yeah 60+k excess deaths is all made up.. love it.

      Only the rich want things back to normal so they can profit. Maybe jut maybe this will change the way we work (ie more from home than pack into offices), change diets, change family time etc etc

      Can’t measure everything in case.. sadly, that’s what the rich do.. it’s purely ££££££ nothing else matters

    • Now people can work from home etc they might just watch more cricket !! Or even the red ball county stuff ☺️!! Not all bad.. oh wait.. you need to sell stories to rags and wa t beer heads swilling countless pints in the Hollies chanting abuse .. cause that’s what cricket isn’t now .. purely a money making beeer swilling , abuse train.

  • Until we accept that the communist thinking and capitalist thinking is both deeply wrong and both ways cause equal inequality to anyone not in the top few % is delusional or on the Gravy train.

    Both systems quite simply exploit people to make themselves (the selfish) as rich as posisble.

    If we really wanted the best for humanity we would be cutting working weeks, working shorter hours and. From home, increasing leisure time, time with family, exercise time and we wouldn’t just educate when young, we would have continual education..

    However… that doesn’t suit the greedy rich capitalist (or commy) agenda

  • Hi James, I’m really glad to see this issue being covered by the likes of yourself (and to his credit George Dobell). For a while I have always felt English cricket has felt uncomfortable with confronting the fact that the national team is so reliant on the private school system providing players. The stat about Collingwood being the last state schooled specialist batsman for the test side is shocking but in my experience not entirely surprising…

    I played for Middlesex under 16s for a brief period and I was the only batter within the cohort who was not attending a private school. Looking back I was also amazed at the lack of diversity within our group. Virtually everyone was white ,middle class and privately educated. Even though we were based in north and west London (which are incredibly diverse areas). As a result, it is no surprise to see the modern day Middlesex side devoid of players from places like Southall, Ealing and Brent (areas where lots of young Asians play the game). The question is not: are state school kids interested in cricket? More, are we engaging them enough and giving them a pathway into the system?

    I currently teach at a state school in west London. I teach cricket as part of the curriculum and run an after school cricket club. The enthusiasm kids have for the game in the school is great, many play it at lunch (even though we are not blessed with a field) and we have a real mix of boys and girls playing the game. However, virtually none of the secondary schools in the area have a cricket set up and so i worry that many of the children who now have a love of the game may see their interest fizzle out unless they (you guessed it) attend one of the local private schools.

    It would be great if counties could set up links with state secondary schools (maybe with the help of the ECB?) This could replicate the link ups between counties and private school (like Surrey have with Dulwich and Whitgift).

  • I think we should all give up this idea that the schools can best promote cricket, or for that matter any sport. If the private schools are putting in some effort to promote the game we are lucky, as its my impression the private schools are becoming ever more obsessed with getting their kids into top universities , and far less interested in organised sport.
    But why expect the schools to do anything anyway? Its not the case in places like Australia or New Zealand where its the clubs that bring the sport to the kids. In both countries you have a junior development programme for 5 to 10 year olds, run by members of the suburban and country town clubs, organised and promoted by the central cricket authorities with a bit of cash stuck in by one of the major sponsors (in Australia its Woolworths at the moment). All linked up to the Big Bash. My own kids got into cricket this way in NZ years ago and I now have a 6 year old nephew in Australia who is seriously crazy about cricket. The local cricket club, Woolworths and the big bash have got this kid hooked for life. The schools have no part in any of this.

  • This is probably the best, very informative, knowledge and for giving your readers an opportunity to get involved. Thanks a lot.

    Download our app to participate in Our Fantasy King 11 and earn Money and win exciting price. : https://www.fantasyking11.com/

  • I see a lot of articles based around this issue, but it isn’t quite as it appears. An awful lot of the kids attending private schools and performing at the top are there on scholarships. Apparently, sometimes the counties subsidize the fees for truly outstanding players identified with grand potential.

    I’m not saying it’s a perfect outcome, but if the point is to have batsmen of the highest class, where would be better than a school with brilliant cricket facilities, coaches, and the chance to play longish form cricket every Saturday from a young age. If I had the money, I’d set up a free residential school where kids could get their education and play cricke to their heart’s content. But I don’t.

    The clubs are doing a grand job, and the so called pathway systems for kids moving through the age groups are doing better. But at the end of the day, this relies on enormous devotion from parents to cart their kids around the country.

    I was lucky enough to go to one for 6th form on a non sports scholarship, but ended up with my name in Wisden and a boat load of wickets. I bowled and bowled to my hearts content in an era before limits on overs per innings and bowled as many overs in one season, as I have bowled in 5 in club cricket. My cricket came on in leaps and bounds. Every team had one or two outstanding batsmen, many of whom went onto professional and one onto international honours. I got close. The three or 4 years of good adult club and regional youth cricket I had played prior actually stood me in good stead.

    What is a shame, is if by identifying kids at such a young age, many get missed, but I think everyone who has seen juniors club cricket can identify those at 13 or 14 who are the outstanding players in any given region. At the end of the day they are the one’s with the greatest chance of high honours. I don’t see how club cricket with 20/20 matches on a Wednesday evening, 2nd XI adult games on a Saturday and well meaning coaches can be the ideal way to develop the best young cricketers.

    I don’t see any other solution than accepting that it continues. It’s not a reflection on club cricket, or state schools, it’s just the opportunity for the cream of the crop to develop in the best way possible.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting