Custom Bats Cricket Forum
General Cricket => World Cricket => England => Topic started by: uknsaunders on February 25, 2015, 10:55:10 AM
-
Cricinfo going mad with English cricket ideas and changes:-
http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/story/838533.html (http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/story/838533.html)
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/838489.html (http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/838489.html)
Looks like Graves has wasted no time in bringing the game into the 21st century. He's done some good work at Yorkshire and now hopefully the ECB. Better than that waste of space Clarke.
4 Day tests is interesting. I could see it working and being a commercial success in many parts of the world, if the overs for the 5th Day were spread amongst the other 4 days. That's 22 more overs roughly or an evening session under floodlights maybe? Could be very good for the game as all teams would have to play 5 bowlers and possibly an allrounder, re-dressing recent history of having 7 batsman. More collaspes, more spin and better bang for your buck as a spectator.
-
thinking further on 4 day tests, could also make some interesting early starts and give the new ball a bit more bite for the bowlers. I think somewhere they discussed 110 overs a day, which makes sense and would mean 3 * 2.5 hour sessions instead of 3 * 2 hour sessions. Start 10pm - 12.30, 1.10 to 3.40 and then 4 to 6.30pm. Not sure how it would work overseas with less twilight than the UK. Might also mean the end of back to back tests and some sensible rest periods between tests.
-
Looks like KPs tweets are working ;)
-
Just to make my position clear - if you lengthen the days then you increase the strain on players, reduce the opportunity to see genuine fast bowling and increase the risk of injuries. And that is just a start.
Plus as a spectator 90 overs is already a long day.
I think my view on that is pretty clear.
And don't start me on the ridiculous concept of franchise cricket - this is bonkers.
-
It won't happen - not because its a daft idea, but because it'd mean fewer tickets to sell, and fewer days of TV coverage.
-
It won't happen - not because its a daft idea, but because it'd mean fewer tickets to sell, and fewer days of TV coverage.
Why fail to sell out 4 days worth of seats when you can fail to sell out 5 days worth instead, eh?
-
Just to make my position clear - if you lengthen the days then you increase the strain on players, reduce the opportunity to see genuine fast bowling and increase the risk of injuries. And that is just a start.
Plus as a spectator 90 overs is already a long day.
I think my view on that is pretty clear.
And don't start me on the ridiculous concept of franchise cricket - this is bonkers.
Totally agree on the increase in overs but no more strain than playing a test 2 days later, or actually playing 5 proper bowlers instead of flogging the opening bowler for 20 overs+ in a day. How often has Steyn/Anderson/Broad done that currently? Most current test teams play 4 bowlers because they want the batting and think they can get away with it, not because they care about workload. The workload wouldn't change over a test either. Whereas today if a team bats to tea on day 2, it's around 140-150 overs, in a 4 day test it's lunchtime Day 2. Bowlers are in the field for the same amount of time no matter what.
How often has the spectactor been short changed with 80-85 over days in recent years? Or had to pay a huge amount of money for a shortened days cricket? Don't think anybody apart from you would be upset at watching more cricket!
Not sure on franchise cricket but 18 counties is too much, not enough quality.
-
Why fail to sell out 4 days worth of seats when you can fail to sell out 5 days worth instead, eh?
I don't know test match economics but I guess selling days 4 & 5 are difficult to sell as it stands, from a ticket and corporate hospitality point of view. You might make more money by having one less day and having increased ticket sales because Joe public thinks the game will go to the 4th day.
-
It won't happen - not because its a daft idea, but because it'd mean fewer tickets to sell, and fewer days of TV coverage.
might mean more ticket sales with increased certainty of play, as per my point above. TV Coverage for the same number of overs? I think Sky would have a job trying to knock the price down.
-
You're moving part of the problem forwards though - most matches would end towards the start of day 4, so that only gives you 3 days of proper ticket sales.
-
If a day is washed out, you'd lose a quarter of the game, rather than a fifth, which would have a huge impact.
It's purely a concept, I think Mr Graves just trying to prove he's full of ideas, and not the un-inventive stick-in-the-mud types we're used to.
-
If a day is washed out, you'd lose a quarter of the game, rather than a fifth, which would have a huge impact.
It's purely a concept, I think Mr Graves just trying to prove he's full of ideas, and not the un-inventive stick-in-the-mud types we're used to.
Agree on both counts. That said, 5th days get washed out as well so it could have less of an impact in some ways. Why not have a reserve day if you have freed up time in the calendar?.
Better to have some discussion and nothing come of it than none at all.
-
Views on a 40 over World Cup? To keep in step with t20, I don't think it's a bad thing. Shorten those prod and poke middle overs wouldn't it.
-
Views on a 40 over World Cup? To keep in step with t20, I don't think it's a bad thing. Shorten those prod and poke middle overs wouldn't it.
Remind me how the domestic 40 over competition went? ;)
-
early starts for tests would be good, no reason why they can't start at 0900. As you say, it might also make the ball swing and seam around more etc.. Which is always a good thing.
-
Views on a 40 over World Cup? To keep in step with t20, I don't think it's a bad thing. Shorten those prod and poke middle overs wouldn't it.
40overs is aweful. 50 over is fine. TBH, you could argue to do away with 40/50 over cricket and just play T20's and tests (or 2020's and LVCC)
As for franchise cricket. I also believe there are way too many counties and the talent just isn't there. A lot of the div 2 sides near the bottom especially are playing substandard cricket and shouldn't be pro's. Of course, the only sticking point for me is how do you decide what counties merge and where is it played. How does someone from sommerset see a game in the new franchise if it's say based in Bristol or Glamorgan etc.. You could end up not increasing fan bases of less teams.. just less people watching overall but increase the quality of cricket. TBH, I'd go for that over keeping all the current counties.
-
Remind me how the domestic 40 over competition went? ;)
It went fine until the ECB decided they wanted to mimic the WC. This is just a roundabout way of getting domestic cricket back to 40 overs ;)
-
Somerset, why would we merge, we've been in div 1 for years. Feel free to get rid of serial losers like Lancashire and Surrey.
And this is why reducing the number of counties won't work! Apart from Derbyshire, no one would miss them.
-
It went fine until the ECB decided they wanted to mimic the WC. This is just a roundabout way of getting domestic cricket back to 40 overs ;)
And there we have it!
Seems to be a common denominator in all the cock ups in the English system...
And as it went fine they surely won't resort back to it, this is the ECB after all...
