Cricket changes poll

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by ernest

Scott,I will take your word for it,there may well be half a dozen EU countries playing cricket,I am no expert on this,but I would doubt if the had the stadiums of the quality needed to stage test matches.

Ernest

I respect your viewpoint, I respect that you are entitled to an opinion on this - that is very much your prerogative.

I'm afraid I don't agree with you nor do I feel you put forward particularly convincing or logical reasons for why Europe should not form their own Test side. Your fear that England would be eventually be assimilated into a European side, or that the EU politicians or the EU Cricketing governing body would interfere unecessarily don't really make much sense to me, based on your reasoning.

I think this is another subject I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree to disagree on!

Scott

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

Ernest

I respect your viewpoint, I respect that you are entitled to an opinion on this - that is very much your prerogative.

I'm afraid I don't agree with you nor do I feel you put forward particularly convincing or logical reasons for why Europe should not form their own Test side. Your fear that England would be eventually be assimilated into a European side,.

I think this is another subject I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree to disagree on!

Scott

Scott

yes we will have to agree to disagree on this one,but I would like to make one last point.I have kept my argument simple,I have not argued in an intellectual way,that is why I have come across as being impassioned,well this is probably true to a large extent.

With respect Scott,I have been looking at the posts,by myself,by Goatman and by you.It would appear that I have been on the defensive at all times,having to justify my argments,dont get me wrong Scott,I am not critecising,you or Goatman,and it does not bother me at all.

look at this post you have sent me,you dont agree with me ,fair enough,you go on to say I have given no logical,or convincing reasons,as to why there should not be a Europe cricket team.that is fair enough.

What I found looking at the post Scott,was that both you and Goatman were that bussy scoring points off me,you both forgot one thing,over and over again you told me I was wrong,Paranoid was a word goatman used ,there was very little substance (in my eyes) as to the benefits of such a team,no one knows I doubt if Europe even want a team,I may be wrong.You or Goatman said very little as to the merits of such a team

this is not a criticism of you or Goatman,Just an observation
Ernest

[Goatman]

I don't know if they would like it - I suspect not, the Dutch in particular are an independant minded bunch - but I don't think it has been mooted. I don't think it could really happen. The reasons why such a team would be A Good Thing were in my first post though, about 5 pages ago. I'll list them again for convenience:-

1) NL alone were better than BAN in the last world cup (the only common competition they are in). As were Scotland. They are both now better than ZIM in all likelyhood. On quality,there is only one non-test playing nation that can top NL and that is KEN who, on quality, deserve tests status according to the ICC (it is being with-held due to the thier facilities not being good enough (more of this later). Denmark, France, Germany and Italy have never featured in our eyes due to the dominance of the two above, who are head and shoulders above the other minnows in cricket, but they play to a high enough standard to be recognised as potential test nations by the ICC. However, add in thier best players and the best to offer in Ireland (the whole of Ireland that is, not just the N - they do not play seperately in cricket or rugby) and you will have a team which is about as good as KEN. Who the ICC say deserve test status.

2) Turning the European national teams into first class clubs (like the WI islands) would concentrate talent and raise the standard of the games these players are competing in. This will accelerate the development of the team into a competative test side. This would also have a number of positive knock-ons:-

A) The top players would have the opportunity to become full-time proffessionals - which few do at present - due to the concentration of resources.

B) Thier players would get used to 4 day games, which few get the opportunity to play at present as they are not all full-time proffessionals.

C) Players would gain experinece in playing in different conditions - one week in Denmark or Scotland, the next in Portugal or Italy.

D) This in turn would allow the continental playing style to eveolve separately to the ENG style. At present NL, IRE and SCO have precisely the same weaknesses as the ENG team - no spinners, weakness against pace, domination of the sport by bits-and-peices wobbly medium pacers. Cricket thrives on variety - where would we be without WI quicks, Asian spinners etc. The sport would gain more by having 1 test team with a new style than it would from having 4 weaker sides who are just lesser clones of ENG.

E) The European board would have the responsibility of maintaining the test facilities. At present, NL spends so much maintaining the VRA ground - which has already hosted tests and world cup qualifying matches, and is a fully accredited international quality ground - that is has no abiity to subsidise facilities in the rest of the country. A communal board would free up much of this domestic money.

F) Both the test tours and the domestic game would raise the profile of criket on the continent, Who knows, mayeb enough to cause the Germans to take it up in ernest (no pun intended) and become good enough to be awarded stand-alone test status. Then again, maybe not.....

