(please see Rob´s comments two posts from here)
The ECB Board received the recommendations of the Schofield review on the evening of Tuesday May 22.
In presenting his report, Ken Schofield communicated the background to each recommendation to the board.
The directors of the ECB board then discussed each recommendation with the chairman of the review.
On May 23 the Board reconvened and warmly welcomed the comprehensive nature of the recommendations, immediately endorsing 17 of the 19 recommendations contained in the review.
It was noted that the 17th recommendation would require a restructuring of the board’s management, including the possible recruitment of new staff.
A restructuring would require a period of consultation and detailed consideration of the implications by the ECB Board.
The Board therefore determined that the chief executive be tasked with bringing forward a report to the Board shortly to outline a process and proposal for a restructuring of the ECB England management structure in accordance with best employment practice and consistent with the vision contained in the review.
The Board further noted that in his presentation of the recommendations Ken Schofield acknowledged that recommendation 14 which relates to the volume of cricket and the prioritisation of one-day cricket should be addressed within the Domestic Structure Review Group which is reporting in the autumn.
The Board was therefore asked to note this recommendation for consideration by the Domestic Structure Review Group and this was agreed.
The Board was pleased to note that the recommendations endorsed the board’s decisions to strengthen the management of Team England, enhance the inclusivity of the first-class counties with Team England and welcomed the clarity of accountability proposed within the report.
David Morgan, the ECB chairman, said: “The Board wishes to express its gratitude to all members of the Schofield review team and in particular to Ken Schofield for his leadership of this review.
“The review was exceptionally well received by the Board and I am delighted that the prompt endorsement of the recommendations will enable the beneficial changes outlined to be implemented in the immediate future.”
Download the recommendations made by the Schofield review by clicking on the file link below:
Schofield Review - Step Changes (48 KB)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Schofield Report - must do better
With radical action needed, Vic Marks says latest proposals are more hot air than cold wind of change
Sunday May 27, 2007
Observer
It started as a public relations exercise and the fear is - even among the authors of the Schofield Report - that this is how it will end. There has been a lot of froth about four-year cycles and the need for an objective analysis of the way English cricket is run, but the notion of an independent report was not born out of careful calculation, it was a knee-jerk reaction.
The ECB decided that a report was needed in Melbourne on 28 December, 2006, a few hours after the fourth Test against Australia. England had not just been beaten, they had been humiliated inside three days; the mood there was dark. English tourists, who had dug deep into their pockets, roamed the centre of the city on what was supposed to be the fourth day of the Test, feeling betrayed by their country's cricketers. The flak was flying. Something had to be done - quickly.
So the ECB announced a full-scale review. Eventually, some worthy men were appointed, under the chairmanship of Ken Schofield. Among the review body was Hugh Morris, the ECB's deputy chief executive, so no one can have been surprised by the contents when Schofield delivered his findings to the board on Tuesday.
The report was presented to a wider audience on Thursday - or at least part of it was - in the form of 19 recommendations. Much detail is being withheld because of 'staffing issues', according to David Collier, the chief executive of the ECB. Collier, on behalf of the board, has endorsed 17 of the recommendations. This gives the impression of a radical, proactive organisation, eager to embrace change - until you have a look at some of the recommendations.
Try number six: 'To implement the recommendations within the ECB Science and Medicine Review; enhance the medical screening of all senior players, particularly fast bowlers and provide "world-class" medical support for centrally contracted players.'
Or number 15: 'Improve the quality of coaching... updating level 4 to ensure the top coaches are equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge to develop "world-class" players.'
How can anyone argue with that? There are more recommendations in the same vein, uncontroversial common sense that barely needs stating.
So we should look at the recommendations yet to be endorsed. Inevitably, these are the most important ones, which would prompt real, rather than cosmetic, change.
The first (number 14) is 'to reduce the amount of cricket played at first-class level... and provide formats and regulations which as far as possible mirror the international game'. This, says Collier, has not been endorsed because it must go to the ECB's Domestic Structure Review Group (DSRG).
