Cricket Australia is infected by ECC bug
Roar Guru By Rickety Knees, 12 Jan 2011 Rickety Knees is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- Ashes, Australian Cricket, Cricket, Cricket Australia, Test cricket, The Ashes
Cricket Australia suffers from the Endemic Clandestine Cronyism (ECC) parasite. Individuals infected by this parasite can immediately identify other ECC carriers.
Coupled with this, it produces an overwhelming primordial desire to meet in secret and devise a strategy for organisational survival – no matter the cost.
The ubiquitous ECC network then quickly links the carrier to all other ECC carriers. Where positions become vacant, it is beholden that ECC carriers ensure that a fellow ECC carrier is appointed – regardless of performance or results achieved.
A longer term effect is that ECC carriers invariably suffer from status anxiety (fear of loss of status), becoming delusional in the process. They will commence to make buck passing statements, even when it is apparent that the fault/problem is of their own making.
Typically it will be something like, “We have done good job which we are very proud of. It is not our fault that the players did not perform.”
Specifically, which players were selected is considered not worth reviewing.
ECC is insidious. Once it climbs its way to the top, it will invariably infect the entire organisation, dismissing all non-ECC members on the way.
How does an organisation rid itself of ECC?
An old Russian proverb, “A fish rots from the head down” applies. Eliminating the parasite can be achieved by Introducing transparency and democracy, in conjunction with dismissing the head ECC carrier. Other ECC parasite carriers are then miraculously cured.
Finally, by putting the necessary transparent checks and balances into the organisation, it will minimise the chance of reinfection.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- Ashes, Australian Cricket, Cricket, Cricket Australia, Test cricket, The Ashes
January 12th 2011 @ 7:30am
Peter West said | January 12th 2011 @ 7:30am | Report comment
Good one RK
January 12th 2011 @ 8:00am
Short-Blind. said | January 12th 2011 @ 8:00am | Report comment
Does anyone know the facts? Is Sutherland under threat from the board? When is the next board meeting? What are the terms of reference for the post ashes review and do they include a review of the whole CA structure? RK it seems that the lack of noise/media about this indicates that your “primordial desire to meet in secret and devise a strategy for organisational survival” statement is a truism. The chairman of the board is the man who should drive this and Mark Taylor, an ex-captain sitting on the board should be screaming for it. Wait and see but I am not hopeful.
January 12th 2011 @ 10:23am
Brett McKay said | January 12th 2011 @ 10:23am | Report comment
Short-Blind, I sat in the presser last Friday where Sutherland and Neilsen spoke, and where Sutherland announced the review, but I don’t believe the timeframe for commencement had been set, nor has it since. The CA board only just met in December, and I’m not sure when they are next due to sit, but timeframes and terms of reference won’t be set until they do. For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t expect anything until after the World Cup and domestic seasons are complete.
Sutherland gave his own opinion that the review should take in all levels of playing, coaching and goverance structures, including the states, but he couldn’t/wouldn’t speak for the board.
So I think in these very preliminary stages at least, the intent is certainly there. What eventuates remains to be seen, of course…
January 12th 2011 @ 12:53pm
Short-Blind. said | January 12th 2011 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
Thanks Brett for that update..I hope Sutherland includes ‘administration performance’ under the governance structure review.
January 12th 2011 @ 8:13am
jus de cochon said | January 12th 2011 @ 8:13am | Report comment
History repeats. England famously looked inward and had no answer to Australias dominance.Now its different . He Ho.
January 12th 2011 @ 8:44am
Rickety Knees said | January 12th 2011 @ 8:44am | Report comment
Hilfenhouse – who got 7 wickets @ 59 each – was interviewed by channell 7 and said something like “I am happy with my bowling and see it as a work in progress”. Ponting in his article in the Australian suggests that the review should look at all of cricket – hmmm this would be a good way to blame the Ashes results on the “system” rather than the selections, tactics, training, etc. Clarke has recently been quoted as saying that the selectors should stick with the current side. Sutherland to order CA to review itself …. and so it goes on.
The ECC bug is alive and well.
January 12th 2011 @ 9:57am
Rickety Knees said | January 12th 2011 @ 9:57am | Report comment
And of course there is Hilditch who won’t walk away.
