I liked this quote from an interview in the Grauniad:

'As he returns to Leicestershire, Ahmed’s focus is on the county
season and the red ball. “I used to see Test cricket as a boring game
kind of thing,” he says. “But it’s a long game, it’s the hardest game.
Now I see it as the most fun game, I take the most joy from it and
stuff. The joy I got from playing and winning a Test match was
unmatched. I don’t know if anything can match that."'

What I particularly like is that a young kid discovering Test cricket
realises that it's professionally the biggest challenge you can face,
which definitely helps with keeping the format going. Andy Walker has
often wondered whether the next generation will want to play red-ball
cricket; I've rather thought that they would, but it's good to get
confirmation from one of England's future stars.

I also like "joy". It's something I was thinking about a few days ago:
it seems to me that international cricketers generally seem to be
having more fun on the field than they did forty years ago. I was
wondering whether it's because they play fewer games than they used
to: they still spend most days cricketing, but a lot of those days
aren't matches, so actually getting to compete rather than practise
may make it a more special experience - which is a factor in
enjoyment.

Cheers,

Mike

On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 3:06:51 PM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> I liked this quote from an interview in the Grauniad:
>
> 'As he returns to Leicestershire, Ahmed’s focus is on the county
> season and the red ball. “I used to see Test cricket as a boring game
> kind of thing,” he says. “But it’s a long game, it’s the hardest game.
> Now I see it as the most fun game, I take the most joy from it and
> stuff. The joy I got from playing and winning a Test match was
> unmatched. I don’t know if anything can match that."'
>
> What I particularly like is that a young kid discovering Test cricket
> realises that it's professionally the biggest challenge you can face,
> which definitely helps with keeping the format going. Andy Walker has
> often wondered whether the next generation will want to play red-ball
> cricket;

The reason why Dr B-M has often wondered it because he rarely if ever attends an FC game... RH

I've rather thought that they would, but it's good to get
> confirmation from one of England's future stars.
>
> I also like "joy". It's something I was thinking about a few days ago:
> it seems to me that international cricketers generally seem to be
> having more fun on the field than they did forty years ago. I was
> wondering whether it's because they play fewer games than they used
> to: they still spend most days cricketing, but a lot of those days
> aren't matches, so actually getting to compete rather than practise
> may make it a more special experience - which is a factor in
> enjoyment.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 3:06:51 PM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> I liked this quote from an interview in the Grauniad:
>
> 'As he returns to Leicestershire, Ahmed’s focus is on the county
> season and the red ball. “I used to see Test cricket as a boring game
> kind of thing,” he says. “But it’s a long game, it’s the hardest game.
> Now I see it as the most fun game, I take the most joy from it and
> stuff. The joy I got from playing and winning a Test match was
> unmatched. I don’t know if anything can match that."'
>
> What I particularly like is that a young kid discovering Test cricket
> realises that it's professionally the biggest challenge you can face,
> which definitely helps with keeping the format going. Andy Walker has
> often wondered whether the next generation will want to play red-ball
> cricket; I've rather thought that they would, but it's good to get
> confirmation from one of England's future stars.
>
> I also like "joy". It's something I was thinking about a few days ago:
> it seems to me that international cricketers generally seem to be
> having more fun on the field than they did forty years ago. I was
> wondering whether it's because they play fewer games than they used
> to: they still spend most days cricketing, but a lot of those days
> aren't matches, so actually getting to compete rather than practise
> may make it a more special experience - which is a factor in
> enjoyment.
>

yes indeed. in a way its also down to timing, that ahmed came in under
stokes-mccullum rather than say going on the windies tour under root
& silverwood, which might have put him off test cricket for life. and
even before then i cant believe many people enjoyed watching burns
and sibley bat. clearly though he will have to do very well for leics, who
are prob the weakest team in the CC, or we will have a drought like
1976 for ahmed to force his way into the test side.

but in general i think it is true and not just of the england team and
bazball, and although i hate to say it some of it may be down to
t20, and the skills players use there.

mike

On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 10:52:19 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 3:06:51?PM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:

>> I also like "joy". It's something I was thinking about a few days ago:
>> it seems to me that international cricketers generally seem to be
>> having more fun on the field than they did forty years ago.
>
>but in general i think it is true and not just of the england team and
>bazball, and although i hate to say it some of it may be down to
>t20, and the skills players use there.

