For those of us deemed “outside cricket”, who follow the game and ask the awkward questions that have seen us branded with the OC monicker, Jarrod Kimber and Sam Collins’ Death of A Gentleman is confirmation of the slime, sleaze, conflicts of interest and corruption at the heart of cricket’s global governance. If you like or love cricket and aren’t aware of or up to date with the happenings in the game’s governance then you need to see this film. No ifs or buts, you must see this film.


Yates’ Latin teacher was a very wise man. Of course, this was something which only became apparent with the passage of time. One of the many wise things he said was that history repeats itself. Yates will go further and say that if history repeats itself in the same organisation just over a year later then the people in that organisation are imbecilic bellends of the worst kind.


Yates scared the people in the train carriage coming home yesterday as he shouted “Yes!” and fistpumped to his reading the news that Paul Downton has been sacked from his role at the ECB.

After several months of highlighting Downton’s failings the question any of us would like answered is “What tipped the scales?” What finally made Tom Harrison make the right but overdue decision?


Some years ago an organisation made a director level appointment.  There was the usual top brass bullshit and business buzzword bingo as part of the introductory PR spin.  Big things were clearly expected from this new director.

It wasn’t long before this director’s significant flaws came to the fore.  The first major decision made by this new director was based entirely on his own prejudices, refusing to present an honest justification and completely ignoring the existing excellent and continuing performance of the organisation.

Other decisions were also flawed, appointments made crucially so.  The organisation’s performance, brand and reputation were being damaged by a supposedly safe pair of hands.


In a week when the Evening Boris sported the headline “Toxic London” it’s appropriate to explore Brand Toxicity.

When does a brand become toxic? What turns a brand from successful to shithouse?

Here are a few thoughts:

  • When it treats its customers with disdain
  • When it takes customers for granted
  • When it mocks customers
  • When it treats customers as lower forms of life
  • When it is dishonest towards customers
  • When it fails to adhere to standards expected of them such as openness and honesty
  • When results and performances show continuing or declining levels of acceptability

Previous, current or ongoing good works rarely matter when a brand starts to turn toxic, as any headline writer will tell you.

Ask Gerald Ratner just how destructive to your brand becoming toxic can be. One supposed joke about his products wiped a high profile brand worth £500 million off the high streets. Why? Because Ratner mocked his customers.


Dear Colin and Tom,

I don’t envy you the tasks you guys now face.  You take up your roles at the ECB with the national governing body looking greedy, petty, obsessive, controlling, incompetent, mendacious, out of touch and snobbish.  Most importantly the ECB has alienated a lot of people and smeared an imperial shedload of faeces on its brand over the course of 2014.

If it weren’t for Ched Evans the FA would look better than the ECB right now.  That’s how bad things are.


When prompted to e-mail the BBC and ECB with feedback on this season’s cricket commentaries, Yates sent one response to the BBC and a fuller response to the ECB.  Yates has previously expounded his support for the County commentary teams.

Praise is given where due but so is criticism.  If you’re new to DCTWO then please take it as read that as a Surrey supporter I am a big fan of Mark Church and Johnny Barran’s commentaries.    Some people (*cough* Michael Vaughan *cough*) would do well to embrace their Twitter presences and bring them to the commentary box – his recent tweets have been much better than his TMS output.   TMS in its current state is a vastly inferior product to what it used to be – it needs overhauling.

That said, so does anything in the ECB which Giles Clarke and Paul Downton have had anything to do with.

Yates is looking forward to reading KP’s autobiography.

Thank you to all involved in the County Cricket Commentaries during 2014. May you all winter well.


Despite doing nothing about the booing Moeen Ali received in recent international games, the Exceptionally Clueless Buffoons have been revealed as charging Yorkshire captain Andrew Gale with racism against Lancashire’s South African batsman Ashwell Prince.

Did Gale let rip with an outburst worthy of a UKIPper?

Did he use the N-word? The S-word? The C-word? The M-word?

Did he make certain gestures or references to certain body parts?

Did he refer to a certain land made famous by Alan Clark and then by Godfrey Bloom?

Did he let rip with a Gene Hunt special?

Did he throw a piece of fruit? (If none of these make any sense get onto Google).

Any or all of the above would deserve a guilty verdict. But no, Andrew Gale did not do any of these things.


Today’s celebration of the 200th birthday of the Lord’s ground will not be remembered for the hundreds by Yuvraj Singh and Aaron Finch.  It will not be remembered for the bowling of Saeed Ajmal or Paul Collingwood.  It will not be remembered for Brett Lee breaking Shane Warne’s hand with a beamer.

It will be remembered for Andrew Strauss calling Kevin Pietersen a “cunt” on air.


Saying The Wrong Thing: Paul Rupert Downton

People wonder what Yates’ beef is with Paul Rupert Downton and whether it’s personal. It isn’t personal. Even though his middle name is Rupert. Regular readers will know that any bad management and senior stupidity gets my ire. The ECB has excelled at both recently.

Yates is fundamentally opposed to Downton’s ditching of Kevin Pietersen, the bullshit reasons he’s used to justify this, his retention of David Saker and his refusal to do anything about the fast bowling coaching that ruins cricketers by interfering with talent and trying to make them fit one box.

Yates deeply resents being told that he is “outside cricket” purely for having opinions, expressing them and asking questions. Yates is nobody’s robot.

It bemuses Yates how a man who played only 30 tests, scoring 795 test runs can claim higher knowledge than one who has played over 100 tests and scored over 8000 test runs. Does working for a bank suddenly confer higher cricketing knowledge? If it does then why has Yates yet to see the Paul Downton cricket coaching manual?


Next Page »