-
40overs is aweful. 50 over is fine. TBH, you could argue to do away with 40/50 over cricket and just play T20's and tests (or 2020's and LVCC)
As for franchise cricket. I also believe there are way too many counties and the talent just isn't there. A lot of the div 2 sides near the bottom especially are playing substandard cricket and shouldn't be pro's. Of course, the only sticking point for me is how do you decide what counties merge and where is it played. How does someone from sommerset see a game in the new franchise if it's say based in Bristol or Glamorgan etc.. You could end up not increasing fan bases of less teams.. just less people watching overall but increase the quality of cricket. TBH, I'd go for that over keeping all the current counties.
I'll go back to another thread for one solution I mentioned - counties don't play 4 day cricket. They play the money making limited overs stuff/t20 and leave the County Championship to the ECB in return for not getting a handout. The ECB then use that £40m to create 8-12 franchises with a remit to play 4 day CC cricket and an IPL tournament. The ECB hire the grounds off the counties (like a test match of ODI) for the higher level franchise stuff. The counties still get there profit making cricket and the spectator the local derby, but alongside that a higher level of cricket is created to support team England.
This is why the fixture list needs decongesting!
-
Somerset, why would we merge, we've been in div 1 for years. Feel free to get rid of serial losers like Lancashire and Surrey.
And this is why reducing the number of counties won't work! Apart from Derbyshire, no one would miss them.
If you live in the huge swathes of the UK were nobody get's FC cricket, then that can be said of most of the counties. Berkshire has a similar population and probably more net wealth/industry but doesn't get FC cricket. Just because 100 years ago some counties got lucky, doesn't mean that model applies now. The fact only Durham have managed to get inclusion shows how out of step English cricket has been with the UK Demographics. 61m people and we can't find 18 solvent teams - what does that tell you?
-
Somerset, why would we merge, we've been in div 1 for years. Feel free to get rid of serial losers like Lancashire and Surrey.
And this is why reducing the number of counties won't work! Apart from Derbyshire, no one would miss them.
You'd have to do it on Geographic reasoning, not who has done well etc.. You'd get rid of Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Northants if you went off performances only and then a large area of the country wouldn't have anything even remotely local. Now, that's not to say those counties don't deserve to disappear due to performances (discount 2020/one day filth), teams like Essex, Gloucestershire, Glamorgan, Lancs etc would all be in the firing line as they have been yoyo type teams too
-
I'm sure it'd be done based on test match grounds staying. Somerset might have the highest cc attendances in the country and a successful side, but that's not enough to stop athers taking potshots.
England were pretty much top ranked in all 3 formats a couple of years ago, with Australia stuggling, back then people were saying Australia had too small a pool of players, and the system didn't allow later developers to stay in the game.
-
Sorry, rant started now. And another thing! Australia suits having few sides, because they have only a handful of pockets with high populations, England's is far more evenly distributed. I don't see how stopping more of the country having easy access to watching cricket will increase the amount of people and talent in the game.
It's not just about the men's county 1st 11, but the whole youth structures below, which wouldn't ve viable without the 1st class setup above it.
-
Sorry, rant started now. And another thing! Australia suits having few sides, because they have only a handful of pockets with high populations, England's is far more evenly distributed. I don't see how stopping more of the country having easy access to watching cricket will increase the amount of people and talent in the game.
It's not just about the men's county 1st 11, but the whole youth structures below, which wouldn't ve viable without the 1st class setup above it.
What do the youth structures do? Also, why is it good that average players 'make it' due to having too many sides etc.......
You can decrease the fC game BUT invest in grass roots (so not the ECB premier clubs as they have enough money) to make that viable and a production line. Tbh, hi kin you have to go through youth squads to make it is out dated.
-
400k Austrlians play club cricket in 2013/14 out of 23m - approx 1.7% - http://www.cricket.com.au/news/media-release-national-cricket-participation-hits-one-million/2014-08-11 (http://www.cricket.com.au/news/media-release-national-cricket-participation-hits-one-million/2014-08-11)
844k in the UK out of 64m in 2014 - approx 1.3% - http://www.ecb.co.uk/development/get-into-cricket/participation/ (http://www.ecb.co.uk/development/get-into-cricket/participation/)
(if I've got the above wrong - happy to be corrected but I took them of the countries official websites)
Why do we need 18 counties when Australia do a pretty good job with 6? It can't be because we have more players - we might have double but that would only be enough for 12 decent teams. I doubt it's because we have more talented players.
I don't see how stopping more of the country having easy access to watching cricket will increase the amount of people and talent in the game.
It's not just about the men's county 1st 11, but the whole youth structures below, which wouldn't ve viable without the 1st class setup above it.
Devils advocat time - Firstly, if you don't live in a FC county, I'll take a built up area like Reading/Bracknell as an example, you don't have easy access to a county. There is 2.1m people in the Thames Valley without a FC county so why should Somerset have an automatic right? You could probably make a very successful commerical franchise in the Thames Valley, as opposed to Leicestershire.
Secondly - Bucks and most other Minor Counties have a youth development structure and a minor county team, it doesn't mean they have to play first class cricket. In fact many of the FC Counties recruit minor county talent for their teams, bypassing their own scouting network and centres of excellence. Why can't this operate in the same way for a combined franchise?
-
most other Minor Counties have a youth development structure and a minor county team, it doesn't mean they have to play first class cricket.
Most clubs now have youth teams... Ok, you can say they don't produce the quality BUT.. Counties take players from clubs so actually.. clubs do produce the quality, it's just they don't stay at clubs as they get poached by the ECB Premier league clubs who hover up and spit out youth. Again, you can invest in the grass roots (not ECB Premier teams who do more harm than good) and you'd produce more players, as well as keep people in the game (which surely has to be the main factor!!)
-
not ECB Premier teams who do more harm than good" Bitter and twisted me thinks. Did you get dropped?
-
not ECB Premier teams who do more harm than good" Bitter and twisted me thinks. Did you get dropped?
nope. Just played at enough high levels in a couple of sports to know that the 'top' teams in amateur sport are often not actually that good for the game. Since taking up cricket at 28 I've seen large clubs pay players, rake in youth, then spit 95% of them away and so lost from the game. Not sure how anyone can defend that unless you are simply all about winning and have no regard for the game or the fact it's amateur cricket so about participation.
alternatively you can just go 'bitter and twisted'.. Either way, it's teh only way you'll raise participation and keep people in the game by not focusing on the big clubs.
