The England Cricket Review 2007 Explained

This article first appeared in the match programme for the third npower Test at Old Trafford You can buy official copies of all England's home international programmes online

Hugh Morris, the ECB deputy chief executive (left), answers questions arising from the publication in late May of the England Report, which was set up under the chairmanship of Ken Schofield in the wake of the winter Ashes defeat to identify ways to improve the fortunes of the England team.

Q: How wide-ranging was the information-gathering procedure which led to the 19 England Report step changes which were unveiled just before the Headingley Test match?

A: For myself, the work involved took up the bulk of my time during the four months we had to reach our conclusions. But the other members of Ken Schofield’s group also worked enormously hard, with Micky Stewart and Brian Rose in particular putting in a lot of mileage as they went around the country interviewing key personnel in the game.

For 80 per cent of the time available, however, three members of the group – Nasser Hussain, Nick Knight and Angus Fraser – were working overseas in the media which meant that they could busy themselves with interviewing people who were with or around the travelling England team in Australia and the Caribbean.

Overall, it worked well, and more than 150 people were interviewed in the course of the review. We also received more than 300 submissions from interested members of the general public after asking for the opinions of supporters and county members on the ECB website.

A lot of this material was very good indeed, well-argued and very thoughtful and sensible. In fact, as a result and as a thank-you for this input, ECB selected one particular correspondent from the general public – Stewart Ratcliffe from Gloucester and he has been offered some Test match tickets.

We attempted to be as inclusive as possible in terms of the people we sought views from, and these included current players, current England management personnel, former players, county club representatives and media people. We also had a working lunch with 20 cricket journalists, who have covered England and English cricket for many years, and found their contributions to be extremely helpful.

A huge amount of information was thus gathered, and it became evident at an early stage that a lot of central themes were coming through from all these discussions.

Q: What were the group’s aims at the start of the review process?

A: Much attention was paid to the fact that the England Report was put in place in the wake of the disappointment of the Ashes defeat in Australia. But the Board also wanted to review what, up to and including the World Cup, was the last natural four-year cycle. For this reason, too, it was felt it was exactly the right time to do a comprehensive review of that period, in relation to the England team and the structures beneath it.

What we needed to recommend, at the end of our review, was a process which would give England the best chance not just of regaining the Ashes in 2009 but of also winning a major ICC one-day tournament by 2011 – the end of the next four-year cycle.

And, over and above all the detail of the Report, which is shown elsewhere on these pages, it has to be acknowledged that much of what has already been put in place in recent times – with regards to the performances of the England Test team – has been very successful.

Under Duncan Fletcher’s lead as head coach, the England Test side made significant progress. We have won 51 per cent of all Tests played in the past four years, which statistically makes it one of the most successful periods in our cricket history, and which is second only to a truly outstanding Australia team among all nations.

But while it is gratifying to see that we are going very much in the right direction in Test terms, it is also clear that a priority for the next four years must be the preparation and performance of England’s one-day team. In 32 years, we have yet to win a major ICC event in limited-overs cricket, and ending that situation is a big challenge indeed for the present management and players as we go forward.

Q: In your view, what are some of the other key policy areas identified by the England review?

A: The rebranding of the National Cricket Centre at Loughborough University as the Performance Centre, the rebranding of the National Academy programme as the Performance Programme, and renaming of the England A team as the England Lions, is all being done to underline the seamless pathway that exists between the county clubs, and all the cricket they oversee in both professional and recreational areas, and the national teams and team management.

Since 2003, the magnificent facility at Loughborough has performed a really important role, but it will now become even more of a hub and focus of the pursuit of excellence and development of talent right across English cricket. The national coaches at Loughborough will be working more and more closely with all the directors of cricket and coaches at county level.

There are other important areas, too, such as the training and development of staff, the expansion and success of the ECB’s coach education programme, and succession planning of the kind that saw Peter Moores emerge from within the system to take over the England head coach job when Duncan Fletcher stood down.

Q: Of the 19 step changes 17 were immediately accepted by ECB. What of the other two?

A: David Collier, the ECB chief executive, needs time to assess how best to approach the implementation of the recommended new management structure of England managing director, national selector and director of county cricket.

In the meantime, I am chairing the Domestic Structure Review Group which is currently looking into the broad issue of our domestic calendar.

We will be reporting our findings in the autumn, and once again we are seeking a very wide input of ideas and opinion. Dennis Amiss, Alan Fordham, Giles Clarke, John Perera, David Stewart, David East and Jason Ratcliffe are the other members of my group, and one of the main themes of our work is to establish a domestic format which best reflects the needs of the England team to become consistently successful at Test, 50-over and 20-over international level.

The ECB was pleased to note that the Schofield report 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.”

PANEL

The members of the England review group were: Ken Schofield (chairman), Hugh Morris, Micky Stewart, Brian Rose, Nasser Hussain, Nick Knight and Angus Fraser

To see the full report, download here
England Cricket Review 2007 (468 KB)