January 12th 2011 @ 10:00am
Nambucco Deliria said | January 12th 2011 @ 10:00am | Report comment
He was looking a bit twitchy at the press conference yesterday, but again it was rounded off with that smug defiance that only usually gets rolled out by incompetent CEO’s as they trouser a huge bonus for fouling things up. His ‘you’ll have to push me’ sentiment was as sickening as it was predictable.
January 12th 2011 @ 1:30pm
TembaVJ said | January 12th 2011 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
Yeah Ponting said the same thing… “I was appointed and some one will have to tell me to leave”
Not “wow I stuffed up but for my country and the love of the sport I will step aside”
January 12th 2011 @ 1:33pm
Brett McKay said | January 12th 2011 @ 1:33pm | Report comment
Temba, to be fair, Ponting also said after Melbourne once the Ashes were gone that he wanted to continue both as No.3 and captain, but recoginsed that that may not be up to him any more..
January 12th 2011 @ 1:44pm
TembaVJ said | January 12th 2011 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
I know Bret but at his age, with a poor form and being out captained with ease it maybe an appropriate time to hang up the gloves… at least as test captain.
I am with Rickety, something is rotting in aussie cricket and it cant be patched up.
Its like no one planned for the future, they all stood there saying “not even god can sink this ship” and as the cracks started showing they pointed fingers around and eventually as the ship went down they made for the small amount of life boats they have supplied only for them selves.
January 12th 2011 @ 10:15am
Brett McKay said | January 12th 2011 @ 10:15am | Report comment
Rickety, just on Andew Hilditch, you would know I’ve never been big on calling for heads or that sort of thing, but Hilditch just has to go.
The honourable thing would have been to fall on his sword after the Ashes series, but to see him sit in that Sydney press conference and quite seriously say “We’ve done a good job as a selection panel”, and then follow it up this week with “It’s for other people to decide if I’m no longer required”, then the man just has to be sacked. He clearly cannot seem to grasp any responsibility for the failures of his panel, and that being the case, his position is surely now untenable…
January 12th 2011 @ 10:39am
Rickety Knees said | January 12th 2011 @ 10:39am | Report comment
Thanks Brett, yeah Hilditch has painted CA into a corner – it either endorses his comments by reappointing him (and losing faith with many of us in the process) or it conducts a genuine review (using a third party) and at a minimum he goes.
CA history has always been highly secretive. To my knowledge it has never provide any transparency of its business on any level. It will be nothing short of amazing if it can break its historical clandestine cronyism culture.
January 12th 2011 @ 10:52am
Brett McKay said | January 12th 2011 @ 10:52am | Report comment
I don’t know it’s as secretive as you might think Rickety. CA publishes an annual report which is publically available, and it details all levels of profit, loss, spendings and income. And its board and governance levels are also out in the open, as are the states. I’m sure there are details that don’t make the reports, as there would be in any public entity, but I don’t think it’s at the Opus Dei stage either…
January 12th 2011 @ 11:04am
Rickety Knees said | January 12th 2011 @ 11:04am | Report comment
Thanks Mate I stand corrected on public disclosure.
January 12th 2011 @ 11:10am
Brett McKay said | January 12th 2011 @ 11:10am | Report comment
if it’s any consolation, I doubt you’d be the first or will be the last to make the same assumption..
January 12th 2011 @ 10:15am
sheek said | January 12th 2011 @ 10:15am | Report comment
Love your work Rickety,
It’s interesting observing professionals in this new era. The pay is so very good, people at all levels – chief executives, managers, coaches, players, etc – will go to extraordinary & ingenious lengths to justify that they continue drawing their sumptuous pay packets.
It happens in business & government, & now its happening in cricket (& rugby).
I know what you were doing over the summer break – reading the dictionary plus a Bond novel or two. Love the concept of ECC (& the explanation).
Here’s another saying for your amusement.
“When in doubt, mumble; when in trouble, delegate; when in charge, ponder”.