-
It's a valid point. How do you encourage players to play cricket. They need to see it on TV, have a nearby club, have the facilities to train and more importantly the the older guys willing to take that on. Less clubs equals less exposure, 10 clubs in 10 square miles has to be better than 2 big clubs. If you stick cricket on Sky, the local club folds due to lack of investment/players and then force youngsters to get their parents to drive 9 miles to the nearest club then it's hardly going to push participation up.
-
It's a valid point. How do you encourage players to play cricket. They need to see it on TV, have a nearby club, have the facilities to train and more importantly the the older guys willing to take that on. Less clubs equals less exposure, 10 clubs in 10 square miles has to be better than 2 big clubs. If you stick cricket on Sky, the local club folds due to lack of investment/players and then force youngsters to get their parents to drive 9 miles to the nearest club then it's hardly going to push participation up.
and no offence, but who teh hell wants to play in a league where you have team a 5xi vs team b 4th xi.. zzzz Surely at the Amateur level you want villages etc to maintain their 1st xi etc.
-
I wasn't saying allowing mediocre proffessional players to stay in the game was good, but allowing late bloomers, is.
I'm now struggling to think of people that have had much better ends to their career than starts...
Nick Compton
Moeen Ali
Guys like Trescothick might not even have got his start (as a bowler) if there were fewer sides.
The ecb would love it, because then no one would ever make it into the England side without having been on a performance pathway since the age of 10.
-
Leicester? Put a franchise there, make sure you sign a couple of Indian/Pakistani overseas, advertise it well and the crowds would absolutely fly in, Grace Road would be full every single game. Public there love cricket, they just don't love Leicestershire CCC.
-
The ecb would love it, because then no one would ever make it into the England side without having been on a performance pathway since the age of 10.
I think you'll find that will be the case anyway IMO.
-
No system is ever perfect but would cutting the number of sides to 12, for example, be an issue?. A much improved standard of cricket traded off against a few late bloomers.
When I see Gareth Berg, at 34, has got a contract at Hampshire you kind of think culling 30% of the first class opportunities wouldn't be a bad thing. No disrepect to Gareth Berg but he isn't going to play for England or any test country soon or be a major force in first class cricket (I mean a huge run/wicket machine, player of test match experience ie. Katich a few years back - trying not to dig myself into a hole here!). He's a decent experience pro and will do a good job I'm sure, but should the FC system be geared towards players earning a living or striving for England places?
-
I'm not arguing one way or the other here but there are approx. 170,200 people who play rugby once a week according to Sport England but the International Rugby Union has it at 820,283 teen and senior males playing in England at 1900 clubs. Which is very similar to the how many people play cricket in England.
There are 24 clubs in the top 2 English divisions with probably only 14 realistically likely to play regularly in the top division leaving large swathes of the country with out a top Rugby team nearby.
Yet they seem to feed the national team well and the top clubs are attracting large crowds and are in a financially strong position.
Should we stop the other 10 clubs playing? Or allow them to play giving chances to 'lesser' players to play against top players and they may prove themselves and get a move to a 'bigger' club.
What is Rugby doing that cricket isn't?
-
Remind me how the domestic 40 over competition went? ;)
Actually, for paying fans it was a blast right back from the inception of the JPL in 1971; the advantages such as being able to have lunch before the game, no ten overs of nurdling in the middle etc. made lots of sense. It has only ever been the case that domestic cricket left the 40 over format because it wished to mirror ODIs.
-
Slight deviation..
Someone was in my barn yesterday and the subject of value for time, value for money of Saturday/Sunday cricket was raised. He said himself that he gave up playing for 15 years due to being at 6/7/8 every week, then watching the all rounders bowl the overs etc, he felt that it wasn't worth investing his time or money in. He's back in the game now but still feels that it's the same.
So, he is a middle of the road player, nothing special but not crap... His thought was that we have a limit on bowlers, so why not batting? He suggested retire at 50 as. That's a good bat and means more players will get to play. He thinks that for your average player, it would keep more people intersted as they'd get a game over how it is now.
Now, what do you guys think??
Personally, as a batter I hate the idea of retiring BUT, if I think about participation etc.. It sort of makes sense
-
Having to retire at 50, no way, end of discussion lol
-
The problem with reducing the number of first class sides in England is not so much that it is a good thing, but that there is little hope of getting turkeys to vote for Christmas - who goes? On playing standards you'd suggest Leicestershire, Glamorgan, and Gloucestershire are very vulnerable because they have all been rooted in division 2 for a number of years - whilst Essex have also been in that position, and Derbyshire and Northants can only reference single season jaunts to Division One.
But...Leicestershire have a great record of producing young talent and, with Wasim Khan taking over as Chief Executive, might manage to engage better with the Asian communities around the area over the next five years. Glamorgan represent the W in EWCB and it would be one hell of a gamble to cull, in effect, an entire country. Essex are well managed and profitable and seem to have taken a value decision to prioritise one day performance. Derbyshire would point to a much improved record in the last few years, and Northants would say that it was harsh when they were just in division one last season...
You couldn't even do it on financial grounds. If you did, you may well find that Durham, Lancashire and Warwickshire went under, whilst my own Yorkshire are solvent only because Mr Graves has deep pockets and Middlesex would struggle were the MCC not to allow them such preferential arrangements as regards Lords...
So, stalemate, except perhaps for poor Gloucestershire...
-
Personally, as a batter I hate the idea of retiring BUT, if I think about participation etc.. It sort of makes sense
Is participation the be all and end all of the game, to the exclusion of actual standards?
I'd argue not, though I do think there is a case for this rule to be applied in friendly cricket!
-
not ECB Premier teams who do more harm than good" Bitter and twisted me thinks. Did you get dropped?
Few examples
A member of this forum just the other day said that his club (big in the area) had promised him x and y but continually failed to deliver. That to me is a classic big club mentality.
2) our opening bowler played for Frocester 1sts (top WEPL club), he gave up playing at 21 because (his words) "the atmosphere of the club had no regard for players, only winning. I also got tired of the contest travelling distance, it become a chore and far more hassle than it's worth, so I stopped playing'. He's bk playin now 2 divs below his old doc with us, little travelling etc. Loving it.. Why, because of he atmosphere, because smaller clubs tend to be more friendly, more 'mates' etc. Im sure there are loads who give up playing (who are more than good enough for ecb prem) due to time/money/loss of enjoyment, which may (I say may) not have happened if they were playing more locally, with mates.
