18 county system isn't the way forward for English cricket

[GIMH]

As i debated with you before, you are placing too much emphasis on the stats in List A cricket. That is historically proven to be very poor guide to judging how players may go in ODI cricket for ENG.

Using the 2009 OD averages that you got those stats from. Look at James Foster, he has a SR rate of 112, with 15 sixes. Now surely you are not going to tell me, Foster is capable of replicating that in ODI cricket now?.

At the end of the day i'm not forcing my view on anyone. Forgetting what the averages say, what i've seen of Davies & Kiewsetter on TV. IF in the future ENG want an ODI & T20 keeper to bat up the order (which is up for debate), Kiewsetter if picked is the more natural hitter & he is more likely to replicate that at ODI level IMO.

Can you stop throwing around terms like 'fact' and 'proven' when they aren't relevant?

 

[zaremba]

Alleyne, for all his natural talent, was never a star at domestic OD level. Alistair Brown likewise.

TBF I would regard Ally Brown as a star in domestic one-day cricket.

 

[aussie]

Can you stop throwing around terms like 'fact' and 'proven' when they aren't relevant?

How is English domestic OD cricket being a poor guide to how players would perform in ODIs - not proven by England's ODI performances since WC 92?.

 

[Hambledon Harry]

Thanks for the welcome Dave.

I see I'm classed as a "Cricket Spectator" - well, that's certainly right, howd'they know?

It's always been mad for the counties to spend the ECB handout on foreign players. Especially the way people started parachuting them in for a few weeks at a time - quite ridiculous.

But its a huge change to fairly suddenly say "One non-qualified" to teams routinely fielding three or four. I'm in favour of it from an England perspective, but I don't see County Crickets sole purpose as being practise for Tests.

I seem to recall it was the Leicester chairman who produced this stuff about under 22 cricketers, based on how early overseas teams picked their players - I think someone pointed out it might have been because they were good, not because they were young. Quota systemns by age are absurd - but equally you can't have people hanging around for benefits, and if Sussex, for example, drop Beer to play Chawla they obviously need their arms twisting.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

How is English domestic OD cricket being a poor guide to how players would perform in ODIs - not proven by England's ODI performances since WC 92?.

'Proven' implies that there is a clear and indisputable link between them. Your statement, on the other hand, is highly disputable.

 

[Richard]

Alleyne was not the greatest yea. But he was part of that really successful gloucestershire OD side in the early 2000s. Usually you would expect in your domestic competition the best side would give you some international quality players & Alleyne feel short of that.

Not neccessarily at all - almost all of Gloucestershire's success was based on bowling rather than outstanding batting. Alleyne played that brilliant knock in the 1999 B&H final and, as a player (captain is a different matter), didn't really make that much of a contribution to the rest of the success. Alleyne always lacked consistency in domestic one-day cricket and did exactly the same in ODIs.

Ali Brown well from you can score 268 in a OD game & remain one of the most destructive batsmen in domestic OD cricket for years, but yet look so far off the mark at international level.

Brown may have remained the most sporadically destructive batsman in domestic OD cricket but he was always hopelessly hit-and-miss - and even though the hits were some of the most astounding ever (201 in a 40-over innings, 268 in a 50-over one) there were still far more misses than hits. If he'd been given more of a chance at ODIs he'd probably have produced the odd more hit, but essentially he again went pretty well exactly the same at international level as domestic.

I would say Loye only warranted a chance from like the summer 05 as an ODI opener. I rememeber calling for his place alot back then since i really thought he was just the attacking opener along with Trescothick ENG was looking for heading into the 06 CT & 07 WC.

Loye was always one of the best strokeplaying OD openers in the country, and the minute Knight packed-up he should've been in the team, rather than messing around with Solanki, Strauss, Vaughan, Solanki again, Geraint Jones, Strauss again, Prior, Cook and Joyce. If you're honestly telling me that Loye didn't have a far better case than any of the aforementioned at every single point between June 2003 and January 2007 you're off your trolley.

