Bobby Simpson's Scathing Critique of Australian Cricket

[Richard]

Originally Posted by archie mac

Why?

Because that will help the touring side at the cost of the home side.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Slow Love™

Holy crap, Richard - this one peeled my hair back!

To be honest, I actually reference a lot of articles here - and often introduce them as "here's an interesting article from ......... on ...........". The reason I was critical of this one was because Simpson was for the most part just re-touching on specific issues that had gotten a lot of press just lately, and was re-iterating stuff that's been floating around with great regularity in the newspapers over the last few weeks - and tossing in some nonsense besides.

The Deano one was pretty laughable, and I was far from the only person to have a chuckle about it - the thread ended up with people writing their own parody versions of it.

I guess maybe the (2) critical reactions I had to Simpson's and Jones's articles particularly stuck in your head, but I felt that in this case, it was Simpson hanging crap on things (or people) he didn't like, and/or rehashing specific things that he was coming in a little late on. And I'm a little tired of the panicky comments on how sick and injured our domesitc system is on the whole when we've been dominating world cricket for nigh on ten years and we just lost an away series very closely in which far more specific and direct issues relating to the current international side (and their opposition) were much more relevant.

I also think that the age problems he referenced are often caused by long periods of success at international level. Very promising and talented cricketers miss out because the side is very stable, and then, when an opening comes up, and these players waiting are making bags of runs (or taking wickets) at state level, it's understandable that the selectors would try these guys at the age of 26, 27, etc. I think you generally have a far higher turnover of really young guys coming through the side when you're far less successful.

Lastly, I don't think it made sense to make direct comparisons to this period to back in the mid-80's when he took over, and in this context, reference how similar now is to then, where we were in the middle of a losing streak, and having numerous players exhibit laziness, unwillingness to train, etc. Firstly, WTF does that have to do with what we're seeing right now in terms of the Australian cricket team? And secondly, who's showing a lack of commitment or not appreciating the honor of playing Australia? It's as if players can't be outplayed by a decent opposition, or that they can't have horror tours - it's all a matter of laziness and forgetting your obligations to your country. I don't buy it.

I quite see what you are saying - maybe I slightly misconstrued your original post.
Now you have expanded, perhaps I understand a little better.
If so, I apologise.

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by Richard

Because that will help the touring side at the cost of the home side.

True, but you don't think it would be a good thing for county cricket?

[Richard]

Not unless the players are playing without being paid a penny, no.
I'm very much against, and always have been, the current "crazed merry-go-round of overseas players" as Matthew Engel puts it. The fewer overseas-players per season the better IMO, especially with so many EU-passport-players and Kolpak players, some of whom are utterly rubbish.

[Craig]

But would the counties agree though? They sign a player and have him withdrawn with less then 24 hours notice and yet they have trained and played him enough to help the opposition.

Of course this may happen if they aren't in the touring party, but that only happens because of an injury/ies.

2nd XI or league cricket would have been the better options, but again it goes back to what I have said, a league club maynot agree as they have shelled out the cash to sign their one foregin player (if that is their restrication) and have him pulled away with similar notice?

IMO it is a lot easier said then done.

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by Craig

But would the counties agree though? They sign a player and have him withdrawn with less then 24 hours notice and yet they have trained and played him enough to help the opposition.

Of course this may happen if they aren't in the touring party, but that only happens because of an injury/ies.

2nd XI or league cricket would have been the better options, but again it goes back to what I have said, a league club maynot agree as they have shelled out the cash to sign their one foregin player (if that is their restrication) and have him pulled away with similar notice?

IMO it is a lot easier said then done.

True, but if the counties did not have to pay the players, and the restrictions for OS players could be suspended, etc etc Oh I see what you are saying it might be a bit tough

[Richard]

If the counties did not have to spend a penny I'd be more than willing to see it implemented.
Somehow I can't see that.