English Cricket going down hill?

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Beny

I dont think England have a hope in 2005 but Aussie cricket seems to (at this momment) going back to where it was early 90's or 80's. I can live with that. It all realy depends on weather guys like Hodge and the Hussy brothers are as good on the Interatnal stage as they are on the domestic one.

I really do think that too much is made of individual "talent" in these discussions: strikes me that good coaching, good preparation / organisation, good handling of players, a good domestic structure and that sort of thing are far, far more important: it's not the stars that win Test matches (not even Lara, Tendulkar and Murali WIN their teams test matches) it's that with everyone contributing in the right way, good teams are very, very hard to beat.

Ernest seems to think that Australia need to find an endless supply of Clarkes to fill the batting spots and like for like replacements for McGrath and Warne.. but my own view is that so long as Australia can keep finding players of the callibre of Katich, Gillespie, Kasprowicz and McGill.. they will be ahead of the game.

Take an analogy: the Aussie rugby team isn't exactly laden with great individual stars.. but would still start as favourite in a world cup held next week: the organisation and preparation is there, the strength in depth is there.. and for all the fuss made over here.. regular observers would expect Aus to beat France in a final with Eng and NZ merely fighting over minor placings (as would have happened the last time around if the waether hadn't prved so fortuitous for Woodward).

Originally Posted by Beny

I still think that English cricket needs to sort it self out though. It's domestic comp is (as far as i'm concerned) too large and poorly handled whilst their youth system is gaining speed towards catching up with the 21st centuary.

The problem faced by english cricket is mostly one of clarity, as seen in a classic example: wicket-keeping.

Most English coaches are pretty much united in the view that an English keeper needs to keep the English way: the conventional wisdom has it that the ball wobbles too much after passing the batsman for the Rod Marsh approach to work. On the other hand.. some top dogs in the English game disagree: Read has been converted to "the Aussie way".. and others are expected to follow.

Take a second issue: fast-medium bowling.

Our illustrious coach is the most recent of a log line of coaches who see no future for this ost English of crafts. Given his way, Fletcher would have had the faster Anderson ahead of Hoggard throughout the Wi series.. and quite probably through to this day. Vaughan thought that was daft.. and has been vindicated.. but Hoggard came very, very close to joining Martin Bicknell and others in the long list of high quality fast-medium bowlers ignored because they didn't have that extra yard of pace (especially for away series).

As some have said.. Lee would have been preferred to Pollock for most of the past 20 years in this country.. because pace (and the glories of penetration in extreme conditions) was valued more than class (and effectiveness in anything other than extrme conditions)

I could keep going.. because the batting situation is no different: even here we have coaches and selectors at loggerheads because the one (Fletcher) looks more for character and temperament (ideally matched by an eye for the ball that bodes well for destructiveness)... where the other (Marsh) looks more to aptitude and technique (feeling that no matter how much coaching you attempt, the character and temperent players like Trecothick and Collingwood are going to be found out at the highest level).

Fortunately, England currently have the right man for the job in the short-term job of sorting out current series... and the right man in the job of sorting out the prospects. If the early indications are anything to go by then it's coming together: we're getting the best of both worlds.

[Beny]

To expand on what I have said about eh Domestic leauge.

In Australia we have 6 state teams and those teams are selected from each states grade comp. Everything is clear and concise and the Selectors just have to pick from those 6 teams which are all run extreamly well.

In England it just seems as though there is too much to choose from and everything is all over the place. Am I wrong?

[Rachael]

The domestic competition system is a convenient scapegoat for those who like easy solutions and don't like engaging with the complexities of the real world: whilst something different MIGHT be PART of a system that WOULD be better.. the current system is entirely compatible with running an EXTREMELY successful national side.

In the absense of things like the academy it is true that English cricketers were getting swallowed into a huge system and focussed on immediate career development objectives at the expense of long term goals that could see them achieve at a higher level: spinners concentrated on refining their ability to bottle up one end whilst the captain rotated his seamers, batsmen concentrated on minimising their vulnerability to the flaws inherent in their technique rather than sorting themselves out.. and seamers concentrated on getting the best short term return fromtheir existing actions rather than on making the major alternations needed to move on to the next level.

It was short-termism rather tan the standard of cricket that was the problem with the old system.. and that has been addressed now with the academy: Rod Marsh has focussed all the most promising players on what it takes to reach the higher level.. and is providing the tailored development programme, coaches, facilities and funding to ensure that those long term goals are realised.

