Poor Joe Root.

He gets given the worst England squads I've ever seen and is expected to somehow get them to learn how to play cricket.

I'd keep him as captain, solely because he still wants the job. Yeah, that makes him a little bit crazy.

I am mindful that most criticism here has been about his ability to captain... but to me it feels like throwing the pram out (whilst, ironically, not making any other changes to improve England's fortunes).

I bet 1000 InternetBucks the next captain is way worse. Same bet applies for England's cricket not improving until significant changes are made to FC cricket in England).

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 11:55:47 PM UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> Poor Joe Root.
>
> He gets given the worst England squads I've ever seen and is expected to somehow get them to learn how to play cricket.
>
> I'd keep him as captain, solely because he still wants the job. Yeah, that makes him a little bit crazy.
>
> I am mindful that most criticism here has been about his ability to captain... but to me it feels like throwing the pram out (whilst, ironically, not making any other changes to improve England's fortunes).
>
> I bet 1000 InternetBucks the next captain is way worse. Same bet applies for England's cricket not improving until significant changes are made to FC cricket in England).

What we are seeing is the destruction of technique and mentality wrought by T20 and the lack of FC cricket played by England cricketers. RH

On 27/03/2022 23:55, jack fredricks wrote:
> Poor Joe Root.
>
> He gets given the worst England squads I've ever seen and is expected to somehow get them to learn how to play cricket.
>
> I'd keep him as captain, solely because he still wants the job. Yeah, that makes him a little bit crazy.
>
> I am mindful that most criticism here has been about his ability to captain... but to me it feels like throwing the pram out (whilst, ironically, not making any other changes to improve England's fortunes).
>
> I bet 1000 InternetBucks the next captain is way worse. Same bet applies for England's cricket not improving until significant changes are made to FC cricket in England).

I agree. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. You don't need
a great captain if the team is great. Viv Richards wasn't a particularly
good captain, but his team was getting on for unbeatable. Inspirational
captains have been few and far between over the years, and I can only
think of two, maybe two and a half if you count Vaughan in the last
fifty or so years who captained England, Illingworth and Brearly.
Strauss and Cook were popular with their teams, but neither were good
skippers in terms of tactical astuteness. Root has a team of chronic
under achievers, only he and Stokes would stand a chance of being
selected for a world eleven. Perhaps it's more the responsibility of the
coach to get the best out of the players than it is the captain's.
Steve Hague

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 13:42:09 +0100, steve hague
<stevehague82@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 27/03/2022 23:55, jack fredricks wrote:
>> Poor Joe Root.
>>
>> He gets given the worst England squads I've ever seen and is expected to somehow get them to learn how to play cricket.
>>
>> I'd keep him as captain, solely because he still wants the job. Yeah, that makes him a little bit crazy.
>>
>> I am mindful that most criticism here has been about his ability to captain... but to me it feels like throwing the pram out (whilst, ironically, not making any other changes to improve England's fortunes).
>>
>> I bet 1000 InternetBucks the next captain is way worse. Same bet applies for England's cricket not improving until significant changes are made to FC cricket in England).
>
>I agree. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. You don't need
>a great captain if the team is great. Viv Richards wasn't a particularly
>good captain, but his team was getting on for unbeatable. Inspirational
>captains have been few and far between over the years, and I can only
>think of two, maybe two and a half if you count Vaughan in the last
>fifty or so years who captained England, Illingworth and Brearly.
>Strauss and Cook were popular with their teams, but neither were good
>skippers in terms of tactical astuteness. Root has a team of chronic
>under achievers, only he and Stokes would stand a chance of being
>selected for a world eleven. Perhaps it's more the responsibility of the
>coach to get the best out of the players than it is the captain's.

Atherton, Hussain and Vaughan have all gone on lengthy record now
about why Root must go.

It's not as though this is new. People have been saying we need a new
captain for a good two years, and the only reason we haven't got a new
captain is that we keep saying there isn't another viable candidate.
Keeping him in post because we haven't got a better idea is a pretty
weak justification - not that that's prevented us using it in the
past, eg with Atherton.

It's never previously been the function of a coach to motivate
players. It's always been the captain's job and some captains have
clearly had the ability to do it, and some have not. Root is evidently
one of the latter.