January 12th 2011 @ 10:48am
Rickety Knees said | January 12th 2011 @ 10:48am | Report comment
Thanks Mate – “when in doubt, mumble; when in trouble, delegate; when in charge, ponder” – no doubt this is the first rule notated under “Managing Stressful Situations” in the ECC Standard Operating Procedures!
January 12th 2011 @ 10:17am
sheek said | January 12th 2011 @ 10:17am | Report comment
There’s are guys who follow Australian cricket (& Sheffield Shield) more closely than me, who could easily come up with 20-25 pertinent questions to blow Hilditch out of the water.
Vinay, Kersi, Jameswm, etc – go for it!
January 12th 2011 @ 10:31am
Brett McKay said | January 12th 2011 @ 10:31am | Report comment
Sheek, it only took one question, and it was asked by an English scribe last Friday about five minutes after Hilditch quite serioulsy offered up “I think we’ve done a good job as a selection panel”.
The English journo asked Hilditch if he could expand on his comment, and explain what he though the ‘good’ bits might have been.
Hilditch: “We were just outplayed.”
And that was it. There were a few more questions, Hilditch left, and I’ve never seen so many stunned journos as I did at that point in that room. “Did he seriously just say that?” quickly followed….
January 12th 2011 @ 10:27am
BarnabusXI said | January 12th 2011 @ 10:27am | Report comment
It sounds like the review won’t be very independent. Ricky Ponting seems to think he’ll be heavily invovled in it, so I assume Tim Nielson will be too. So i’d be extremely surprised if much blame was apportioned to the team hierachy. Selectors probably won’t even rate a mention.
But I do genuinely hope that something good comes out of the Ashes drubbing. It has highlighted the falling off of standard in Shield cricket. So a rescheduling so that the Shield isn’t nearly as affected by International’s absences, hopefully is high on the list. As well as keeping as many veterans in Club Cricket to help the youngsters.
January 12th 2011 @ 10:47am
Brett McKay said | January 12th 2011 @ 10:47am | Report comment
Barnabus, until the ToRs are defined, it’s impossible to know how independent or not it will be. Lots of people from all levels of cricket involvement and otherwise have expressed interest in being involved. And to be fair, Ponting as Captain will have to be involved at some level…
January 12th 2011 @ 10:54am
Nambucco Deliria said | January 12th 2011 @ 10:54am | Report comment
For want of anything more fulfilling to do with my life, I’m reading ‘Ponting’s Ahes Diary from 2005 at the moment. The best bit about it (and I haven’t got to the Gary Pratt bit yet) is his continual failure – even, you assume, after his ghost writer and editors have had a look at it, to get Alex Kontouris’ name right. However, he does have some interesting stuff to say on T20 cricket, and specifically his fears that the money men would allow it to take hold of their brains. Therefore I would offer that RT Ponting is just the man to head up this commission – he’s a cricket visionary.
January 12th 2011 @ 11:10am
BarnabusXI said | January 12th 2011 @ 11:10am | Report comment
I don’t have any issues with Ricky Ponting, or his involvemnt in the review. In fact it sounds like I’m one of the few that want him retained (at 5 or 6). But its just that I don’t think the review will be particularly worthwhile if the captain review the captaincy, coach the coaching, etc. It should be independent as possible. I think Ricky should be involved in review all other issues in the game for sure.
Otherwise as Rickety Knees is pointing out the self-serving interests of CA will continue to serve themselves first, cricket-loving public second.
January 12th 2011 @ 11:26am
Brett McKay said | January 12th 2011 @ 11:26am | Report comment
completely agree Barnabus, but I would be very surprised (and worried) if that was the case, Ponting reviewing the captaincy, Neilsen the coaching. And CA would be a laughing stock if they did that anyway..
January 12th 2011 @ 11:41am
BarnabusXI said | January 12th 2011 @ 11:41am | Report comment
Yeah, you’re right. I just hope that we can get some really solid positive reforms, mainly at a 2nd and 3rd tier level. Reforms that will hold our cricket structure in good stead going into the future and that can see us back regularly in the top 2 or 3 within the next few years.