Add in the improvement in the professionalism of the clubs (which really are unrecognisable fromt he shambolic things they grew out of) and the rants about the gulf between domestic and Test cricket just seem naive: they are the preserve of those who have faith in talent and no faith in coaching.. and (fortunately) that breed is (in this country) a dying breed.

[Beny]

What I'm suggesting is that players could eaisily get lost with in the system.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Beny

Lets do a little game here.

England take out Harmsion and Flintoff and Australia will take out Ponting and McGrath.
Australia would win. As I see it England are expecting these two guys to go out and win the series and yet they might not. Heck they might even be injured... Then what?

Er... Well...Then we're **********.

I wish I had Ern's faith! It must be a wonderful world he lives in!

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Beny

The Fancied Kiwi's were only fancied when England were mental wreaks. Australia demolished the same team in the champions trophey. We are playing them in a test match on the 18th so we will see how good they are.

Wrong Beny, we thrashed the Kiwi's after we had thrashed the Windies on their own patch, does not = England were mental wreaks.

Ern

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

Er... Well...Then we're **********.

I wish I had Ern's faith! It must be a wonderful world he lives in!

OF, I answered Beny's question below, Australia would win, I have faith in the FULL team, think you got me wrong.

Originally Posted by Beny

Lets do a little game here.

England take out Harmsion and Flintoff and Australia will take out Ponting and McGrath.
Australia would win. As I see it England are expecting these two guys to go out and win the series and yet they might not. Heck they might even be injured... Then what?

Right Beny, in these circumstances, Australia would probably win.

Ern

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I really do think that too much is made of individual "talent" in these discussions: strikes me that good coaching, good preparation / organisation, good handling of players, a good domestic structure and that sort of thing are far, far more important: it's not the stars that win Test matches (not even Lara, Tendulkar and Murali WIN their teams test matches) it's that with everyone contributing in the right way, good teams are very, very hard to beat.

Good point Rachael, but a team is not going to do all that well, if they have no stars (as you put it), England are a good "team", led by the likes of Flintoff, Harmison and Vaughan, but the team is cemented together with the likes of Butcher and Thorpe, and Giles(underrated).
Take "either" component away, and things will not work out, Stars win Test Matches, cement holds the team together, and allows that to happen.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Ernest seems to think that Australia need to find an endless supply of Clarkes to fill the batting spots and like for like replacements for McGrath and Warne.. but my own view is that so long as Australia can keep finding players of the callibre of Katich, Gillespie, Kasprowicz and McGill.. they will be ahead of the game.

I am right, do you think Australia can fill the boots of McGrath, just like that, I dont think so.
katich, who is he playing for at the moment? fair question, i would not exchange Giles for McGill.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Take an analogy: the Aussie rugby team isn't exactly laden with great individual stars.. but would still start as favourite in a world cup held next week

What makes you say that Rachael?,can you be sure?,I doubt it.

Originally Posted by Rachael

As some have said.. Lee would have been preferred to Pollock for most of the past 20 years in this country.. because pace (and the glories of penetration in extreme conditions) was valued more than class (and effectiveness in anything other than extrme conditions)

IMHO I think you are wrong here Rachael, while Pollock as a pace bowler is past his sell by date, he can still do a job, what makes you think any county, or club would take Lee before Pollock::::::: Anderson, or Hoggard or caddick.

And the same would apply to supporters, I know who they would pick.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Ernest

OF, I answered Beny's question below, Australia would win, I have faith in the FULL team, think you got me wrong.

Just a gentle leg-pull, Ern. England needs supporters like you, with them through thick and thin and never saying "die"! Good on you!

[Beny]

I am right, do you think Australia can fill the boots of McGrath, just like that, I dont think so.
katich, who is he playing for at the moment? fair question, i would not exchange Giles for McGill

We dont need another McGrath, although I'm sure english supporters would have been saying something simmiler when Lillee was in his twilight. McGrath was Freak and all we need are some good bowlers who will undoubtebly come through.
McGill who is about as old as Warne anyway, still has a bowling average of 29 compared to Giles who has an average of 36.
You would not exchange Giles for McGill because you are english. Katich is captain of NSW, he maintains a first class average of 50.77 and was the third best run scorer in India.

[Beny]

BTW that guy who cannot bowl (Tait) just took 7 wickets against Queensland. Bit expensive but i'll take the wickets. Lee took 3 against NZ, he too was a bit expensive but i'll still take the wickets.