When he went down to AUS, i saw the pace of Lee etc really exposed some technical faults in his game (although he still showed he could clear the infied & be very innovative), that i never spotted seein him bat for Lancashire. Which again proves domestic OD success does not equal ODI success. Since in a way i guess Loye never really faced 90 mph bowling alot & he was seriously exposed.

Loye's biggest problem was with the left-arm-over angle of Bracken and Johnson, not 90mph pace of Lee. He actually dealt with Lee very well. In any case he was 34 by then, hadn't played for months and only got the single tournament's grace. Hardly conclusive proof that he wasn't up to it.

Well when Plunkett was first played in late 05 & when last Hoggard last played
back in 05 (i think). Ealham chances of being picked where definately gone AFAIC. If Ealham warranted a recall was probably before WC 2003

Nope, Ealham should have been playing throughout the 2003-2007 WC period. Same way he should've been playing up to 2003.

 

[Richard]

TBF I would regard Ally Brown as a star in domestic one-day cricket.

That why he only averaged 32 despite those double-centuries and any number of other blazing innings'? For my money he opened too little and was wasted down at five too much. Might've done better if he'd opened full-stop.

Brown, in one-day cricket (less so the longer game) was someone whose best was so incredibly remarkable that, especially when looked back upon, drew a veil over the fact that there were far, far more innings of nothing-much than good ones.

Not dissimilar to Paul Collingwood. Only difference is Brown had a less awkward-looking technique so people don't expect so much from Collingwood.

 

[Richard]

How is English domestic OD cricket being a poor guide to how players would perform in ODIs - not proven by England's ODI performances since WC 92?.

What England's poor ODI performances since WC92 prove, along with domestic one-day stats (where precious few batsmen score with consistency or bowlers bowl with consistent economy) is that quality modern OD cricketers aren't produced very often around these parts, and that selectors don't know how to select a ODI team.

I don't think it's a coincidence that England stopped having much if any ODI success at the precise time the ODI format saw a massive sea-change and became much less Test-like than it was in the 1970s and 1980s. England more than anywhere are still stuck in the "there's not really much difference between Tests and ODIs" past.

 

[Richard]

Was never really following domestic cricket that closely in late 90s & in 2000 when Trescothick was picked. But you sure his OD stats was always solid ATT, even though Fletcher basically picked him based on one innings he was impressed by?

That's something of a myth, based around the fact that Trescothick enjoyed considerable (and, of course, enormously fortune-assisted) Test success despite not much of it at F-C level.

If Fletcher did indeed pick him for ODIs based on that one innings against Glamorgan (as is likely, he was given to doing that and so are England selectors in general), then that's neither terribly surprising nor good selection - as picking a player on the basis of a single innings never is. But it is an example of the right outcome resulting from the wrong methodology, because Trescothick was a very good domestic OD player just about all career.

 

[GIMH]

How is English domestic OD cricket being a poor guide to how players would perform in ODIs - not proven by England's ODI performances since WC 92?.

see below

'Proven' implies that there is a clear and indisputable link between them. Your statement, on the other hand, is highly disputable.

 

[zaremba]

That why he only averaged 32 despite those double-centuries and any number of other blazing innings'?

He's a star in one day cricket precisely because of the double-centuries and the numerous other blazing innings. Yes he failed more often than he should have done but that just means he's a star that we enjoyed less often that we might have liked.

 

[aussie]

'Proven' implies that there is a clear and indisputable link between them. Your statement, on the other hand, is highly disputable.

see below

Haa allright fellas, ease off the dumb technicalities, move away from wonderaland. You two are seriously telling me its "highly disputable" that ENG have been a poor ODI team since WC 92 & that our OD domestic structure has been poor?.

 

[aussie]

Not neccessarily at all - almost all of Gloucestershire's success was based on bowling rather than outstanding batting. Alleyne played that brilliant knock in the 1999 B&H final and, as a player (captain is a different matter), didn't really make that much of a contribution to the rest of the success. Alleyne always lacked consistency in domestic one-day cricket and did exactly the same in ODIs.