3) our club has a batch of 21-24 yr olds who all grew up in 'big' clubs youth. Become disillusioned with it and so left. All stopped playing until one lad joined and so brought them all by to the game. All now playing in 4th doc so arent bad players.. So, cricket could have lost a fair few guys purely because of the action of a big club...
I could go on with examples I've seen/heard in 4 seasons of playing. Big clubs are big for a variety of reasons, not many will be there because of their ability to train and bring through youth.. It's always worth looking at how many players have come through he ranks and how many are mercenaries. What is the club about?? Is it a club? Or is it just a collection of randoms brought together for a game
-
Is participation the be all and end all of the game, to the exclusion of actual standards?
I'd argue not, though I do think there is a case for this rule to be applied in friendly cricket!
As I said, I personally don't like the idea of retiring. I think participation has more value though thn we think, it's the 'casuals' and 'cameo' players that keep it going after all.. Not us keenos. You could maybe argue that say div 8-14 of. 14 div league could do it and it wouldn't affect standards overly
Standards are dropping now anyway, due to lack of participation...
-
Standards are dropping now anyway, due to lack of participation...
I don't think participation is as bad as some people think - its lower in some areas/leagues but up in others (the TVL claim to be one of them, and the numbers of teams being fielded by clubs would seem to substantiate that).
-
I'm not arguing one way or the other here but there are approx. 170,200 people who play rugby once a week according to Sport England but the International Rugby Union has it at 820,283 teen and senior males playing in England at 1900 clubs. Which is very similar to the how many people play cricket in England.
There are 24 clubs in the top 2 English divisions with probably only 14 realistically likely to play regularly in the top division leaving large swathes of the country with out a top Rugby team nearby.
Yet they seem to feed the national team well and the top clubs are attracting large crowds and are in a financially strong position.
Should we stop the other 10 clubs playing? Or allow them to play giving chances to 'lesser' players to play against top players and they may prove themselves and get a move to a 'bigger' club.
What is Rugby doing that cricket isn't?
As a Wasps fan with my old man involved in the RFU, I feel I can speak on the differences.
Firstly, top flight rugby is played by 12 teams in the top division. While the CC does have 2 divisions, it doesn't for t20/One day stuff. It would be like letting all the championship sides play Wasps 2 times a season!
Secondly, you have true movement of players. The Premiership has players from all over the World, like the Premier League in Footy. Therefore the standard is higher than just having English qualified players.
Thirdly, club rugby does play a higher standard - Champions Cup Rugby. The top sides in each country go head to head on a regular basis. Again, similar to footy with the Champions League. It would be like Somerset going to Queensland (forget the travel logistics for a minute) and playing a must win one-dayer. More pressure, higher quality.
I also suspect they are also more commerically aware than cricket.They get money from the RFU and TV. They get compensation for England players from the RFU. They get Sky/BT money for club rugby. They don't get, to my knowledge, grants from RFU England TV money. Each team has to stand on it's own two feet. Wasps moved 60 miles to Coventry because they were losing £2m a season and they needed bigger attendences.
The RFU built possibly the best stadium in the country without too many problems and in rugby terms are the financial powerhouse of world rugby. Like India in Cricket. They have their moments but they look slick and organised in comparison to the ECB.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/10452201/Rugby-Football-Union-tops-150-million-revenue-mark-for-first-time-confirming-their-status-as-the-worlds-wealthiest-union.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/10452201/Rugby-Football-Union-tops-150-million-revenue-mark-for-first-time-confirming-their-status-as-the-worlds-wealthiest-union.html)
Rugby is run more along football lines than cricket, but with financial constraints of a proper commercial organisation.
-
i love the idea of having 40 over cricket. when they had it the year before last i could actually go and watch a few games in the season and enjoyed every minute of it. i find a lot of the 50 over games take too long and i cant fit my schedule around watching them at the ground.
-
No system is ever perfect but would cutting the number of sides to 12, for example, be an issue?. A much improved standard of cricket traded off against a few late bloomers.
When I see Gareth Berg, at 34, has got a contract at Hampshire you kind of think culling 30% of the first class opportunities wouldn't be a bad thing. No disrepect to Gareth Berg but he isn't going to play for England or any test country soon or be a major force in first class cricket (I mean a huge run/wicket machine, player of test match experience ie. Katich a few years back - trying not to dig myself into a hole here!). He's a decent experience pro and will do a good job I'm sure, but should the FC system be geared towards players earning a living or striving for England places?
Why should everything be geared towards England? County cricket is fine entertainment in itself. I'd wager that Gareth Berg is a far, far better cricketer than anyone on here.
-
Isn't there a huge gulf between those 12 rugby sides and the others? BBC sport had a thing recently about a side that's lost every game so far this season. I know Derbyshire are bad, but they're not THAT bad!
-
Why should everything be geared towards England? County cricket is fine entertainment in itself. I'd wager that Gareth Berg is a far, far better cricketer than anyone on here.
I'm sure he's miles better than most of us and he was just a recent example I was using. Entertainment is great but surely the higher the standard the better the spectacle?
Isn't there a huge gulf between those 12 rugby sides and the others? BBC sport had a thing recently about a side that's lost every game so far this season. I know Derbyshire are bad, but they're not THAT bad!
London Welsh and yes it is difficult to stay in the Premiership. That said didn't Leicestershire go 2 years without winning a game in the t20 comp?
-
London Welsh and yes it is difficult to stay in the Premiership. That said didn't Leicestershire go 2 years without winning a game in the t20 comp?
No, two years without a win in the county championship. I'm not quite sure why you'd want to voice an opinion on something you don't actually follow?
-
No, two years without a win in the county championship. I'm not quite sure why you'd want to voice an opinion on something you don't actually follow?
Apoligies, I was doing it from memory. Thanks for proving my point.
-
Gareth Berg will be fine. :)
-
Apoligies, I was doing it from memory. Thanks for proving my point.
Which was?
I was going from memory, too.
-
Which was?
I was going from memory, too.
London Welsh will get relegated because they are losing every game. Yes, there is a gulf in Rugby, but no more so than in cricket. As you have just proved :-)
-
London Welsh will get relegated because they are losing every game. Yes, there is a gulf in Rugby, but no more so than in cricket. As you have just proved :-)
Cricket should be protecting its infrastructure and preventing the gulf from widening. Leicestershire has produced some fine cricketers in recent years - only to lose them.
