It appears that English cricket has not even reached its zenith. After years of being shackled by our own colonial ancestors we have liberated ourselves from historical dogmas, in what can only be called a thrashing. Perhaps the most famous series of them all, Bodyline, was not remembered for England’s resounding 3-1 series victory, but for the perceived ‘ungentlemanly’ behaviour of the English fast-bowlers. The 2010 series will be remembered for the simple reason that England were a fantastic all round cricket team, but are there any particular reasons why and if anything could be learnt?
Let us not forget this series win was not purely founded on one win in Australia. It is the culmination of reform from the top down of English cricket over the past ten years, in a period that was not easy. The series defeat to New Zealand in 1999 was the summer when the whole system imploded as England officially became the world’s worst Test side. Through the 1990s, England were a decent team, they had good players e.g. Stewart, Thorpe, Gough and certainly, but as a force in test and one day internationals they were moving nowhere. The initiation of central-contracts was part of the first steps to re-professionalise cricket and change the relationship between the county and national system. The contracts were given to the country’s best players, whilst future talent joined the England Academy in winter camps. It made the players full-time England internationals rather than county players that represent England.
The results spoke for themselves with away wins in West Indies, Pakistan and South Africa, culminating in the 2005 Ashes victory. Much of England’s success came through the television contracts with Sky Television. The most recent deal in 2008 saw Sky pay £300 million for a four-year contract, with full coverage of England plus the domestic season too. The other success is the adoption of foreign coaches and importantly their ideas. The appointment of the head coaches Duncan Fletcher and then Andy Flower, both Zimbabweans, have improved the management and training practises.
In some ways this mini-cricketing revolution could be compared to the Industrial Revolution throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth century. The money from Sky is a sore point for traditionalists because matches can only be watched through a monthly subscription, but this money has allowed England to progress. It pays for the coaches, the contracts and the money hitting grassroots cricket. In the industrial revolution it was the money of entrepreneurs that built the canals and the factories, not the government of the day. Watching a programme on Sky the other day called ‘How England won the Ashes’ showed how the money has helped design bowling technologies that reproduce the deliveries of potential opponents. It reminded me of the investment in the British Army during this period that helped produce new weapons like shrapnel shells. There is no irony that in an environment where there is entrepreneurialism it produces more ideas and subsequently inventions, think of America in the twentieth century.
Historically, it is argued that the Britain began to decline in the late nineteenth century. As rivals began to catch up e.g. Germany and America, they were educating their youngsters in science, engineering and maths, whilst Britain failed to adapt its education policy to the likes of its rivals. Many of these countries adopted policies of economic protectionism. Britain and its Empire boosting other growing world economies, whilst they prevented overseas investment. The English cricket team have learnt from this lesson to become the World's best Test team. However, they must continue to revolutionise their methods and ensure to employ the best coaches and innovate their training, like the British cycling team. They must understand the consequences of history and build on this success.
Let us not forget this series win was not purely founded on one win in Australia. It is the culmination of reform from the top down of English cricket over the past ten years, in a period that was not easy. The series defeat to New Zealand in 1999 was the summer when the whole system imploded as England officially became the world’s worst Test side. Through the 1990s, England were a decent team, they had good players e.g. Stewart, Thorpe, Gough and certainly, but as a force in test and one day internationals they were moving nowhere. The initiation of central-contracts was part of the first steps to re-professionalise cricket and change the relationship between the county and national system. The contracts were given to the country’s best players, whilst future talent joined the England Academy in winter camps. It made the players full-time England internationals rather than county players that represent England.
The results spoke for themselves with away wins in West Indies, Pakistan and South Africa, culminating in the 2005 Ashes victory. Much of England’s success came through the television contracts with Sky Television. The most recent deal in 2008 saw Sky pay £300 million for a four-year contract, with full coverage of England plus the domestic season too. The other success is the adoption of foreign coaches and importantly their ideas. The appointment of the head coaches Duncan Fletcher and then Andy Flower, both Zimbabweans, have improved the management and training practises.
In some ways this mini-cricketing revolution could be compared to the Industrial Revolution throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth century. The money from Sky is a sore point for traditionalists because matches can only be watched through a monthly subscription, but this money has allowed England to progress. It pays for the coaches, the contracts and the money hitting grassroots cricket. In the industrial revolution it was the money of entrepreneurs that built the canals and the factories, not the government of the day. Watching a programme on Sky the other day called ‘How England won the Ashes’ showed how the money has helped design bowling technologies that reproduce the deliveries of potential opponents. It reminded me of the investment in the British Army during this period that helped produce new weapons like shrapnel shells. There is no irony that in an environment where there is entrepreneurialism it produces more ideas and subsequently inventions, think of America in the twentieth century.
Historically, it is argued that the Britain began to decline in the late nineteenth century. As rivals began to catch up e.g. Germany and America, they were educating their youngsters in science, engineering and maths, whilst Britain failed to adapt its education policy to the likes of its rivals. Many of these countries adopted policies of economic protectionism. Britain and its Empire boosting other growing world economies, whilst they prevented overseas investment. The English cricket team have learnt from this lesson to become the World's best Test team. However, they must continue to revolutionise their methods and ensure to employ the best coaches and innovate their training, like the British cycling team. They must understand the consequences of history and build on this success.
No comments:
Post a Comment