Among the papers for next week’s general meeting of the KNCB is a new Beleidsnota (policy document), covering the period 2010-2014. Under the bilingual title ‘Cricket is Top’, the new document sets out the Bond’s aspirations for the coming quinquennium.

Such statements are, inevitably, longer on ambition than they are on concrete proposals – those are more naturally expressed in the Action Plan, the first version of which was published last year – and tend to contain more apple pie than beef. This one’s no exception, although it doesn’t follow from this that it is devoid of key insights and declarations.

It is also, in some respects, very peculiar. It’s dated 11-2009, which suggests that it dates back to the period before Richard Cox took over as CEO, and there are several places where it seems not to have been updated to take account of recent developments. It is, moreover, very obviously a draft, to the extent that one can’t help wondering whether the wrong version has been issued: it still contains a series of drafting notes, addressed to the Bond’s office manager, Alex de la Mar. [Note: This version has now been removed from the KNCB website!]

The obvious problem with the document’s title is, of course, that it’s not really true, except in the very general sense that cricket-lovers are totally dedicated to the game. As the authors acknowledge, cricket is very definitely not ‘top’ in The Netherlands, and any set of policies is bound to be judged on the extent to which they grapple convincingly with that fact and set out to give the sport a higher profile.

There is also an explicit acknowledgement that the present cultural climate is not very conducive to team sports, and to minority sports like cricket in particular, although the authors also claim more than once that ‘a large latent interest in cricket exists in The Netherlands’. This may be the case, but then one would have to admit that the KNCB has been signally unsuccessful in tapping into it: the embarrassingly empty stands the last time the Dutch entertained a Full member – Sri Lanka in 2006 – surely illustrates that point.

It is, moreover, difficult to go along with the claim that ‘the attention given to cricket by the media is relatively large in proportion to the size of the sport’. With very rare exceptions, such as just before last year’s Twenty20 match against England at Lord’s, the print media do no more than give a couple of paragraphs to the game, and it is almost completely absent from television and radio.

Building up the overall playing numbers is, quite rightly, identified as one of the top priorities for the next five years, with a target of an increase of around 20% to 6000 active players. But the question is how this is to be achieved, and the document offers few concrete proposals.

It’s absolutely right to say that the existing clubs must have a key role in any significant expansion, supported by the efforts of the Bond’s central organisation and the Development Officer in particular. There’s already a little evidence that these efforts are beginning to bear modest fruit, but it’s all the more remarkable that the document contains not a single reference in its 23 pages to the proposed Club Charter scheme, which has enormous potential to encourage and reward clubs for their promotion and development of the sport.

In other respects as well the discussion seems disturbingly out of touch with the real situation. Can one really go along with the claim that ‘over recent years youth cricket has made good progress, both in performance and in organisation’? Is that really consistent with a reality in which Dutch boys’ teams did not win one of the 22 European youth tournaments they have competed in since 2004, managed second place just five times, and with the advent of Jersey and Guernsey to Division 1 tournaments are in danger of slipping even further down the pecking order?

To be fair, the sections on youth cricket do contain some useful ideas for the future, and the reinstitution of a Youth Committee – something else which doesn’t make it into the document – should help to produce some much-needed changes. But the overall tone of these passages suggests a complacency which simply isn’t warranted by the facts.

One of the more important elements is the discussion of professionalisation at national level, on which the authors adopt a notably cautious approach. Once again, though, the problem of time-lag arises: between the time the document was apparently drafted and its publication, the long-running saga of players’ contracts was completed, but there is no recognition of this fact.

What the document does do is formulate a stark choice: ‘between giving up our position among the best “non-Test-playing” countries in the world and further professionalisation . . . a sharper choice in future regarding professionalisation will probably be necessary, but it will be dependent on developments elsewhere in the world of cricket.’

This issue is not unrelated to that of selection policy, on which it is stated that ‘The KNCB supports the policy [of allowing ‘deemed nationals’ to play for their adopted country] but is somewhat cautious in stimulating the phenomenon of “cricket tourists”.’ That’s been brought all the more sharply into focus by the letter KNCB chairman Marc Asselbergs sent to Topklasse club chairmen this week, distancing the Board from High Performance adviser Jeroen Smits’ initiative in attracting Tom Cooper and Derek de Boorder into Dutch cricket.

All in all, the Beleidsnota seems more reflective of the KNCB’s thinking as it was six months ago than it is of where we are now. As a blueprint for the next five years, one can only describe it as very, very disappointing. There are the seeds of some interesting policies in it, but it would take a good deal of vigorous cultivation to turn them into a flourishing plant.