-
@ProCricketer1982 will love this article:-
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/e63197a0-e441-11e2-91a3-00144feabdc0.html#slide0 (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/e63197a0-e441-11e2-91a3-00144feabdc0.html#slide0)
July 5, 2013 2:02 pm
Matthew Engel on the decline of English cricket
Matthew Engel By Matthew Engel
The game may finally be up for the most English of sports
Village cricket in Potterne, Wiltshire©Charlie Bibby
Potterne’s cricketers relax during teatime
T
he aristocracy lives by numbers, as cricketers do. The 7th Earl of Shaftesbury was the famous Victorian social reformer, commemorated by the statue of Eros. Cricket has been played regularly at the ancestral home, St Giles House in Dorset, since at least the time of the 9th Earl. And it continues now by kind permission of the 12th.
The setting, like the game, appears timeless. As the Wimborne St Giles team arrived on a midsummer’s evening for their fixture against the neighbouring village of Witchampton, there was a sense that they were enacting a ritual that had changed little since their forefathers’ time. It is of course an illusion. The very trees surrounding the pitch are new, replacements for those demolished by the 1987 hurricane. The Shaftesbury dynasty has endured the most traumatic of decades and is only now starting to rebuild its reputation and its fortune. Even village cricket has changed beyond all recognition.
Outwardly, few places in England have changed less than this one. It is an estate village: hardly a single house would look out of place in a TV dramatisation of a Thomas Hardy novel. It still has its pub, shop and school, as well as its cricket team. But the estate employs only a handful now, and families come and go.
I brought to the ground something unusual: a picture of the Wimborne St Giles team of 1972. It appeared in The Sunday Times when one of the paper’s cricket writers, Norman Harris, came down to report the team’s efforts in the early rounds of the first national Village Cricket Cup. But most of the players could offer only mild curiosity rather than gasps of recognition. One man remembered them all: Norman Shepard, then the team’s long-haired fast bowler, who looked, as Harris put it, like “the rider of the fastest motorcycle in the village”. Now he is 64, has breathing difficulties, and is long retired from cricket, though the Shepards are still farming here, as they have done since the Earls of Shaftesbury were upstarts; none of his three sons has taken to the game.
The Wimborne St Giles team of 1972©Sunday Times Magazine
The Wimborne St Giles team of 1972
We went through the faces on the picture together: three had died; one might have done; all the rest had moved away, including Norman’s own brother. In 1972 Wimborne St Giles played friendly weekend fixtures against regular opponents, arranged, year after year, by the assiduous team secretary, Jack Hibberd. That inaugural village cup was a novelty: a rare chance to play truly competitive cricket against new opposition, and they reached the Dorset final before going out.
But the game was just starting to change. Across Britain, in towns and villages alike, the number of cricket clubs has plummeted: entries into the Village Cup have dropped from 800 to 300; membership of the more urban Club Cricket Conference has gone from 2,000 to 900. This is in part an obvious sign of a game in trouble. But it is also caused by social change – and the drop is not wholly to the displeasure of the cricketing authorities.
Above all, old-fashioned village cricket, where what mattered most were beer and fellowship and summer sun and a lingering sense of eternal youth, has gone out of fashion. No more do the likes of Jack Hibberd bustle round the pub and press-gang any half-sober male into making up the numbers, or enlist a kid to field somewhere quiet, bat No. 11 and perhaps save the game. Over the past four decades organised leagues have taken over, overwhelmingly. Most clubs have gone one way or the other: they have become large, serious units with multiple teams and junior sections and girls’ teams and coaches. Or they have quietly disappeared.
“It’s got so bloody competitive,” said Norman Shepard sadly. “When I was playing cricket, when somebody dropped a catch, you just laughed about it, made a joke. In the Leagues you’re a criminal, nobody will speak to you.” This is not quite my own memory of dropping catches, but the point is fair enough. Anecdotal evidence from all over Britain is that cricket – the game in which by ancient tradition no one argued with an umpire – has become aggressive, abusive, disputatious, nasty and rather joyless. This is not an accident: it is largely what cricket wanted. And the survival of village cricket in places like Wimborne St Giles is an increasing rarity, almost a miracle.
. . .
Crudely put, the thinking was that there were too many people playing cricket. Or as Micky Stewart, the former manager of the England team, more politely puts it: “The number of talented players was too thinly spread.”
The logic was that in Australia, cricket was a game for a gifted, competitive minority; England had lots of cricketers but they played for fun; Australia usually beat England and at that point were mashing them. Ergo the English system needed to change. Since then it has. And when the 2013 Ashes series starts in Nottingham next Wednesday England will be hot favourites to win the series, for the third time running.
In the 1980s English cricket’s governing body, the old Test and County Cricket Board, had a tiny office and a staff of six. Its successor body, the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB), now lists a dozen directors, heads and managers in the Marketing & Communications Department alone. Its coaches introduce schools to softball unisex versions of cricket that don’t involve bashed heads or long hours standing in the field.
But soon the board might employ more people than ever watch the game, never mind play it. Their coaches have been paid for by the funding from Sky TV, which has had a monopoly of the rights since 2006, the year after 23 million people in the UK watched something of the climactic final Ashes Test. With the game behind a paywall on a specialist channel, and casual viewers effectively barred, these figures have plummeted way below old levels.
The ECB machine regularly produces upbeat figures about how many schoolchildren their travelling salesmen have introduced to the game. But kids used to discover cricket naturally: it was all around them and, until 2005, on their TV screens. Now one hardly ever sees English children – outside the Asian community – playing informally on a park, beach or patch of green, certainly not without a doting parent helping things along. The modern, successful, highly paid England team is a coalition of public schoolboys, South African imports and members of cricketing families who grew up larking about on the boundary half-watching their dads. None of them played in an alley, the way Indian children do. The game has shrunk and there are benefits: it is richer and more competitive. The question is whether they outweigh the loss of the old values and the disappearance of the most English of all sports from the centre of national life.
. . .
Some clubs have not just survived but flourished. Potterne is a large village, just outside Devizes in Wiltshire, almost a suburb. But the phrase “just outside” is crucial. It has a population below 5,000 and is “surrounded by open country”, which renders its cricket team eligible to compete under the exceedingly complex rules of the 42nd Village Cup.
The team had reached the Dorset/Wiltshire group final, the last 32 nationally; not all that impressive – only 14 teams in the two counties entered. Wimborne St Giles certainly don’t bother. But if every parish and hamlet had joined in, Potterne would have been unperturbed. They are the epitome of the new cricket.
