It does not require the skills of a Nostradamus to predict the results of two forthcoming events: the general election and the Ashes cricket series between England and Australia. Like the Tories, the England test side seems assured of defeat at the hands of a confident, well-organised opposition. With a structure dating back to the 19th century and an ageing group of supporters, the Tory party and English cricket appear in serious trouble.
English cricket has been in decline for much longer than modern conservatism. Whereas the Tories have won each of the last four elections, the England test team has not beaten anyone overseas, apart from New Zealand, for more than a decade. Australia easily won the last four Ashes series. The West Indies have not lost a series against England since the 1960s. England's performance in the last World Cup was humiliating. In any league table of international cricket we struggle to avoid bottom place.
The only matter for debate is the cause of decline. The answers can be found in social change and in the structure of cricket itself. Cricket, like most of our national sports, came of age in Victorian England. The county championship was officially recognised in 1864, the same year WG Grace made his first-class debut. In 1877, the first international match was held between England and Australia. The structure and playing codes of the first-class game in England have changed little this century. But society has changed enormously. There is now much greater choice for young people than 40 years ago. An afternoon watching Glamorgan must seem pretty dull compared to the excitement of Gladiators. We live in an age of low boredom thresholds. Cricket, an essentially slow moving game, is out of sympathy with this mood.
The growth of traffic and crime has also hit cricket. No longer are children encouraged to play in the street using a tennis ball and a bit of wood. An even more serious problem has been the decline of competitive cricket in state schools. The Tory government encouraged local councils to sell off their playing fields to developers. (In Islington, where I used to be a councillor, the borough's 72 schools had not a decent sports ground between them.) The negative attitude towards sport in some Labour authorities was damaging, too. In the 1980s many inner-city socialists saw competitive sport as macho and elitist-this helped to make it so. Abandoned in parts of the state sector, cricket flourishes in the independent sector.
Once the main activity of English boys in the summer, cricket has been marginalised. Travel anywhere in India and you will see thousands of boys practising the game in streets or parks. In England, our urban youths are ignorant of cricket.
Yet it would be a mistake for the leaders of English cricket to blame all their problems on "society." The professional game in England has both a flawed structure and a misguided set of priorities. Although most of its revenue comes from test match television rights and ticket sales, English cricket is geared not towards the needs of the national side, but towards the small band of county committees and members. To satisfy such people, the system supports an extensive county championship and no fewer than three one-day competitions. As a result, the English professional plays far too much mediocre cricket. If he fails in one match, there will another in a few days. In Australia and South Africa, there are far fewer games and the competition is much greater. Phil Edmonds, the fine left-arm, spin bowler expressed amazement at the poor quality of the professionals he encountered at Cambridge University in 1971: "I couldn't believe that these guys were earning a living playing cricket." David Lloyd, the England coach, says: "We need fewer, more competitive matches. There have been times in recent summers when I've seen our lads mentally and physically knackered."
Two simple reforms would reduce the treadmill of the professional circuit. First, the current 18-strong county championship should be split into two divisions of nine teams, with the automatic relegation and promotion of one county from each. This would increase competitiveness and reduce the number of purposeless contests in the second half of the season. The argument against such a format is that some of the second division counties might "go to the wall." It is hard to see why, given that most counties have survived on test match handouts for years, and will continue to receive them. But this response also begs the question: for whose benefit is the current bloated championship organised? Not the test team or the majority of the cricket-loving public. Championship matches are followed by many but watched by few. The only reason for retaining the present structure is to avoid giving offence to a few diehards among each county's membership who yearn for the days when a championship game could fill a ground to capacity.
The second reform should be a reorganisation of one-day cricket. The three limited-over competitions (the wretched Sunday league, the Benson & Hedges cup and the NatWest Bank trophy) should be replaced by two, one a knock-out and the other a league, and each should have 50-overs a side, the same as the international World Cup. The argument for retaining all the current limited-over events is that the counties need the revenue to pay their large playing staffs. They should consider the alternative: reduce the number of full-time professionals and fill the vacancies with part-timers and amateurs.
To the hard-nosed county pro, the revival of the amateur might seem absurd. They should remember that many of England's greatest cricketers were amateurs, men such as Peter May and Gubby Allen. It is precisely because they had careers outside cricket that they were able to bring a freshness to their game. They did not need to worry about money or averages. Australia has, throughout this century, been more successful than England and has never had a professional circuit.
Despite these problems English cricket is not dying. The game still generates great public interest. Test matches are regularly sold out. There is not a single ticket left for the first four days of this year's Ashes test at Lords. Thanks partly to BSkyB, there is now more cricket on television than ever before. The game is awash with money. Last year's sale of the television rights to home tests is bringing in ?65m over four years. Vodaphone has just concluded a deal worth ?13m over five years to sponsor both the England and the England A teams, as well as the England women's team and a cricket programme aimed at children. The two main test grounds, Lords and the Oval, have just been expanded. While cricket may have declined in state schools, many clubs now have youth programmes. More people play club cricket in Yorkshire than in the whole of Australia. The administrative structure of English cricket has also been rationalised by the creation of the new English Cricket Board.
England's victory in New Zealand showed how talk of a crisis is exaggerated. At Christchurch, in the final test, England became only the 12th side in the history of test cricket to reach a target of more than 300 for victory in the final innings. Many commentators dismissed the triumph as insignificant, arguing that New Zealand is a poor side. Yet this was the same New Zealand team which, a few weeks later, easily beat Sri Lanka, the world one-day champions. England's record under Mike Atherton is improving. The side has only lost three of its last 19 tests. When Atherton took over in 1993, it had lost all but one of the last nine. At home, England has been beaten in only one of its last five series.
Cricket is a game prone to nostalgia. There is wistful talk of Len Hutton and Denis Compton, Jim Laker and Godfrey Evans, all of whose talents are said to eclipse those of the current side. But the record of England in the late 1940s and early 1950s was worse than that of the present side. They lost badly in three successive series to Australia-in 1948 at the Oval, England was bowled out for just 52-and were heavily beaten home and away by the West Indies. In 1949 England could not beat New Zealand in any of the four tests.
With a tough, intelligent captain in Atherton, and a strong batting line-up, all the England team really lacks is a consistent fast bowler and a penetrating spinner. If Dominic Cork recovers his 1995 form and Robert Croft continues to improve his off-spinning, these two problems could be overcome-and the Australians might not have the easy run they anticipate this summer. Once England starts to win regularly again, many of the difficulties that the game now faces will seem irrelevant. As Euro-96 showed, success is the catalyst to a sport's revival.
I drew an analogy earlier between the Tories and English cricket. Perhaps a more relevant parallel would be with the Blairite Labour party. Each with a new structure in tune with business, and a bright, young (Oxbridge-educated) leader of courage and resolution, both could now overcome years of defeat. New Labour, New Ashes triumph.
