Cricket needs to embrace independent governance rather than allowing itself to be run like some sort of 19th Century gentlemen’s club

Posted by
2 minute read

A couple of months ago, jaynefrancis pointed out to us that large parts of our bleak dystopian episodic cricket story about cricket administration had actually come true.

As satire goes, it wasn’t the most subtle. Again and again, short term decisions are taken by caricatured men in suits with godawful long-term consequences. Their shitty choices all seem obvious, but yet they take them anyway. What’s astonishing is that this has actually happened in real life.

In the story – which we really should have given a name – the bigger Test nations ultimately cut the smaller ones adrift. There are echoes of this in what is now generally referred to as “the Big Three’s carve-up of world cricket.”

The story also envisions the euthanasia of Test cricket by a group of men who cannot appreciate that the format provides the foundations for the two other formats. They don’t get that T20 and one-dayers are enriched by the longer game and nor can they comprehend that Tests provide somewhere to go once people have grown weary of more formulaic, artificially-engineered forms of entertainment.

Which brings us to Death of a Gentleman. Doubtless you’ll have heard about the film by now. If you haven’t, take a look at the website. We were supposed to go to the premiere in Sheffield, but ended up popping to Croatia that week instead, so we still haven’t actually seen it. We don’t doubt its credentials though and we’re right behind the #ChangeCricket campaign it has given birth to.

For all that the issues are complex, the #ChangeCricket campaign has one fairly straightforward aim – to get cricket to embrace independent governance rather than allowing itself to be run like some sort of 19th Century gentlemen’s club. The petition itself is a bit wordy, but this is basically what it says. You can sign it here.


Mike Gatting wasn't receiving the King Cricket email when he dropped that ludicrously easy chance against India in 1993.


Why risk it when it's so easy to sign up?


  1. I’m not going to chat here anymore, first Bert goes missing in a jacket and the KC misses the premiere (French) to go to Crostia of all places. I bet he couldn’t even get a decent Cornish pastie there

    1. Unless the ICC decide that they’re surplus to requirements, and restrict the future of cricket to only ten hats.

    2. You’re allowed as many hats as you like sir. In fact more hats than you would like, whether you want them or not. But they’ll only come in three colours, and just the one style.

      Yes sir, step in. You got a buy there. Roll up your sleeves, pitch in. This ain’t gonna last, I wish I had a thousand hats. If I had enough hats I’d retire in six months. Roll up, roll up, get your hats. Blue hats, green hats, roll up roll up.

  2. Well it’s all very aspirational and emotional and no doubt their hearts are in the right place but I’m not signing, the whole thing seems very confused and wordy. They call for independent governance and yet think it a good idea to accept money from the state, there is no quicker way to loose your independence than that. There is no real explanation of how the new order would work apart some vague waffle about being run democratically by committees elected by true cricket fans, whoever they are exactly. Well good luck with that, it’s a recipe for total chaos. I can never quite get my head around this notion that sport is some kind of people’s collective that exists on a higher plane free of all the usual grubby business of actually making stuff work. Kill the iCC and something like it, or even worse, will rush into the vacuum.

Comments are closed.