Their ground is small and sloping and tucked away down a narrow lane, as a village ground should be. The precious square used to be protected from grazing cattle by an electric fence. “Our warm-up consisted of getting out the wheelbarrow and spade and getting rid of the cowpats and molehills from the outfield.” remembers Fred Kerley, the club chairman. There was also a second electric fence round the outfield which had to be switched off before every game. However, the switch was in the pavilion and sometimes it would be mysteriously flicked back on as an opposing fielder ran towards it.
Cricket game Potterne v Goatacre©Charlie Bibby
Potterne v Goatacre, June 16 2013
That kind of japery has gone now. Potterne run four Saturday teams, a Sunday team, four boys’ teams ranging down to under-nines, and two girls’ teams, all under the care of 15 qualified coaches and a child welfare officer, just in case. Their first team was at last count top of a division so high up the ECB’s league pyramid that they were above not just the town club in Devizes but also Swindon (population: 200,000). And their old rivals and today’s opponents, Goatacre, are in the division above that. Representing a village without a pub, they travel to places like Cheltenham and Taunton, which are not just big but distant.
Goatacre have been to Lord’s and won the Village Cup twice, in 1988 and 1990. Nowadays, such triumphs are usually surrounded by controversy, with the winners being derided as too good. “The standard is ridiculously high,” says journalist Charles Randall, an expert on club cricket. “I’ve seen quite a few finals and it’s quite shocking how good these players are. No blacksmiths any more.”
So the rules of this competition keep being tightened to bring down the quality. Indeed, Potterne were victims of a controversial edict when their captain, Neil Clark, was banned from this fixture because he had played a match for Wiltshire – although his case was seemingly not covered by the existing rules. Clark’s teammates were contemplating retaliation because they believed a Goatacre man had been paid for playing in Australia. Several others on both sides were out because they were foreign imports (Potterne attracted much attention when they first hired two itinerant Zimbabweans), too new to the club, or had played to too high a standard. Goatacre were without their own captain, Brad Dawson, through another sign of the times: he was suspended for arguing with an umpire.
And this is merely a hayseed version of the kind of stuff that goes in the rich pastures of the Home Counties. I heard of one southeastern club coaching 300 youngsters which had failed to unearth a single worthwhile talent; they did, however, make enough in fees from parents to fund an overseas star. I thought Micky Stewart would love this new world. Wrong. “I was told of local clubs paying people £350 per match,” he said. “And they call this recreational cricket. I think it’s diabolical.”
At Potterne, the ground itself looked pristine enough to stage a miniature Test match. “I do the pitch,” said Clark before climbing on to Potterne’s magnificent heavy roller, “and I’m a batsman. So it’s good for batting.”
Potterne cricket team©Charlie Bibby
Potterne cricket team
The Cup, played on Sundays, is considered very secondary to the Saturday leagues, at least until the later stages when the players start to sniff the honour of stepping out at Lord’s. The previous day Goatacre had been at Chard in Somerset: they met at 9.15am and were not back until 10pm. “And we only had one drink afterwards,” moaned one team member. Even at Goatacre’s level, most still pay to play.
The players might not mind, but their wives do. Clubs around the country report high dropout rates from players in their mid-to-late twenties who have forgotten their boyhood cricketing ambitions and graduated to the real weekend world of kids and shopping. Thirteen-hour Saturdays can be a route to the divorce courts. In villages, the dropouts start earlier, when the players go to university and never return, there being no jobs at home.
Even the most famous of cricketing rituals has been threatened by change: the supply of willing mums and wives to do the teas has dwindled. Now clubs operate a players’ rota. The system still works at Potterne, insists former chairman Ian Wheeler: “Whether a team-member does it himself or gets help from his mother, girlfriend, wife or mistress, or just goes to Greggs … we still have very good teas.”
Potterne’s success has fed on itself more than on cucumber sandwiches. A supportive farmer owned the land; the Gaiger family, who helped found the club in 1936, run a building business and have funded regular improvements. As the club grew, it attracted players, and thus their subscriptions, from places with fading clubs, including Devizes. Lately, it has opened its own bar in the smart pavilion, cutting the George & Dragon down the road out of the picture. It is a classic story of post-Thatcherite Britain: success breeds success and failure breeds failure.
Yet strangely the best-known player in the match – perhaps the best-known village cricketer as such in the entire country – is the embodiment of the blacksmith tradition. The Iles family have been as important to Goatacre as the Gaigers at Potterne, and Kevin Iles was the star of Goatacre’s triumph in 1988, hitting the highest score then seen in a final, 91 not out. Two years later he smashed his own record, with 123: his century came in 45 minutes including four successive sixes. Everyone at Lord’s rose to give him a standing ovation.
Spectators watching cricket match©Charlie Bibby
Spectators watching the Potterne v Goatacre match
He has always loved this competition: “I think I’ve played every game in the Cup since 1977, except one when a flight got cancelled coming home from Greece.” Fred Kerley from Potterne happened to be in earshot as we spoke. “That’s poor commitment, Kev,” he murmured.
Iles had a brief trial with Hampshire, but they spotted nothing, which was probably their loss; now he’s 51, farms a bit, runs a landscape gardening business, and says he has thoroughly enjoyed 40 years of playing for Goatacre.
“Do you still enjoy it?”
“I don’t honestly know. I don’t like the way it’s going with League cricket. It’s good at developing players but when old gits like me stop playing, there will be no one who remembers how it used to be. We could play cricket and fall out because we were competitive. But there was a line, and afterwards you got into the bar and it was over. Now, though, it’s the football mentality.” He also hates and blames the endless reviews of every umpiring decision on Sky.
Iles no longer carries the team. But he came in down the order when the innings was wobbling, held his own with ringcraft rather than power and saw his team through to an edgy four-wicket victory. There was, however, no last hurrah at Lord’s: last Sunday Goatacre went out in the next round by a single run even though Iles hit three successive sixes to finish the match.
. . .
Despite the lordly surroundings, it was rather different at Wimborne St Giles. The pitch is artificial for easy maintenance; the boundary is simply the start of the long grass, which is very long, although the players have acquired the eyes of a habitually wayward golfer when it comes to guessing where the ball might be. The pavilion is a rustic slum, which the 10th earl, who had other preoccupations, did not wish to rebuild. One might nervously refuse the offer of tea in there, were it on offer. There is nowhere even for the 1972 team picture, though there is enough space above the sodden floor for a noticeboard, listing the officers for the year, not very formally:
Chmn: Nellie
Treas/Sec: Stewart
Captain: Nick
Vice: Adie
This fixture would never be confused with a national cup-tie. Wimborne St Giles no longer play full-length weekend cricket: they play only on Wednesdays, in the Wimborne & District Midweek League, centred on the nearby town of Wimborne Minster: 14 eight-ball overs, starting at 6.30; just 12 when the nights draw in.
man catches cricket ball©Charlie Bibby
Wimborne St Giles v Witchampton, June 19 2013
This is in itself a quaint survival: evening midweek leagues, which used to be popular among urban works teams, were the precursors of Twenty20. But most have been casualties of economic change, factory closures above all. This one is not to be compared to the pyramid leagues; several of the players were only dimly aware of what division they were in, and where they might be in the table (Division 3 and much higher than usual was the consensus).
