Custom Bats Cricket Forum
General Cricket => World Cricket => England => Topic started by: edge on January 13, 2015, 07:33:32 AM
-
Cricinfo are doing a week of debate on the English T20 comp, provoked by the Big Bash success this year. They've kicked it off with this very good article by Tim Wigmore, suggesting that just because franchises have worked for the IPL/BBL it doesn't mean they'd be the right way to go here: http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/story/820095.html (http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/story/820095.html)
Personally I'm dead keen to see a better competition but slightly uncomfortable with the notion of franchises killing off half the counties, so refreshing to read some good ideas for a different way. Would absolutely love to see a two-tier English competition with some rebranding of the counties, a set period where only t20 is played and every game in the top division televised free to air. Centralise the TV/advertising revenue a la BBL so that everyone gets a share, promotion and relegation between divisons (potential for a third division for the minor counties etc, maybe even a bit of the Michael Vaughan FA cup idea and have regional club conferences giving the best amateur sides a shot at promotion to the big leagues) and suddenly county cricket sounds a lot more accessible and relevant? Start with the big city teams in the top division and go from there.
CBF, thoughts? There's been enough on this on the BBL thread that I thought it was worth its' own topic.
-
Thanks for posting this, i think there are lots of good thoughts.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the ECB did a massive survey and created the competition in its current form on the basis of the survey. So people complaining about it now are forgetting the slient masses who voted for it.
because of the geographical spread of the UK population, the City Franchise model, i do not believe is suitable in the same way it is in Aus and we cannot compare what the Indians are doing!
Edge - I like the thoughts you have raised, i think you make a number of good points.
-
Is the spread of the UK populations worse than in Aus?
-
They need to do something to change the competition to allow international superstars to play, which will encourage crowds etc.
Possible they could do instead of just Fridays, do games Friday Evening, 2 games Saturday, 2 games Sunday, Monday evening for a few weeks, to condense the competition down.
-
Is the spread of the UK populations worse than in Aus?
Says somewhere that the 8 bbl teams cover 66% of the aus population.
If uk went to ten franchises, it would only cover 22% of the population.
It does seem the argument for franchises won't work. For various reasons.
So how about.
2 leagues 9 teams. 2 up 2 down promotion.
Each team play each other once, and 2 teams twice. So ten games each. 5 home 5 away.
Play mid July to beginning of sept(school hols for kids)
A game from each division every night during the week.
Then weekends have a day game and a night game from each division(4games per day).
Tv coverage is alternated, both games live, one on terrestrial one on sky(min div 1 sky div 2 teresrrial, ties div 1 terestrial div 2 sky etc etc)
End of season div 1 finals day to decided champions- 2 semis and a final.
Div 2 winners go straight up, next 3 play round robin in 1 day to determin 2nd promotion.
Both finals days covered by sky and terrestrial TV, punter chooses which to watch.
Ensure worlds best players want to play, by encouraging sides to sign them(tv money incentives etc), and remove the current structure of having to play so many internationals in that year(brad hodge, wanted to play blast last year, but didn't qualify........means pollard and bravo won't either.....)
-
I think the regional competition is better as it is the big derby games which bring in the crowds - Roses games, Surrey vs Middlesex, etc. It also means that anyone can win - with a league structure you need to have two years of success to win (to either get or maintain your place in div 1 and then win it the following year).
suddenly it looks a load like what we have now.
-
suddenly it looks a load like what we have now.
Which either doesn't work, or we are expecting to much, and it is working. Cricket has just reached its peak in the uk.
-
The only way to get the crowds in is to get the big name players and the only way to get the big name players is a shorter tournament. Doesn't need to be franchises but there should be a three week gap in the season where only T20 games are played, one a day every night until the final. Could still have a finals day, but it would have to coincide with the end of the tournament so the big names can play.
Centralise the TV money and try and get Sky and BT to compete for it. Each team is allowed 4 overseas, no restircitons on current internationals and the ECB should release England players to play in it wherever the International schedule allows, even if it is the weekend between two tests.
