• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Does English cricket need fixing?

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
So just to be clear from the off. The title is a little misleading as really there obviously are changes needed to English cricket. But I'm basing this thread on the fact that every time there is a poor performance from England, we look to county cricket as the problem, and that fixing it will solve everything.

What would it really achieve?

Go back four years in time. We had a mare in the World Cup but were about to rise to #1 in Tests. This was built around a team that had been carefully structured and blended together. Whereas in my youth the England team was never settled, this side was, probably moreso than most counties.

We did actually hit top spot in ODIs, through mainly good results at home. We were a joke in the 2011 WC, a joke away to Australia, a joke away to India after beating them at home and away in the longer format. The reason for this? Not, I'd argue, because of any perceived weaknesses in the county system, but a failure within the top of the English system to fully get to grips with the modern one day game. We saw 280 as a good total to aim for. And in England, it often is.

Since then, in Tests we have fallen away significantly as the team broke apart and a settled side hasn't really been reached. You can look at the county system for failing to produce the required talent if you want, but then, most players who wind up playing for England these days go through the performance squad, they go on Lions tours. They are a product of that system as much as anything. Shaking up county cricket would not change that.

I put it to you, the good people of CW (& Jono), that we could revolutionise county cricket all we like, it would not make us a competitive ODI outfit, it would not particularly change our fortunes in Tests. To compete in ODIs, we need the people at the very top recognising what is required. To achieve our goals in Tests? Honestly, I think it's about waiting it out now, for the right team to come together. The players who debuted last summer all by and large acquitted themselves well - but because we have declined overall since 2011, it's county cricket where the finger is pointed.

I'm not saying don't change county cricket. The domestic game needs to be accessible to young people because otherwise you will lose a generation. So in the long term it could well have a detrimental impact on the England team if participation was to fall. But realistically we can look to the domestic structure all we like. It's not the issue now, and hasn't been for a good little while IMO.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
I'm not fundamentally blaming county cricket. My thread is about English cricket as a whole, encompassing both domestic and international matters, with a bit of associates thrown in.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
I'm not fundamentally blaming county cricket. My thread is about English cricket as a whole, encompassing both domestic and international matters, with a bit of associates thrown in.
No I know but it got me thinking
 

Kirkut

International Regular
I see no problem with England in tests (unless you take Australian thrashing way too seriously).They are still good at it.

As far as ODIs are concerned, I don't remember the last time I have seen an England side being enthusiastic about the format. They have the talent, but never play ODIs with same interest as they play tests.
 

cpr

International Coach
I see no problem with England in tests (unless you take Australian thrashing way too seriously).They are still good at it.

As far as ODIs are concerned, I don't remember the last time I have seen an England side being enthusiastic about the format. They have the talent, but never play ODIs with same interest as they play tests.

For me, this is a good point, and I think the kind of apathy can be stretched to the fan base to an extent too. Your 'traditional' British cricket fan (ie, old ****), is a test loving bore who doesn't care for the modern frivolous shorter games. Even a younger and far ***ier fan like I am happy if we are excelling in tests, and not too fussed if the one day versions aren't as good.

If you compare us to other nations, we don't play half as much ODI's as others, and most people would probably argue we don't play more for fears of burnout, taking away from the CC etc. It's just not our desire to be like India et al when it comes to passion for the shorter game. Yet we genuinely get excited at the next test prospect.

The style of play isn't very 'British' in nature either. Whilst we genuinely loved Flintoff for his have a go slogging, thats OK in an all rounder as they are expected to hit out whilst a tail collapses. However a top order batsmen like Pietersen?? Leaves a sour taste in some people's mouths.


So IMO unless you're going to ban anyone over 50 even having an opinion on cricket, it's going to be nigh on impossible to change the mindset of the English game and its fans. Maybe we should accept striving to be the best in one format, and taking any bonus we can get when we do play the shorter games.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
It needs to stop being boring as bat****. Get some exciting players ffs
Even their exciting or potentially exciting players, they seem to do their best to try and make them as boring as possible
 

BeeGee

International Captain
The problem is the style of cricket. It's always conservative (i.e. boring).

The culture needs to change. They need to learn that risking a loss to push for a win is a good thing not a bad thing.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
The lack of bowlers coming through is the main thing that needs sorting. Not sure 100% how, although halving the number of 2020 group games would help.
 