Stewart is Stewart Hand, the estate’s head forester (and, things being as they are, much else); the captain, Nick Goodlife, works with him, as cattleman-cum-dairyman. The team also has an “experimental archaeo-metallurgist”, as of course any team should. “All archaeo-metallurgists like cricket,” said the one in question, Jake Keen. But it still has a rustic tinge, which gives Hand regular palpitations: “You dread the phone call with two hours to go. ‘My tractor’s broken down and I can’t get there.’ Or ‘a cow’s gone lame.’”
This time Wimborne St Giles had a full complement, which put them one ahead of Witchampton from the start. The home team’s age range ran from 73-plus (John Peacock would admit only to being born before the war) to 17, not normally the recipe for the kind of game that was to follow. No one knew we were on the brink of local history. It came from the 17-year-old.
This was Stewart Hand’s younger son, Dom. It was clear he was serious the moment he came out to bat in a helmet, still not standard garb at this level. Then the ball started disappearing into the long grass with a regularity that seemed a bit excessive even for a 14-over match. By the last over, Dom Hand was on 99. Then he scrambled a single.
Norman Shepard©Charlie Bibby
Norman Shepard, former long-haired fast bowler of Wimborne St Giles
A harsh umpire might have judged it a leg-bye, but young Dom was not – at that moment, in that village – going to meet a harsh umpire. He fell on the ground in teenage delight. Of this statistic, his teammates were sure: no one had scored a century for Wimborne St Giles in this league since 1986, a decade before this centurion was born. The 10 men of Witchampton hardly knew what hit them. They were bowled out for 38 in reply to 175 for two; Dom’s older brother Ollie took six for 16.
It was a merry night in The Bull, although for Dom this was hardly the pinnacle even of his cricketing week. On Saturdays he plays for Bournemouth in the Southern Premier League, a potential stepping-stone towards the cricketing career he craves, perhaps too much for his own good. He has put aside his A-levels to give it his best shot. “I love playing Wednesday nights. There’s no pressure,” he said. “But I really, really want to play county cricket.”
So here was a funny thing: at go-ahead Potterne, I met Kevin Iles, the happy-go-lucky village smiter; at sleepy Wimborne St Giles I met Dom Hand, the ambitious aspirant.
And on such a night his determination was infectious. There have been bad times at St Giles House. It fell into decay in the time of the playboy 10th earl, before he was murdered in the south of France in 2004 by his third wife and her brother. Only six weeks after his father’s body was found, his oldest son died of an apparent heart attack. Since then his younger brother, the 12th earl, has been putting things right.
He might, someone mused, consider a new pavilion. And then teams would be willing to come to play full-length matches, and Wimborne St Giles might get a Saturday team together again, and maybe get into a League. And, who knows, they might be playing Bournemouth before long, and maybe reach the village final at Lord’s.
Whatever might be wrong with the world and the game, there is nothing like a sweet summer evening, a nice win and a few pints to make anything seem possible.
-
As a Wasps fan with my old man involved in the RFU, I feel I can speak on the differences.
Firstly, top flight rugby is played by 12 teams in the top division. While the CC does have 2 divisions, it doesn't for t20/One day stuff. It would be like letting all the championship sides play Wasps 2 times a season!
Secondly, you have true movement of players. The Premiership has players from all over the World, like the Premier League in Footy. Therefore the standard is higher than just having English qualified players.
Thirdly, club rugby does play a higher standard - Champions Cup Rugby. The top sides in each country go head to head on a regular basis. Again, similar to footy with the Champions League. It would be like Somerset going to Queensland (forget the travel logistics for a minute) and playing a must win one-dayer. More pressure, higher quality.
I also suspect they are also more commerically aware than cricket.They get money from the RFU and TV. They get compensation for England players from the RFU. They get Sky/BT money for club rugby. They don't get, to my knowledge, grants from RFU England TV money. Each team has to stand on it's own two feet. Wasps moved 60 miles to Coventry because they were losing £2m a season and they needed bigger attendences.
The RFU built possibly the best stadium in the country without too many problems and in rugby terms are the financial powerhouse of world rugby. Like India in Cricket. They have their moments but they look slick and organised in comparison to the ECB.
[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/10452201/Rugby-Football-Union-tops-150-million-revenue-mark-for-first-time-confirming-their-status-as-the-worlds-wealthiest-union.html[/url] ([url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/10452201/Rugby-Football-Union-tops-150-million-revenue-mark-for-first-time-confirming-their-status-as-the-worlds-wealthiest-union.html[/url])
Rugby is run more along football lines than cricket, but with financial constraints of a proper commercial organisation.
So perhaps we need...
2 divisions for CC and T20 with a Rugby Union style playoff for the T20 winners keeping the same semi and final format.
Introduce a one day cup similar to the champions league style 40 over comp starting with mini leagues into knock out.
Allow more foreign players to play
Allow clubs to move to new areas with a large untapped population like Wasps!
-
If we stopped changing tournaments and formats so often, might domestic cricket grow to have more value and meaning?
-
Why should everything be geared towards England? County cricket is fine entertainment in itself. I'd wager that Gareth Berg is a far, far better cricketer than anyone on here.
and, no offence, but you can't have a squad full of young, promising cricketers likely to be on England's radar or you'd become Yorkshire...
Before anyone thinks that is a boast (well, it kinda is but follow me here) we may lose the following for a specific Championship game this season:
To England - Root, Ballance, Lyth, Plunkett
To England A - Bairstow, Lees, Rashid, Brooks
To England Under 19s - Fisher, Coad
That doesn't leave much left over from a normally sized squad (Leaning, Gale, Finch, Tattersall, Rhodes, Hodd, Bresnan, Pyrah, Sidebottom, Patterson, Carver would be out injury free XI)
At that point, any side would love to have a Gareth Berg, who incidentally is a top bloke.