On the subject of grounds, the Scotland ground has first class status and lacks only investment to take the final step. The SCO board has stated that this is already in thier sights. The VRA ground already is an international class ground. The smaller test nations only need 2-3 test grounds, and so only 1 other - and I would like to see it in Portugal or Italy - need be significantly improved.

On the subject of the Nature of the Debate, I'd like to say that I did give reasons why the European team would be A Good Thing right at the outset (it was the subject of my first post in this thread), so the accusation that I gave no justiufication for it is a little harsh to say the least. I did say once or twice that your posts were tinged a bit with paranoia, but I wasn't really accusing you of being a paranoic. When I hear people talk about "Them" and "inevitable" and "like it or not, its gonna happen!" it is a word that tends to pop into my head unbidden though. I certainly meant no offense, and I don't think any was really taken.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Goatman

I don't know if they would like it - I suspect not, the Dutch in particular are an independant minded bunch - but I don't think it has been mooted. I don't think it could really happen. The reasons why such a team would be A Good Thing were in my first post though, about 5 pages ago. I'll list them again for convenience:-

.

Good morning Goatman,

Yes I do agree you did write what you said in your first post.I am sorry if you thought I was being harsh,I did not intend it to come out so,and no I have taken no offence in anything you or Scott have said in your post,I only wrote that responce,because of two things.
With respect to Scott,he wrote the post agreeing to disagree,but he qualified his own possition first,and that coupled with Scotts post previous post in wich he said"it's been repeated within this discussion that England would never relinquish its existing Test Status,to become part of an England Test Team" by who?not by me,that was a valid point of the debate,and then he went on to say "I dont understand what it is about this,you dont understand"I decided to post a reply,because,with respect Scott I do understand,not agreeing with someones point of view,does not mean one does not undrerstand it.
Goatman I dont think for one moment scott was being rude,but I felt I had to reply to the combined post.

Now to cricket,by your own words you say Holland are a proud nation,I know it has not been mooted yet,but if they wanted to stand alone,would this decision scupper you plans for an EU team?,its an unfair question at this stage maybe.

1)Really you have made a statement hear,and I agree with most points,I would hope though that you will agree with me,and that everything is done to ensure Bangladesh, keep their Test Status,no point in creating one test playing nation,just to loose another,and of course in sport,Ireland means the whole of Ireland.I wish to mention Kenya later.

2)I have nothing against turning European national teams into clubs(like in the West Indies)Developing into a test side I wish to mention later.

A)with respect,where would the money come from to pay European club players full time wages,I dont understand what you mean br "Concentration of resources)

B)Yes good idea,and would also prove if they could get support.

c)yes good idea Goatman,would cost a certain amount of money though.

D)I dont agree here,they, at this stage they would all become like a team of England clones,at least in the medium,or even the long term,such a systam would have to develop,it would take time,I agree with a lot of what you say here,up and down medium pace bowlers,no spinners,but where are European teams going to get coaches to teach them these skills,and if there are some about,why have England not used them?

E)With respect again."A communal board would free up much of this domestic money"were is this domestic money?

F)Now this is the most ineresting part of your post,I could not wait to get up to it.There is one circumstance that I would have no objection to the formation of a European test Team.,based on the West Indies Systam.

That is Germany to become good enough to stand alone,and to be awarded Test Status.

An England team running side by side with an independant German Test Team,would change the situation.I would have no objection to that.

I would like to make some points here,England could not manage without sponsership,they would just go under,the success of a European Team ,would need lots and lots of cash,i fear that if kenya becomes a test playing nation.it would in playing terms go the same way as Bangladesh.The ICC would have to be brough in,there would be to many taems,there would maybe be two divisions(I would Favour)because if it became regional,it would defeat the whole of your arguement.

Yes England playing Germany,inyears to come maybe,by the way Good afternoon Goatman

[Goatman]

Originally Posted by ernest

.
Now to cricket,by your own words you say Holland are a proud nation,I know it has not been mooted yet,but if they wanted to stand alone,would this decision scupper you plans for an EU team?,its an unfair question at this stage maybe.

I think it would competely scupper it. Doesn't make it a bad idea though.

Originally Posted by ernest

.

A)with respect,where would the money come from to pay European club players full time wages,I dont understand what you mean br "Concentration of resources).

