This plan is a step in the right direction, but it may well need external help to ensure it succeeds

GEORGE DOBELL: The fact we are now having these conversations is welcome, but there are many hard days ahead before English cricket can claim to have beaten the problems it's facing

If acknowledgement of a problem is the first step towards a solution, the ECB took the first, tentative steps on the road to recovery on Friday.

To hear Tom Harrison, the ECB’s chief executive, talk of the revelations of racism within the sport as “serious issues” which “we collectively had not dealt with as a game for many decades” was, basically, to hear a drunkard admitting they were an alcoholic. Harrison, referring to the issue as an “earthquake” in the sport, has repeatedly stopped just short of admitting the game has been specifically institutionally or structurally racist. But, in other words, he has basically accepted it now.

And he’s right. Whether you look at the statistics or listen to the testimonies, it’s impossible to reach any other conclusion. Our game hasn’t really been interested in inclusivity for years. It has satisfied itself with money and ignored the voices of those on the periphery. Even now, it’s only when the media, sponsors and government have become involved that the game has felt it needed to act.

Nobody, anywhere, is pretending these plans are going to solve all cricket’s problems. In particular, it is regrettable that aspects of them have been diluted since a draft version was leaked to The Cricketer a week ago. Specific commitments on the percentage of non-white coaches and people in leadership roles at clubs have, for example, been replaced by a more vague plan “to increase diversity across the wider organisation” to an “appropriate level” by 2025.

There are decent reasons for the delay – nobody wants dozens of redundancies to create immediate vacancies in order to hit these targets – but there are moments in the report when it feels like a firefighter answering the phone and saying they’ll come round to put out the blaze as soon as they’ve finished cutting their hedge.

But among the acronyms and ambiguity, there is some substance. Counties will have to demonstrate more diversity in the boardroom. They will, eventually, have to demonstrate more diversity on their coaching staff. And if they fail in such commitments – and a dozen more, besides – it can be held against them when it comes to major match allocations. And make no mistake: this will focus minds like nothing before.

More than that, the entire game has accepted there is an issue now. While many county leaders were inclined to dismiss the Yorkshire debacle as something of an aberration, they have reacted to the Essex stories with more of a ‘there but for the grace of God go I’ attitude. There has been a realisation that victims of racism had, to some degree, stopped complaining as they had concluded there was no point. There has been a realisation, too, that roomfuls of middle-class, white men might not, despite their fine intentions, have fully understood the challenges facing working-class non-white boys and girls. These are painful realisations but without them we cannot go forward. It’s progress in itself.

^{On Friday, the ECB launched a 12-part, game-wide action plan}

There are other legitimate concerns. Are the PCA (the Professional Cricketers’ Association; the players’ union), who do not employ a single full-time, non-white member of staff and have work to do to regain the trust of their non-white members, really the organisation to review dressing room culture? Why hasn’t the ECB embraced the SACA model (South Asian Cricket Academy) for removing barriers to non-white people in the talent pathway? And does a “standardised approach to reporting” racism actually encourage people to share their concerns or is it an attempt to prevent them going to the media? Let’s not forget: there have always been reporting methods. It wasn’t until Azeem Rafiq went to the media that anyone listened. If the system is to work, it may well have to be outsourced to an entirely independent third-party.

And that takes us to a key part of this debate. Cricket has, in effect, been marking its own homework for years.

There’s no way Colin Graves should have been allowed to chair ECB meetings (be they about Durham’s future as an international venue or the need for a new-team tournament resulting in more major matches for certain venue) which might have been seen to have had an impact at Yorkshire, the club which owed his family trusts £20million. There is no way the PCA representative at the meeting where Azeem reported racism should have felt they were also representing the accused. And there is no way anyone can have total confidence in an organisation which hails a commitment to reviewing discriminatory crowd behaviour as if it’s a Eureka moment.

Most of this stuff should have happened years ago. It is shameful that it has taken the determination of one young man from Barnsley to force the game to act.

Even on this issue, the ECB only really acted after the media and a group of MPs shamed them into doing so. Adil Rashid and Azeem Rafiq, you may recall, actually made their first complaint about racism at the end of the 2017 season. Yorkshire sprung into action and held a meeting almost a year later to discuss these issues. As early as September 2020, Azeem had spoken to Harrison.

Again, nothing happened until the episode was laid bare by the media and in a parliamentary hearing. It is an experience shared by several other non-white former coaches and players who shared their experiences, were told he would investigate, and are still waiting for a call back.

So, it really might have come to a time when the sport – perhaps all national sports – requires a watchdog which has real insight and real teeth.

^{On Thursday, Mehmooda Duke resigned as Leicestershire's chair}

As Jo Stevens, Shadow Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, pointed out shortly after the statement was published: “The report today is a reminder of previous ECB failures to get a grip on the racism scandal engulfing cricket. Many of the measures listed should have been in place years ago. Players, staff and fans will struggle to have faith in a process which is being overseen by the same people who have stood by for so long. What we need is a proper independent inquiry to encourage victims to come forward for real changes to be made across cricket.”

Even Harrison admitted the time might have come for a change in the governance of the game on Friday. He acknowledged the sport was debating “whether we [the ECB] should be the regulator and the national governing body going forward” and accepted it might be “the right time for us to work out whether we have got the right governance structures.”

The problem here is that the ECB just held a governance review. Well, as recently as four-years ago, anyway. And Harrison and co. were given the changes they requested. All of which leaves you wondering if the problem might not be the governance as much as it is the governors.

Part of the problem was that the ECB, in their desperation to drive through their plans (not least, The Hundred) insisted on a board independent of figures from the county game. They claimed, at the time, that this was in line with Sport England’s protocols, but this is not entirely true.

Sport England insisted on gender and ethnic diversity and some independent board members. They did not insist on a complete independence of figures from the county game. By doing so, the ECB ended up with a board who, for all their experience, have lacked the specific cricketing insight to challenge and check the executive.

The ECB executive thought this was terribly clever of them at the time. But it’s a characteristic of the weak. Strong people, enlightened people, encourage questioning, criticism and robust debate. The ECB has, at every level, surrounded itself with ‘yes’ men (and they are nearly all men) in the myopic hope it would allow them to get things done unencumbered by non-believers. With such errors, we have arrived at a situation where everyone in power in the game is shocked at something nearly every non-white cricketer and coach has been talking about for decades.

^{Harrison referred to Azeem Rafiq's "powerful testimony" in a statement relating to the ECB's action plan on Friday}

It would be a mistake to make this issue about Harrison just as much as it would be a mistake to make it about Michael Vaughan or Gary Ballance. The real question should be whether he – and his executive team – are the right people to drive through this change. But it does seem legitimate to question if the man who has been in position for six years, who presided over the governance changes he is now calling to be reformed and who knew about many of these issues every bit of 18 months ago is the ideal candidate to lead the game forward.

Cricket has very few female county chairs (it had one until yesterday; it has none today) and very few people of colour in positions of power. For one of those people, Mehmooda Duke, to resign on the eve of this announcement hailing a need for “fresh leadership” does not seem much of an endorsement. Harrison suggested Duke felt the plans should have gone further. “Lots of people in the game feel our commitments don't go far enough,” Harrison said. “I'm probably in that camp myself.” He should probably tell us who is stopping him.

This plan is unquestionably a step in the right direction. And the fact we are now having these conversations is also welcome. But the game is having its first AA meeting. There are many hard days ahead before it can claim to have beaten the problems it's facing. It may well need external help to ensure it succeeds.