-
The only way to get the crowds in is to get the big name players and the only way to get the big name players is a shorter tournament. Doesn't need to be franchises but there should be a three week gap in the season where only T20 games are played, one a day every night until the final. Could still have a finals day, but it would have to coincide with the end of the tournament so the big names can play.
Centralise the TV money and try and get Sky and BT to compete for it. Each team is allowed 4 overseas, no restircitons on current internationals and the ECB should release England players to play in it wherever the International schedule allows, even if it is the weekend between two tests.
Don't be silly!!! The ECB wouldn't use this format as it's to obvious and likely to succeed :-[. Especially if you have kids for a fiver and they get a T-shirt that they can wear. adults can also purchase one, that if wearing whilst they take a catch will get a grand. Money will roll over if no catches taken. Could also make great t.v. Viewing
>:(
-
I think the regional competition is better as it is the big derby games which bring in the crowds - Roses games, Surrey vs Middlesex, etc. It also means that anyone can win - with a league structure you need to have two years of success to win (to either get or maintain your place in div 1 and then win it the following year).
suddenly it looks a load like what we have now.
I would have said the same in Australia pre BBL. But after 4 years new rivalries are flourishing. If the target market for T20 is your 'non-traditional' cricket watcher (have a look at the people in the crowd at a BBL game... most of them wouldn't even have heard of test cricket) then the current County based model is irrelevant. I have been to 3 BBL games and thought the atmosphere and crowd were fantastic. This is key to attracting and retaining the 'non core cricket fans'. The families, groups of mates etc want to go out for the night, have some fun, see some big hits and enjoy the atmosphere.
Having been in Australia on and off for the last few years I can tell you that moving to a franchise model can work. It might be a bit strange to start with but, people will pick a team and support them... it's human nature. Rivalries will emerge, banter will begin... it is all inevitable.
In terms of timing, the competition has to be in summer and condensed in the holidays (not just to attract the best international talent for a short window - which is obviosuly important for attendances and promotion, but so that everyone can actually go) so the kids (and mum and dad - who have annual leave) can stay up for it. England has the distinct advantage of not have 40 degree summers so won't suffer from bad attendances on those scorching midweek days like Australia can.
I struggle to see how this population dispora argument stacks up. My cousins in Mildura go to every single Melbourne Stars game at the MCG... google how long that takes to drive!
Build it and they will come (Wayne's World), the UK is tiny compared to Australia. Start with 8 franchises, base them at the Oval, Lord's, Old Trafford etc give them funky names and bright coloured uniforms and let the public "see the white ball fly".
-
Franchise T20 is 100% the correct way forward.
Reduce teams from 18(I think that the number of counties), down 10. Somewhere like London could have two sides(like Melbourne and Sydney)
By having franchise style model you strip out all the rubbish/average players. Instantly increasing the level of play.
-
The weather......
-
Franchise T20 is 100% the correct way forward.
Reduce teams from 18(I think that the number of counties), down 10. Somewhere like London could have two sides(like Melbourne and Sydney)
By having franchise style model you strip out all the rubbish/average players. Instantly increasing the level of play.
I think Ldn would need a team in the east in addition to the Oval and Lords, probably the Olympic stadium. However you've got as much chance of getting this past the counties/ecb as KP has of donning an England Shirt in the WC.
-
I think it's probably as much about marketing as anything else, the image of county cricket combined with poor marketing and coverage doesn't get the game anywhere. Your average casual fan (and just as importantly, a lot of serious cricket followers) jsut aren't that interested in Gloucestershire v Hampshire, give them Bristol v Southampton with a snappy name and solid image attached to each and it could capture the imagination much more easily. Would probably annoy a few hardcore county followers but they're going to turn up anyway after all. Having read more thoughts about it and put more thought into it myself recently I don't think there's a lot to be gained from reducing the number of teams, to make the most of it it should be to make English cricket as appealing as possible, rather than try and fabricate something new.
Brand it well (BBL is a great example to follow there with the look of the tournament/teams), get some exciting coverage on TV to catch people's attention, sort the kit and team names out, create a T20 'season' in the holidays and within a few seasons the attention would be huge I'm sure.
