Club or Country?

[Kweek]

haha! yes the man was!


hmm, in holland, i'd say club over country, but thats because im part of a club, and im in there youth setup, and might play highest league in a few years...so club before country.
although looking at england i'd much rather see England win, then lets say see Lancs do well, although im happy if that happens, im not attached the club.
although I enjoy watching holland and esp Holland winning , I much rather see my club win the league then seeing Holland win a game, or win a WC match..if it comes to qualifying im more towards Holland, as it benefits dutch cricket, when we qualify, financially wise but cricket quality wise too !

 

[grecian]

So Langeveldt a green slime supporter *slits eyes*

Country on both for me so far in a realistic sense. Exeters promotion would just lead to more struggles in the Football league, I think last time of asking was about 15 seasons out of sixteen where we lost more games then we won. Premiership for City would be ultimate, but World Cup sucess for England at the moment is slightly more realistic.

In cricket, its England, theres no doubt, without English triumphs, everything else would fade into obscurity soon. I lived through decades of English under-performance, with first West Indies then Aussie gloating, we were poor, it was humiliating. Now we live the dream, we can win, its orgasmic. Real heroes, its my best sporting experience since the 1990 World Cup

 

[Richard]

He was drunk.

Oh...
I have a simple rule when drunk: don't log-on to CW.n.

 

[steds]

Yeah. Sorry about that.

 

[Richard]

MTTP... how did TB and Taz know?
And anyway... what did you mean with that post?

 

[andyc]

Oh...
I have a simple rule when drunk: don't log-on to CW.n.

If only Steds had followed that advice.

 

[Kweek]

MTTP... how did TB and Taz know?
And anyway... what did you mean with that post?

well it was blatantly obvious! wasnt it ?
ive loggen into msn when stoned...Neil is actually the only cw'er to have talked to me when I was high...haha

 

[DanielFullard]

What I mean is if you'd be happy (or not unhappy) for England to do as poorly as they did in the 2nd half of the 1980s in exchange for Durham winning the Championship 5 times in a row you'd be unwise.

There you go again. First I had "misplaced loyalties" and when I countered that and made your unjustified claims look follish you say that I am "unwise".

Without a successful (or at least not totally hopless a la 1986-1989) England side, as I said, there IS no county cricket.

So you are saying we were rubbish in the late 80's, yet the game still survived which sort of defeats your whole point! don't get me wrong I see where you are coming from and the proof that the National side's success can hugely boost the domestic game is undeniable. But to say that a lack of national success would ruin the domestic game and put clubs out of business is laughable.

You are saying that for the domestic game to survive we need national team success. You are syaing we should all put the national team first in order to ensure the survival of county cricket. There lies in your point an inherent contradiction. If we all gave up on County Cricket to follow the national team and always put it first then the County game would suffer inherently more than in times of no national success.

Whats your next name for me then?

 

[Richard]

If only Steds had followed that advice.

Hmm...

 

[Richard]

There you go again. First I had "misplaced loyalties" and when I countered that and made your unjustified claims look follish you say that I am "unwise".

Err... the two things are pretty much one and the same.
Having misplaced loyalties is unwise.
There's no looking-foolish in there... as usual.

So you are saying we were rubbish in the late 80's, yet the game still survived which sort of defeats your whole point! don't get me wrong I see where you are coming from and the proof that the National side's success can hugely boost the domestic game is undeniable. But to say that a lack of national success would ruin the domestic game and put clubs out of business is laughable.

You are saying that for the domestic game to survive we need national team success. You are syaing we should all put the national team first in order to ensure the survival of county cricket. There lies in your point an inherent contradiction. If we all gave up on County Cricket to follow the national team and always put it first then the County game would suffer inherently more than in times of no national success.

