[Cricket] Yorkshire cricket.end off

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

What makes you think I've got 'white entitlement?' How do you know I'm white?

OK, I take it back.

And will just settle with 'you are talking bollocks'

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I suggest recruit on ability not on quotas.

What quotas?

 

[Cornwallboy]

OK, I take it back.

And will just settle with 'you are talking bollocks'

What exactly is the 'bollocks' I'm talking?

 

[Beanstalk]

Sorry I wasn't very clear in the first sentence I wrote. I should've put 'following this report if you are a white male etc.'

There is a logical conclusion to thinking white males won't get jobs anymore in the ECB, as they are now under massive pressure to be seen as embracing diversity and inclusion.

How do you there is 'overwhelming bias towards white males? Maybe shock horror they were simply the best candidates for the roles advertised? It does happen and as painful as it might be sometimes the white male is the best candidate the same way as a BAME female is.

You were perfectly clear. You're just wrong.

The conclusion that there is an overwhelming bias in the hiring of white male staff is based in logic and fact, because the people in leadership roles (hiring positions) at the ECB are predominantly male, and almost exclusively white and the majority of staff at the ECB are white men... Those stats are from the ECB's own internal Diversity and Inclusion report and is talking about all non-playing staff.

Can you provide me with any logical/factual evidence that your assertion that the hundreds of white people who make up 95% of leadership roles at the ECB were all "simply the best candidates for the role advertised"?

 

[Bakero]

I suggest recruit on ability not on quotas.

"The report states: “In cricket’s most senior leadership, South Asian representation is limited to 2.8% despite South Asians making up 26-29% of the game’s adult recreational population and 6.9% of the population of England and Wales.” Page 59

Statistics imply that in total, ethnically diverse representation comprises only 5.6% of leadership in cricket, while comprising 18.3% of the English and Wales population and in the region of 30-35% of recreational cricket players."

Do you believe choosing the right man for the job has led to this imbalance or other factors at play? Could it be related to the fact that “50% of respondents described experiencing discrimination in the previous five years” and that “the figures were substantially higher for people from ethnically diverse communities: 87% of people with Pakistani and Bangladeshi heritage, 82% of people with Indian heritage and 75% of all Black respondents”. Page 11

Then on the playing side: "privately educated white British cricketers were 13 times more likely to become professional cricketers than their state educated counterparts" and "the percentage of privately educated male England players was 57% in 2012, and 58% in 2021 – “significantly higher than the 7% of the general population who are privately educated”.

Then there's the fact that Eton and Harrow get to play at Lord's each year.

Doesn't seem like there's been a level playing field up to now.

 

[Cornwallboy]

What quotas?

Well the report highlighted a 'lack of female representation among decision-makers' which makes me think efforts will be made to increase females representation in this sphere, so the introduction of quotas I would guess. Imagine the fuss if in say 3 years female representation among decision makers hasn't improved?? The ECB would not hear the last of it.

 

[Cornwallboy]

You were perfectly clear. You're just wrong.

The conclusion that there is an overwhelming bias in the hiring of white male staff is based in logic and fact, because the people in leadership roles (hiring positions) at the ECB are predominantly male, and almost exclusively white and the majority of staff at the ECB are white men... Those stats are from the ECB's own internal Diversity and Inclusion report and is talking about all non-playing staff.

Can you provide me with any logical/factual evidence that your assertion that the hundreds of white people who make up 95% of leadership roles at the ECB were all "simply the best candidates for the role advertised"?

Off course I can't, I don't work for the ECB. My guess is that they were the best candidates for the positions based on my experience of the recruitment process working for a large company with many employees, where the recruitment process is extremely fair.