Cheers,

Mike

>>On 27/03/2022 23:55, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> Poor Joe Root.
>>>
>>> He gets given the worst England squads I've ever seen and is expected to somehow get them to learn how to play cricket.
>>>
>>> I'd keep him as captain, solely because he still wants the job. Yeah, that makes him a little bit crazy.
>>>
>>> I am mindful that most criticism here has been about his ability to captain... but to me it feels like throwing the pram out (whilst, ironically, not making any other changes to improve England's fortunes).

So they are in the process of appointing a new coach and director of
cricket, who will then appoint an at least modified coaching team;
they have improved the schedule to play more f-c cricket; these
measures are without prejudice to a root-and-branch review of how to
structure things better; and in parallel they are at last beginning to
make some small progress towards getting rid of the racist fucks who
pollute the game.

That's an interesting definition of "not making any other changes",
but considering the source, it's hardly surprising that it's as
facile, as deliberately false and as monomaniacal about one specific
issue as what the illiberal bigot has by now no doubt trotted out
about England being the only country whose cricketers are so useless
that they can't cope with adapting to different formats and that
England should therefore ditch white-ball cricket.

Cheers,

Mike

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 13:42:09 +0100, steve hague
<stevehague82@gmail.com> wrote:

>I agree. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. ... Inspirational
>captains have been few and far between over the years, and I can only
>think of two, maybe two and a half if you count Vaughan in the last
>fifty or so years who captained England, Illingworth and Brearly.

You omit Eoin Morgan, who transformed England's white-ball teams.
Though his powers as a player were even then on the wane, he took over
the captaincy of KKR in the IPL last year after the side had had a
poor run of results, and they only lost one more game for the rest of
the tournament. Under him, players have a very clear idea of what
their role is and what is expected of them, and there is a playing
culture which everyone buys into (or they fade out rather quickly).

No, I am not suggesting that Morgan be appointed to the Test
captaincy. And while I think his captaincy is a huge bonus, I'm
unconvinced that it's enough to keep him in the white ball team,
especially with Moeen Ali available to take over (even if the heir
presumptive is meant to be Buttler).

But comparing the advances made by the white-ball team under his
leadership and the stagnation of the red ball team under Root's for
the last several years does leave one asking what influence Root has
had during his fairly long reign.

Cheers,

Mike

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 20:51:34 +0100, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 13:42:09 +0100, steve hague
><stevehague82@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I agree. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. ... Inspirational
>>captains have been few and far between over the years, and I can only
>>think of two, maybe two and a half if you count Vaughan in the last
>>fifty or so years who captained England, Illingworth and Brearly.
>
>You omit Eoin Morgan, who transformed England's white-ball teams.
>Though his powers as a player were even then on the wane, he took over
>the captaincy of KKR in the IPL last year after the side had had a
>poor run of results, and they only lost one more game for the rest of
>the tournament. Under him, players have a very clear idea of what
>their role is and what is expected of them, and there is a playing
>culture which everyone buys into (or they fade out rather quickly).
>
>No, I am not suggesting that Morgan be appointed to the Test
>captaincy. And while I think his captaincy is a huge bonus, I'm
>unconvinced that it's enough to keep him in the white ball team,
>especially with Moeen Ali available to take over (even if the heir
>presumptive is meant to be Buttler).
>
>But comparing the advances made by the white-ball team under his
>leadership and the stagnation of the red ball team under Root's for
>the last several years does leave one asking what influence Root has
>had during his fairly long reign.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike

I wonder if things had been different would Morgan be the Irish test
captain today and would he be any good at it.

Didn't he do a bit of CC captaincy before?

max.it

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 21:24:48 +0100, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:

>
>I wonder if things had been different would Morgan be the Irish test
>captain today and would he be any good at it.
>
>Didn't he do a bit of CC captaincy before?

He did, but he didn't like it much. But then nobody's liked being
Middx CC captain in years. As soon as one's appointed, he identifies
his successor and grooms him, and then resigns.

Cheers,

Mike

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 21:38:05 +0100, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 21:24:48 +0100, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I wonder if things had been different would Morgan be the Irish test
>>captain today and would he be any good at it.
>>
>>Didn't he do a bit of CC captaincy before?
>
>He did, but he didn't like it much. But then nobody's liked being
>Middx CC captain in years. As soon as one's appointed, he identifies
>his successor and grooms him, and then resigns.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike

A bit like being secretary at our club.

max.it

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 5:12:01 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> That's an interesting definition of "not making any other changes",

You snipped this part;

"England's cricket not improving until significant changes are made to FC cricket in England"

"significant" is implied in my other sentence.