Kits are very important I think, let's be honest most of the current county kits are dire and aren't even easily recognisable. Look at this lot below, would you be able to pick out which team was which if they were stood 150 yards on the other side of a cricket ground? The trousers are almost all practically identical at a distance before you even consider the shirts. With a potential 18 teams to worry about, away kits should be considered too. It's always amazed me the way cricket frequently has teams lining up against each other in borderline identical kits, potential new fans are going to want to be able to tell who's batting without a detailed knowledge of the game and players. What an immediate psychological turnoff if you can't recognise your team and wouldn't be seen dead wearing their shirt.
(http://www.ecb.co.uk/sites/default/files/summer-anthems.jpg)
I also think there's definitely potential in the less advertising saturated English market to create something that would really stand out and keep the classy image of cricket while bringing it into the modern sporting age, compared to the advert-heavy IPL/BBL teams.
-
I think Ldn would need a team in the east in addition to the Oval and Lords, probably the Olympic stadium. However you've got as much chance of getting this past the counties/ecb as KP has of donning an England Shirt in the WC.
Can't see London having three teams being right.
Anyway the Oval based team could easily play matches at the Oval and Olympic stadium.
-
Says somewhere that the 8 bbl teams cover 66% of the aus population.
If uk went to ten franchises, it would only cover 22% of the population.
I think this is a key fact to consider personally when debating whether a franchise system would work. Compared to Australia we have a much more dispersed population.e ki
Regarding the kits with the current system I don't think away kits are really required, it's not like that many are too similar or it's really that important in a game such as cricket where instant identification is not required by players. Gotta admit I quite like the BBL style kits though.
-
You have to choose one of two problems
18 teams to cover fans but not enough quality(and lack of international stars) means no one is watching.
8-10 teams means quality is higher in each team. But due to populations spread people may not be willing to travel to games.
10 franchise problem could be solved by said franchise playing it's home games across 2 or 3 stadiums to spread the population reach.
I me I'm from Sheffield. It's a pain and expensive to get to headingley, but if they played in Sheffield I'd go to every game possible.
-
There's definitely more than 36 international players out there! Plus not like every team has to have two megastars, that certainly isn't true in the BBL. An improvement in quality would be a good thing of course, but the IPL/BBL have shown that comes with time anyway.
Point with kit is more of an identity/marketing thing - bear in mind the only reason for coloured cricket kit in the first place was to improve fan interest! It's a small thing maybe, but it isn't a good look for two teams to be playing each other with very similar kit, or just for teams to have crap kit. Makes it harder for the fans to identify with the teams, confusion for new followers, plus heaven forbid if all the teams had awesome gear they might make a few quid in shirt sales. Genuinely a big part of why the BBL looks so good on TV I think, the kits grab you immediately.
-
Don't really expect anything to change with the old boys club at the top of the ECB. Particularly with Giles Clarke at the top:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/820585.html (http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/820585.html)
Looks like he getting rewarded for a poor ashes, and the rest of the drama of 2014.
-
18 teams will always present poor quality.
To get punters in you need high quality cricket (hence why tests against good teams sell out). And an 18 teams can't produce that.
No matter how it's dressed up, 18 team league 2 of 9 or 3 of 6. Your still gonna have counties putting out poor players.
Say every team gets 2 internationals. That leaves 162 places in starting xi's.
Does anyone seriously believe there's 162 county level cricketers in the england game currently? Because I don't.
And that's not mentioning squad players for injuries international call ups etc.
10 teams means a higher quality off player all the way down to 11, Meaning better quality games that people will pay to see.
-
18 teams will always present poor quality.
To get punters in you need high quality cricket (hence why tests against good teams sell out). And an 18 teams can't produce that.
No matter how it's dressed up, 18 team league 2 of 9 or 3 of 6. Your still gonna have counties putting out poor players.
Say every team gets 2 internationals. That leaves 162 places in starting xi's.
Does anyone seriously believe there's 162 county level cricketers in the england game currently? Because I don't.