 

[Jim in the West]

I went to Lord's the other week to watch Sussex play Middx in the T20. I happened to be in London, and had spent the afternoon at a community centre in Tottenham. I got to Lord's and OMG....suddenly I'm surrounded by Henriettas and Sebastians, knocking back the fizz and passing round the prawn sarnies. I've been going to Lord's for years, but I have to say the culture shock, after coming there directlly from Tottenham, was startling. I'm white and reasonably well off, so it wasn't really a big issue sitting amongst the public school types....but I can imagine for someone with a different background, it must be a pretty uncomfortable place. Logically the crowd at a top level cricket match in London should be massively diverse, given the percentage of the population with afro-caribbean or asian heritage. But somehow Lord's managed to attract a crowd which was approx 99% white (my guess, but I'd be surprised if I was far wrong).

 

[Cornwallboy]

I went to Lord's the other week to watch Sussex play Middx in the T20. I happened to be in London, and had spent the afternoon at a community centre in Tottenham. I got to Lord's and OMG....suddenly I'm surrounded by Henriettas and Sebastians, knocking back the fizz and passing round the prawn sarnies. I've been going to Lord's for years, but I have to say the culture shock, after coming there directlly from Tottenham, was startling. I'm white and reasonably well off, so it wasn't really a big issue sitting amongst the public school types....but I can imagine for someone with a different background, it must be a pretty uncomfortable place. Logically the crowd at a top level cricket match in London should be massively diverse, given the percentage of the population with afro-caribbean or asian heritage. But somehow Lord's managed to attract a crowd which was approx 99% white (my guess, but I'd be surprised if I was far wrong).

If you went to an Asante or Strormzy gig the crowd would probably be 99% black. We are different cultures, different things interest us. The crowd at the Amex is 99% white, nobody finds that a problem. To me watching Glasto the audience seemed overwhelmingly white but I would imagine a music festival in East London (if there is one) featuring Rap and Drill artists would probably have a very large BAME audience.

Maybe since the West Indies had their hey day Afro Caribbean interest in cricket has waned, but if you go to Edgbaston or Trent Bridge when England are playing Pakistan or India there will be a large percentage of Asian people.

 

[Eeyore]

"The report states: “In cricket’s most senior leadership, South Asian representation is limited to 2.8% despite South Asians making up 26-29% of the game’s adult recreational population and 6.9% of the population of England and Wales.” Page 59

Statistics imply that in total, ethnically diverse representation comprises only 5.6% of leadership in cricket, while comprising 18.3% of the English and Wales population and in the region of 30-35% of recreational cricket players."

Do you believe choosing the right man for the job has led to this imbalance or other factors at play? Could it be related to the fact that “50% of respondents described experiencing discrimination in the previous five years” and that “the figures were substantially higher for people from ethnically diverse communities: 87% of people with Pakistani and Bangladeshi heritage, 82% of people with Indian heritage and 75% of all Black respondents”. Page 11

Then on the playing side: "privately educated white British cricketers were 13 times more likely to become professional cricketers than their state educated counterparts" and "the percentage of privately educated male England players was 57% in 2012, and 58% in 2021 – “significantly higher than the 7% of the general population who are privately educated”.

Then there's the fact that Eton and Harrow get to play at Lord's each year.

Doesn't seem like there's been a level playing field up to now.

I agree with the Eton & Harrow thing. Long overdue.

But there is a reason why cricketers come from private schools, like they also do in Australia. It's resources and interest.

My junior school had a cricket team because the Class 10 teacher was cricket mad. It's how I got introduced to the game. My secondary school not so. Most of the kids were into football. There wasn't the uptake or the finance to take way from other areas of interest.

"privately educated white British cricketers were 13 times more likely to become professional cricketers than their state educated counterparts" and "the percentage of privately educated male England players was 57% in 2012, and 58% in 2021 – “significantly higher than the 7% of the general population who are privately educated”

Yep, it's a fact of life. I personally wish it wasn't, but unless there is a real drive in state schools to push cricket, and that needs resources, it will stay that way. It's not discrimination. It's the education system itself that discriminates.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Well the report highlighted a 'lack of female representation among decision-makers' which makes me think efforts will be made to increase females representation in this sphere, so the introduction of quotas I would guess. Imagine the fuss if in say 3 years female representation among decision makers hasn't improved?? The ECB would not hear the last of it.