Appointing new coach staff (sacking the old staff was more scapegoating, btw) and taking some steps to squash racism I don't think are significant.
Playing more matches at a time when they've always played more matches is also not a significant change.

On 27/03/2022 23:55, jack fredricks wrote:
> Poor Joe Root.
>
> He gets given the worst England squads I've ever seen and is expected to somehow get them to learn how to play cricket.
>
> I'd keep him as captain, solely because he still wants the job. Yeah, that makes him a little bit crazy.
>
> I am mindful that most criticism here has been about his ability to captain... but to me it feels like throwing the pram out (whilst, ironically, not making any other changes to improve England's fortunes).
>
> I bet 1000 InternetBucks the next captain is way worse. Same bet applies for England's cricket not improving until significant changes are made to FC cricket in England).

The best captains aren't neccessarily the best tacticians, although that
helps, they're the ones who can get the best out of the team. It's
possible that Joe Root has done this. What an awful thought.

On 27/03/2022 23:55, jack fredricks wrote:
> Poor Joe Root. [...]

Indeed; he hasn't had the best of luck in terms of the players
made available to him, and it's difficult to see that the apparently
inevitable 23-2, 37-3, ... batting woes are the fault of the captain.
Even more generally, while decisions are ultimately his to make, it's
difficult to believe that he takes no notice of advice and requests
from other [esp senior] players and the coaches, who must therefore
also take some of the flak.

> I'd keep him as captain, solely because he still wants the job. Yeah,
> that makes him a little bit crazy.

The current BBC poll [finishes 6pm this evening] currently has
Broad on 24% ahead of Root and Stokes on 20% each. Surprises me a bit,
but I think if Broad were appointed, he would at least bring some
enthusiasm to the role. We might see all the reviews used up in the
first three or four overs, however.

> I am mindful that most criticism here has been about his ability to
> captain... [...].

From here, it's difficult to judge. You can't tell what other
captaincy decisions would have meant, only what the outcome of his
actual decisions was. He seems to have the support of the rest of the
team, which suggests that at least they aren't clamouring for regime
change. But again no-one here knows what is going on in the privacy
of the dressing room.

> I bet 1000 InternetBucks the next captain is way worse. Same bet
> applies for England's cricket not improving until significant changes
> are made to FC cricket in England).

Perhaps the wailers should look at the state of Test and f-c
cricket in other countries before grumbling too much about England.
That means attendances, performances in domestic cricket, results
more generally [inc women's cricket and white ball], youth policies
and so on. I recently read "The Secret Cricketer"; it's not really
a good book -- literary merit negligible, and jarring use of swear
words -- but his take on f-c cricket over the past 20 years is well
worth reading, and perhaps a corrective to some views expressed here.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Bendel

On Tuesday, 29 March 2022 at 12:48:03 UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 27/03/2022 23:55, jack fredricks wrote:
> > Poor Joe Root. [...]
>
> Indeed; he hasn't had the best of luck in terms of the players
> made available to him, and it's difficult to see that the apparently
> inevitable 23-2, 37-3, ... batting woes are the fault of the captain.

Especially as some of them go back well beyond his term as captain.

Of course, when he's one of the 2 or 3, it might be partly his fault. ;)
> Even more generally, while decisions are ultimately his to make, it's
> difficult to believe that he takes no notice of advice and requests
> from other [esp senior] players and the coaches, who must therefore
> also take some of the flak.
> > I'd keep him as captain, solely because he still wants the job. Yeah,
> > that makes him a little bit crazy.
> The current BBC poll [finishes 6pm this evening] currently has
> Broad on 24% ahead of Root and Stokes on 20% each. Surprises me a bit,
> but I think if Broad were appointed, he would at least bring some
> enthusiasm to the role. We might see all the reviews used up in the
> first three or four overs, however.

Or the first 6 or 8 overs ... ;)

Mind you, since they've had 3 reviews each, teams generally seem to be much less selective about what they review anyway, at least until they only have one left.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 12:48:02 +0100, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 27/03/2022 23:55, jack fredricks wrote:

> The current BBC poll [finishes 6pm this evening] currently has
>Broad on 24% ahead of Root and Stokes on 20% each. Surprises me a bit,
>but I think if Broad were appointed, he would at least bring some
>enthusiasm to the role. We might see all the reviews used up in the
>first three or four overs, however.