Cabinet96

Global Moderator
The problem is the style of cricket. It's always conservative (i.e. boring).

The culture needs to change. They need to learn that risking a loss to push for a win is a good thing not a bad thing.
Shane Warne hacked your account? :ph34r:
 

Cabinet96

Global Moderator
I still don't think England's issues are as ODI specific as everyone else seems to. Yeah, we lost in Sri Lanka in Nov/Dec, but we also lost a test series at home to them six months prior. We couldn't beat Australia this season in four attempts, and got thrashed in most of the four games, but the exact same thing happened the last five test matches we played down under. We got battered by New Zealand but we also failed to win any test matches in NZ in 2013, before McCullum and Williamson were Bradman and when Southee was struggling just back from injury. The only real ODI success lately we've had was those two games against India, just like the only test success we've had for 18 months was against India. GIMH mentions the whitewash in India in 2011, and then winning the tests there a year later, but the exact opposite happened in the UAE in between.

England need to stop having stupid batting collapses, need to improve their thinking on their feet with the ball, remember how to swing it more consistently and stop dropping crucial catches, to actually give them a chance of winning games in any format. Can worry about whether 280 is a good ODI score (it is ftr) later.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
A lot of it comes down to intent. And I'm not talking 'let's try and slog every ball' intent, just coming out to bat or bowl with a clear mindset of 'this is what we're doing and how we're doing it.'

Look at the 2012 series in the UAE. James Anderson was England's best batsman against spin that series - not becsuse of the shots he played or the runs he scored, but because his footwork was the most decisive of anyone on that tour. Only 3 players scored at a SR of 50+ that tour - Swann, Broad and Anderson, and the former 2 owed a lot of it to deciding to have a slog. Anderson managed with decisive, clear footwork while the batsmen kept bogging themselves down camping half on the crease and getting themselves out.
 

Pothas

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I am going to go with no.

County cricket obviously needs a better schedule, and at least some of it needs to be on free to air television but I don't think there is anything wrong with 18 counties and two divisions.
 

Riggins

International Captain
Number of first class teams and what not is such a circular argument. When Australia are good, you need less teams and a high standard to bring the best out of people. When England are good then the larger talent pool and more experience through more games is better. There's obviously issues good and bad with both, but when each of the teams has really sucked it's been to do with a lot more than the FC structure.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Number of first class teams and what not is such a circular argument. When Australia are good, you need less teams and a high standard to bring the best out of people. When England are good then the larger talent pool and more experience through more games is better. There's obviously issues good and bad with both, but when each of the teams has really sucked it's been to do with a lot more than the FC structure.
Boom
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
A lot of it comes down to intent. And I'm not talking 'let's try and slog every ball' intent, just coming out to bat or bowl with a clear mindset of 'this is what we're doing and how we're doing it.'

Look at the 2012 series in the UAE. James Anderson was England's best batsman against spin that series - not becsuse of the shots he played or the runs he scored, but because his footwork was the most decisive of anyone on that tour. Only 3 players scored at a SR of 50+ that tour - Swann, Broad and Anderson, and the former 2 owed a lot of it to deciding to have a slog. Anderson managed with decisive, clear footwork while the batsmen kept bogging themselves down camping half on the crease and getting themselves out.
Anderson scored like 50 runs, behave yourself
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Number of first class teams and what not is such a circular argument. When Australia are good, you need less teams and a high standard to bring the best out of people. When England are good then the larger talent pool and more experience through more games is better. There's obviously issues good and bad with both, but when each of the teams has really sucked it's been to do with a lot more than the FC structure.
tbf there haven't been many times when the Aus team has been poor, so it's not such a bad idea to look at their structure. Whereas with England, the good times have been the exception rather than the rule.

imo it's so obvious that the southern hemisphere countries make a better job with their available talent that I really don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.

England's two-divisional structure may have achieved something, but not as much as it might as the better players don't all play in the first Division.
Ultimately it's down to priorities. Whatever they might say to the contrary, the England domestic game is as much about maintaining its cultural heritage as it is about developing excellence. Probably more about the former, actually. So we're always going to be handicapped against countries with the latter objective.
 

Top