Good point.

Although I don't quite understand "hate" to say it. I had also mused
earlier today why it was once considered the correct attitude to sneer
at aspects of the game being changed to be more "entertaining", as
though it was somehow improper for players or spectators to enjoy
watching or playing cricket. The relic of this bizarre attitude
continues to grumble about it, but I really don't understand what is
wrong with finding the events unfolding before one's eyes exciting
more often than not. I wish we didn't have to have coloured clothing,
but if it results in enjoyable cricket, I'm not really complaining.

Cricket should not be a chore to play or watch. It will sometimes be
boring because all sports are boring some of the time, but what is the
point of pretending that cricket's boring bits are somehow the
pinnacle of the sport rather than its dregs.

County championship cricket these days is a good game to play, but
less so to watch. Its main problem now is that there aren't many
excellent players. There's a whole bunch of very good ones, but the
guys with the ability to light games up are mostly off on
international duty or playing franchise cricket. They get one season
of lighting up the championship before being swept on to greater
things. See Harry Brook.

THe PSL final was a marvellous game: first team scored 200, second 199
needing 4 off the last to win meant there was tension the whole way
through, and there was some fantastic play, though the sole English
player Billings did little with the bat.

Cheers,

Mike

On 18/03/2023 15:06, Mike Holmans wrote:
[...]
> What I particularly like is that a young kid discovering Test cricket
> realises that it's professionally the biggest challenge you can face,
> which definitely helps with keeping the format going. Andy Walker has
> often wondered whether the next generation will want to play red-ball
> cricket; I've rather thought that they would, but it's good to get
> confirmation from one of England's future stars.

??? I may have mused occasionally on the future of cricket, but I
don't recall often wondering that, exactly. The players are professionals.
They will play whatever brings in the money, at whatever level their skills
can command. In that context, it scarcely matters what the players want,
only what the spectators [inc TV audiences and the like] and [therefore]
sponsors want. Spectators are voting with their feet; at least in the UK,
grounds are packed for Tests and any form of T20, less so for the CC and
somewhere between for ListA. The problem for the next generation is to
establish a career path to the Test side. Long term, I'm not sure that I
see one.

If the only "raison d'etre" for the CC is to produce a Test side,
then the CC is doomed. We might as well replace it by a series of trial
matches in which the best T20/ListA players are selected to see which of
them can adapt to the 3/4/5-day game. That's why I'm opposed to those
who see county cricket as /only/ a way of producing a Test side; it will
all work much better [and as it used to] if the CC is seen as a worthwhile
competition in its own right, and its players as having achieved something
when they establish themselves in the county side. We're not so dismissive
of our footballers; we don't talk the equivalent of "trundlers" and "pie-
chuckers" and "mediocrities" when we talk about players outside the elite.
But of course football is much more like T20 when it comes the things like
length of a game, size and enthusiasm of crowds, attraction to youngsters,
coverage in the media, and so on. If "the next generation" is to want to
play f-c cricket, we have to get some of those features into the CC.

FTAOD, this is not a claim that Rehan Ahmed didn't want to play CC
for Leics [tho' I'd have preferred him not to have escaped from Notts!].
As above, it's much less what the players want, and more what spectators
and sponsors want. For as long as there /is/ a CC, players will play in
it and some will graduate to the Test side. But it's expensive to run a
f-c ground and a f-c team, and someone has to pay for it.