I'm also mindful that he's no spring chicken, which isn't helpful to
him being continuously available since he's a pace bowler, and we'd
ideally want a new skipper who's pretty likely to be around for three
years.

>
>> I bet 1000 InternetBucks the next captain is way worse. Same bet
>> applies for England's cricket not improving until significant changes
>> are made to FC cricket in England).
>
> Perhaps the wailers should look at the state of Test and f-c
>cricket in other countries before grumbling too much about England.

And we have been promised significant changes. The ECB seem interested
in having a think about what changes can be made, how they can be
delivered and where the money's going to come from, and how they would
fit together for maximum effect and making a serious plan before
embarking on them, but Bob Marley's old band apparently think they
should have already made significant changes, since there's no point
in the ECB putting any more thought into it than the discontented are
prepared to, is there?

The obvious short-term improvement of playing more f-c matches on good
pitches has already been implemented, and it's a bit much to expect
much more of a restructuring to be imposed mid-season: the
competitions we've already arranged for this year are what we have.
Absent a reliable supplier of magic wands, it's hard to see what more
could be being done than already is.

Cheers,

Mike

In message <c1d83b32-2699-4e49-b7b3-896da1933800n@googlegroups.com>,
David North <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Mind you, since they've had 3 reviews each, teams generally seem to be
>much less selective about what they review anyway, at least until they
>only have one left.

But wasn't getting an extra review counterbalanced by no longer getting
your reviews back after 80 overs?
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 16:53:59 +0100, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <c1d83b32-2699-4e49-b7b3-896da1933800n@googlegroups.com>,
>David North <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>>Mind you, since they've had 3 reviews each, teams generally seem to be
>>much less selective about what they review anyway, at least until they
>>only have one left.
>
>But wasn't getting an extra review counterbalanced by no longer getting
>your reviews back after 80 overs?

No. No longer getting your reviews back happened when they agreed that
umpire's call didn't cause the review to be lost. They added the third
review when they authorised home umpires because of Covid.

Cheers,

Mike

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 9:48:03 PM UTC+10, Andy Walker wrote:
> Perhaps the wailers should look at the state of Test and f-c
> cricket in other countries before grumbling too much about England.
> That means attendances

I don't judge FC by bums on seats.

> performances in domestic cricket

How does one judge this? For me.. I look at what Test players that FC system produces.

> more generally [inc women's cricket and white ball],

Pass

> youth policies

I'd not pretend to be able to assess these.

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 10:56:38 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> And we have been promised significant changes.

Good. Bring them on. And more. Until then I'll call for improvements to CC.

On Sunday, 27 March 2022 at 23:55:47 UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> Poor Joe Root.
>
> He gets given the worst England squads I've ever seen and is expected to somehow get them to learn how to play cricket.
>
> I'd keep him as captain, solely because he still wants the job. Yeah, that makes him a little bit crazy.
>
> I am mindful that most criticism here has been about his ability to captain... but to me it feels like throwing the pram out (whilst, ironically, not making any other changes to improve England's fortunes).
>
> I bet 1000 InternetBucks the next captain is way worse. Same bet applies for England's cricket not improving until significant changes are made to FC cricket in England).

Root has copped some serious flak and yet most (if not all) pundits seem to be overlooking one glaring fact - you can only pick from the pool of players available to you, if that pool simply isn't upto test standard then you're always up against it.

Now, why the current crop of English county players aren't capable of performing at test level is the subject of another much deeper debate.

On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 2:09:28 AM UTC+10, Nasti Chestikov wrote:
> Now, why the current crop of English county players aren't capable of performing at test level is the subject of another much deeper debate.

Instead of debating it, why not just take the easy path and listen to what ex-players and coaches say - the skill gap between County Cricket and Tests is the result of the over abundance of medium pace bowlers in CC, and pitches that favour such bowlers. This results in not enough genuine fast bowling, and not enough spin.

On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 02:47:25 UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:

> Instead of debating it, why not just take the easy path and listen to what ex-players and coaches say - the skill gap between County Cricket and Tests is the result of the over abundance of medium pace bowlers in
> CC, and pitches that favour such bowlers. This results in not enough genuine fast bowling, and not enough spin.

That's been the case in England for at least the 60+ years I've spent in this wretched country. It's nothing new.

