*Official* UK off-season 2009/10

[FBU]

I think it is too big a group as well.We should just have the 15 Lions players plus the Under 19s involved at Loughborough. The rest should develop at their county. We have the Test squad, ODI squad, Under 19s, Lions squad, EPP squad, Development squad, Fast Bowlers Programme players. 32 players will be going to SA for a training camp with the 4 players not playing in the ODIS. I wonder if this new idea was Buchanan's as he was consulted earlier in the year about the Centre of Excellence as he called it. Probably his idea as well the Ashes squad went to Flanders.

When Rod Marsh started the Academy he said he would be happy if one player a year went on to play for England, well some of them went in and out again. Players who played Tests in bold. Some players were chosen for more than one tour so not included in the list for the following year.

2001 - Bell, Wagh, Kenway, Peng, Key, Wood, Wallace, Tremlett, Swann, Schofield, Kirby, SJones, Harmison, Strauss, Flintoff, Tudor, Shah, Sidebottom
2002 - Ali, Batty, Blackwell, Hogg, Muchall, Panesar, Read, Stevens, Troughton, Clarke, Anderson, Wagg
2003 - Newman, Napier, Pietersen, Mahmood, Prior, Tredwell, ESmith, Lumb, Shafayat, Francis, Kadir Ali, Khalid, Gidman
2004 - Solanki, Harrison, Lewis, Powell, Franks, Dawson, Cook
2005 - Joyce, Yardy, SDavies, Dalrymple, Wright, Bopara, Broad, Footitt, TSmith, Plunkett
2006 - Onions
2007 - Bresnan, Carberry, Compton, Jefferson, Khan, Loudon, Rashid, [B]
2008 - Trott, Hildreth, Richardson, Denly, Foster, Shreck
2009 - MDavies, Moore, Morgan, Patel, Ambrose, Dawson, Joseph

Test players who did not go through the Academy/Lions although some of them might have gone on the A tours before the Academy was formed.
Trescothick, Vaughan, Hoggard, Ward, Afzaal, Ormond, Silverwood, McGrath, Bicknell, Collingwood, Johnson, Saggers, GJones, Udal, Pattinson.

Players from the present Test squad who didn't go through the Academy in bold
Cook, Strauss, Trott, Pietersen, Bell, Collingwood, Prior, Broad, Swann, Plunkett, Anderson, Onions, Sidebottom, Davies, Rashid, Wright

[Richard]

Originally Posted by zaremba

Available to you.

By "available" I mean "available to the wider public".

As I keep saying, I would expect the selectors to have better information available to them than you or I do. They have a wealth of sources which we don't have access to. We can only get so much of a view through the lens of cricinfo and cricket archive, and when you're dealing with very young players that view is very far from complete.

It depends on how young young is. If it's 17-18, yes. If it's 21-22 (and some are older even than that), I don't think so. I'd venture to suggest that a player who hasn't even ripped it up at Second XI level (and\or has failed completely at first-team) by that age has essentially no chance of ever being an international cricketer of substance.

Once you get all that far into your 20s, age-group county cricket and club level stuff - for which data isn't widely available - becomes extremely slim in relevance.

I rarely if ever venture an opinion on a player's long-term prospects before they reach the age of 20 and if you can find an example of me doing so then please do.

I've not particularly ventured an opinion on the point, I was merely commenting on your claim to "absolute certainty". Sometimes you can give the impression (whether deliberately or not, I have no idea) that you see no room for sane/informed disagreement with your pronouncements. When that happens, I feel duty-bound to pick you up on it.

I can be absolutely certain that most of those players will not have substantial Test careers. Apart from anything else, it isn't possible for more than 11 players of the same generation to have a substantial Test career.

If you comment on this, you've ventured an opinion on whether there's any point in giving a training camp to as many as 41 players - thus either agreeing or disagreeing with me.

Anyhow, if we got 6-7 substantial Test careers out of that lot, I wouldn't be all that disappointed tbh.

Nor me - but I think such an estimate is extremely optimistic. And as Kev says, you'd be every bit as likely to achieve that by picking 20 players as 40.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by zaremba

I'm not sure where "world-class" comes into this.

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

If you only throw money at guaranteed successes then it's pretty obvious you'll make a loss in the end. If you invest in ten players, and one of them turns out to be world-class, it was almost certainly worth it.

..............

Originally Posted by zaremba

Either we have wonderkids who are destined to be world-class or we don't. If we did, they would presumably be included in this squad. I'm not sure anyone's suggesting that world-class talent is being omitted.

They're not. The suggestion is that an investment in 10 turning-out 1 World-class is worth it. Well, that's neither here nor there TBH to what I was saying.

All that we can hope this sort of scheme to achieve is to help to identify and then to develop players of potential international quality.

Besides which, standing where you are, you just don't know. Imagine if this were c1998 and Andrew Strauss were picked for this squad as a 21-year-old who had only made his First Class debut a few months before. You wouldn't have heard of him, or if you had you wouldn't have had any reason to think that he was a future Test-class opener, and you'd have written him off as a result, in just the same way that you're writing off the other 21-year-olds in this list. That sort of thought might just make you pause and reflect.