And that's not mentioning squad players for injuries international call ups etc.
10 teams means a higher quality off player all the way down to 11, Meaning better quality games that people will pay to see.
The boy has a point. Also, Clarke is being rewarded,for,destroying the game.. Ecb will never change.
-
18 teams will always present poor quality.
To get punters in you need high quality cricket (hence why tests against good teams sell out). And an 18 teams can't produce that.
No matter how it's dressed up, 18 team league 2 of 9 or 3 of 6. Your still gonna have counties putting out poor players.
Say every team gets 2 internationals. That leaves 162 places in starting xi's.
Does anyone seriously believe there's 162 county level cricketers in the england game currently? Because I don't.
And that's not mentioning squad players for injuries international call ups etc.
10 teams means a higher quality off player all the way down to 11, Meaning better quality games that people will pay to see.
I already said this earlier in the topic...
-
Part of the problem is the counties in some cases aren't where the population is now, its just based on an old boys club from the turn of the century. The Thames valley has more wealth and people than most of the counties but with no team they see no cricket unless they trek into London. Glasgow/Edinburgh are bigger than most cities but no team. Even Sheffield is bigger than Chelmsford or Hove. Put the teams where the people are and watch the attendance's rocket. Think it doesn't happen? Aviva Premiership! Wasps have gone from 6k at Wycombe to an average of 20k at Coventry (albeit a few thousand tickets were given away to school's).
If you put 12 or 15 teams in the right place you increase quality and audience.
-
Part of the problem is the counties in some cases aren't where the population is now, its just based on an old boys club from the turn of the century. The Thames valley has more wealth and people than most of the counties but with no team they see no cricket unless they trek into London. Glasgow/Edinburgh are bigger than most cities but no team. Even Sheffield is bigger than Chelmsford or Hove. Put the teams where the people are and watch the attendance's rocket. Think it doesn't happen? Aviva Premiership! Wasps have gone from 6k at Wycombe to an average of 20k at Coventry (albeit a few thousand tickets were given away to school's).
If you put 12 or 15 teams in the right place you increase quality and audience.
Surprisingly though Chelmsford/Essex regularly receive some of the most consistant crowds and sell near the top amount of memberships per season....
-
Can't see London having three teams being right.
Anyway the Oval based team could easily play matches at the Oval and Olympic stadium.
Different ends of the city, be more likely to have the Lords based team over there.
-
Surprisingly though Chelmsford/Essex regularly receive some of the most consistant crowds and sell near the top amount of memberships per season....
Going back to Wycombe, it's easier to fill a small ground. Good atmosphere but it's not going to drive attendences up or cater for the large swathes of thr UK population who live no where near a first class ground.
-
Going back to Wycombe, it's easier to fill a small ground. Good atmosphere but it's not going to drive attendences up or cater for the large swathes of thr UK population who live no where near a first class ground.
Still one of the highest membership numbers though apparently and the ground still holds 7000, higher than average for all county games if they sell out.
-
Interesting to note by the way, Colin Graves is set to become the new ECB chairman while Clarke has apparently created a new unelected post for himself so he can represent us with the ICC, and apparently has the intention of going all the way to heading the ICC.
If I remember correctly Graves was the one who suggested extending the CC to 21 teams. If you did that now and changed it to 3 divs, that would allow more space to fit in some sort of big t20 league in our fairly limited summer in comparison to others however obviously at the expense of the FC stuff.
-
You say expense of fc stuff but a top division of 7. Should in theory supply better Quality constant cricket albeit over less games.
-
You say expense of fc stuff but a top division of 7. Should in theory supply better Quality constant cricket albeit over less games.
Yes, I meant in terms of the amount rather than the content :). Arguably though the current top division already have pretty strong lineups in general at the expense of the second division.
-
is there seriously enough talent around for 21 counties? There isn't really enough quality for the 18 we have now
-
I wouldn't see it much different than integrating the minor counties with the current ones.