By all means allow things to let you think. Have a think, and then let us know what you have deduced later.

What you put here is simply pontification. Nobody has mentioned quotas. The main issue in the report is the grotesque racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination meted out by a white male majority.

You may not be white and you may not be male but you seem to have disproportionate concern for potential imagined oppression of this demographic.

My money is on you being white and male. Reading what you have posted made me think that.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

What exactly is the 'bollocks' I'm talking?

Its the things you 'think' based upon the report.

 

[Bakero]

I agree with the Eton & Harrow thing. Long overdue.

But there is a reason why cricketers come from private schools, like they also do in Australia. It's resources and interest.

My junior school had a cricket team because the Class 10 teacher was cricket mad. It's how I got introduced to the game. My secondary school not so. Most of the kids were into football. There wasn't the uptake or the finance to take way from other areas of interest.

"privately educated white British cricketers were 13 times more likely to become professional cricketers than their state educated counterparts" and "the percentage of privately educated male England players was 57% in 2012, and 58% in 2021 – “significantly higher than the 7% of the general population who are privately educated”

Yep, it's a fact of life. I personally wish it wasn't, but unless there is a real drive in state schools to push cricket, and that needs resources, it will stay that way. It's not discrimination. It's the education system itself that discriminates.

Like the report says, the elitism and class-based discrimination is "driven partly by the lack of access to cricket in state schools and the way in which the talent pathway is structurally bound up with private schools”.

Key recommendations to remove class barriers include:

• Nominations system by schools/clubs to be abolished and replaced by open trials.

• Participation in talent pathway should be made free of direct costs charged by counties.

• ECB should introduce county and national level T20 competitions for state boys and girls’ teams at U14 and U15 age group. National finals day to replace annual Eton v Harrow match at Lord’s.

None of the findings are particularly revelatory though, are they? As Jonathan Liew said in today's Guardian, "Turns out – no, seriously – that a sport created and codified for the purpose of allowing rich white landowners to bet against each other, and then exported around the world at gunpoint with the promise that it would civilise savage peoples, may not actually be that progressive."

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I agree with the Eton & Harrow thing. Long overdue.

But there is a reason why cricketers come from private schools, like they also do in Australia. It's resources and interest.

My junior school had a cricket team because the Class 10 teacher was cricket mad. It's how I got introduced to the game. My secondary school not so. Most of the kids were into football. There wasn't the uptake or the finance to take way from other areas of interest.

"privately educated white British cricketers were 13 times more likely to become professional cricketers than their state educated counterparts" and "the percentage of privately educated male England players was 57% in 2012, and 58% in 2021 – “significantly higher than the 7% of the general population who are privately educated”

Yep, it's a fact of life. I personally wish it wasn't, but unless there is a real drive in state schools to push cricket, and that needs resources, it will stay that way. It's not discrimination. It's the education system itself that discriminates.

I agree.

But the key bits of the report discussed today were the grotesque racism and sexism reported anecdotally by people interviewed in the compiling of the report. That's the thing to focus on.

Of course money provides access to the playing of cricket in much the same was as it does in polo, and F1. I frankly don't have a problem with that. But if the whites were ganging up on the Muslim (prince) in the polo shed, it would still be racism.

 

[Justice]

Anyone for cricket? It doesn’t seem that way anymore.

 

[Eeyore]

Like the report says, the elitism and class-based discrimination is "driven partly by the lack of access to cricket in state schools and the way in which the talent pathway is structurally bound up with private schools”.

Key recommendations to remove class barriers include:

• Nominations system by schools/clubs to be abolished and replaced by open trials.

• Participation in talent pathway should be made free of direct costs charged by counties.

• ECB should introduce county and national level T20 competitions for state boys and girls’ teams at U14 and U15 age group. National finals day to replace annual Eton v Harrow match at Lord’s.

None of the findings are particularly revelatory though, are they? As Jonathan Liew said in today's Guardian, "Turns out – no, seriously – that a sport created and codified for the purpose of allowing rich white landowners to bet against each other, and then exported around the world at gunpoint with the promise that it would civilise savage peoples, may not actually be that progressive."