All true i guess. But if this means we cant put Alleyne in the category of "quality English domestic OD players", thats still proves that our domestic OD structure has been poor

Brown may have remained the most sporadically destructive batsman in domestic OD cricket but he was always hopelessly hit-and-miss - and even though the hits were some of the most astounding ever (201 in a 40-over innings, 268 in a 50-over one) there were still far more misses than hits. If he'd been given more of a chance at ODIs he'd probably have produced the odd more hit, but essentially he again went pretty well exactly the same at international level as domestic.

.

As Zaremba said, from you can score those kind of BIG runs & look so far off the game at international level, further shows how bad our domestic OD structure has been. I really cant see a player doing that in domestic OD matches in AUS, IND or SA scoring & not having a decent ODI career.

Loye was always one of the best strokeplaying OD openers in the country, and the minute Knight packed-up he should've been in the team, rather than messing around with Solanki, Strauss, Vaughan, Solanki again, Geraint Jones, Strauss again, Prior, Cook and Joyce. If you're honestly telling me that Loye didn't have a far better case than any of the aforementioned at every single point between June 2003 and January 2007 you're off your trolley.

From 2005 for as i said. I'm not sure about immediately after WC 2003 when Knight retired
since after WC 2003 & VB in AUS Vaughan at least didn't begin to look woeful as yet.

Do you remember exactly when Loye began to open for Lancs?

Loye's biggest problem was with the left-arm-over angle of Bracken and Johnson, not 90mph pace of Lee. He actually dealt with Lee very well. In any case he was 34 by then, hadn't played for months and only got the single tournament's grace. Hardly conclusive proof that he wasn't up to it.

Nah Lee exposed him technically, although he was able to show glimpses of what we both saw alot for Lancashire. So for me that told me that even if he had gotten a chance earlier, he would have been exposed like a Ali Brown, because there wasn't exactly any express pace in domestic cricket.

Nope, Ealham should have been playing throughout the 2003-2007 WC period. Same way he should've been playing up to 2003.

We this is wear your biased towards Ealham comes in again son. Ealham last played an ODI in 2001. Looking back at 2003 WC, if all where fit, ENGs best team would have been:

Trescothick
Knight
Vaughan
Hussain
Thorpe/Collingwood - presuming if Thorpe didn't have family issues
Stewart
Flintoff
White
Giles
Gough
Caddick/Anderson

Ealham couldn't have started then. Post 2003 WC, its debatable whether he could played between 2003-2007 at best - but i defiantely disagree Ealham should have been involved in the 07 WC squad or team. Mascarenhas should have been picked then.

 

[Richard]

He's a star in one day cricket precisely because of the double-centuries and the numerous other blazing innings. Yes he failed more often than he should have done but that just means he's a star that we enjoyed less often that we might have liked.

A star in the same sort of sense, then, that Shahid Afridi is a ODI star? Well that's fair enough - but my sort of star is a little different in type.

 

[aussie]

What England's poor ODI performances since WC92 prove, along with domestic one-day stats (where precious few batsmen score with consistency or bowlers bowl with consistent economy) is that quality modern OD cricketers aren't produced very often around these parts, and that selectors don't know how to select a ODI team.

The simple reasons because of this is because the domestic structure has been poor. 90 mph bowlers aren't present enough to test the batsmen etc. So we basically play alot of OD cricket at a poor standard which is far bleow that of international cricket. Plus at the deeper level the way youth players are over-coached - means the the most talented English batsmen are generally aren't suited for ODI cricket - but tests. See Bell & Cook

I don't think it's a coincidence that England stopped having much if any ODI success at the precise time the ODI format saw a massive sea-change and became much less Test-like than it was in the 1970s and 1980s. England more than anywhere are still stuck in the "there's not really much difference between Tests and ODIs" past.

Indeed & i dont see that trend changing much, unless grassroots coaching improves.

 

[Richard]

All true i guess. But if this means we cant put Alleyne in the category of "quality English domestic OD players", thats still proves that our domestic OD structure has been poor

How? All it proves is that Alleyne, like many other players, didn't make the most of his talent. That's certainly a shame because I always rated him considerably and wished he'd do more than he did, but he was a selfless player and often put others' interests first.

