Rank the world's first class competitions in order

[Furball]

Yea, I think part of the reason might be that the best athletes in the UK are going into soccer rather than cricket that might explain why arguably the best domestic structure in the world doesn't necessarily always mean the best Test team? Obviously sports are different, but most times, you'll find the best athletes are remarkably good at many sports.

I'm just guessing here, I'm not sure. What do people from the UK think?

IMO, if you're a talented youngster from the West Indies or India, then County Cricket is an excellent "finishing school" due to the amount of cricket you can play and the facilities to analyse and improve your game.

However, I don't think it's an ideal environment for developing talent for 2 reasons - the relative independence of the counties means that short term success is more important than developing players long term, and the volume of cricket played leaves little time for developing players to work on technique etc. in between games. Towards the end of the season in particular, the schedule is frankly ridiculous.

It's telling that 2 of the more recent captains in Michael Atherton and Michael Vaughan have been extremely critical of English domestic cricket. Vaughan in particular gave a scathing interview to Wisden in July/August 2008.

edit: having said that, England's relatively poor performance over the last god knows how many years and complete lack of any world class talent coming through over the last 20 years has as much to do with a poor grass roots structure as it does with County Cricket being "broken."

 

[Richard]

It owes far, far more to the lack of talent. It's telling that the good players England have produced have still been easily good enough for Test cricket, despite the could-do-much-much-better county game.

The simple fact is that cricket is not popular enough in England, and grass-roots coaching is not good enough, to produce exceptional cricketers in the quantity that most other sides do. Thus, the last time England had a really good Test side for more than a series or two at a time was 40 years ago.

If county cricket truly optimised itself in the course of the next 5 years (fewer games, fewer full-time pros, fewer overseas-players, counties being more accountable to the ECB - the lattermost would be a prerequisite for all of the former), and everything else remained the same, England would not be spectacularly more successful.

 

[Furball]

The simple fact is that cricket is not popular enough in England, and grass-roots coaching is not good enough, to produce exceptional cricketers in the quantity that most other sides do. Thus, the last time England had a really good Test side for more than a series or two at a time was 40 years ago.

If we say that Botham was the last genuine world class cricketer England have produced, more or less since his debut the West Indies have had Bishop, Ambrose, Walsh, Lara and Chanderpaul, New Zealand have had Hadlee (not 100% sure of when he debuted) and Bond, not sure about how good their batsmen have been or if Martin Crowe has a case for being considered world class, Sri Lanka have had Da Silva, Jayasuriya, Jayawardene, Sangakkara and Muralitharan.

All countries with lower populations and poorer facilities than England.

 

[Smudge]

New Zealand have had Hadlee (not 100% sure of when he debuted)

1972/3, but only started to hit his straps in the late 1970s.

 

[Furball]

1972/3, but only started to hit his straps in the late 1970s.

Would have assumed late 70s given he was still around in the early 90s.

 

[Richard]

If we say that Botham was the last genuine world class cricketer England have produced, more or less since his debut the West Indies have had Bishop, Ambrose, Walsh, Lara and Chanderpaul, New Zealand have had Hadlee (not 100% sure of when he debuted) and Bond, not sure about how good their batsmen have been or if Martin Crowe has a case for being considered world class, Sri Lanka have had Da Silva, Jayasuriya, Jayawardene, Sangakkara and Muralitharan.

All countries with lower populations and poorer facilities than England.

I'll reply in full to this post when I'm less tired, but suffice to say the contention that Bond was better in any respect than Fraser has nothing going for it whatsoever.

 

[Goughy]

I'll reply in full to this post when I'm less tired, but suffice to say the contention that Bond was better in any respect than Fraser has nothing going for it whatsoever.

Nothing? Not even a little bit?

 

[Polo23]

or if Martin Crowe has a case for being considered world class

What?!

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Football's been more popular than cricket in the UK for ages - nonetheless, not all good athletes are good footballers and not all good cricketers are neccessarily athletes.

Cricket's inferiority in terms of popularity to football and, of times, other sports is nonetheless a massive handicap to the game in the UK and always will be. Fortunately the population is easily large enough that even though cricket is played and watched only by a very small minority, that small minority is still very considerable compared to other countries.

