Cricket Management Structure for the 21st Century

It's time for Cricket to embrace the Football model...

An article by Sam Wallace in The Telegraph this week caught my eye, titled ‘In modern football, clubs want managers they can control’. It’s behind a paywall, but you can register for free to read it if you don’t have a subscription to the online newspaper.

It got me thinking about how football has evolved over the last 20-30 years. Gone are the managers who oversaw the entire football club, and replacing them are head coaches who are a (high-level) departmental head. Out of favour are the Mourinho’s, the Conte’s and maybe even, the Klopp’s of this world (is it a coincidence that Michael Edwards returned to Liverpool following Klopp’s announced departure?).

Paraphrasing the article, entrusting various departments such as recruitment, sports medicine, data analysis, and a multi-club ownership model to one manager would be absurd. This is something I’ve said for a long time in Cricket. Throw in media management as well (a lot of coaches say little or nothing of use to the media, or come across as being extremely dour), and it becomes even harder.

For example, let’s look at a head coach of a county cricket team. From the start of March to the end of September, they will be doing an incredible amount of hours - they have to organise training, management meetings, attend 4-day matches, one-day matches, maybe have an assistant coach job at The Hundred, and all the associated travel up and down the country on the team bus and staying in hotels. Somehow, after that, they’ve got to fit in some time to spend with their family.

What I’m trying to say is this - considering the above, is it any surprise that they don’t have time to watch an online stream of a low-level T20 league to find the next gem spinner coming out of Afghanistan? Is it any surprise that teams tend to recruit players that they know (there’s a bias towards South Group teams signing other South Group players, which likely extends past any obstacles in terms of relocation)? Is it a surprise that already at this early stage of the Blast, teams are struggling to work out their best XIs and balances? Is it reasonable for a coach to be an expert in cricket data?

In my view, coaches simply don’t have the time to focus on these areas, so it makes sense to delegate that to someone with more experience in the relevant area, who can do a better job and enable the coaches to focus on what they are good at, and attempt to have some semblance of work/life balance.

Any head coach trying to cover all the various departments is either going to be a jack of all trades and master of none, or be a candidate for severe stress (at best). So, doesn’t it make sense that experts should be hired for each of the various departments who can then be part of a broad management structure that can have robust, healthy challenges and that the opinion of one person (who cannot possibly have every department under control) doesn’t hold sway?

As the sport (and in particular, T20 franchise cricket) continues to evolve, early adopters to this football-style model have a huge potential competitive advantage. Is it a good strategy that the overwhelming majority of head coaches and directors of cricket in the sport are ex-players, and in many cases, ex-players of the particular team that they played for? Shouldn’t teams be casting their nets far and wide in order to find the best person for the job, as opposed to just employing someone who used to play for them?

Of the 18 first class counties in England & Wales, all 18 have head coaches who were ex-players. Six of them were ex-players of the club they currently coach. The majority of DoC’s (10/13) played for the club they are currently DoC of. Only Andy Hurry (Somerset) had no playing career. Is it a coincidence that they are a county who significantly punch above their weight?

I’ll finish this post with some questions.

Is it realistic to assume that ex-players have the required skills to be a head coach or DoC?

Why is there an assumption that big-name ex-players will be able to coach to a similar level?

Are ex-players more suited to technical coaching instead, for example? When they commentate on the TV, it’s often evident that they are extremely knowledgeable technically, but have little in the way of tactical nous.

Should there be heads of various departments such as recruitment, long-term planning and analytics (like there is in football)?

Cricket can bury its head in the sand and think that it is right and all the other major sports are wrong, or it can get into the 21st Century. Any team who does take this approach - which is contrarian in Cricket, but not in other sports - has the scope to obtain considerable competitive advantages.

Anyone interested in discussing how I can help their team with strategic management and data-driven analysis, or contribute to any media work, can get in touch at sportsanalyticsadvantage@gmail.com.