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

On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 10:23:54 PM UTC, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 18/03/2023 15:06, Mike Holmans wrote:
> [...]
> > What I particularly like is that a young kid discovering Test cricket
> > realises that it's professionally the biggest challenge you can face,
> > which definitely helps with keeping the format going. Andy Walker has
> > often wondered whether the next generation will want to play red-ball
> > cricket; I've rather thought that they would, but it's good to get
> > confirmation from one of England's future stars.
> ??? I may have mused occasionally on the future of cricket, but I
> don't recall often wondering that, exactly. The players are professionals..
> They will play whatever brings in the money, at whatever level their skills
> can command. In that context, it scarcely matters what the players want,
> only what the spectators [inc TV audiences and the like] and [therefore]
> sponsors want. Spectators are voting with their feet; at least in the UK,
> grounds are packed for Tests and any form of T20, less so for the CC and
> somewhere between for ListA. The problem for the next generation is to
> establish a career path to the Test side. Long term, I'm not sure that I
> see one.
>
> If the only "raison d'etre" for the CC is to produce a Test side,
> then the CC is doomed. We might as well replace it by a series of trial
> matches in which the best T20/ListA players are selected to see which of
> them can adapt to the 3/4/5-day game. That's why I'm opposed to those
> who see county cricket as /only/ a way of producing a Test side; it will
> all work much better [and as it used to] if the CC is seen as a worthwhile
> competition in its own right, and its players as having achieved something
> when they establish themselves in the county side. We're not so dismissive
> of our footballers; we don't talk the equivalent of "trundlers" and "pie-
> chuckers" and "mediocrities" when we talk about players outside the elite..
> But of course football is much more like T20 when it comes the things like
> length of a game, size and enthusiasm of crowds, attraction to youngsters,
> coverage in the media, and so on. If "the next generation" is to want to
> play f-c cricket, we have to get some of those features into the CC.
>
> FTAOD, this is not a claim that Rehan Ahmed didn't want to play CC
> for Leics [tho' I'd have preferred him not to have escaped from Notts!].
> As above, it's much less what the players want, and more what spectators
> and sponsors want. For as long as there /is/ a CC, players will play in
> it and some will graduate to the Test side. But it's expensive to run a
> f-c ground and a f-c team, and someone has to pay for it.
>
> --
> Andy Walker, Nottingham.
> Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
> Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Litolff

There is plenty of money knocking around English cricket which should be going to the counties , eg, the huge salaries paid to ECB staff. Moreover , the T20 represents a good deal of money for the counties, as does the Test distribution to the counties.

What is a monetary drain on English cricket is the employment of 50 foreigners in all forms of professional cricket in England . If their average cost including travel to and from to the UK is only £50,000 (a very conservative figure) that would mean £3,000000 is going out of the English game.

RH

On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 4:52:01 AM UTC-4, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 10:23:54 PM UTC, Andy Walker wrote:
> > On 18/03/2023 15:06, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > [...]
> > > What I particularly like is that a young kid discovering Test cricket
> > > realises that it's professionally the biggest challenge you can face,
> > > which definitely helps with keeping the format going. Andy Walker has
> > > often wondered whether the next generation will want to play red-ball
> > > cricket; I've rather thought that they would, but it's good to get
> > > confirmation from one of England's future stars.
> > ??? I may have mused occasionally on the future of cricket, but I
> > don't recall often wondering that, exactly. The players are professionals.
> > They will play whatever brings in the money, at whatever level their skills
> > can command. In that context, it scarcely matters what the players want,
> > only what the spectators [inc TV audiences and the like] and [therefore]
> > sponsors want. Spectators are voting with their feet; at least in the UK,
> > grounds are packed for Tests and any form of T20, less so for the CC and
> > somewhere between for ListA. The problem for the next generation is to
> > establish a career path to the Test side. Long term, I'm not sure that I
> > see one.
> >
> > If the only "raison d'etre" for the CC is to produce a Test side,
> > then the CC is doomed. We might as well replace it by a series of trial
> > matches in which the best T20/ListA players are selected to see which of
> > them can adapt to the 3/4/5-day game. That's why I'm opposed to those
> > who see county cricket as /only/ a way of producing a Test side; it will
> > all work much better [and as it used to] if the CC is seen as a worthwhile
> > competition in its own right, and its players as having achieved something
> > when they establish themselves in the county side. We're not so dismissive
> > of our footballers; we don't talk the equivalent of "trundlers" and "pie-
> > chuckers" and "mediocrities" when we talk about players outside the elite.
> > But of course football is much more like T20 when it comes the things like
> > length of a game, size and enthusiasm of crowds, attraction to youngsters,
> > coverage in the media, and so on. If "the next generation" is to want to
> > play f-c cricket, we have to get some of those features into the CC.
> >
> > FTAOD, this is not a claim that Rehan Ahmed didn't want to play CC
> > for Leics [tho' I'd have preferred him not to have escaped from Notts!]..
> > As above, it's much less what the players want, and more what spectators
> > and sponsors want. For as long as there /is/ a CC, players will play in
> > it and some will graduate to the Test side. But it's expensive to run a
> > f-c ground and a f-c team, and someone has to pay for it.
> >
> > --
> > Andy Walker, Nottingham.
> > Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
> > Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Litolff
> There is plenty of money knocking around English cricket which should be going to the counties , eg, the huge salaries paid to ECB staff. Moreover , the T20 represents a good deal of money for the counties, as does the Test distribution to the counties.
>
> What is a monetary drain on English cricket is the employment of 50 foreigners in all forms of professional cricket in England . If their average cost including travel to and from to the UK is only £50,000 (a very conservative figure) that would mean £3,000000 is going out of the English game.
>
> RH

