Rob Key

The Blame Game

dannycricket3 Comments

England have crashed out of a second ICC white ball tournament in just eight months. Whilst reaching the semi finals in this T20 World Cup looks a lot better than finishing seventh in last year’s ODI World Cup, the performance levels were around the same. England won just one out of four matches against full ICC members in this competition, and two from eight in last year’s.

It is customary after such results for heads to roll. Let’s go through the candidates:

Matthew Mott

It’s tough to see how he survives this. Since he took over, the England men’s white ball teams have a losing record overall against ICC full member teams; 12-18 in ODIs and 20-19 in T20Is. Victories against the Netherlands, Oman, Namibia and the USA help burnish his record, but England have not been very good for a while now.

At the same time, he is the least-connected person in this list to the people who could protect him. Being an Australian who spent seven years coaching women’s cricket before being hired means that he probably doesn’t have too many friends either in the English cricket media or the ECB itself. English cricket often resembles a private gentlemen’s club (which makes sense when you remember that one is the ECB’s landlord), and Mott is not a member. Director of Cricket Rob Key has specifically refused to guarantee Mott would still be England’s coach in their next white ball series, which is second only to receiving Key’s ‘full support’ in terms of suggesting Mott is as good as gone.

Jos Buttler

Buttler is most visible person in the England white ball setup, and also ultimately responsible for any decisions made on the field. He was England’s top runscorer in this competition, so there is no questioning his selection in the team, but his captaincy might well be in the balance.

The problem with making a change here would be that there are no obvious candidates in the team to replace him. The current players most likely to compete in the 2025 Champions Trophy and 2026 T20 World Cup besides Buttler are Phil Salt, Harry Brook, Reece Topley and Adil Rashid. None of them scream ‘leadership material’. Neither are there necessarily any players outside of the current squad who would justify selection for the England team based on their batting or bowling whilst having a lot of experience as captain.

Buttler’s best defence is that there are no alternatives, which doesn’t say much for English cricket.

Luke Wright

A lot has been made of England’s aging squads, with several players seeming past their prime. If the issue is selection, then it makes sense to look at England men’s head selector. The problem with that for someone like myself, someone “Outside Cricket”, is that Wright has had virtually no interviews since he took the job in 2022. Unlike some of his predecessors, who would happily tell the media every thought which went through their head (or which they stole from others), I genuinely have no idea what Wright does in his role. A Daily Mail article (so take with a pinch of salt) from 2022 even suggests that Wright’s main function is to discuss scouting data with the coaches and captains rather than necessarily selecting the squads and teams himself.

Freddie Wilde

Wilde is the lead data analyst for the England men’s white ball teams. Data analysis is an ever-increasing part of how cricket teams operate, both in terms of selection and in-game tactics. Senior people within the ECB appear to place great weight on the importance of data, particularly with regards to ball tracking, and so Wilde’s work can have a significant impact on the team.

I am highly sceptical of the way ‘data’ is used in cricket, and despair at the way in which it is presented as incontrovertible science rather than a highly subjective and limited tool. There is very little overlap between people who run cricket teams (or broadcasters) and people with a strong maths background, and so claims from people with a laptop claiming that they have a programme which has ‘solved cricket’ are not questioned as much as they should be.

If Matthew Mott is the least well-connected person on this list, then Wilde has a claim to being the most. The son of a cricket correspondent, he has held a wide array of jobs across the English cricket media before spending a few years at CricViz and then the ECB. It is highly unlikely that any criticism of him or his role would be picked up in the English press. Several analysts and journalists have already defended Freddie Wilde tangentially, saying that tactical ‘mistakes’ from England (Not picking enough spinners or left-handed batters) proves that the data must have been ignored and replaced by the neolithic gut instincts of the England coaches and captain.

This would be very out of character within the ECB. Ball tracking has been rolled out across county cricket specifically to gather more data to aid with selection, leading to players like Shoaib Bashir being selected not on the basis of bowling average or economy but more esoteric measures such as release height. The England women’s teams are using ‘AI’ simulations to pick their teams. English cricket as a whole seems all-in on doing what a computer tells them, and so it seems unlikely that they would be consistently going against their lead analyst’s guidance.

Ed Barney

Ed Barney is the England Men’s Performance Director, essentially responsible for preparing current and future England players at the Loughborough training facility.

