Jump to content
IGNORED

International Cricket


Monkeh

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Northern Red said:

Special mention has to go to Sam Billings. If Buttler or Bairstow had come up with a pair of dismissals like that in the same match there'd be calls for them to never play for England again.

Pope 2nd innings must rival that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An excellent, if somewhat scathing article by Tanya Aldred.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2022/jan/16/england-are-collapse-specialists-but-hobart-ignominy-sets-new-low

Interestingly, she writes:

Wouldn’t it, you found yourself thinking to yourself, against all odds and the evidence of the last four Tests, be something for Joe Root to win the game and salvage something from the series with that longed-for Australian Ashes hundred?

Fool!

Great Minds, and all that....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Focus needs to return to Test cricket for the ECB and it needs to be the ongoing priority.

The review and changes to our one day cricket were needed after the 2015 World Cup but our T20 / ODI team is now one of the best in the world and will continue to be. As new, young players come through they will be used to this aggressive, expansive form of cricket and I see no reason why we won’t continue to thrive. In short, if it’s not broke don’t fix it. 

Test cricket as the name suggests is a mental and physical test over 5 days, often in unfamiliar conditions and can include being away from home for months at a time.  We need to do all we can to prepare players for this rather than chuck them in at India or Australia and hope for the best. 
 

I hope there are changes for the upcoming WI tour, the England camp seems to comfy for one. Get Kirsten in and identify players who have the temperament as much as the skill to succeed in Test cricket. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TomF said:

I ******* despair at this.   What we need to be doing is prioritising the CC not killing it off. 

 

I can see the potential benefits, but I'd rather my county (Glos) wasn't taken away from me when we're finally looking like we mean business. 

As far as Aggers' proposal goes, we already have a 10-team First Division of County Cricket. How would an 8-team Second Division going down to three days (from four) benefit the Test XI, especially when there are some big counties in it?

I loathe The 100 and franchise sport in general, and the concept of potentially rewarding some of the big ground counties (Glamorgan being a prime example) turns my stomach. 

Edited by tin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TomF said:

I ******* despair at this.   What we need to be doing is prioritising the CC not killing it off. 

 

I can sympathise with your view, but County Cricket just isn't producing battle hardened Test players for England these days. Contrast this with Sheffield Shield in Australia where just 6 teams play the sort of cricket that produces Test players.

In England we have gone for one day comps, the blast, the hundred all to attract spectators and generate cash to support the existing structure. If you want to see the best players you'll see them in these comps and rarely in the county champs, where red ball contracted test players don't even play anymore. 

Much as I've loved county cricket I can see that it's no longer fit for purpose, doesn't produce Test players, is of little interest and attracts a diminishing number of spectators.

Perhaps reducing the number of counties would be sensible, which would leave space for the money making stuff, and also make sure that the best players play in the 4 day game against the best opposition.

Edited by Calculus
Typos
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was at a sportsman's charity dinner about 3 years ago where Agnew was the guest speaker and did a Q&A. The subject of county cricket was raised and he thought it was inevitable that the number of counties would reduce at some point. He made the point that his own county Leicestershire would likely be one of the prime casualties so he had no desire to see it happen, but he couldn't see how all of them could remain competitive and viable long term. He was also very much not in favour of the Hundred, though his view may have changed since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...