In reality, the Schofield committee would welcome the abolition of the Pro 40 tournament, a competition that has hardly grasped the public's imagination. Tell me the winners of that last year. You can? Well, who was promoted from the Second Division?
But there may be resistance among the counties, who want as much cricket on their grounds as they can muster. If the DSRG disagree with Schofield, 'the board has to make a judgment', according to Collier. This will be a litmus test of whether they are committed to change.
More radical are the ideas for a new management structure. These have not been outlined in detail, but everyone knows what they are because they have been reliably leaked to newspapers. These are the proposals that may have one or two ECB employees shuffling nervously.
The relevant positions proposed are a managing director of cricket beyond the head coach, a 'national' selector and a first-class counties' director, who will also act as a selector. These posts have been prompted - indirectly - by former head coach Duncan Fletcher. He was deemed to be too powerful on tour and on selection issues. So a series of checks and balances have been suggested, although the Schofield committee have decided that the head coach should continue as a selector. This may be a sign of Peter Moores' steel because he has indicated that he wanted the head coach to remain a selector.
The committee might have wanted to enlarge the pool of potential selectors by making the jobs full-time. The national selector proposed is, in essence, David Graveney's present position with a few add-ons. He would be expected to be with England overseas to participate in the selection process, but not to be involved in the running of the tour.
This is a weird, maybe wonderful role. England are away on tour for long periods and it is unclear how this selector would fill his time. He would join in the selection process and watch the cricket carefully, but what else?
The first-class counties' director is also designed to be a full-time post, but much of this person's work would mirror what Geoff Miller does in the summer. He or she would be expected to ensure that the lines of communication between the counties and the England set-up are open and fertile. It is unclear what this post would entail in the winter. Graveney and Miller might be uneasy their posts are in jeopardy, but if they were appointed to the new jobs they would have the consolation of them being full-time.
The managing director's post is a new position way beyond what John Carr has been doing for the ECB. He would be the boss of the head coach and everyone else, he would be well paid - £250,000 has been mentioned and he would also be 'accountable'.
Alec Stewart and Mike Gatting have been mentioned as possible candidates, although their management experience is limited; Mike Atherton expressed no interest when I offered him the job on Friday. Morris has much more management experience and is widely respected, but does he have the clout? They might want to move beyond the confines of former Test cricketers.
Collier withdraws to mull over these proposals of structural changes. If pursued by the board, he reckons that they should be in place this winter. However, if Morris were to join Graveney and Miller in taking up these 'new' posts, the notion that the Schofield Report was little more than an elaborate PR exercise would gain greater credence.
Schofield blueprint will change very little
By Mike Atherton, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:39am BST 27/05/2007
"We got what we expected," chief executive David Collier said. The England and Wales Cricket Board's initial reaction to the Schofield Report was a satisfied one.
Those expecting a radical overhaul of English cricket, or at least of the running of the England team, however, will be disappointed. The much-anticipated report is essentially a validation of the way the ECB run the most high-profile area of the English game and, as such, the board moved with unusual haste in accepting 17 of Schofield's 19 recommendations, most of which are designed to take that work on a stage further. Only where more fundamental change is advised - such as the need to play less international cricket, to revise the management structure of Team England and to revamp the domestic programme - have the board stalled.
Although the report is effectively an independent audit of the competency of the ECB, such was the limited remit given Schofield's team that few at Lord's would have suffered sleepless nights over its outcome. The progress of the England team under Duncan Fletcher's stewardship was in sharp contrast to what had gone before, and by limiting the scope of the inquiry to an area in which there has been much success the ECB was always likely to get the thumbs-up. An independent audit of the strength of recreational cricket, and its lack of funding, might produce very different results. Still, the Schofield team were asked to deliberate on Team England and they reckoned things to be in pretty good shape.