Nope. Pretty much everyone knows that without a successful national side the least financially secure domestic clubs WILL go out of business. To suggest otherwise is to demonstrate extreme naivity and perhaps no little idealism.
Where on Earth did I say people should "give up" on the domestic game? I said people should always realise that national success is much more important than the success of their domestic side, and always work towards that.
I am about as interested in the domestic game as anyone. Clearly, without a good-quality domestic game the international game suffers. It's an interdependent system.
But people have to realise that as far as team success is concerned, the international game is, really, the only thing that matters.
The domestic game would suffer far more if clubs went out of business than if no-one cared if they won competitions.

 

[DanielFullard]

Up until the past year and a half there was no interest in the national side at all outside of the Cricket world. It had no success. Most people would not have been able to name a player let alone the team. Did the county Game die out then? No

Your points are absurd.

So are you seriously telling me that if the national side just gave up tomorrow that county cricket would die, would go out of buisness?

 

[Richard]

How many times?
Things are different now to how they were even 8 or 9 years ago.
Not so very long ago The BBC and Cornhill were pretty much a perminant part of cricket.
Since then things have changed much.
Things are completely dependant on the income generated by the national side, have been for a while.
Recently, however, that income has become far, far less dependable, and now a huge amounts rests on how successful the national side is.
And certainly it's not true to say "up until the last year there was no interest in the national side outside cricket circles". You seriously think that, in periods of success for England (1977-1985; 1967-1974; 1951-1961; the early 1900s and 1910s) that there was never a big interest in cricket?

 

[DanielFullard]

And certainly it's not true to say "up until the last year there was no interest in the national side outside cricket circles". You seriously think that, in periods of success for England (1977-1985; 1967-1974; 1951-1961; the early 1900s and 1910s) that there was never a big interest in cricket?

As I made clear, I was referring to more recent times.

 

[Richard]

I'd not say you made it clear at all.
And do you now see what I mean by that many counties would go out of business if England were kicked-out of international cricket?

 

[Goughy]

\Nope. Pretty much everyone knows that without a successful national side the least financially secure domestic clubs WILL go out of business. To suggest otherwise is to demonstrate extreme naivity and perhaps no little idealism.

There is no way that statement can be given as fact.

It is a possibility but people get easily carried away and make fatalistic predictions. By 2000 were were supposed to be underwater after the melting of the ice caps, we were only supposed to have enough oil to last until 2015 before decending back to the stone age, we are all supposed to be on the brink of a virtual extinction due to bird flu etc..

The predictions of doommongers dominate because they makes good headlines.

Generally the status quo prevails. No County Cricket club has ceased playing due to financial problems and it is unlikely they will disband and fail to meet their scheduling responsibilities.

An unsuccessful England team would certainly impact cricket across England but there is no reason to get carried away. The system would evolve to deal with the changes.

If England turn into a terrible team it does not sound the the death knell of the CC or the Counties themselves.

 

[Goughy]

And do you now see what I mean by that many counties would go out of business if England were kicked-out of international cricket?

It did not happen in South Africa. In fact being out of international cricket strengthened the domestic game and increased its profile.

Since re-admission the domestic game has dramatically declined in importance.

 

[DanielFullard]

If England turn into a terrible team it does not sound the the death knell of the CC or the Counties themselves.

Indeed.

Richard has a solid point in that the success of the International team has huge impacts on the domestic game but he is getting too carried away trying to proove his ridiculous fatalistic notions of the death of county Cricket. County Cricket has and always will survive regardless of the national team and to say otherwise is laughably foolish

 

[age_master]

Country in any sport personally.

yep

 

[marc71178]

Indeed.

Richard has a solid point in that the success of the International team has huge impacts on the domestic game but he is getting too carried away trying to proove his ridiculous fatalistic notions of the death of county Cricket. County Cricket has and always will survive regardless of the national team and to say otherwise is laughably foolish

IIRC crowds at domestic cricket are up on 2000 (consistently year on year)

Yet early in the 2000s we were far from successful...

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Country. This debate is ludicrous.