I am not a fan of the ECB’s facility at Loughborough or their approach in previous years. There is a long list of promising bowlers who were sent there for remedial training to make them quicker or less prone to injury who came out in a lot worse condition than they went in. That said, I’m going to give Barney a pass on this one seeing as he was only hired in March. His predecessor, Mo Bobat, has taken a job at Derby County (the football club) to work in a ‘sports intelligence’ unit alongside former England cricketer/selector Ed Smith.

Rob Key

The big cheese. The head honcho. The person who hired or appointed every other person in this post.

Key did a half-hour interview on Sky Sports after England crashed out of the ODI WOrld Cup last year in which he said:

“The white ball sides, actually, just needed to keep on going. Just evolve. Just keep on moving forward. And the reason we’ve done that, I don’t think is Matthew Mott and Jos Buttler’s fault. […] We’ve had some honest conversations about how we can all improve but I have myself accountable more than them. Every single time that we’ve had discussions about the team, whether it’s been Test team or fifty-over team or T20 team, I’ve always said to them (and they haven’t complained once) “I’m sorry, you’re not getting your best team here, now”. When it goes right the way back to after the World T20, when we played the fifty-over series against Australia. “Like, sorry. All your best players are going to the Test team in Pakistan”. The same when the Test team were in New Zealand and we were in Bangladesh. The last series, really, in these conditions. I was the one who said “You’re not having your best team here. I’m very sorry, you’re going to have to make do”, to the point where people returning down that tour (You had people like David Willey, James Vince) all these not wanting to go on that trip.

So actually, it’s very hard for me now, the first time it all goes wrong to turn around and say “By the way, that’s all your fault”. You know, I’m accountable for that as much as they are. Sorry, more than they are.

And their job is to work out how they can then get this thing back on track and start moving it forward. I’m watching India play and miss in their own conditions, as you know it’s been a benefit to be the country playing the World Cup in their country, but India… You look on paper, they look a better side than us at the moment. So we’ve got to get past them again. So the next time round, the Champions Trophy then into the next World Cup, we’re the ones that everyone’s trying to catch up. And I believe they can.”

If someone says that they are more accountable than the people everyone expects to get fired, should they not also be fired? Of course, executives and directors will often talk about personal responsibility in public whilst firing all of their underlings in private. We know how this game is played.

It bears saying that the excerpt above seemingly makes clear that Key would override the coaches and captains regarding selection, at the very least in terms of balancing the needs of red and white ball priorities. If you consider poor selection as an issue for the white ball teams, particularly the reliance on underperforming veterans rather than trusting the younger players coming through, then who outside those selection meetings could say who supported or opposed those picks? If Key is the most powerful person in that room, the final arbiter, then it would seem unfair to blame Mott or Wright for selecting cricketers who seem past their best.

Key’s image in the media is still that of a genius. He’s obviously a good communicator, honed through his years as a commentator, and he is widely credited for bringing Bazball cricket to the Test team. On the other hand, the England men’s teams have a losing record in all three formats over the last eighteen months and have just crashed out of two successive World Cups where they lost against 75% of the full ICC members they faced. If he wasn’t as popular as he is across the English cricket establishment, both within the ECB and the English cricket press, he would probably already be gone.

This level of protection from English journalists is rare, and not without limit. If England lose in Australia this winter, typically the graveyard of English coaches and directors of cricket, it seems unlikely he will survive.

No One

Apart from anything else, firing Matthew Mott and hiring a new coach will cost a lot of money. Money which the ECB doesn’t really want to spend. He is halfway through a four-year contract. There may well be a sentiment within the ECB that it is worth letting everyone involved see their contracts through regardless of results on the field. English cricket is increasingly run as a business which prioritises money rather than either a sports team or a governing body, so this wouldn’t necessarily be a surprise.

There is also the typical executive avoidance of admitting a mistake. If Rob Key was the person who hired everyone in this post, it was Richards Gould and Thompson who hired Key and signed off on everyone else. If these people collectively failed in their jobs, it could be argued that that it is those at the very top who are truly culpable. In many ways, it seems better for everyone if they just ignore the results and keep everyone in place for another two years.

After all, it’s only T20. No one really cares about that in England anyway.

Thanks for reading. If you have any comments, please leave them below.