-
Believe there's no England lions tour this summer by the way which is a positive for the county squads I guess, think Australia U19 are touring towards the end of the summer though but just for a few weeks.
-
Wow. Half a day off the forum and a proper discussion. #impressive.
Just skimmed the thread, and apologies if I am repeating anyone.
If you want the cream to rise to the top, then you should have a full pyramid structure, where the main counties and minor counties can intertwine and relegation/promotion between the two can interject. This will give the teams at the topper reason to chase the better players.
A batsman shouldn't have to retire as a bowler gets his allotted overs yet a batsman can be out first ball. If you wanted to go down that route then you would say that you bat for a period of time (like 8 a side) and have a number of overs as a pair. Lose runs if you are out. That is the only fair way really.
I like 40 overs, I find 50 a bit too long. It would be better to pick one, stick with it and not change the rules each year. The domestic should mirror the international stage though.
I think the overseas can be good, but I do not think more are required. Clubs probably cannot afford three so they would look to lower paid average overseas who might not be any better than the current players.
Graves has done well wherever he has been generally, and k think he can be a positive influence over the next 5 years.
As a Yorkie, I am sadly backing Gillespie to be next England coach unless somewhere else nabs him first.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I like 40 overs, I find 50 a bit too long. It would be better to pick one, stick with it and not change the rules each year. The domestic should mirror the international stage though.
Should we have 5 day county games?
-
Should we have 5 day county games?
Not if we reduce tests to 4 days and bowl 110 overs a day ;)
I think the main reason would be financial. The counties don't make any money from CC so it needs to be minimised but still doing a job for England.
-
Potentially 4 day test matches could open up the option for an extra test match in the series or 2/3 more T20 games.
Both would allow more TV revenue from any lost for not having a 5th day.
Surely a 4 day county game is the same as 40 over one day compared to a 50 over international?
-
A batsman shouldn't have to retire as a bowler gets his allotted overs yet a batsman can be out first ball. If you wanted to go down that route then you would say that you bat for a period of time (like 8 a side) and have a number of overs as a pair. Lose runs if you are out. That is the only fair way really.
Oh dear! Is this what T20 does to people?
-
Not if we reduce tests to 4 days and bowl 110 overs a day ;)
You really don't watch any county cricket.
-
Should we have 5 day county games?
If it helps, then yes.
The difference between the ODI and multiple day games is that the different stages of the game are in closer timeframe and you need to be more adaptable.
An ODI have three 'main' stages.
Opening power play
Middle overs
Finishing overs
As long as you have these, then it's fine. You could extend or shorten the game and these will always be there. To have the best understanding of when to accelerate/consolidate as a batting side, or plan your bowling attack in both domestic and international cricket, you should have the same amount of overs. To have difference is to not learn fully.
Other aspects like batting power-plays are still, in my opinion, not being best utilised. The domestic scene would be a potential way to learn to use these most suitably.
The 4 day game have the sections more apart in terms of times. "If" a 5-day game would further the cause and the learning of players then yes, they should introduce it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Oh dear! Is this what T20 does to people?
No, it's what whinging bowlers do to people.
The other option is, like if a batsman is out he cannot bat again. A bowler can only have one spell. Once he has finished that spell of bowling he cannot bowl again.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
No, it's what whinging bowlers do to people.
The other option is, like if a batsman is out he cannot bat again. A bowler can only have one spell. Once he has finished that spell of bowling he cannot bowl again.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is a cricket forum.
-
This is a cricket forum.
It is yes. And one that doesn't limit you to just one sentence per post.
-
It is yes. And one that doesn't limit you to just one sentence per post.
More's the pity.
-
You really don't watch any county cricket.
Last time I snoozed through a day of county cricket on sky it was 96 overs I believe, but don't quote me on that ;)
I think one proposal from the ECB working document was a 3 day, 110 overs a day county championship. How would people feel about that? Effectively losing around 50 overs or half a day over the present 4 day system. Some talk about making use of floodlights for CC games as well.
-
I like 5 day Test matches. I think they are great and provide lot of drama. Would I ever buy a ticket and watch a Test match in a stadium? Probably never. Would I follow it on TV or even ESPN as live commentary? Absolutely.
What has piqued my interest in test cricket is not the number of days or the length of the match but the drama and the result. Ashes are great! Other test series around the world were a lot of fun to watch too. ICC has to accept the fact that not all cricket will have venue based spectatorship. Many people will watch the games on TV or their mobile devices. I am paying US$100 to watch the World Cup 2015. I subscribe to another streaming service to watch the Ashes and other test series. Perhaps, ICC should look into involving the home viewers more into the game via social media like Twitter feeds or even Facebook responses. As it is, the World Cup commentators are often quoting the Twitter tweets from many of the spectators. The evolution of the sport does not have to come from format changes (which I think is ridiculous) but by utilizing the new technologies and also a change a model of viewership. Not many people go to the stadiums to watch a game. Not many people want to go to the stadium to watch a game. It's better to watch it on a large TV screen or laptop or tablet.
-
The reasons why England aren't good enough has many reasons that go beyond just the state of county cricket. Like the fact that almost all county players come from the private school education system which provides a very small percentage of the population. Lazy counties would rather take the near finished techniques they have gained than take a punt on raw talent. I expect this is some what different in Australia.
I don't agree with reducing the number of counties though. Increase them if anything, with more opportunities to move from amateur to professional. Scrap the 50 over leagues and go back to 40 overs on Sundays. At least out players then have to play at the same pace as the rest of the world does at 50 overs. T20 county leagues mid week, mostly Friday evenings. Split FC into 3 leagues of 6, so only 10 games a season. They don't make money and would also be more intense as every game vital.
ECB to reduce the number of tests to 4/5 in the summer. 2 at the start and 2/3 at the end. They also run an EPL with 8 teams over 1 month and take all the money. This can then be shared out to the counties. All players across the counties available to be selected for a squad, including the 'rested' England players and overseas stars. This will allow high intense cricket for the best players and England players to actually be involved in T20 cricket other than a one off game each season.
-
Erm Eng are good enough.
Our national team is poor because of the way it is coached and managed.
-
Yes they could be and I agree that the coaching is a reason for our problems. But I thought we were trying to suggest ways to improve competition and therefore make or players more conditioned to high intensity cricket. One would be not to exclude our best players from county competitions like the T20 as happens now, but actually insist they take part and allow time for them to play without overload. Therefore, no tests while a EPL runs. Then we could actually see who the best T20 & ODI players are, not just your good at test cricket so you must be good at all cricket attitude at present.