posted Apr 30, 2008

If the IPL takes place next year, I reckon a way will be found for our centrally contracted players to take part, foxinredsox.

It may seem strange that players who have complained of too much cricket may be amongst them, but there must be concern that 6 or 7 weeks of that type of cricket just before the start of our domestic season will not prepare them properly for it.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 30, 2008

The english counties were fun to follow when Richards, Garth Le Roux, Garner, like players represented - English county cricket was superb as the criteria to play was very high

Now, we have sub-standard players representing english county cricket - so, there has been a decline


australian sheffield shield remains a high calibre league still

India as a test and ODI tema is pretty good - rest are in between

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 30, 2008

That’s just biased rubbish, ravibala.

No change there then.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 30, 2008

Ravibala - if England's domestic scene is so poor, why do so many players keep coming and keep crediting it with helping them to improve their game and translate that improvement into international success? Messrs Hussey and Steyn are fine examples. try looking for the Cricinfo article last year on R P Singh when he went to Leicestershire. Before he came to county cricket, he didn't have a personalised fitness programme. Leicestershire produced one for him and he improved a greal deal, which translated into greater personal success with India and greater success for India as a team.


Foxinredsox:

There is actually a case for saying that our players would benefit from spending more time in India. However, how much progression do players make playing Twenty20?

-They don't learn how to build an innings because of the duration of each innings and the need to get quick runs, hence risky shots being played more often that lead to dismissal.

-They don't learn how to play on turning wickets because a turning wicket is never going to be prepared for Twenty20 games.

-In a similar vein, you are more likely to see wickets prepared for batsmen which gives the bowler less chance coupled with the shorter boundaries, tough calls on wides, free hits etc. A batsman is going to be fairly confident that he won't come up against a really lush greentop wicket.


I agree that the best players like Symonds and Hussey have been an IPL success. Both players owe county cricket a huge debt for how it shaped them. Symonds was given a chance with Gloucestershire and Hussey really took to county cricket and it improved him as a player. Before county cricket, he was a good State player. Now look at him. Now a young player coming into the IPL won't have had that cricketing education. They won't play as much four-day cricket as Symonds and Hussey did when they were young players. The youngsters coming through will hit the IPL, get the money, enjoy the razzle-dazzle and feel there is no need to go the extra mile and play Test cricket. They have fame and fortune playing a massively truncated version of the game so why bother leaving that comfort zone for five-day matches and long drawn-out innings on wearing surfaces? Symonds and Hussey are good at 20-20 cricket because they are good players having come through the system. Future players may not go through that system, go straight into 20-20 and thus never have the full range of adaptability of a top player now.

Does 20-20 help bowlers? No. One day cricket did destroy spin bowling for a long time and even now our spin department is hardly flooded with genuinely good spinners. A swing bowler who generally pitches the ball up isn't going to enjoy a format where he's allowed few boundary fielders in the opening overs. The rules on wides make bowling bouncers more difficult. The slow bowler who relies on flight is going to dislike the shorter boundary rope in unison with the powerful bats of today. As the amount of limited overs cricket has increased over the last 20 years, the quality of bowling in international and domestic has decreased. Any number of respected commentators has been of the opinion that bowlers have suffered over the last decade and I do not see that more Twenty20 matches would improve that. Bowling yorkers and slower balls is one thing but being able to hit the same spot consistently in the manner of Glenn McGrath is something that is learnt from practice and match bowling, not nets and bowling four overs in a match in two two-over stints.

I totally agree with you that Twenty20 is the best possible way to get non-cricket fans into cricket. No argument there. Twenty20 gets them in and many find they grow to love Test cricket because of its idiosyncracies and unique elements. But making Twenty20 the main focus of the game worldwide is wrong. It'd be like the IRB making Sevens the focus of world rugby at the expense of the 15-man game.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 30, 2008

AndyPlowerRight - RP Singh benefited in the english county due to the nature - namely swing and late movement aided by engkish weather conditions not the calibre of the players who represent the county

I stil maintain, tat the English country standards have declined - Panesar, Sajjid, and several will not make it to the Test team in India

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 1, 2008

The whole point of 20:20 cricket was that the games would be played in the late afternoon, so that people could watch cricket after work / school / college etc.

Each county side gets just 5 home games per season for which, if the weather is good, attendances are normally near or at capacity.

The number of spectators have been up massively on the old 55 over competition it replaced, and has generated a lot of money for the counties and greater interest for young spectators.

If the ECB go down the franchise route for an EPL and it replaces the existing 20:20 - where are the games going to be played? At central locations where fans from other counties cannot get to the games (e.g. if Kent merged with Sussex and Essex or Hampshire - where would the game be played? How easy would it be to get to Hove or Southampton from East Kent after work?)

The ECB invented 20:20 cricket and it has been a massive success - so why fix it if it ain't broken.

Fair enough to improve it, and perhaps add more games at the expense of less attractive one day competitions, but franchises / city based teams have never worked in the UK,

For those who compare cricket and football - how many teams are their in the premier league - would it be 20?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 1, 2008

Ravibala:

You miss the point completely. Both R P Singh and Zaheer Khan have credited county cricket with improving them.

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/305521.html

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/344697.html

Playing county cricket, both enjoying the professional approach of their respective counties and coming up against English-qualified players and fellow overseas players, made them better players than if they had simply played in India only. They are not the first and not the last to experience this. The COunty Championship has for a long time been something that helps overseas players become better players.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 1, 2008

Andy Plowright
You have made so many good points over the last two days, I suggest that you copy, print and send them to the appropriate person in the ECB. Also, send them to the TMS lot at the BBC so that they have plenty to chew over in the rain delays in the 1st Test! The passion, knowledge, considered opinions, balance and vision you show should make most professional sports journalists blush!
If you can synthesize it all into a set of recommendations based on headings it would be even better!!
Many congratulations for raising the level of 606!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 1, 2008

I would like to add my appreciation of your wise words to that of ClarenceSquare, AndyPlowright.

It makes a refreshing change from the ubiquitous dross on 606.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 1, 2008

Ta for the words. Shall I spoil it all now by revealing that I'm also a 606 regular and more commonly known as Ravibala? Or DaWatfordBoy? :D

In cricketing terms, I like to think of myself as a progressive conservative. I am in favour of innovation but innovation that preserves the great parts of this game. I do find it incredible that the IPL has already picked up the worst sids of the English Premier League in the way of ludicrous sums of money, glitzy badness (remember the Sky Sports majorettes before football games? Shudder!) and players overstretching the boundaries of conduct like never before. Kerry Packer changed cricket for the good. He forced cricket into the age of true professionalism. The IPl forces cricket into the realm of investor greed and personal investor glory.

I'll only email TMS if they can get me an interview with selected members of the England ladies team. Sigh...

add comment | complain about this comment