Do You Have To Be Rich To Play Cricket?

dannycricket18 Comments

“Cricket is the most elitist sport in Britain” – The introduction to Freddie Flintoff’s Field Of Dreams

Flintoff’s programme on BBC One has prompted many questions and articles about whether one of the the show’s central premises, that working class children have virtually no chance of playing for England, was accurate.

I wrote a post here in 2017 which showed that 62.6% of Test appearances in the previous ten years were by players who had attended fee-paying schools, and this increased to an incredible 93.6% of appearances by batters and wicketkeepers. Of the 27 batters to play for England in that time, the only ones who attended exclusively secondary or grammar schools were Tim Ambrose, Michael Carberry, Adam Lyth, Owais Shah, Mark Stoneman, Michael Vaughan and Tom Westley.

When Michael Carberry (All Saints Catholic School, secondary) was abandoned as England opener after a single Ashes tour, despite outscoring Alastair Cook (Bedford School with a music scholarship, £21,945 per year), it is not unreasonable to think that a player who fit the archetype of an English batter (“Well spoken”, “articulate”, “sporting”, etc.) might have been given more chances by England’s chief selector James Whitaker (Uppingham School, £26,406 per year). That unconscious preference for players with similar backgrounds to themselves might well have continued with Ed Smith (Tonbridge School, £35,067 per year) and James Taylor (Shrewsbury School, £27,930 per year).

As easy (and fun) as it to blame the ECB and its’ selectors for a class bias, the simple truth is that there are very few state-schooled batters anywhere close to England contention in county cricket. That isn’t to say that there aren’t biases to be found in selection, but the real problems begin much, much earlier in the professional pathway.

Wealth confers an advantage in terms of playing professional cricket almost from birth. Purely in terms of forming an interest and love of watching the sport, a Sky Sports subscription (£407.88 per year on Now TV) is virtually essential. One noticeable theme from Freddie Flintoff’s Field Of Dreams was how few children in Preston failed to recognise Flintoff, but were also unable to even name any current England cricketers. Learning to play the game has similar barriers, where many public schools have full grass cricket pitches, former county cricketers as coaches and several hours of sport available every week whilst comprehensives are mostly limited to an hour or two of play with plastic bats and balls (if any cricket at all).

Children typically enter the county system between the ages of 10 and 14. By this point, the kids from wealthy families will have already received a significantly greater volume and quality of cricket coaching compared to their state-schooled competitors. This gives them a huge advantage at any county trials, an advantage which can be extended further through building relationships with the county coaches either via their school or expensive one-on-one coaching sessions.

Meanwhile, children without wealthy parents face a slew of obstacles before even reaching the county sessions. Public schools are significantly more likely to be visited by county scouts than an inner-city cricket club, for a start. This is doubly true for any club which is unable to enter the main ECB-affiliated leagues due to a lack of facilities or failing to gain the acceptance of the existing teams, regardless of how well they perform on the field. Most kids are limited to a couple of hours in the nets plus a single game every week, make do with cheap kit from a discount retailer, and rely on parents (often not theirs) for transport to away matches. All of this keeps a vast number of talented youngsters from even making it to the county trials, which are usually held in a different city or town to where they live anyway.

Those who do make it to the trials soon find that that being a part of the county age group squad is a very expensive business. At most counties, parents are expected to pay for a complete branded county kit, bats and other equipment, and also coaching. They are also strongly encouraged to shell out for expensive remedial one-on-one coaching for any flaws detected in training sessions, and sometimes even tours to foreign countries. Matt Prior (Brighton College with a sports scholarship, £20,490 per year) tweeted a few months ago that the cost for his two children in the Sussex CCC county set up was over £1,000 each.

This high cost invalidates the idea that public school scholarships act as some kind of social leveller which means that the statistics showing the dominance of privately-educated cricketers is unrepresentative. The most commonly used example is Joe Root (Worksop College with a sports scholarship, £14,199 per year). What people overlook is that Root joined the Yorkshire CCC youth system at the age of 11, and it wasn’t until he was 15 that he was offered his scholarship. This is the case with virtually all such scholarships; They are typically only offered after a child excels in the county youth teams and is virtually assured of a professional contract. If a family can’t even afford to attend the county’s training sessions, there is absolutely no chance that they will receive an all expenses paid golden ticket to an independent school.

