Angus Fraser: Schofield uncovered

When I accepted the invitation from David Collier, the chief executive of the England and Wales Cricket Board, to sit on the Schofield Review Group I was aware that there would be some who considered that I was compromising myself journalistically. It is something I have been accused of on several occasions since by colleagues in the media, particularly by a couple of former England team-mates.

I agreed because I wanted to help. It would have been easy to say no, but I felt that it would be wrong for me to sit back in the safety of the press box and pour scorn on what was taking place when I had been given the chance to do something to improve the situation.

Related articles

• Vaughan is back to lead England after painful 18 months
• Board endorses reform blueprint but stalls on domestic shake-up
• Search the news archive for more stories

The former England cricketers who declined to sit on the review group for fear of being compromised would like cricket fans to believe they are devoted to the game, but there are times when one wonders how deep their commitment actually is. Many high profile former players maintain a very comfortable lifestyle on the back of their achievements in cricket, yet some seem very reluctant to give something back for free. And, heavens above, they would not want to run the risk of being involved in something that could result in them being criticised, would they?

The brief for the six of us who accepted the offer was to analyse and proffer our opinions on English cricket during the previous four years, with a view to making recommendations as to how things could be improved over the next four. The reaction to my appointment by those directly involved in the England set-up was quite amusing. David Graveney, the chairman of selectors, jokingly asked whether he should call me sir from now on.

It was suggested to me that I should collect the views of a few players before my first meeting with our chairman Ken Schofield. But I did not have this in mind when a couple of fellow journalists and I took Andrew Flintoff and Andrew Strauss out for dinner during the one-day series in Australia.

Early in the meal Flintoff turned to me and, with a smile on his face, said: "You can piss off if you think we're going to give you anything for that Schofield report. How do we know it won't appear in the paper tomorrow? And as for wives on tour, don't even go there." A laughing Strauss nodded his head in agreement. I thought it wise not to revisit the subject when the main course arrived.

The committee was split into two groups. Nasser Hussain, Nick Knight and myself have been heavily involved with what has taken place in and around the England cricket team for the past 18 years. It was our job to present our observations, highlight our frustrations and make recommendations. The role of Schofield, Micky Stewart (the former England coach), Brian Rose (the Somerset director of cricket), and Hugh Morris (the deputy chief executive at the ECB), was to air their views, canvass as many people as possible, then make sense of it all. On the back of what they heard the quartet set about creating a structure that was decisive, transparent and consistent with best business practice. Authority and accountability, which had been vague during Duncan Fletcher's time as England coach, needed to be clear.

In order to achieve this goal we believed that English cricket needed to appoint a figure whose job was to manage, plan, direct and be accountable for all aspects of elite cricket in England. Cricket's Managing Director would not be involved in the every day running of the England team but he would ultimately be responsible for its performance.

We recommended two other appointments. England's selection in Australia was highly embarrassing, with the policy used at home being kicked out once the team left Heathrow Airport. It was felt that in order to create consistency a full-time selector - a National Selector - who would travel with the team abroad, should be employed. The conversations that took place with the counties resulted in another new position being proposed, that of a First Class Counties Director. He would be responsible for the direction and quality of the first-class game in England and Wales. He would also be a Test selector and it would be his job to explain the approach of the England set-up to the counties and to represent the views of the counties to the board.

The Managing Director would sit at the apex of a newly created structure and report to David Collier, the chief executive of the ECB. The England coach, the National Selector, the First-Class Director and the National Academy Director, (renamed the National Performance Director) all report to the MD.

Appointing Peter Moores as Duncan Fletcher's successor before a Managing Director was named undeniably put the cart in front of the horse, but the need to find a coach was the more urgent of the two. The new MD will be Moores' boss and it is essential that the two are compatible.

Nasser and I met Schofield and Morris in Melbourne. It was clear to both of us that Schofield was a big cricket fan, although there were a couple of issues - why Mark Ramprakash was overlooked for the Ashes being one of them - that we had to put him straight on.

Our first meeting took place at the Wentworth Golf Club during the two-week gap between the end of England's tour of Australia and the World Cup. Schofield and Morris had already had a lunch with the cricket correspondents of most national papers and were impressed with what they had to say. Duncan Fletcher's position as England coach was the hot topic, with most of the correspondents believing that he should go. I suggested that we did not discuss his position for fear that our views would emerge at an inopportune time during the World Cup. (Judging by what took place earlier this week, when our report was leaked to a national paper, it proved to be a wise thing to do.)

It was accepted that England's preparations for Australia were poor and agreed that the ECB should change England's schedule so that the Ashes and World Cup do not take place in the same winter. The dates of the World Cup are set in stone so England should try to delay their next tour of Australia by a year until the winter of 2011/12. It was also felt that the players' central contracts should be more incentive based, to keep them hungry. It was universally agreed that the central contract system had been a success.

Fletcher's subsequent resignation took him off our agenda, not that the future of employed ECB personnel was in our remit. It was our job to come up with a structure, the ECB's then to fill the positions. Moores was invited to our second meeting at Lord's six days after the World Cup had finished so that we could get an idea of what he thought. Moores was forthright in his views, telling us that he wanted to be a selector and be in control and responsible for the England team. The proposed structure was taking shape.

In a committee situation it is inevitable that individual members have ideas and subjects they favour. In broad terms I fully support the recommendations that we have made though there are one or two issues I feel particularly strongly about. I believe the volume of cricket played by England and in England is far too great.

We all agreed that a domestic one-day competition needs to be scrapped and that the amount of international cricket should be reduced. But I would go further and reduce the number of County Championship games so that players can spend more time practising their skills. Only then will counties be able to produce players capable of winning England a World Cup.

Unlike the majority of my fellow committee members I do not believe that a way of tackling the problem of the proliferation of international cricket is to increase the size of the squads. Spectators turn up to watch Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff play - not the replacements when it is their turn to have a game off.

I believe it is the result of greed. The ECB and the counties want to generate as much revenue as they can and the best way of doing this is to get the players at their disposal playing as often as possible. Why else would the ECB organise two games against the same side at the same venue on consecutive evenings, as they have this summer against the West Indies?

Quantity is most definitely being placed ahead of quality and by doing so cricket is ripping off those who pay to watch, whether it be live or on television. Those who pay deserve to watch the highest quality product available and the first Test at Lord's, which was a low-key, low quality affair offered an example of what happens when this is ignored.