-
Interesting reading here. Was chatting to a lad at work and we were trying to work out which cities \ venues you could use. Came up with 1) Lords 2) Oval 3) Hampshire 4) Taunton 5) Birmingham 6) Manchester 7) Hedingley 8) Durham 9) Trent Bridge 10)Glamorgan
If you picked those as the 'franchise' venues surely the remaining counties will grumble about a loss of income. We thought about grouping teams geographically ie South West = Somerset and Gloucester or West MIDs Worcestershire and Warwickshire etc. Games could be played at both grounds to split the revenue.
Seems whatever is picked a group of people is not going to be happy!
-
George Dobell sums up my views on cricinfo today.
phone.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/821153.html
actually I think he is now one of the best cricket journalists out there.
-
I wouldn't see it much different than integrating the minor counties with the current ones.
to me that's a no then. Seriously, the minor counties aren't very strong so that to me tells me there is not enough quality to warrant more pro's. I already think there are a fair few low quality players on the circuit.. let alone introducing more.
-
George Dobell sums up my views on cricinfo today.
phone.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/821153.html
actually I think he is now one of the best cricket journalists out there.
Thanks for the link Buzz. A really enjoyable and balanced article
-
Nice to see the ecb trying to ruin the English game more.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/county-cricket-2015/content/story/823343.html (http://www.espncricinfo.com/county-cricket-2015/content/story/823343.html)
budget restrictions on salaries of squad in an attempt to discourage overseas signings and use lesser quality domestic players instead.
Means the quality of the county game will become worse imo, and the gap between it and international wider. Making step up for new players very very difficult.
Good job ecb. Good job........
-
Nice to see the ecb trying to ruin the English game more.
[url]http://www.espncricinfo.com/county-cricket-2015/content/story/823343.html[/url] ([url]http://www.espncricinfo.com/county-cricket-2015/content/story/823343.html[/url])
budget restrictions on salaries of squad in an attempt to discourage overseas signings and use lesser quality domestic players instead.
Means the quality of the county game will become worse imo, and the gap between it and international wider. Making step up for new players very very difficult.
Good job ecb. Good job........
With you on this. Utterly stupid. In theory it sounds good but we'll just see more average joe Mickey Mouse cricketers. Who won't ever play for England and are just there making up numbers. Really bad news for the game. Decrease the numbers needed at the top and then increase the English proportion..
Nah, ecb are useless as always
-
Really is a backward step.
Instead of giving more money to counties to sign overseas players that will encourage crowds to come to games. They've decided we don't need international players. We are the EcB, we do it our way...the old boys club strikes again.
-
Really is a backward step.
Instead of giving more money to counties to sign overseas players that will encourage crowds to come to games. They've decided we don't need international players. We are the EcB, we do it our way...the old boys club strikes again.
Don't get me wrong, ideally you wouldn't pay silly money for a name BUT.. Names is what brings people out to watch.. Most I speak to from chelt who went to the chelt festival to watch glos vs Surrey.. Support neither team, they wanted to see... KP
Names sell. Add to that, Mickey mouse county cricketer won't be more 'talented' 99% of the time and will not catch those not already die hards interest.
-
People who say that county cricket is 'Mickey Mouse' are philistines.
-
People who say that county cricket is 'Mickey Mouse' are philistines.
Some of the guys who are in squads of the crap teams..barely play and are mainly there just as squad players are Mickey mouse. Seriously should be paid pros. Only the best should be paid pros playing county cricket, not some of the drivel around currently. Parental 2nd teamers etc are classic examples
-
What are peoples views on having two overseas per county team ?
-
What are peoples views on having two overseas per county team ?
T20 certainly.
OD no objection
Lvcc a little more cautious but we want the bAr raising so maybe in the short term it'd at least potentially raise the level. Trouble is, what 'stars' actually come to play Lvcc now. Not sure I count past its (barring legends like sanga, smith, ponting) as raising the bar.
Oh, a quice look found this Mickey mouse player who was contracted to Kent in 2014. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Blake_(cricketer) (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Blake_(cricketer))
Probably not paid 100k a year but still.. Money still being wasted
-
In my experience, crowds at T20 are far from knowledgeable about cricket. They are made up mostly of drunken office workers who want to see the ball hit a long way as often as possible.