Counties claim that they have little choice but to charge parents. Sussex CCC’s chief executive, Rob Andrew (Barnard Castle School, £15,498 per year), said:

“We all want the game to be as accessible as it can be. We all try to keep the costs reasonable. Where there is genuine hardship, we offer bursaries. We have genuine applications every year. The key thing for me is that in the end there is a significant cost to the counties to run these programmes. In an ideal world, we would offer all this coaching for free. But how do I pay for it? It would cost the club £250,000. We can’t afford to do that. Maybe some of the bigger counties have more resource, but we have to cut our cloth accordingly. If we’re forced to make it free, my fear is that the pathway programmes will get slashed.”

This begs the question: How much are Sussex CCC’s “pathway programmes” costing them now? The surprising answer is that, according to their own 2021 accounts, they are actually making a £17,000 profit from them (£499,000 income minus £482,000 expenses). Far from being a burden, or an investment necessary to improve the quality of the team, Sussex CCC seem to regard their age group squads and academies as a source of revenue to help fund other aspects of the club (such as, for example, their chief executive’s wages).

To put this figure of £499,000 in perspective: Sussex CCC’s combined ticket and membership sales in 2021 totalled £530,000. That season admittedly had reduced attendances due to COVID-19 (whilst the 2022 season has had reduced attendances due to the new scheduling), but even in 2019 they only managed to accrue £953,000 from people actually watching them play.

Squeezing parents for every penny they can is good business, but no way to run a cricket club. It is surprising to many outside observers that there are any costs to the parents at all. After all, why would a team exclude vast swathes of people without £1,000+ in their pockets when they are scouring their region for the best cricketers in their region? One reason is a total lack of consequences. Whether Sussex CCC develop all 11 England players or not, whether they use homegrown players or not, whether they gain promotion to Division 1 or not, the amount of revenue they receive is virtually unchanged. So why try?

This is a very different scenario to football, where the rewards for unearthing a star player are so lucrative (either through transfer fees or promotion) that clubs will bend over backwards to ensure any talented youngster signs for them. The idea of charging kids for this, potentially losing millions of pounds by allowing someone to be poached by a rival team, is anathema.

Sussex CCC could easily find ways to reduce expenses if they chose (or were forced) to not treat talented kids like a cash machine. They could just not have a uniform at all and have everyone play in their club/school whites for example. They could use their contracted players to help out in sessions rather than having so many dedicated coaches. It’s even possible to argue that children with access to professional-level cricket coaching and facilities at their (very expensive) schools don’t need to receive any coaching from the counties at all.

If we take the Sussex CCC chief executive’s estimate that completely free youth academies would cost them £250,000, then the total cost for all county cricket might be approximately £4,500,000 (18 x £250,000). The ECB’s Director Of Men’s Cricket, Rob Key (Colfe’s School, £19,125 per year), has proposed that profits from The Hundred should be used to fund age group county cricket in order not to “price half the people out of the market”. This is an interesting suggestion for a number of reasons: The first is that it is the contention of the ECB that The Hundred is already making a profit of roughly £11,000,000 every year. In that sense, the money is already available for this purpose. It has also been reported that the total budget for in-ground entertainment at The Hundred (fireworks, dancers, bands, etc) is over £6,000,000 per year. It is certainly worth questioning whether that is the best use of the ECB’s money.

This does nothing to absolve the counties of any blame, of course. Each county has received an extra £1,300,000 in annual funding from the ECB in exchange for their support of The Hundred, some of which could easily cover free youth coaching. Every club had a choice on what to spend that money on, and almost all of them have chosen not to spend it on their youth programmes.

The former ECB chief executive, Tom Harrison (Oundle School, £27,075 per year), certainly never took any steps to address these issues. Even when it was raised as a potentially racist policy which had the effect of preventing British Asians from becoming professional cricketers, it was just Yorkshire CCC rather than the ECB which acted. It remains to be seen whether the interim chief exectutive, Clair Connor (Brighton College, £20,490 per year), or whoever takes the role next will fare any better.

So to answer the question in the title: Perhaps you don’t have to be ‘rich’ to play county cricket, but you certainly won’t make it if you’re poor.

Any comments or questions about the post, any of the cricket being played, or anything else, leave them below.