How about the money the UK players loot from the IPL?
Millions per player when they are paid thousands in UK!! LOL

On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 12:22:46 PM UTC, drye...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 4:52:01 AM UTC-4, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 10:23:54 PM UTC, Andy Walker wrote:
> > > On 18/03/2023 15:06, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > What I particularly like is that a young kid discovering Test cricket
> > > > realises that it's professionally the biggest challenge you can face,
> > > > which definitely helps with keeping the format going. Andy Walker has
> > > > often wondered whether the next generation will want to play red-ball
> > > > cricket; I've rather thought that they would, but it's good to get
> > > > confirmation from one of England's future stars.
> > > ??? I may have mused occasionally on the future of cricket, but I
> > > don't recall often wondering that, exactly. The players are professionals.
> > > They will play whatever brings in the money, at whatever level their skills
> > > can command. In that context, it scarcely matters what the players want,
> > > only what the spectators [inc TV audiences and the like] and [therefore]
> > > sponsors want. Spectators are voting with their feet; at least in the UK,
> > > grounds are packed for Tests and any form of T20, less so for the CC and
> > > somewhere between for ListA. The problem for the next generation is to
> > > establish a career path to the Test side. Long term, I'm not sure that I
> > > see one.
> > >
> > > If the only "raison d'etre" for the CC is to produce a Test side,
> > > then the CC is doomed. We might as well replace it by a series of trial
> > > matches in which the best T20/ListA players are selected to see which of
> > > them can adapt to the 3/4/5-day game. That's why I'm opposed to those
> > > who see county cricket as /only/ a way of producing a Test side; it will
> > > all work much better [and as it used to] if the CC is seen as a worthwhile
> > > competition in its own right, and its players as having achieved something
> > > when they establish themselves in the county side. We're not so dismissive
> > > of our footballers; we don't talk the equivalent of "trundlers" and "pie-
> > > chuckers" and "mediocrities" when we talk about players outside the elite.
> > > But of course football is much more like T20 when it comes the things like
> > > length of a game, size and enthusiasm of crowds, attraction to youngsters,
> > > coverage in the media, and so on. If "the next generation" is to want to
> > > play f-c cricket, we have to get some of those features into the CC.
> > >
> > > FTAOD, this is not a claim that Rehan Ahmed didn't want to play CC
> > > for Leics [tho' I'd have preferred him not to have escaped from Notts!].
> > > As above, it's much less what the players want, and more what spectators
> > > and sponsors want. For as long as there /is/ a CC, players will play in
> > > it and some will graduate to the Test side. But it's expensive to run a
> > > f-c ground and a f-c team, and someone has to pay for it.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andy Walker, Nottingham.
> > > Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
> > > Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Litolff
> > There is plenty of money knocking around English cricket which should be going to the counties , eg, the huge salaries paid to ECB staff. Moreover , the T20 represents a good deal of money for the counties, as does the Test distribution to the counties.
> >
> > What is a monetary drain on English cricket is the employment of 50 foreigners in all forms of professional cricket in England . If their average cost including travel to and from to the UK is only £50,000 (a very conservative figure) that would mean £3,000000 is going out of the English game.
> >
> > RH
> How about the money the UK players loot from the IPL?
> Millions per player when they are paid thousands in UK!! LOL

Irrelevant . It is up to the authorities in India to stop foreigners invading the iPL.
RH

On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 1:06:51 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> “But it’s a long game, it’s the hardest game.
> Now I see it as the most fun game, I take the most joy from it and
> stuff. The joy I got from playing and winning a Test match was
> unmatched. I don’t know if anything can match that."'

As someone who has played grassroots t20, t50, and 2-day games (4 innings), I can assure that the longer format is the one that lets players apply their skills the most.

Oppo has a great bowler? Get ready to face 20+ overs from him.
Batting well? Your innings can last 90 overs, or more. None of this 20 overs max crap.