-
T20 certainly.
OD no objection
Lvcc a little more cautious but we want the bAr raising so maybe in the short term it'd at least potentially raise the level. Trouble is, what 'stars' actually come to play Lvcc now. Not sure I count past its (barring legends like sanga, smith, ponting) as raising the bar.
Oh, a quice look found this Mickey mouse player who was contracted to Kent in 2014. [url]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Blake_(cricketer)[/url] ([url]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Blake_(cricketer))[/url]
Probably not paid 100k a year but still.. Money still being wasted
Yeah, what do Jimmy Adams and Rob Key know about cricket...
-
Yeah, what do Jimmy Adams and Rob Key know about cricket...
More than we do. However, it's about results.. Not producing he goods going by those stats and he's not young.
-
Yeah, what do Jimmy Adams and Rob Key know about cricket...
Doesn't matter what you know about cricket if the talent isn't there to choose from.
You need a squad of 15 players. You have 9 that are definitely county level. 2 that may make it and you've got to find 4 more.
Having knowledge on cricket isnt gonna suddenly make players of county ability appear out of thin air is it??
There isn't enough ability in this country to fill 18 1st xi's. Never mind the squads needed to replace Injured players and international call ups.
-
Just for added info, Blake averaged 50 with the bat this season in the 2nd XI championship and 36.25 in the 2nd XI T20.
-
Just for added info, Blake averaged 50 with the bat this season in the 2nd XI championship and 36.25 in the 2nd XI T20.
I think he avg'd 30 (give or take) in OD crixket. I was merely going off 1xi (as that's what counts, not 2ndxi) and Lvcc (as that's the yard stick for a player) . He just happens to be the first person I found, I'd never heard of him before. Purely based off his stats
Maybe 2nd xi isn't of high enough quality to judge ? (Actual question) I mean I face one or two of the Sommerset 2nd xi quicks as training but I'm (No Swearing Please) so they seem good.. However, even I know they won't make it.. Just not got that something.
-
County 2XI's are usually made up of players returning from injury, those on the verge of the side or only in in either the shorter/longer format and then your youth lot as far I've seen.
-
County 2XI's are usually made up of players returning from injury, those on the verge of the side or only in in either the shorter/longer format and then your youth lot as far I've seen.
That's what I assumed. So potentially they'd be better seein how they do on Saturdays if the crixket was slight more relevant and quality raised (by say having less counties for arguments sake). By relevant I mean 50-60 over win/lose/draw crixket to promote proper batting/bowlig and not just prodice limited overs players.
-
How is 2nd XI cricket only there to promote limited overs players :-[. So you're saying they shouldn't play any form of multi day cricket unless they're in the county 1st XI?
-
How is 2nd XI cricket only there to promote limited overs players :-[. So you're saying they shouldn't play any form of multi day cricket unless they're in the county 1st XI?
Did I say 2nd xi promotes limited overs players?? I think I said limited over Saturday stuff will promote that.
The but about multi day stuff is something though, but there is no point playing it if the quality isn't there. Surely makes it meaningless? Avg 50+, then got 1xi and get minced.. Seems the 2xi is a bit too easy on that one players evidence.
-
Apologies, I mistook your final comment to be referring to Second XI cricket.
Just for comparisons sake to a more experienced player, Geraint jones averaged 35 in the 2nds Championship last season (although he only played 3 games) and 22.5 in the T20s.
-
Apologies, I mistook your final comment to be referring to Second XI cricket.
Just for comparisons sake to a more experienced player, Geraint jones averaged 35 in the 2nds Championship last season (although he only played 3 games) and 22.5 in the T20s.
Nps, I had to read it again to make sure I hadnt put it down incorrectly :)
I don't doubt these guys are the 'best' counties are currently finding, I really don't. To me, it means their scouting etc isn't upto scratch or the games players are playing aren't teaching the correct mental and technique. I'm all for giving as many guys a run to see how they do, if they don't make it though, get rid. Don't keep them on the fringe when you know hey aren't good enough. If you are a county batsmen.. And 25 and you've not broken into the 1st team properly (and scored well - say 30+) then move them on. Never going to make it.