Magic Roundabout

thelegglance9 Comments

Here we are again, the start of an international summer, a first Test in the offing, and cricket in England continues to go round in circles with the same issues, same arguments, and fundamentally, the same tone deafness concerning how those crazy, unimportant people who love the game think – and including those who might fundamentally disagree with every word we ever write by the way. Just because some of what they believe happens, isn’t because they’re being listened to. So let’s have a little look through some of the current debating points – even the ones we’ve all talked about a hundred times before:

Ticket prices

It’s not new, and it is a Lord’s thing particularly. Sure, the Oval isn’t cheap, London prices are a thing after all, but Lords is a lot more across the board, and since they have two Tests a year, they deserve all the stick they’re getting. But it’s been this way for a while now, and it’s far from the first time people have complained about it. There is something of a difference in that tickets are still available, but it’s not going to be half empty as some have suggested. 20,000 unsold tickets over 4 days does not equate to that in any way.

Nonetheless, there’s now a fairly substantial group who refuse to go to Lord’s because of the cost, even among those who can afford it. It doesn’t matter to the MCC or ECB at all as long as they’re replaced by others who will, though their argument that the Jubilee holiday has made it harder to sell tickets compared to what would otherwise be a normal work day is a bit peculiar. Sure, there are plenty of options, but people are off work, that increases the potential pool, not reduces it. Arguing that people don’t want to choose the cricket over other things isn’t the killer argument they think it is.

The difference in cost between somewhere like Lord’s and Headingley or Edgbaston is always what grates – though it’s far from unusual across other sports too. The difference in season ticket price between Arsenal and Manchester City is quite astonishing, reflecting local demographics and disposable income differences. But that it prices people out of the market is beyond doubt, while that there are so many who have benefitted hugely from cricket’s largesse bemoaning the cost while continuing to rake in the income and never having to buy a ticket also grates. It’s similar to those who get in for free criticising the Barmy Army – they rub quite a lot of people the wrong way, sure, but they pay their way, which is more than many of their critics do. But let’s put it this way – a family could go to Headingley for a Test from the south, book a hotel, and still save a fair old wodge compared to going to Lord’s. That’s not a great position for cricket to find itself in.

Injured Bowlers

I’m not a sports scientist, I’m not a physiotherapist – on the subject of conditioning and biomechanics, what I know could be written on a postage stamp and still have room for franking. So nope, I don’t have solutions, nor do I have meaningful criticisms about what has gone wrong. But after several years of this, it’s not unreasonable to wonder what on earth they’re up to at the ECB and how come they keep breaking them.

Broad and Anderson

It might be their last summer. At this point, you never know if it might be their last Test. And if so many bowlers weren’t in the garage with the mechanics tutting and sucking their teeth, they might not be playing in this one either. But they deserved to be treated better at least in terms of the communication prior to the tour of the West Indies, and the recent comments from Rob Key about wanting to pick the best team were welcome: If the view is that Broad and Anderson (or indeed anyone else) aren’t part of the best team, there is no problem not selecting them, because that’s a judgment call everyone can argue about. The mire England managed to get themselves into far too often over recent years was in ignoring this basic premise and trying to be clever. The critical point is and always has been that if this is not the guiding principle, you’ll never pick your best side, because there will always be other issues butting in. It goes back a long way, and many will recall the infamous quote asking what Graham Thorpe brought to the England side apart from runs. Speaking of whom, every cricket fan has him in their thoughts.

Absent Friends.

We’ve lost a few of the most precious cricket characters over the winter. What is there to say? It’s dreadful. I will miss Shane Warne’s combination of banality and insight on commentary – I don’t mean that in any way flippantly, he was a magnificent cricketing icon and an infuriating commentator who we all deeply treasured and rather loved. Damn.

New Broom

Rob Key is installed as the Managing Director, while Brendon McCullum is the head coach. What even makes a good managing director when it comes to England cricket? The direction of travel in the organisation comes from the board and the Chief Executive, the much loved Tom Harrison, for whom there will be rending of clothes and wailing from the masses as he steps down having completed his reign of terror over English cricket. The Managing Director – of men’s cricket only, note – can then only work with what he’s given. Take Ashley Giles doing that job. It coincided with England being generally inept, which is rarely a good look, but what did he specifically do wrong? That’s not a defence of him, it’s to say that from beyond the boundary it is difficult, if not impossible to have a good insight into how one individual is performing in the structure and where the fault lines lie.