On Sunday, 19 March 2023 at 08:52:01 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 10:23:54 PM UTC, Andy Walker wrote:
> > On 18/03/2023 15:06, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > [...]
> > > What I particularly like is that a young kid discovering Test cricket
> > > realises that it's professionally the biggest challenge you can face,
> > > which definitely helps with keeping the format going. Andy Walker has
> > > often wondered whether the next generation will want to play red-ball
> > > cricket; I've rather thought that they would, but it's good to get
> > > confirmation from one of England's future stars.
> > ??? I may have mused occasionally on the future of cricket, but I
> > don't recall often wondering that, exactly. The players are professionals.
> > They will play whatever brings in the money, at whatever level their skills
> > can command. In that context, it scarcely matters what the players want,
> > only what the spectators [inc TV audiences and the like] and [therefore]
> > sponsors want. Spectators are voting with their feet; at least in the UK,
> > grounds are packed for Tests and any form of T20, less so for the CC and
> > somewhere between for ListA. The problem for the next generation is to
> > establish a career path to the Test side. Long term, I'm not sure that I
> > see one.
> >
> > If the only "raison d'etre" for the CC is to produce a Test side,
> > then the CC is doomed. We might as well replace it by a series of trial
> > matches in which the best T20/ListA players are selected to see which of
> > them can adapt to the 3/4/5-day game. That's why I'm opposed to those
> > who see county cricket as /only/ a way of producing a Test side; it will
> > all work much better [and as it used to] if the CC is seen as a worthwhile
> > competition in its own right, and its players as having achieved something
> > when they establish themselves in the county side. We're not so dismissive
> > of our footballers; we don't talk the equivalent of "trundlers" and "pie-
> > chuckers" and "mediocrities" when we talk about players outside the elite.
> > But of course football is much more like T20 when it comes the things like
> > length of a game, size and enthusiasm of crowds, attraction to youngsters,
> > coverage in the media, and so on. If "the next generation" is to want to
> > play f-c cricket, we have to get some of those features into the CC.
> >
> > FTAOD, this is not a claim that Rehan Ahmed didn't want to play CC
> > for Leics [tho' I'd have preferred him not to have escaped from Notts!]..
> > As above, it's much less what the players want, and more what spectators
> > and sponsors want. For as long as there /is/ a CC, players will play in
> > it and some will graduate to the Test side. But it's expensive to run a
> > f-c ground and a f-c team, and someone has to pay for it.
> >
> > --
> > Andy Walker, Nottingham.
> > Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
> > Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Litolff
> There is plenty of money knocking around English cricket which should be going to the counties , eg, the huge salaries paid to ECB staff. Moreover , the T20 represents a good deal of money for the counties, as does the Test distribution to the counties.
>
> What is a monetary drain on English cricket is the employment of 50 foreigners in all forms of professional cricket in England . If their average cost including travel to and from to the UK is only £50,000 (a very conservative figure) that would mean £3,000000 is going out of the English game.
>
> RH
>>>>
>>>>
On what planet does 50 x 50,000 = 3,000000?