-
Any one who can add up can see there isn't money in the game to support all the 2nd XI's, youth sides and all the administration, coaches etc that come with it without the handouts from the ECB, cricket isn't football. Each county should have a 1st team squad, then take players from the leagues when needed or form dictates, scrap 2nd XI cricket (I think we've discussed this before). The ECB should then pump money into improving league cricket, grounds, practice facilities etc, which can be used by all levels within the club and local schools. The end goal would be for county teams to have less financial dependencies, a better level of league cricket, with better facilities to develop players for county cricket and for local schools to use to bring youngsters into the game. The ECB could still run u17 u19 etc youth teams for the better young league players who have broken into the county set up (through performances at club level) . The ECB would then stop feeding the bloated counties and instead feed grass roots, getting youngsters into the game and making league cricket the bedrock of our game. Other lower league clubs would also benefit with more youngsters playing the game and finding their own level of cricket.
-
Doesn't matter what you know about cricket if the talent isn't there to choose from.
You need a squad of 15 players. You have 9 that are definitely county level. 2 that may make it and you've got to find 4 more.
Having knowledge on cricket isnt gonna suddenly make players of county ability appear out of thin air is it??
There isn't enough ability in this country to fill 18 1st xi's.
What utter drivel.
-
What utter drivel.
Umm, which parts are 'utter drivel'?
-
Umm, which parts are 'utter drivel'?
All of it.
-
All of it.
Yes.
-
Umm, which parts are 'utter drivel'?
I just realized that it was you that called David Willey a 'standard county pro' in the other thread. :o
-
I just realized that it was you that called David Willey a 'standard county pro' in the other thread. :o
I didn't realise we held people who avg 26 in FC so highly?? I'd say that's pretty avg when you think that the likes of Hussey was avg'ing 50 odd etc.
-
I didn't realise we held people who avg 26 in FC so highly?? I'd say that's pretty avg when you think that the likes of Hussey was avg'ing 50 odd etc.
Gotta admit I can't quite remember the time when Hussey averaged 28 with the ball though :-[.
-
I didn't realise we held people who avg 26 in FC so highly?? I'd say that's pretty avg when you think that the likes of Hussey was avg'ing 50 odd etc.
He's a bowling all-rounder. But for injury last season I reckon he would almost certainly be at the World Cup with England.
What is this obsession with averages? Perhaps you don't actually watch much cricket?
-
Gotta admit I can't quite remember the time when Hussey averaged 28 with the ball though :-[.
I just went off the batting. Could put him up against good all rounders I suppose. I'm not looking that closely at players. Should have picked up the all rounder part. My bad fellas. Still, point stands over batting avg.
-
He's a bowling all-rounder. But for injury last season I reckon he would almost certainly be at the World Cup with England.
What is this obsession with averages? Perhaps you don't actually watch much cricket?
Umm, aren't avg's how we know the good from the bad?? Don't get many top players with crap avg's!!
-
Umm, aren't avg's how we know the good from the bad?? Don't get many top players with crap avg's!!
Averages are not a definitive guide to how good a player is.
-
Averages are not a definitive guide to how good a player is.
They are pretty good when talking about pros
-
They are pretty good when talking about pros
You've clearly never even seen the player we are talking about. :o
-
They are pretty good when talking about pros
It's a general barometer but i guess T20 is a bit hit and miss - but good players will score runs/take wickets (then of course there's Jade Dernbach 🙊).
Different cricket and era but do remember that Trescothick and Vaughan when picked for England didn't have the worlds best averages (then you can compare with Greame Hick who was the opposite).
-
It's a general barometer but i guess T20 is a bit hit and miss - but good players will score runs/take wickets (then of course there's Jade Dernbach 🙊).
Different cricket and era but do remember that Trescothick and Vaughan when picked for England didn't have the worlds best averages (then you can compare with Greame Hick who was the opposite).
I think the thread had moved on from just being about T20. The point about you've made about Trescothick and Vaughan is valid.