Leicestershire County Cricket Club

[SemperEadem]

Big blow that

[MaidstoneFox]

There's a revealing report about the pitch decision by George Dobell in The Cricketer. I'll paste it here for those without access:

 

Ultimately, it was Leicestershire's financial situation that led to the points penalty that all but condemns them to relegation.

Ultimately, commercial interests have compromised their cricketing ambitions. 

Ultimately, this is another example of the uneven playing field that exists between the host and non-host counties. 

This is, perhaps, a little simplistic. There were, of course, other factors that led to the substandard surface used for their Championship match against Glamorgan, which started on August 20. But had a key commercial opportunity been declined, there is little doubt the issues with the pitch could have been mitigated at least. 

Evidence from the Cricket Discipline Panel hearing tells us that, four days before the game between Leicestershire and Glamorgan, the club staged a filming opportunity at the ground.

The Bollywood producers involved - they are believed to be filming a Sourav Ganguly biopic - are understood to have approached larger clubs first. But whereas Warwickshire, with revenue of more than £30million a year, had the financial stability to decline, Leicestershire, with their annual revenue of about £5.5m, did not.

They bob around with their heads just above the water line. They have to take these opportunities when they come. Warwickshire, according to the latest Leonard Curtis report, derive just 13 per cent of their income from the ECB distribution; Leicestershire rely on the ECB for 67 per cent of their income.

If you doubt any of this, look at the evidence from the investigation. As Callum Lewin, the head grounds manager at Leicestershire, reports: "the weather was 35 degrees, and we had an unscheduled Bollywood filming event four days before (the match), and I wasn't allowed to work on the pitch. I wasn't allowed to cover it or anything.

"With the Bollywood (filming) and the (One Day Cup) semi-final and the hot weather, evidently, it was difficult to keep the moisture content at the level I would have liked."

It might be noted here that, while the One Day Cup game played at the ground on August 16, was also a complication, there was matting over the Championship wicket during it. As the panel concluded, "It is unlikely, given the use of the protective mat, that the semi-final had any significant impact."

The panel also concluded: "We agree that eight hours of exposure to the sun on the day of the Bollywood event would have had an impact…. Risk management should have envisaged the need to incorporate protection of the pitch during the Bollywood event."

You could argue the club's parlous financial position was relevant at the Cricket Discipline Panel hearing, too. For one thing, they don't appear to have employed legal representation. For another, they don't appear to have produced pre-hearing statements from either the DoC or COE. It's hard to believe any lawyer would have sanctioned that approach.

By contrast, The Cricketer has spoken to other clubs that say they would have considered legal action had Leicestershire not been sanctioned. Imagine that: a club defending itself can't afford legal assistance while bystanders have the resources to consider preempting legal action.

Compare it to the situation at Lord's. There we have seen a couple of poor surfaces for Tests, and the club have reacted by employing consultants, funding research, planning for drop-in pitches and moving more games to other grounds. These things aren't an option for Leicestershire. They can't even afford to keep their first-choice players.  

There are other eyebrow-raising moments in the report. At one point, Lewin is quoted as saying, "Claude (Henderson, the DoC) had asked him (a member of the ground staff) to stop heavy rolling the pitch"; an admission which surely undermines their attempt to suggest they did everything they could to prepare the best wicket possible. 

At another Lewin is quoted as saying, in relation to differences of opinion as regards pitch preparation, "it's a tough conversation to have with them (Henderson and Alfonso Thomas, the head coach'." A scenario where the head grounds manager doesn't feel able to express their concerns does not sound healthy.

Equally, it is surprising to read (again from Lewin's evidence) that: "It wasn't until the day before the game when we did the moisture readings the first time" that they realised they had a problem. You would expect these readings to have been conducted much earlier. 

It's also worth noting that nobody - no player, umpire, coach or even official from Leicestershire - disputes that it was a substandard surface. 

But it's entirely possible to conclude this was a poor pitch requiring sanction (yes, there have to be sanctions) and feel some sympathy for Leicestershire.

The more holistic view might be that this is a club that has worked desperately hard not just to achieve Division One status (for the first time since 2003) but to gain any relevance in their community. To punish them so hard (remember, they have been penalised 27 points; Yorkshire were penalised 48 after the racism enquiries) and to all but end (subject to an appeal) that status might send a message to counties about the dangers of taking chances with pitch preparation.

But it also suggests a lack of sympathy towards clubs fighting for their survival; a lack of empathy with the financial necessities which contributed to this outcome. It feels like it largely dismisses the fight they have shown over the previous six months. In context, it feels like a crushing blow to a club fighting for survival who have done so much right in recent years.

There's an addendum to all this, too. At one stage in the report, it states that "Clegg hammer hardness testing revealed a moisture average of 24.8 per cent." This is not what the Clegg hammer measures. To get such details wrong - the Clegg hammer measures hardness; it's a ThetaProbe which measures soil moisture - really does raise questions about the cricketing knowledge of the CDP.  It might also raise some doubts over whether they fully warrant the enormous power they wield. 

Few, reading this report, could conclude that Leicestershire were blameless. But 27 points? And in the context that they needed to take every commercial opportunity available? It feels unempathetic. It feels harsh.