As a test playing nation, Europes earning power would be massive increased - if only as a result of playing more cricket ata higher standard. Playing more frist class cricket would do likewise. NL only maange to charge entry to one/two games a year at present - the C&G. Its always packed from what I hear, and the natives always complain about how they don't get to go and watch enough matches. the present plan for NL is to become a first class team in the county championship, and they beleive that that alone will earn them enough to develop a proffessional class. The concentratio of resources referrs to the many times duplicated training, admin, etc, etc, etc. that is involved in having SCO, IRE, NL etc. as independant international teams. There would be large savings involved in combining these facilities. SCO already has a number of proffessional players, as a direct result of joining the oneday competition alone.

Originally Posted by ernest

. D)I dont agree here,they, at this stage they would all become like a team of England clones,at least in the medium,or even the long term,such a systam would have to develop,it would take time,I agree with a lot of what you say here,up and down medium pace bowlers,no spinners,but where are European teams going to get coaches to teach them these skills,and if there are some about,why have England not used them?

Playing on abraisive mediterranean/Iberian pitches would force the domestic teams to use spinners, as is the case in Asia and WI. They would therefore produce more spinners (though in recent years WI have chosen to play few of these spinners in test cricket, there is still a great number in thier domestic competition and they ahve produced several of the est spinners of history), just as those countries do. Coaches can only work on what turns up on thier door. The ENG rpoblem is not lack of coaching, its a combination of adverse conditions for spinners, negative cap[taincy and lack of motivation to develop them at the county level.

Originally Posted by ernest

E)With respect again."A communal board would free up much of this domestic money"were is this domestic money?

NL already has a domestic budget that is into the millions from sponsorship, considerable contributions from clubs, a small amount of governement grant and so on and so forth. How on earth do you think they get thier nice orange kit? I don't understand how you think cricket could operate over here if the KNCB had no spending power? Apart from the international operation (training facilities, travel, coaches etc.), this is mainly spent on the VRA ground. If the Europe board is getting money from admissions to test games and sponsorship, it will be able to take some of the weight of the maintenance of the VRA of thier hands. If NL are gaining entrance fees from first class games, they would be richer and would be able to attract more sponsorship to boot, so not only would they be spending less but they would be earning more.

Originally Posted by ernest

F)Now this is the most ineresting part of your post,I could not wait to get up to it.There is one circumstance that I would have no objection to the formation of a European test Team.,based on the West Indies Systam.

That is Germany to become good enough to stand alone,and to be awarded Test Status.

An England team running side by side with an independant German Test Team,would change the situation.I would have no objection to that.

I would like to make some points here,England could not manage without sponsership,they would just go under,the success of a European Team ,would need lots and lots of cash,i fear that if kenya becomes a test playing nation.it would in playing terms go the same way as Bangladesh.The ICC would have to be brough in,there would be to many taems,there would maybe be two divisions(I would Favour)because if it became regional,it would defeat the whole of your arguement.

Yes England playing Germany,inyears to come maybe,by the way Good afternoon Goatman

I must apologise in advance, because I don't quite follow the above. I do see the European team as a way in which to stimulate the game on the continent enough for the otehr teams to becoem independant. I don't see how this can happen otherwise, as, utside of NL, the European game is growing in terms of playing membership but not in terms of standard, profile or spending power. the European team may well be a necessary precursor to an independant German team, which woudl of course be preferable to everyone. Of course, the other nations may never become strong enough dispite this, but if they do not they certainly will never become test standard tesms in thier own right. On sponsorship, sport cannot orerate without it but I don't get your point. The ENG sponsors are all ENG companies. The NL sponsors are Dutch. The European team would not e anticipated to touch the ENG sponsorship, not least because ENG wuold still eb the stronger team and therefore the more appealing team to sponsor. NL's sponsors at present are Nachenius Tjeenk & co (main sponsor, bankers) and 8 others, including a wine merchat, an accountancy firm and a firm of lawyers amongst others. In the past Phillips have sponsored them for world cup campaings, and I'm sure they woudl be interested in more invoelvement if more cricket was played. NL's possiblity for lucrative TV deals and sponsorship is alone better than KEN or BAN. Europes would be far better. I don't see what your points are.

Good evening Ernest - I'm off for me tea now!

[Ernest]

[quote]=Goatman[ think it would competely scupper it. Doesn't make it a bad idea though. /]


No but it could happen.


[quote]=Goatman[As a test playing nation, Europes earning power would be massive increased - if only as a result of playing more cricket ata higher standard. Playing more frist class cricket would do likewise. /]

You are plum picking hear,Holland we know are established,there is cricket in Scotland and N Ireland,if it is that easy to get the funds,why have Scotland made a bigger impact,it takes time,success on the field,will bring in the sponsers,but first you need success on the field,Clubs cannot exist on gate money alone,what about the smaller countries that would want to join,it boils down to money.take the top half of the English football premier league,and the others cant compete,look how many teams are promoted from division one,only to be relegated at the first attempt,i am in fact trying to be practible and constructive here,it will take time,and money.


