What's wrong with Australian cricket?

Cricket is an aristocratic sport - in its origins at least. Games played over 3, 4 or 5 days. Who else had the time to watch or sponsor such events? Could you give up 3 or 4 days down pit to wield the willow or leave the fields and beasts to themselves while you spent a couple of days pursuing your love?

An aristocratic sport - played by Gentlemen and Players (professionals who were saved from the aforementioned wage slaveries and who the upper class needed to make up the numbers and bowl fast).

Australian cricket has retained this aristocratic character. With a few exceptions the most prominent cricket administrators and even most of the players have lined up with aristocratic interests - witness the nomination of former conservative Prime Minister John Howard as ICC Vice President.

Yes we have adopted the T20 but it is seen simply as a money earner to support the "true" game - Test cricket, where we can all book tables and have a lovely lunch while the players play the game.

Australian cricket administration retains the anglo-saxon conservative conservative approach. Few prominent cricketers are of other than these origins. Usman Khwaja is the first muslim to play for Australia. There are parallel leagues in some states made up of cricketers of other ethnic origins that dont feed into the official "Aussie" system.

We need a Labor politician to be given the job to take over the game and democratise it - throwing out the private school tie, the business connections and the Liberal party flavour. I nominate Paul Keating for the job. I dont know that he likes the game much but that is who we need to develop a system and approach that represents our modern society.

We dont need State administrations - centralise it and bring all cricket under the one governance structure.

I trust this submission will receive great support from the official review.