I mean, Jonathan Agnew did enough on the county circuit to get picked for England - ditto Derek Pringle, Neil Mallender, Paul Allott.....I could fill a notebook with very ordinary bowlers who've been selected.

The rot is deeper than dodgy pitches..........for example, I once saw Zak Crawley go four balls without driving expansively at a delivery.

On 31/03/2022 02:47, jack fredricks wrote:
> Instead of debating it, why not just take the easy path and listen to
> what ex-players and coaches say - the skill gap between County
> Cricket and Tests is the result of the over abundance of medium pace
> bowlers in CC, and pitches that favour such bowlers. This results in
> not enough genuine fast bowling, and not enough spin.

As it happens, I've recently been reading "The Secret Cricketer"
and "Right Said Fred" [Flintoff]. Haven't finished RSF, so perhaps he
comes back to this topic in the rest [which I'll perhaps read tonight],
but that's really not the main thrust of what either of them say. The
main point that they both make [tho' in different language] is that
the big difference is between the CC and T20. If someone can earn
huge amounts of money to bowl an occasional four overs in the IPL,
with massive support and back-up, in front of huge crowds, versus a
decent but not marvellous salary to kill themselves preparing for and
playing in the CC in front of a handful of spectators, guess where
they go? Can anyone blame them? FF points out that if you were to
invent cricket as a new sport, the f-c game and Test cricket would be
laughed out of court. ["Tell me again, you want this game to last
for four or five days, at times when most normal people can't attend,
and most of the spectators won't see the result, even if there is
one?", and such like.] Both books claim that the pinnacle is still
to play for England. But the way to get there is less clear.

No, I don't know what the answer is either. But tinkering
with the CC is not it. The money is telling us that. Spectators
are voting with their feet, and the players will follow. Either
there is some way to get big crowds and the England stars [as well
as overseas stars] into the CC, or else it is doomed.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Hummel

On 30/03/2022 02:26, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 9:48:03 PM UTC+10, Andy Walker wrote:
>> Perhaps the wailers should look at the state of Test and f-c
>> cricket in other countries before grumbling too much about England.
>> That means attendances
> I don't judge FC by bums on seats.

/Test and/ f-c. You may not want to count BoS, but you can
be sure that county and national treasurers do. Test cricket is,
sadly, dwindling in most countries; it won't survive on the
followers generated by f-c cricket in this or any other country,
it needs feeding from other interests. Meanwhile any county
looking at packed crowds of people enjoying themselves at T20
matches vs a handful of pensioners at most CC matches is bound
to draw some conclusions.

>> performances in domestic cricket
> How does one judge this? For me.. I look at what Test players that FC
> system produces.

Fine. Now compare the f-c systems across the Test countries.
Yeah, we know about Oz [but note that The Secret Cricketer rates the
CC higher/harder than the Oz system]. What about NZ, SL, India, ...?
What lessons can/should we be learning? Also worth noting that the
CC is not /just/ about producing Test players [~20 actual or near Test
players at any one time, ~350 actual or near county players], any more
than the Premiership is just about producing the England football team.
If there aren't county teams that supporters can follow, and things
for those teams to strive for beyond getting their best player or two
into the England team [and lost to the county], then the CC and the
counties generally are dead. See also a parallel sub-thread.

>> more generally [inc women's cricket and white ball],
> Pass

Yes, but they're all part of trying to make the whole of
cricket more attractive and better supported.

>> youth policies
> I'd not pretend to be able to assess these.

Me neither. But someone about to become a Test player has
perhaps spent a decade in schools cricket and club cricket compared
with perhaps three years in f-c cricket. There needs to be a good
way to pick up good cricketers and steer them through. This is an
area where many cricket autobiographies have much to say.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Hummel

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 6:12:02 AM UTC+10, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 31/03/2022 02:47, jack fredricks wrote:
> > Instead of debating it, why not just take the easy path and listen to
> > what ex-players and coaches say - the skill gap between County
> > Cricket and Tests is the result of the over abundance of medium pace
> > bowlers in CC, and pitches that favour such bowlers. This results in
> > not enough genuine fast bowling, and not enough spin.
> As it happens, I've recently been reading "The Secret Cricketer"
> and "Right Said Fred" [Flintoff]. Haven't finished RSF, so perhaps he
> comes back to this topic in the rest [which I'll perhaps read tonight],
> but that's really not the main thrust of what either of them say. The
> main point that they both make [tho' in different language] is that
> the big difference is between the CC and T20. If someone can earn
> huge amounts of money to bowl an occasional four overs in the IPL,
> with massive support and back-up, in front of huge crowds, versus a
> decent but not marvellous salary to kill themselves preparing for and
> playing in the CC in front of a handful of spectators, guess where
> they go? Can anyone blame them? FF points out that if you were to
> invent cricket as a new sport, the f-c game and Test cricket would be
> laughed out of court. ["Tell me again, you want this game to last
> for four or five days, at times when most normal people can't attend,
> and most of the spectators won't see the result, even if there is
> one?", and such like.] Both books claim that the pinnacle is still
> to play for England. But the way to get there is less clear.