I'd ignore Jonathan Liew, a cheap remark for a clap.

I think if cricket had been a thing in secondary schools we may have seen something similar already.

Don't Sussex have this with Falmer school ? I'm sure someone can give insight into this ?

 

[Cornwallboy]

By all means allow things to let you think. Have a think, and then let us know what you have deduced later.

What you put here is simply pontification. Nobody has mentioned quotas. The main issue in the report is the grotesque racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination meted out by a white male majority.

You may not be white and you may not be male but you seem to have disproportionate concern for potential imagined oppression of this demographic.

My money is on you being white and male. Reading what you have posted made me think that.

I've written in previous posts what I think and what I deduce. Nobody has mentioned quotas, but after the report the ECB will be under enormous pressure to have a more diverse workforce, hence why I feel recruitment will largely driven by quotas. I'm all for a meritocracy and I believe the best person should fill the position and if all of the best candidates for future roles within the ECB are BAME females then that's great.

 

[Bakero]

I'd ignore Jonathan Liew, a cheap remark for a clap.

I think if cricket had been a thing in secondary schools we may have seen something similar already.

Don't Sussex have this with Falmer school ? I'm sure someone can give insight into this ?

Cricket was definitely a thing when I was at primary and secondary but I had zero interest as I perceived it to be a posh-boys game. Somehow I did end up playing Rugby though.

 

[Beanstalk]

I agree with the Eton & Harrow thing. Long overdue.

But there is a reason why cricketers come from private schools, like they also do in Australia. It's resources and interest.

My junior school had a cricket team because the Class 10 teacher was cricket mad. It's how I got introduced to the game. My secondary school not so. Most of the kids were into football. There wasn't the uptake or the finance to take way from other areas of interest.

"privately educated white British cricketers were 13 times more likely to become professional cricketers than their state educated counterparts" and "the percentage of privately educated male England players was 57% in 2012, and 58% in 2021 – “significantly higher than the 7% of the general population who are privately educated”

Yep, it's a fact of life. I personally wish it wasn't, but unless there is a real drive in state schools to push cricket, and that needs resources, it will stay that way. It's not discrimination. It's the education system itself that discriminates.

I had a very different state school experience. I grew up in London and played club cricket for a fairly working class team, my state school and my regional area side under the County banner. In the wake of the 2005 Ashes there was a huge clamour to play Cricket in state schools and the schools league we played in was fantastically competitive (with a chunk of funding from the Lords Taverners).

I played with some sensational players, who had they been at private school (especially from a younger age), would have slotted into the County structure and probably have been able to make a solid career of things. The issue is access both in terms of equipment and time. Private schools usually finish their terms considerably earlier than state schools, and most counties cater camps/training/games towards those private school term times. That's before you even think about whether a state school can afford to have and maintain nets/bowling machines/new balls/bats/etc.

I think it's fair to say that cricket is less of a focus for state schools, but there are a ridiculous number of kids who are clearly talented enough to play in the academy system who get blocked from doing so due to a pre-existing recruitment bias towards the private schools.

 

[Eeyore]

I agree.

But the key bits of the report discussed today were the grotesque racism and sexism reported anecdotally by people interviewed in the compiling of the report. That's the thing to focus on.

Of course money provides access to the playing of cricket in much the same was as it does in polo, and F1. I frankly don't have a problem with that. But if the whites were ganging up on the Muslim (prince) in the polo shed, it would still be racism.

I agree. There's no place for that shit in the game. And we should be long past it by now.

What I'm seeing in my chats with old friends and meeting folk in the game is a lot of cricket clubs, many here in Sussex, who are doing great work in expanding the game. Especially the women/girls game. I know that the behaviour described in the report would not be tolerated.

I'm not in denial here, I'm sure there are problems in many places. But phrases like 'rotten to the core' etc are an insult to many good folk designed for what purpose I don't know.

The cricket of today is unrecognisable to what I knew 40 years back. It's come a long way.