This is particularly true given the hand dealt. The Hundred, Harrison’s ugly baby, is not the reason for England’s woeful Test run, but it is the culmination of decision making that is behind the decline of England’s Test team. A symptom, not a cause. Key wasn’t about to get the job by stating at interview that the Hundred was an abomination, even if he did secretly think that was the case, and in his role he has to work with the structure as is, not as he might wish it to be. Where the ECB go with Harrison’s replacement, now that’s where it gets interesting.

Suggesting a reduction of first class fixtures from 14 to 10 per season, as he did in a podcast yesterday, has to be seen in the light of the shambles of a schedule across the season and the need to fit in the Hundred and the Blast. What it does say, is that where that pressure is most keenly felt, it is red ball cricket that must give way. That’s not new and it’s not news, it’s how the ECB have operated for a decade or more, salami slicing the foundation of the Test team and presuming it won’t have an impact.

Now, fewer red ball matches don’t in themselves have to have a negative effect on the production of Test cricketers, it may even improve it. The problem is the same one that has been there for a while, that there’s no sense of strategy behind it, it’s simply cutting back where they feel they can.

And herein lies a general matter that we are all guilty of not doing at times – that is listening and trying to understand what the thinking is. Take Kevin Pietersen’s push for franchise cricket in the red ball game. I have a lot of doubts about that, including but not limited to that no one will remotely care about the outcome of any of the games, which is an important sporting requirement, and not just for the county cricket supporters. But it’s an idea worth considering, even if that consideration leads to disagreement. But the kicker there is that it’s extremely hard to understand the logic of why such a system would improve the standards of red ball cricket – it seems merely assertion. And so it is with Key’s comments about reducing the number of Championship games. Plenty will oppose that for very good reason from their perspective – fewer matches to watch or play in. A legitimate objection. But if there is a rational plan as to why this would raise standards, it’s ok to be open to that. It’s just that it’s a bit hard to see what that rationale is. And that’s why people who have been repeatedly whacked over the head by a board that doesn’t seem to care about the actual game of cricket are suspicious and angry. Who can blame them? As one former ECB Managing Director said, it’s all a matter of trust. Rob Key is by all accounts a genuinely decent, intelligent and thoughtful man (our only interaction with him was that he thought our cruel entry about him in the Outside Cricket List was funny, so we’ll love him for that). But he won’t be at all surprised that now he’s stepped into the role, that lack of trust now applies to him. He can earn it though, and that’s interesting thing to watch.

As for Brendon McCullum, not a clue. He might be great you know. Or not. Or he might be unable to make a silk purse from a sow’s ear, which seems more likely. To me, the role of the coach always seems somewhat overblown anyway. Your mileage may vary.

New team, new captain

It occurs to me that when Root was captain, the There Is No Alternative argument always ignored that Stokes was the alternative. Now Stokes is captain there really is no alternative, and for the same reason that it was problematic when Root was captain, namely that no one else is sure of their place. He might be good at it, there’s no certain rule that an all rounder can’t do the job, and maybe he won’t bowl people into the ground which in itself would be a welcome development. Ultimately, captaincy candidates become apparent amongst those who play regularly and have a degree of certainty about their place. If we go back to the team of a decade ago, an argument could be made for about 8 or 9 people to be captain, not because they’d be good at it necessarily, but because they were a fixture in the side. Until the current merry go round of selection changes and there is a settled team – and that needs them to be good enough – this is how it will be.

Cricket Clubs

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence this year that clubs are struggling to fill sides and have players available. This may be indicative of the wider problems afflicting cricket popularity that has been talked about for several years. Or maybe it’s specific for other reasons. None of it suggests a game in rude health, all of it has been flagged for quite some time as a concern. Perhaps the most concerning is that women’s teams have been reporting similar, and since the rise of female participation has been the one bright spot in an otherwise depressing landscape, that’s not good at all.

Everyone ready? Play

We do have a Test match in the morning to watch and listen to. For all the issues in the sport, things do feel slightly better when the international English summer begins. The mess of the India Test will be something to pick up when we get closer to the time, but New Zealand do at least have three Tests this time around, and feel slightly less of an afterthought, so it’s good to have the World Test Champions here first up. Shall we enjoy the next few days and see how it goes?