[quote]=Goatman[Playing on abraisive mediterranean/Iberian pitches would force the domestic teams to use spinners, as is the case in Asia and WI. They would therefore produce more spinners (though in recent years WI have chosen to play few of these spinners in test cricket, there is still a great number in thier domestic competition and they ahve produced several of the est spinners of history), just as those countries do. Coaches can only work on what turns up on thier door. The ENG rpoblem is not lack of coaching, its a combination of adverse conditions for spinners, negative cap[taincy and lack of motivation to develop them at the county level./]

I will take your word for the first part,I dont know anything about meditaranian pitches,I can see your point about coaches only having what they have to coach,and I agree with all your comments,but I will have to say again ,were are the extra coaches needed for a greater number of clubs going to come from,good grief Goatman,I dont think we have one proper coach for spinners in England.



[quote]=Goatman[NL already has a domestic budget that is into the millions from sponsorship, considerable contributions from clubs, a small amount of governement grant and so on and so forth. How on earth do you think they get thier nice orange kit? I don't understand how you think cricket could operate over here if the KNCB had no spending power? Apart from the international operation (training facilities, travel, coaches etc.), this is mainly spent on the VRA ground. If the Europe board is getting money from admissions to test games and sponsorship, it will be able to take some of the weight of the maintenance of the VRA of thier hands. If NL are gaining entrance fees from first class games, they would be richer and would be able to attract more sponsorship to boot, so not only would they be spending less but they would be earning more./]

No not quite right,as I said earlier,succsess on the field is one of the best ways of attracing sponsership,of any magnitude,and you are plum picking again,we all know Holland has had a good set up for years,and your argument here is baced on the hope that more fans will come through the turnstiles,I know they have money,or they would be bankrupt,but you are arguing Europe wide.

=Goatman[I must apologise in advance, because I don't quite follow the above. I do see the European team as a way in which to stimulate the game on the continent enough for the otehr teams to becoem independant.

With respect Goatman,I dont follow this part of your post,could be you missunderstood what I was saying,or I did not articulate it proper.

The jist of what I was saying,from memory,so I could be wrong(hope not)
I said it would change my views on a cricket team called Europe,if germany had to managed to get Test Status in its own right,That would mean teams called Europe,England and germany,I would be OK about that(Germany being a test nation inits own right being the key,to my about turn).

I think I was trying to say,there would be three powerfull organisations,all after the available sponcership money.,it is not a bottemless pit.

Strange looking post this,but I am not writing it out again,Goatman in quotes,Ernest not

[R W S]

Whilst surfing the beeb I came across this description of how Hawkeye works.

I also went to the Hawkeye website.

And here is an interesting article comparing Hawkeye to Dickie Bird, with quotes from Hawkeye's Dr Hawkins .

I noted on one hand they reckon it is 99.99% accurate!!

On the other Dennis Lillee reckons "There's no way Hawk-eye can tell if a delivery is going to skid a bit more than normal or hit a crack, or a damp or worn patch, or a bit of grass on the wicket ".

Who's right?

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by R W S

And here is an interesting article comparing Hawkeye to Dickie Bird, with quotes from Hawkeye's Dr Hawkins .

I noted on one hand they reckon it is 99.99% accurate!!

On the other Dennis Lillee reckons "There's no way Hawk-eye can tell if a delivery is going to skid a bit more than normal or hit a crack, or a damp or worn patch, or a bit of grass on the wicket ".

Who's right?

To be fair R W S,neither could an umpire

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by R W S

On the other Dennis Lillee reckons "There's no way Hawk-eye can tell if a delivery is going to skid a bit more than normal or hit a crack, or a damp or worn patch, or a bit of grass on the wicket ".

Who's right?

R W S

I've read that article and also another where Hadlee raises this concern, all Hadlee is doing, in my mind, is demonstrating his lack of understanding of the technology and exactly what Hawkeye does. Hawkeye was originally developed for missile tracking and uses 6 cameras to track the ball which a computer then turns into a 3D image. Any variations of bounce, skid, hitting a crack, damp or worn patch will still be picked up by the camera's as the ball comes off the pitch. Hawkeye does not attempt to guess at the path of the ball, it calculates the actual path of the ball based on the camera images it captures.

I don't really understand what Hadlee is going on about to be honest.

Scott

[Morris Dancer]

Surely that's a vastly superior rate to an umpire's accuracy level