As Zaremba said, from you can score those kind of BIG runs & look so far off the game at international level, further shows how bad our domestic OD structure has been. I really cant see a player doing that in domestic OD matches in AUS, IND or SA scoring & not having a decent ODI career.

Shahid Afridi to name but one has played nearly 300 ODIs doing exactly that. Afridi has demonstrated at both domestic and international level the ability to play the odd incredible innings but only once in 30 or so attempts.

From 2005 for as i said. I'm not sure about immediately after WC 2003 when Knight retired since after WC 2003 & VB in AUS Vaughan at least didn't begin to look woeful as yet.

Vaughan looked woeful every ODI he played and should in fact never have played ODIs at all because he was clearly not up to the task even at Yorkshire. Anyhow Vaughan was not at that point opening - Solanki was. Vaughan only got pushed up to open in ODIs in 2004 - and duly failed dismally suprise surprise.

Do you remember exactly when Loye began to open for Lancs?

All his career there - same way he opened for Northants in OD cricket. He's been a quality OD opener since something like 1998 or so. And a pretty damn good three\four in the longer game too.

Nah Lee exposed him technically, although he was able to show glimpses of what we both saw alot for Lancashire. So for me that told me that even if he had gotten a chance earlier, he would have been exposed like a Ali Brown, because there wasn't exactly any express pace in domestic cricket.

It may have told you that - it told me nothing of the sort. The left-armers exposed him technically, extreme pace did not. There is no reason those small glitches could not have been ironed-out had he been picked 7-8 years before he was.

We this is wear your biased towards Ealham comes in again son. Ealham last played an ODI in 2001. Looking back at 2003 WC, if all where fit, ENGs best team would have been:

Trescothick
Knight
Vaughan
Hussain
Thorpe/Collingwood - presuming if Thorpe didn't have family issues
Stewart
Flintoff
White
Giles
Gough
Caddick/Anderson

Ealham couldn't have started then. Post 2003 WC, its debatable whether he could played between 2003-2007 at best - but i defiantely disagree Ealham should have been involved in the 07 WC squad or team. Mascarenhas should have been picked then.

Ealham was miles better than both White and Giles as a ODI bowler. And all of the utter nothing picks in between times. That isn't bias towards Ealham - it's ability to acknowledge basic skill at one-day bowling.

 

[Richard]

The simple reasons because of this is because the domestic structure has been poor. 90 mph bowlers aren't present enough to test the batsmen etc. So we basically play alot of OD cricket at a poor standard which is far bleow that of international cricket. Plus at the deeper level the way youth players are over-coached - means the the most talented English batsmen are generally aren't suited for ODI cricket - but tests. See Bell & Cook

Indeed & i dont see that trend changing much, unless grassroots coaching improves.

Grassroots coaching and the domestic OD game are two completely different considerations. The problem is not the latter but the former.

The requirements of OD cricket are not complicated - with bowling, it's as simple as bowl very accurately with good eye and sense for what the batsman is going to try to do. And bat in two styles - be able to smash loose balls when the field's up and make decent balls into bad ones by innovation, and when the field's back be able to work the ball around.

 

[zaremba]

A star in the same sort of sense, then, that Shahid Afridi is a ODI star?

To a degree, yes. But of course Afridi's name tends to be used (often unfairly, IMHO) as a byword for crapness and brainlessness on CW and I wouldn't accept that implication about Ali Brown.

Brown is the sort of player whose limited overs average does not do
justice to his performance. Which might have something to do with his role in the team - perhaps as a middle order hitter he was always destined to end up with a worse average than, say, an opener who coud average more whilst comtributing less.

Brown's FC average is on the face of it much more respectable, but it will be as a limited overs player that he will be primarily remembered.

 

[Uppercut]

Would you compare him to Sanath Jayasuriya, perhaps, in the sense that his average does not do justice to how much of a legend he is?

 

[zaremba]

Good call Uppercut. Sanath it is.