Wonder how much personal invovement MPV has with these camps. Had a quick flick round the site and the one reference I found to coaching standards was "UKCC2 with experience" - something I would be far overqualified for. We are missing the point here, dwelling on either Vaughan's comments or questioning whether someone uprooting themselves to move halfway round the world should be prevented from representing England in favour of Johnny Sheltered from Guildford.
The real issue is why we aren't, as Counties, producing good enough cricketers, and I would suggest that any number of the following reasons may have something to do with it:
* Insufficient exposure to hardball cricket at an early enough age, resulting in spoiled techniques and fear of the ball.
* Overplay of pairs cricket and too much letting everyone bat rather than letting kids realise from the off that if you play a stupid shot then you sit and watch for the next two hours.
* Restriction of youth play through health and safety culture in manifestation of fast bowling directives and increasing red tape blocking boys from playing adult cricket.
* Too many exams and tests that fill boys' summers with needless stress, nagging and revision and ultimately make no difference to their lives.
* Players playing too long at too low a level whether in school, youth or village competition leading to lazy techniques and adaptation to pitches and bowling totally alien to senior cricket.
There are probably a lot more...
The Vaughan comment was just irony tbh, he's just encouraging participation (which can only be a good thing) rather than developing genuine talent.
As Goughy says, I think the factors here might explain a lack of participation, but not the reason why we don't produce enough top cricketers.
IMO,the best players are tend to be blessed with a very natural basic technique that will overcome any poor habits encouraged by pairs cricket or no hardball cricket. You could certainly see the influence of pairs cricket when we moved through to Under 13s and the batsmen suddenly that getting out was not quite the non-issue it had been beforehand, but the really good players just adapted straight away.
Really, really good players - i.e. those who could make it as pros - get fast-tracked straight through the recreational system and migrate towards the big clubs where they can have specialist coaching.
The problems of the fast bowling directives are exaggerated - seamers only rarely bowl more than seven over spells in professional cricket anyway.
The exam issue is probably a bit more concerning. But those who are genuinely the sort of players wanting to represent England are going to come through this. It might stop Jimmy turning out for his club side during his GCSEs, but he's no great loss to the highest level.
All of these issues (minus fast bowling) will have a (negative) effect, but I can't see how they're particularly relevant to the best players. We're not talking about the reasonably good here, but the real talent that can be identified from a very young age. Unless they choose a different sport, which is a mostly cultural issue, the best cricketers are not going to be inclined to throw away something they excel at.
The focus needs to be either at the real high end - why are these outstanding talents, which must exist for biological reasons (we suddenly haven't just stopped producing born athletes) not going on to become "Test-quality" cricketers, to borrow Richard's phrase - or at the very lowest end - a participation issue. The fortunes of those who were never going to make it anyway, as concerning as it is for those involved, is a non-issue for mine.
