Cricket Australia is infected by ECC bug

I agree with Plugger - we need to keep stoking this fire. It appears to have stirred Sutherland into action - with him criticising Clarke and Hughes for heading off to a corporate breakfast on day one of the Boxing Day test and saying Hilditch made some unfortunate remarks. What he has not eluded to and is unlikly to do so is the CA systemic problems as discussed in http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/sack-yourselves-players-tell-ca-board/story-e6frg7rx-1225988020705

Do these guys have performance reviews and Key Performance Indicators and are they actually held accountable when they fail to meet them. Neilson, Hilditch, Sutherland and even Ponting- what sort of performance rating would they be getting this year when you lose 3 tests by over an innings? Thats never happened before. BTW- an easy way to measure someones level of infection of ECC would be to count their use of cliches. I'm really sick of hearing administrators using terms like 'At the end of the day', 'Going Forward', 'In reality', 'the bigger picture'- they are all ways of saying ' I don't give a f--- what you might think'. Whenever you hear these cliches come out you can pretty quickly tell the speaker is full of BS.

Lolly,Plugger,this is to keep the rage going. Outsourcing is basically saying you cannot run your own business. I have seen outsourcing cut costs initially but in the long term you lose customers who get tired of the delays. There is some credence in organisations perpetuating inefficiences to then justify additional expenditure. Consultants (batting coaches) are brought into a company because people in key positions don't have the expertise. You don't need a consultant if the initial apointee is the right man.

Great thread. We should keep this one going all year long. Best one on the whole website. My twopence worth: Corruption, nepotism, cronyism, incompetence, ineptitude (and those are their good points!)

They are of concern to the bureaucracy. I work at a fairly large company and the internal spin is just as powerful as the external spin. Any time an internal service is outsourced, signs go up on the walls with things on them like 'A better service, faster'. It's laughable as so far each time this has happened the service has become less accountable and worse for the people who have to use it regularly. In my experience, the bigger the company, the more emphatic and regular bull. It's part of being a corporation. CA is obviously no different with the CEO recently coming out and blaming everyone else for being concerned with sponsorship and marketing. Good Lord. If only he'd meant that as a joke.

The primary purpose of any organisation is to make sure of its own continued existence. Any putative purpose can be whipped up in terms of goals and mission statements. Any of us who have worked in bureaucracies know that those goals and mission statements, like EEO statements, bullying policies, etc, are of no concern to the bureaucracy, except to cover its own backside in the event of problems. Even big organisations, like governments, are not really concerned with governing -- but they have to give the appearance that they are trying to govern. Individuals within organisations may actually believe they are fulfilling the corporate aims, e.g. doctors may actually be helping sick people, but hospitals have no interest in sick people per se. They are too busy balancing budgets, or shifting blame, or finding a job for the daughter-in-law, or shuffling papers around human resources departments for no reason. I would be surprised to find a sporting organisation to be any different.

I particularly liked the sub header to the story: 'The growing push for Cricket Australia's board to resign in the wake of the Ashes debacle became a roar yesterday.' 'a ROAR'...I wonder....

True Vinay, but that apathy has dire consequences for Aussie cricket. Apathy may keep inept administrators in post but it also causes the sport to lose followers. A few more Test series like the recent Ashes and the grounds will be empty, the sponsors gone and a financial crisis to add to Australian crickets woes.......

Depends on how much energy and time you have,HVH. But you and I have every right to question and demand better.In many ways it is the apathy of the constituents that makes those in power strong and seemingly immune to sacking.

Fine post Russ. I now understand the 'structure' of Australian cricket. Democratic on the surface but with many built-in opportunities for self interest to block or obstruct new ideas which threaten the status quo. The pyramid as Russ describes it (more like an inverted pyramid), relies upon the 'trickle down' principle to introduce new thinking into the system. Unfortunately, this stream has many opportunities to be diverted or dammed (or even 'damned'). If true democracy was in place, then the ordinary grass roots members would be able to vote for the leadership of Australian cricket - what do you think are the chances of that ever happening?

The state associations have their own board and are accountable to their sub-associations. Cricket is a pyramid where each member of a club has representation through their club to their league, and via that to their state and country. Every structure has its weaknesses, the pyramid struggles to get feedback from the lower levels to the top, and to react to change. I'm not terribly fussed by the quality of CA's corporate management. They produce an annual report, it is fairly detailed. If you also read the various state reports (where available) and the reports of the ICC and its members (where available) you can get a pretty good sense of where the money is coming from and going to. Where I am disappointed in the CA board and the state associations is the quality of their democratic governance. They aren't obligated to listen to their membership base, but they should. CA and the states seem to regularly confuse marketing surveys on narrow questions with getting feedback, and media spin with responsiveness to different view-points. Some very substantial changes to the nature and type of cricket being played at the top level in this country have been made in recent years without any sort of process of inclusiveness. If CA was being run by geniuses with a gift for policy development then this might be okay, but no organisation has that ability, and their policies and strategies are often weak and ill-thought out. CA really ought to follow what government does and release white papers for public comment, not on internal things (selection or captaincy for instance) but definitely on things like reforming the big bash, or proposals put before the ICC. Because they don't they leave themselves open to charges of secrecy and unrepresentative governance, and have produce worse decisions.

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...)

Excellent discussion here gentlemen. You are beginning to unravel the mysteries of how the CA works. It seems from the information up to now that everyone in the CA is accountable to the Board - but who are the Board acountable to? If I'm getting this right, it is the State Associations. OK, who are they accountable to? It appears as a maze, a maze where everyone in it can hide with no clear way out - it's great when you don't want to be pushed out...

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?

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.