The best talent (of those who are interested, anyway) may indeed mostly be found and snapped-up but there's absolutely no doubt it's often not nurtured as well as it could be. More investment in grass-roots coaching and practice facilities would go some way to remedying this.Don't really buy this either. I'm not sure putting the amount of money saved from signing additional overseas pros etc would really improve the best young players who are coming through. In this country, the best talent is found and snapped up - it's not India or Pakistan where players will appear from nowhere. It might raise the standard of league cricket or youh cricket, but not much else.
And I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase "work up from the bottom" (or similar). Raise the standard of league and youth cricket and you have the spur to excellence. It's precisely why Australia's cricket system has been the best in world cricket since, well, time immemorial pretty much.
Aren't you just moreorless agreeing with me here? I can't find anything that really contradicts what I was saying.Many cricketers stay in cricket and gain coaching qualifications while they play. There's all the UCCE system which many of the 'mediocre' players that you criticise will have come through, which ensures that they have some sort of qualification for the future. And if they don't have the potential to forge a degree-based or A-Level based career after their county career, however short it may be, then it's unlikely that the additional 10 years of employment will have really improved their earnings.
Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourthcricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006
(Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
WRT the final bit (said all I want to about the other bit) - no, it's fundamentally different to your point. You're saying that by "delaying the inevitable" players are only hurting or not furthering their own chances in life; I'm saying that they may as well give it a go because if it doesn't work, even over a long-term period, they'll either by helped by forging a career in the game post-playing, or have a degree they gained while playing high-level uni cricket that they can put into practice and gain employment, or take up a job that isn't really rewarded by long service.
I think 18 is the ideal number for a squad in county cricket. Your firsts team, plus a back up keeper, spinner, and 2 batsman and 3 seamers, or vica-verca.
Now I don't really know what's going on here, and I don't follow county cricket near as much as I would like to, but from what I've read, I mostly agree with Richard, except for the part where he said something along the lines of you'd rather play Saturday cricket and rip it up (yes, I know he said Sunday, but I'm changing it up to the Australian way), and work the other 5 days of the week. Playing a higher level cricket is more beneficial, probably more finiancially beneficial until you retire, and you obviously would learn more, and have more of a challenge. If I could play first grade and average 50, or play first class cricket for NSW (or any other state, I don't care as long as it gets me to that level), and average 25-30 (I'm obviously talking about batting), then I'd much rather do that. The coaching, people you meet, opportunities to do things, etc, would be so much better than working a boring job for 5 or more days a week and playing on a Saturday.
I'm saying that if a cricketer has failed to make it (talking clearly, obviously not up to it) by the age of 23-24 then I'd prefer them to go off and do something else. I think that's the best option for them and it's certainly the best option for the game.
The fact that many players who turn-out pretty useless at county level have played UCCE cricket beforehand, gaining a degree at the same time, so thus have some sort of insurance policy before diving headfirst into the game, in fact is an aide to the process of trial-and-elimination that I tend to favour.
So what was the URL of the page you read... then copy-pasted from?
I didn't copy and paste anything. And the URL's are various.
Sounds like you have too much time on your hands....
There was really no need to post such a long quote twice. And incidentally most of the names haven't changed, but I'll be having a look at the purely numerical categorisation and seeing how many categories have increased and how many decreased.
Found out about Ealham through Corrin.
Oh yeah it wasn't you! It was Stumpski! I said that there were many players calling it the quits as Butcher, Crawley & Caddick all retired within a few days of each other.
Where did you hear about that David? Still nothing on any of the normal sites I can find.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)