I know what you mean, but if these guys still enjoy their cricket, and people think they can still contribute, it's a bit harsh to just write them away.I'm not a fan of guys in their mid-30s who had a Test career and who are not going to get back into the Test team sticking around to collect the cheque and in doing so denying younger players an opportunity to improve their game at FC level.
Agree, to an extent. I don't want to say that if you're not a future test player you have no business trying to hold down a FC slot - if you extend that logic far enough, 99% might as well never bother playing at all. However, I do think that the fact that, from a big picture perspective, we want to have young players who have the potential to develop into international prospects coming through the ranks, and sometimes the seasoned 'FC pro' can have the side-effect of denying those opportunities. I suppose the flip-side is that they often improve the standard of the competition which in turn produces better players. I wouldn't have said Blewett fell into this category previously, but I'd guess he's probably getting to that point now.I know what you mean, but if these guys still enjoy their cricket, and people think they can still contribute, it's a bit harsh to just write them away.
Again, agreed - it was probably harsher than what I meant to say, which is that I think in cases where guys are exceptional cricket players and cricketing brains, like Warne and Lehmann, then its fantastic to have them around as much as possible, almost regardless of whether they're still a force on the field. But that's exceptional. Blewett's experience and knowledge no doubt could have been, and probably has been, immensely helpful to the SA team, but I don't think he's quite in that exceptional category as a 'playing coach/mentor'. Which is hardly a knock against him tbh. And obviously this is all based on what I've seen as an outsider, so its probably got as little merit as any other discussion regarding a player's personality and off-field contributions!And Blewett not being a guy who could teach players - I think that's a bit harsh without knowing the guy. It just seems like many of the "julios" get that sort of wrap.
That's true - as I said in my reply to Jack, I guess it's a balancing act...Any player is worth keeping so long as they remain a good player, IMO.
Would you find-out more about a bowler if he was bowling at Matthew Elliott or some novice opener averaging in the low 20s?
Just for a second I thought you were saying I like Hayden.He's one of those players which I find randomly people will say "yeah I like Ponting and Hayden... but my favourite player of all time is still Blewett."
He was okay to watch, I wouldn't say I was a big fan. It seems he has a future in commentating going by his recent appearances.
Interesting to see you how reconcile that with your stance on Kolpaks and the like.Any player is worth keeping so long as they remain a good player, IMO.
Would you find-out more about a bowler if he was bowling at Matthew Elliott or some novice opener averaging in the low 20s?
Completely separate issues, for a variety of reasons. 1, I've always said that good non-English-qualified (whether Kolpak, EU-passport or overseas-player) players are always worth a go, it's the ones who are barely if at all better than the English ones (and they're the large majority) that I'd rather do without. 2, retaining established ex-international players is no different in cost - and that's the major issue I've got with import (of any kind) players, nothing to do with forcing-out home-grown players - to bringing in younger, lesser-quality players.Interesting to see you how reconcile that with your stance on Kolpaks and the like.
I Always Had A Problem With The Ball Coming Back Into MeBeen a while since I saw him bat properly, wasn't it his technique that caught him out?