Well.. FC vs T20 is an entirely different issue. It would be a bigger issue if novice players somehow stopped playing "lower" levels of cricket eg a "brain/skill drain".
But as far as I can tell that's not happening. The path to elite cricket, including T20, remains the same - grassroots all the way to top level domestic cricket (FC, national T20 comps etc).

> No, I don't know what the answer is either. But tinkering
> with the CC is not it.

Yet everyone, poetic licence, says that is the answer. Unless you're saying changes BIGGER than tinkering are needed, which doesn't seem to be the case.

> The money is telling us that. Spectators
> are voting with their feet, and the players will follow. Either
> there is some way to get big crowds and the England stars [as well
> as overseas stars] into the CC, or else it is doomed.

Nothing is going to kill Test cricket quicker than England winning 1 in 18 Tests.

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 6:12:13 AM UTC+10, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 30/03/2022 02:26, jack fredricks wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 9:48:03 PM UTC+10, Andy Walker wrote:
> >> Perhaps the wailers should look at the state of Test and f-c
> >> cricket in other countries before grumbling too much about England.
> >> That means attendances
> > I don't judge FC by bums on seats.
> /Test and/ f-c. You may not want to count BoS, but you can
> be sure that county and national treasurers do. Test cricket is,
> sadly, dwindling in most countries; it won't survive on the
> followers generated by f-c cricket in this or any other country,
> it needs feeding from other interests. Meanwhile any county
> looking at packed crowds of people enjoying themselves at T20
> matches vs a handful of pensioners at most CC matches is bound
> to draw some conclusions.

Again, seems to be a separate issue.
My beef with England Test quality produced by County Cricket presumes Tests will continue as a sport.
If Tests die out, I'll have something else to whinge about.

> >> performances in domestic cricket
> > How does one judge this? For me.. I look at what Test players that FC
> > system produces.
> Fine. Now compare the f-c systems across the Test countries.
> Yeah, we know about Oz [but note that The Secret Cricketer rates the
> CC higher/harder than the Oz system].

CC harder than SS? Enough said about that publication. I'll never read it, and will recommend people don't.

> What about NZ, SL, India, ...?
> What lessons can/should we be learning? Also worth noting that the
> CC is not /just/ about producing Test players [~20 actual or near Test
> players at any one time, ~350 actual or near county players], any more
> than the Premiership is just about producing the England football team.
> If there aren't county teams that supporters can follow, and things
> for those teams to strive for beyond getting their best player or two
> into the England team [and lost to the county], then the CC and the
> counties generally are dead. See also a parallel sub-thread.
> >> more generally [inc women's cricket and white ball],
> > Pass
> Yes, but they're all part of trying to make the whole of
> cricket more attractive and better supported.

I'm not really sure how we got onto the tangent of cricket popularity as a whole.

> >> youth policies
> > I'd not pretend to be able to assess these.
> Me neither. But someone about to become a Test player has
> perhaps spent a decade in schools cricket and club cricket compared
> with perhaps three years in f-c cricket. There needs to be a good
> way to pick up good cricketers and steer them through. This is an
> area where many cricket autobiographies have much to say.

I am one of the rare people in this ng who to have played multiple seasons of grassroots cricket in both Aus (school, uni, grade cricket, our version of village cricket) and England (uni, village).
There is a marked difference in cricket culture.
Whilst I *much* preferred playing in England, I did conclude at the time that it is way less effort and way less competitive.
It is more of a "stroll in the park", whereas Aus cricket is "a bog run". I'll try to expand on that later. I'm sure I can explain it better.
If I had a magic wand, I don't know if I'd change that. As I said, as a player I much preferred English cricket. Not because it was easier, but because it was more pleasant/romantic.