The invisible hand of Mickey Stewart, the first full-time England coach and the man who has never quite received his due for starting to modernise the England set-up, would seem to be behind many of the proposals. Central contracts will be maintained but geared more towards participation and results; fitness and skills programmes will be updated and extended to include the development squad; a fielding coach will be employed and improvements made towards player development.
advertisement
The review took a swipe at the England team's preparations for their defence of the Ashes, despite the view to the contrary from the players and coach. In future, we should expect England teams to play more four-day matches before the first Test and the WAGS will have to delay their departures until the squad have had a chance to gel together. Nor will the Ashes and the World Cup coincide in the same winter from now on. All common-sense stuff.
"The heart of the report," to quote Schofield, concerns the management structure of the England team, and the volume of cricket, domestically and internationally, that the players will be expected to play. There is near-universal agreement that too much cricket is played but no one seems quite sure how to go about reducing it.
The ECB are locked into the Future Tours Programme until 2011 (although there will now be no tour of Pakistan in 2010 as part of the financial negotiations following the Oval fiasco last year) and county chiefs are bound to fight their corner when the 40-over competition is discussed by the domestic structure review group. There is undoubtedly too much cricket played, though, and Schofield is right to recommend that there should be less.
The review group concluded that the structure of the management of Team England needed an overhaul. If the board accept the proposals, then new positions will be advertised: a managing director, a full-time national selector and a director of domestic cricket will be brought in at considerable expense. But it is difficult to see how these positions will be vastly different to what we have now, namely a director of England Cricket (John Carr), a chairman of selectors (David Graveney) and another selector, Geoff Miller, who is the link between the selection of the national team and domestic cricket.
It is certainly true to say that the relationships between the head coach and the chairman of selectors, and the head coach and his 'line manager', Carr, had broken down. But this, I suspect, was due as much to Fletcher's autocratic nature as anything else. Reading between the lines, the group seemed to be saying that they did not believe the ECB have the right men in these jobs. By changing the job description, it might make it easier for them to change personnel.
Take the job of managing director, for example. It is the most high-profile recommendation of the group partly because it is expected that a high-profile former player might get the job. The MD will have "full accountability and responsibility for the selection and performance of the England team". But in 1997, after the release of the Raising the Standard document, Simon Pack was appointed as the International Teams director. Afterwards Carr took up the renamed role of director of England Cricket. What are the differences between the jobs held by Pack and Carr and that of the new MD?
When asked, Collier suggested that the job had become too big for one man and "more focus" was needed. It looks like Carr's replacement - if indeed he is replaced - will do half as much work for twice the money. Nice job. Nor will Peter Moores relish the appointment of a big brother-type figure. He didn't work particularly well with the interfering Dave Gilbert at Sussex and when interviewed by Schofield's team was keen to be as unfettered as possible. In the event he is unlikely to have as much freedom as his predecessor, although he has retained his vote as a selector.
The Schofield Report was greeted with much fanfare and took five months to prepare. Given the outcome it warranted neither. Certainly, there is much common sense, and much to recommend it, but will English cricket be radically different from now on? No.
I read both comments today and have to agree with them - it is more abour rearranging deckchairs and deciding on weho gets the first class cabin on the Titanic
More management is not the same as better management, and the ideas of structure and strategy, and how resources will be allocated/controlled aren't really addressed fundamentally. one reason for this is that the ECB has no real desire for root and branch reform. Moores as new coach will expect to be more like a football team manager than a technical coach, and a CEO type who was looking at anything other than commercial matters would be bound to interfere. the real questionnis one of againts hwom are England competing, for what, and to meet the needs of which customers? The counties are stakeholders but not customers: there seems to be more money in the international game and success than in the domestic. Therefore England need to focus on the international. the counties need to grow the domestic game and require the innovative capability of the sort that led to 20/20. i have posited thoughts on restruturing the domestci game elsewhere- but one thing that will be necessary will be a separation of interest between the counties and the English main players - even if there is a negotiated relaease of players back to counties as part of the deal. i think the same thing is ocurring to the RFU - and we may see the separation there of club and international whether de facto or de jure.
Post a Comment