Strauss was something of a late developer. And I'd have said of him the same sort of thing I've said of Meaker and Blake - which is precious little. If I've not heard much or anything about a player I don't tend to venture an opinion on them.

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by four_or_six

These C-grade guys are just going on a camp, right? It's not as though they're getting a big salary from the ECB, or spending the whole winter training with them. Even if the end result is just to improve their skills so that country cricket is a higher standard, the ECB may feel that that is a good return on the money put in.

Improving County players may be a 'positive' outcome but I dont think that this what the process is designed to do.

Also I (and the Counties) would argue that development of County pros is the responsibility of the County the player represents. They each have their own system in place. One of the primary ways to hurt the development of a player is to have 2 or more different coaches (especially one or two working for a short time only) work with the same player. Having the England system work with players with little chance of playing for England also introduces the political aspect of why the National system is interfering with domestic teams. This could be abused to favor certain Counties.

The idea of improving average County cricketers may be a noble aim but I dont think that is the current plan. I think player improvement is under the umbrella of the County that pays the wages of the player.

If the ECB wanted to develop and improve young average County pros then give grants to Counties to improve their coaching and facilites but allow them to coach their employees in the way they judge to be best.

[Goughy]

A player development system could be pretty simple in my opinion.

You have 3 levels. U19s, A Team and National team. If selected there is preparation can coaching camps to ready the player for the challanges of the games that will be played for that team.

Short term camps with no aim to prepare for a specific tour have little value in my opinion. You have to practice, prepare and then implement those changes immediately.

This should then be run in conjunction with an ECB officer who helps find winter cricket (where there is a great deal of responsibility on a player to perform) for all PCA members that wants to do so.

So often ignored in player development is the need to be self motivated, proactive and for the player to take personal responsibility for their own development. A sense of false accomplishment and entitlement bred by certain programs does far more damage than they help. Hungry players are ambitious players and ambitious players dont need to have their hand held.

(typed v. quickly, apologies for any grammar and sp. mistakes)

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by Richard

If I've not heard much or anything about a player I don't tend to venture an opinion on them.

Carter? Jones?

[Richard]

I consider I've studied, and watched, enough about both to do so. If you are willing to challenge my ascertation that neither are remotely likely to ever be worthy Test players, go ahead.

[zaremba]

I'll challenge your use of the word ascertation, but if you've watched them play and studied their careers then I certainly wouldn't challenge your judgment.

Having said which, I don't understand why, when I twice asked if you'd watched them play, you didn't say that you had.

[CricketGuy007]

Does it really matter if you are bristish or not to play cricket in UK? Our cricket in UK will only improve if we start playing with better players! We need to look at what other countries are doing and try and follow there foot steps! English cricket will not progress if we dont give our youngsters a chance to blossom. Please give me your opinion on this?

Kollpak players? Will this make a difference to English cricket?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by zaremba

I'll challenge your use of the word ascertation, but if you've watched them play and studied their careers then I certainly wouldn't challenge your judgment.

Assertion would perhaps be a better word than ascertation, I'll admit that.

Having said which, I don't understand why, when I twice asked if you'd watched them play, you didn't say that you had.

I haven't watched them extensively on a regular basis or anything, but I have seen their bowling actions and watched them on an in-match basis once or twice, enabling - in combination with the figures widely available - some judgement on such matters as accuracy, basic wicket-taking skill and speed.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by zaremba

Slurrey reportedly seeking to sign Rob Key and Luke Wright. Apparently Slurrey are offering to treble Wright's Sussex wages. However he has a year left on his contract and I can't see Sussex releasing him without substantial compensation.

There are also reports that they want to sign Pushy.

Surrey sign Pushy

My sources also tell me that the signing of Luke Wright is moving closer.

[fredfertang]

I don't mind about Pushy so much - as an overseas player he's something of a mercenary by definition but Wright is disappointing - I know it's an inevitable consequence of modern employment law but I still find players moving counties a little distasteful especially when it's Surrey doing their Chelski bit

Makes me even keener to see Wright come off this winter so that the brown hatters don't see the benefit of their nefarious tapping up

[Marcuss]

Gutted about Pushy, loved him at Sussex. Surrey + Pushy doesn't quite have the same effect for me .

[Richard]

Hope he fits in well and has a long, distinguished Surrey career to follow in Saqlain's footsteps (all right, they've not got that much in common other than being subcontinental and bowling rather good-quality spin, but that's enough) myself TBH.

As for Luke Wright, hope he does nothing much whenever he plays for England and drops out of the picture ASAP. Not hard to see he's nowhere near ODI-standard IMO. The prospect of him playing Tests is truly worrying, as I think I may have mentioned not so long ago. Whether he makes a decent county player remains to be seen.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by fredfertang

Wright is disappointing - I know it's an inevitable consequence of modern employment law but I still find players moving counties a little distasteful especially when it's Surrey doing their Chelski bit

I'd agree more passionately if we hadn't poached him from Leicestershire in the first place...

Originally Posted by Richard

As for Luke Wright... Whether he makes a decent county player remains to be seen.

In terms of his ability as a county player, a FC average of 52 last season suggests that he's stepping up at last. I've never been sure that he's deserved a place in our Championship team, but last season he finally proved that wrong.

Needless to say, if he signs for the Brown Helmets, I hope he fails dismally