January 12th 2011 @ 6:01pm
Rhys said | January 12th 2011 @ 6:01pm | Report comment
Brett, I’d say it would be equally worrying if Ponting were to review the coaching, and Neilsen the captaincy. Their as thick as thieves this mob and should only have an involvement in any review at a purely consultative level – ie. what have you done, what haven’t you done, why did you do it, why didn’t you do it, can you see any way that it could conceivably have been done better, and if not, why not?
January 12th 2011 @ 11:11am
Rabbitz said | January 12th 2011 @ 11:11am | Report comment
If you would indulge me an attempt at playing Devil’s Advocate, but I keep reading and hearing terms like “transparency”, “accountability” and “right to know” regarding Cricket Australia. This seem odd to me.
As far as I can tell from the CA website, they are not a publicly listed company, nor do they seem to be an incorporated entity. Which really leaves them as a private company. So other than the usual mandated business practices, why do they have to be transparent or accountable to the public?
They claim to be the custodians of cricket in Australia but still doesn’t give the public any “right to know” about their internal machinations.
Really the calls for change from the outside is meaningless.
The only real input we can have (apart from blogging) is to deny them the income they seek from us. That is, don’t go to games, don’t buy the sponsors product and if you have one of the TV Ratings Boxes, don’t watch. In all cases it would be wise to advise CA and the sponsor why you have decided to not support them.
January 12th 2011 @ 11:27am
Rickety Knees said | January 12th 2011 @ 11:27am | Report comment
Great post Rabbitz and a moot point as well – after all who does own Cricket in Australia? Is it those of us that coach and organise junior competitions or is it those that sit on the CA Board. IMHO it is all of us – and that being the case we all have a stake in running the game. Yes there should be transparency and accountability at all levels. For instance I would like to know why and how KFC was chosen as the major sponsor for Cricket when child obesity is a very real problem for Australian youth.
January 12th 2011 @ 1:06pm
Short-Blind. said | January 12th 2011 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
Great point on KFC and obesity RK. We are now the fattest in the world with epidemics of Diabetes 2 and other fat diseases predicted that will make this generation more short-lived then their parents….. yet KFC is shoved down our throats (literally) by our cricketing role models and during every ad break on 9. I guess the question Sutherland will be asking himself is: if KFC goes the same way as CUB (and I’m not holding my breath given the crap pollies we have) who would step up to sponsor cricket? CA just can’t pick ‘em – they’ve got Vodaphone as well.
January 12th 2011 @ 12:42pm
Brett McKay said | January 12th 2011 @ 12:42pm | Report comment
I’m going to start looking like a CA apologist here, but the info is all there on http://www.cricket.com.au. Scroll to the bottom, and you’ll see the various links for About CA, the Board, Strategy, last year’s Annual Report is there too.
The question about what they are (public co, incorporated, etc) is a funny one. I think they’re an association by definition, but essentially, CA is appointed by the states to administer cricket nationally…
January 12th 2011 @ 12:59pm
Rabbitz said | January 12th 2011 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
That is where I was looking for information, but there does not appear to be a corporate structure described.
Fair Trading have fairly well defined criteria for associations and the financial rules for associations, but even so there is no automatic need for public transparency or accountability – in relation to management decisions.
Now as RK says the ‘grass roots’ of cricket may well believe they are stakeholders and should be privy to these facts, but I am not so sure. If CA is a private company then for the most part, they do not have any requirement for disclosure and there is little we can do about it.
Additionally if that is what passes for an annual report, then I would suggest that CA may well be an association as the corporate regulators would not see that as a fitting report – no financials etc.
January 12th 2011 @ 1:12pm
Brett McKay said | January 12th 2011 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
No that’s true, the one thing that’s in all the info is a simple statement, “CA is a “. “Custodians of cricket” doesn’t give much away, does it.
As I say, they’re appointed by the state associations, hence my suggestion that they’re also an assoc. I’ll happily stand corrected, but they’re definitely not a public or private company, and still operate as a not-for-profit organisation (as do the states, by the way, and that was the reason for the concern over private investment into the new T20 franchises from next season).
All clubs and associations (such as Country Assoc’s, sub-District & Churches comps, etc) affiliated to a state body come under the governance of CA (and that includes the ACT and NT), and are by default stakeholders. My grade club here in Canberra gets an annual grant (which isn’t always much) which is essentially CA money trickling down..
