For cricket fans, the ICC has long been a source of confusion and frustration. Decisions have been made which are clearly not in the interests of the game, but criticising the ICC is neither fair nor correct because it's the individual boards who are at fault.

For this reason it's possible to have a certain amount of sympathy for Haroon Lorgat, despite his tendency for slippery responses that don't adequately answer the questions. Clearly the years of being the face of decisions he doesn't agree with have taken their toll, because Lorgat has been at the forefront of the Woolf Review. Should it be implemented, then the ICC CEO will have left a real legacy.

Of course turkeys do not vote for Christmas and so it remains to be seen whether his recommendations, which are outlined in a report spanning 60 pages, will be accepted by the 10 Full Members who currently run the game. Although it does not attack any particular board or individual, the report certainly makes no bones about the current situation, starting from the introduction:

'Cricket is a great game,' it begins. 'It deserves to have governance, including management and ethics, worthy of the sport. This is not the position at the present time.'

It doesn't take long to identify the fact that the current board will need to go against their natural instincts if cricket's governing body is going to evolve into an organisation that has the game's interests at heart.

'[The changes] will require leadership and forward thinking on the part of Members who will be adversely affected to ensure the growth of the game. In some cases, individual expectations may be damaged ... It is essential that those adversely affected accept that the changes are being made in the interests of the future of cricket as a whole.'

The most obvious point that the report makes is that since its creation, the purpose of the ICC has evolved from being a club of Full Members to the guardian of the global game. Clearly this necessitates some changes so that the ICC becomes an autonomous governing body - albeit still driven by its members.

The Woolf report says that 'currently the ICC reacts as though it is primarily a Members club; its interest in enhancing the global development of the game is secondary.'

To change this, it offers the following solutions:

Full Membership

'Membership classes should be simplified and divided into two categories. A Full Member class should be retained. The Associate and Affiliate Member categories should be combined into one class of Associate Member.'

'Mandatory Test playing status should not be a requirement of Full Member status. The Full Member class should include Test playing Members together with other high-performing (but not Test playing) Member.'

The report 'encourages' the board to add two new members as 'a priority', which would likely open the door to Ireland and one other Associate Member.

This would open up a more even distribution of funds, and in turn give other nations a better opportunity to develop.

At the same time, it advises that a set of rules be put in place - and properly policed - to ensure that Full Members continue to deserve their status. The experience with Zimbabwe has clearly had an impact.

Voting

Of all the issues, this is undoubtedly the most important since the quantity and identity of voting members on the ICC executive board effectively determines the game's direction.

Until now, the board has comprised the heads of all Full Member nations, three representatives from the Associates and Affiliates and the ICC's president, vice-president and chief executive.

Currently, Full Member nations and the 35 Associates have one vote each, while the 60 Affiliates are split into groups of twelve, each with a single collective vote. In order to change the ICC Constitution, the support of eight Full Members and 38 out of 50 of the full council is required.

The report proposes a 'one Member, one vote' policy, and suggets the following model for the board as an ideal situation going forward:

'A streamlined new Board should comprise an independent Chairman, four Directors representing the Full Members, two Directors representing the Associate Members, three Independent Directors, two Independent Directors representing the wider game, together with the President and Chief Executive in attendance.'

The President and Chief Executive would not have voting powers, but the introduction of five independent directors - three from within the game and two from outside - would water down the power of the bigger members and, in theory, ensure that decisions are made for the good of the game.

Ethics

Match-fixing has caught the headlines but corruption in cricket goes much deeper than that, as the report highlights:

'Off-field activities include conflicts of interest, government intervention, gifts and hospitality, inappropriate behaviours, abuse of power, fraud, bribery and other unethical conduct.'

It's the conflicts of interest that arguably hurt cricket the most. The report recommends a more stringent policy on declaration of gifts - which until now has been vague in the extreme - and more importantly proposes that ICC directors should not hold any leadership or executive post with their home boards. This would mean that N Srinivasan could not be an ICC director and president of the Indian board, as he is now.

For the sake of clarity, the report also suggests that each country nominate an individual for ICC Director for a three-year term (with a maximum of two terms), to avoid the current situation where a Director's term could last anything from one month to over 10 years.

Also noted is the current propensity for Members to cut deals amongst each other.

'ICC Directors should neither seek to place undue influence on other Members, nor allow themselves to be influenced inappropriately by other Members to support the interests of individual Member,' the report says.