Same thing happens in Australia, but yet we're not handicapped and your population is 3 times the size of ours.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

I'll reply in full to this post when I'm less tired, but suffice to say the contention that Bond was better in any respect than Fraser has nothing going for it whatsoever.

Fraser better then Bond? Yeah and Ian Bell is better then Sachin Tendulkar.

Pietersen is the only world class player to represent England since Botham.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Pietersen is the only world class player to represent England since Botham.

Depends what we're meaning by "world class" here I think. If we mean "all-time great" then maybe (although KP still has work to do on that front), but we've had blokes like Gooch who was the #1 batsman in the world for a year or so in the early 90s and chaps like Robin Smith, Thorpey, Goughy & Stewie who were all genuinely test class performers.

 

[morgieb]

I'll reply in full to this post when I'm less tired, but suffice to say the contention that Bond was better in any respect than Fraser has nothing going for it whatsoever.

. Ridiculous statement. Bond's a gun, Fraser's merely good.

 

[Craig]

How does the structure of Pakistani FC cricket work? I aks because it is commong to see players and they have played for half a dozen teams.

 

[Richard]

Nothing? Not even a little bit?

Of course there were things Bond could do that Fraser couldn't (swing being the most obvious) but in almost every respect Fraser has it over Bond.

 

[Richard]

Same thing happens in Australia, but yet we're not handicapped and your population is 3 times the size of ours.

The same thing doesn't happen in Australia at all - relatively speaking, cricket is far more popular in Australia compared to various football codes than it is in England.

 

[Richard]

. Ridiculous statement. Bond's a gun, Fraser's merely good.

Fraser better then Bond? Yeah and Ian Bell is better then Sachin Tendulkar.

Err, no. Fraser was quite clearly far better than Bond at Test level - he could stay fit for more than 5 minutes at a time, and there was negligable difference in their averages even in the games they were limited by their injuries (which in the cases of both were plentiful) to: Fraser averaged just over 27, Bond just under.

Pietersen is the only world class player to represent England since Botham.

The term "world class player" is a notoriously vague and relatively useless one, but suffice to say that the contention that Botham 1977/78-1982 was World-class and Gooch 1990-1993 was not is an utterly ludicrous one.

 

[Richard]

If we say that Botham was the last genuine world class cricketer England have produced, more or less since his debut the West Indies have had Bishop, Ambrose, Walsh, Lara and Chanderpaul, New Zealand have had Hadlee (not 100% sure of when he debuted) and Bond, not sure about how good their batsmen have been or if Martin Crowe has a case for being considered world class, Sri Lanka have had Da Silva, Jayasuriya, Jayawardene, Sangakkara and Muralitharan.

All countries with lower populations and poorer facilities than England.

Botham like most English cricketers was only truly outstanding for a relatively brief period - 4 years 1977/78-1982. Thereafter he was merely decent for another 5 years, and thereafter he shouldn't even have been playing so we can safely ignore that. And as I say, Gooch 1990-1993 most certainly matched that, so if you say Botham was a World-class cricketer, Gooch certainly was as well. So was Underwood in the pre-covered-wickets days - granted he was pre-Botham rather than post-. Between Gooch and Pietersen there's not been an England player who could be said to have sustained outstanding form for more than a few Tests at a time.

The last England cricketer who was World-class, whatever that means, for a time of real length was Boycott, who made his Test debut in 1964. Yet before him there were many, at regular intervals. Certainly, something has been lost, and whether England can regain it is a question worth asking, and certainly not one I'd presume to be able to answer with confidence.

 

[Flem274*]

People wonder whats wrong with CC, then we see Fraser is now better than Bond...

Personally, it does not compute. Maybe I'm just being a nutty kiwi, but really..

 

[Richard]

If two players whose averages over the course of whatever careers they played were similar, and one played about 15 Tests and the other 40-odd, that to me means the one who played a bit more was the better Test cricketer.

As per usual, people are giving too much consideration to ODIs - there, Bond was outstanding and Fraser merely very good.

 

[King Pietersen]

Similar? Fraser averaged 27 in the 90's, Bond averaged 22 in the 00's. They're not as close as you're suggesting.