January 12th 2011 @ 1:12pm
Rickety Knees said | January 12th 2011 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
No need to label yourself. Now that is peculiar – CA being appointed by the states. So the states no doubt would make sure they had their tuppence worth of representation on the board. The majority of the board are moderately successful business men and public servants who have a background in Cricket. So ECC is alive and well in the states and is funnelled up into CA. I agree with Peter Roebuck that the board needs to revitalised. I would go one step further and suggest that CA be replaced by a Commission (with transparency and accountability) that drives Cricket in Australia from which the States take direction – a reversal of the current system.
January 12th 2011 @ 1:21pm
Brett McKay said | January 12th 2011 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
never mind “their tuppence worth of representation” Rickety, the Board members are ALL state appointed. They are quite literally the states’ reps within CA…
Peter Roebuck’s views are not to dissimilar to Vinay’s, that if CA wants to be seen as a multi-million dollar business, it has to be run like a multi-million dollar business. This of course means less long-serving (and quite likely well-deserving) state assoc types, and more Geoff Dixon, Gerry Harvey, John Singleton, John Symond types (to name a few random names).
And on your last point, I think that happens anyway, there wouldn’t be much the states can do off their on bat without CA direction and/or approval…
January 12th 2011 @ 1:31pm
Rickety Knees said | January 12th 2011 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
As the board doesn’t seem to meet all that often it is difficult to envisage them doing anything but rubber stamping what gets served up to them by CA Management. This may be the one exception. It will be fascinating to see what comes out of the next Board Meeting – there maybe a few board members feeling decidely nervous given the level of public discussion and scrutiny they will come under.
January 12th 2011 @ 1:36pm
Warren said | January 12th 2011 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
Correct, and in this kind of environment, closer to a real business, the excuse of “we picked the right horses but they didn’t run well…” would be closely followed by “So, what did you DO about it?”. THAT is accountability in senior ranks.
You are measured not by your own performance but by a combination of this and the performance of the business as a whole. If, in a senior position you have a good year but the business has a poor one, you are deemed to have failed and must take the consequences. Unfair perhaps? Maybe, but that’s the way it is.
BTW, nice post RK.
January 12th 2011 @ 1:36pm
Vinay Verma said | January 12th 2011 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
RK,all the State associations nominate two directors that sit on the board of CA. NSW has Mark Taylor and I think Harry harinath.This board virtually oversees what the CEO.JSutherland does. The board appoints the selectors. The selectors only recommend a captain. The Board approves the captain…mostly it rubberstamps the Chairman of selectors. Being a not for profit org it is not subject to the same di. However anyone can gain access to the archives under the freedom of info act. You have to have a good reason to do that. There are many good reasons to do that.
However a transparent rev iew would be a starting point.
January 12th 2011 @ 1:52pm
Rabbitz said | January 12th 2011 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
Hi Vinay,
FOI would only relate to documents that were submitted to the Government, which as an association would not be that many. I would guess balance sheets and tax documents for the ATO, but I don’t know if FOI would cover them. The association would also have annual returns to Fair Trading but they would tell you little.
From the AG’s Website:
“The objects of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act) are to give the Australian community broad access to information held by the Government by requiring agencies to proactively publish certain information and giving citizens a right of access to Government held documents. Information held by the Government is to be regarded as a national resource and treated accordingly.”
CA’s internal meeting minutes etc would not be available, even if they were “Commercial in Confidence” would kill any request.
January 12th 2011 @ 4:34pm
Vinay Verma said | January 12th 2011 @ 4:34pm | Report comment
Rabbitz,CA,is quite similar in its operations to the BCCI which also has the nominated representative of the State Associations on its board. 27 Associations. It is currently embroiled in a situation where the Tax office is questioning their status as a charity or not for profit.
I think at the least CA should be disclosing what their administrators earn.
January 13th 2011 @ 6:36am
Rabbitz said | January 13th 2011 @ 6:36am | Report comment
Vinay I totally agree. They *should* be transparent as they claim to represent the country, but they are clearly a secretive organisation, which makes one wonder.
(Remember my original statements were as Devil’s Advocate…)