On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 12:43:31 PM UTC, Najeeb ybo wrote:
> On Sunday, 19 March 2023 at 08:52:01 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 10:23:54 PM UTC, Andy Walker wrote:
> > > On 18/03/2023 15:06, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > What I particularly like is that a young kid discovering Test cricket
> > > > realises that it's professionally the biggest challenge you can face,
> > > > which definitely helps with keeping the format going. Andy Walker has
> > > > often wondered whether the next generation will want to play red-ball
> > > > cricket; I've rather thought that they would, but it's good to get
> > > > confirmation from one of England's future stars.
> > > ??? I may have mused occasionally on the future of cricket, but I
> > > don't recall often wondering that, exactly. The players are professionals.
> > > They will play whatever brings in the money, at whatever level their skills
> > > can command. In that context, it scarcely matters what the players want,
> > > only what the spectators [inc TV audiences and the like] and [therefore]
> > > sponsors want. Spectators are voting with their feet; at least in the UK,
> > > grounds are packed for Tests and any form of T20, less so for the CC and
> > > somewhere between for ListA. The problem for the next generation is to
> > > establish a career path to the Test side. Long term, I'm not sure that I
> > > see one.
> > >
> > > If the only "raison d'etre" for the CC is to produce a Test side,
> > > then the CC is doomed. We might as well replace it by a series of trial
> > > matches in which the best T20/ListA players are selected to see which of
> > > them can adapt to the 3/4/5-day game. That's why I'm opposed to those
> > > who see county cricket as /only/ a way of producing a Test side; it will
> > > all work much better [and as it used to] if the CC is seen as a worthwhile
> > > competition in its own right, and its players as having achieved something
> > > when they establish themselves in the county side. We're not so dismissive
> > > of our footballers; we don't talk the equivalent of "trundlers" and "pie-
> > > chuckers" and "mediocrities" when we talk about players outside the elite.
> > > But of course football is much more like T20 when it comes the things like
> > > length of a game, size and enthusiasm of crowds, attraction to youngsters,
> > > coverage in the media, and so on. If "the next generation" is to want to
> > > play f-c cricket, we have to get some of those features into the CC.
> > >
> > > FTAOD, this is not a claim that Rehan Ahmed didn't want to play CC
> > > for Leics [tho' I'd have preferred him not to have escaped from Notts!].
> > > As above, it's much less what the players want, and more what spectators
> > > and sponsors want. For as long as there /is/ a CC, players will play in
> > > it and some will graduate to the Test side. But it's expensive to run a
> > > f-c ground and a f-c team, and someone has to pay for it.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andy Walker, Nottingham.
> > > Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
> > > Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Litolff
> > There is plenty of money knocking around English cricket which should be going to the counties , eg, the huge salaries paid to ECB staff. Moreover , the T20 represents a good deal of money for the counties, as does the Test distribution to the counties.
> >
> > What is a monetary drain on English cricket is the employment of 50 foreigners in all forms of professional cricket in England . If their average cost including travel to and from to the UK is only £50,000 (a very conservative figure) that would mean £3,000000 is going out of the English game.
> >
> > RH
> >>>>
> >>>>
> On what planet does 50 x 50,000 = 3,000000?

Should be £2, 500, 000

RH

On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 22:23:53 +0000, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 18/03/2023 15:06, Mike Holmans wrote:
>[...]
>> What I particularly like is that a young kid discovering Test cricket
>> realises that it's professionally the biggest challenge you can face,
>> which definitely helps with keeping the format going. Andy Walker has
>> often wondered whether the next generation will want to play red-ball
>> cricket; I've rather thought that they would, but it's good to get
>> confirmation from one of England's future stars.
>
> ??? I may have mused occasionally on the future of cricket, but I
>don't recall often wondering that, exactly. The players are professionals.
>They will play whatever brings in the money, at whatever level their skills
>can command.

I'm sorry if it was an unreasonable extrapolation to think that the
players might sign these contracts voluntarily and that which
contracts they decide to sign would be guided to a considerable extent
by what they wanted.

It also seems to rely on the assumption that if faced with a choice
between two contracts, the only actual choice is to determine which
one offers the most money and that a player's career preferences have
nothing to do with it.

Since in the case under discussion, Rehan Ahmed could have made more
money by taking an IPL contract rather than playing red-ball cricket
for Leics, I am inclined to believe that his personal preference
entered into the decision, but since that can't be the case, I am at a
loss to explain it. Perhaps you would enlighten me.

>In that context, it scarcely matters what the players want,
>only what the spectators [inc TV audiences and the like] and [therefore]
>sponsors want.

So the analysis of Ben Stokes that Test cricket will only survive if
spectators want to watch it and that if players want to play Test
cricket, then they have to make it watchable and the only people who
can do that are the players themselves and that they have to want to
do it to achieve their objective is irrelevant?

Sponsors and spectators can only have what players are able to supply;
the players have to be willing to co-operate for any proposal to be
successful.

> The problem for the next generation is to
>establish a career path to the Test side. Long term, I'm not sure that I
>see one.
>
> If the only "raison d'etre" for the CC is to produce a Test side,
>then the CC is doomed.... That's why I'm opposed to those
>who see county cricket as /only/ a way of producing a Test side; it will
>all work much better [and as it used to] if the CC is seen as a worthwhile
>competition in its own right, and its players as having achieved something
>when they establish themselves in the county side.

Playing top-level cricket involves being able to exercise a number of
different skills. Most of those skills require development. Some
things can be developed outside a match context; those which involve
reacting to game situations cannot.

T20 is a terrible format for developing patience and endurance. Test
cricket tends not to encourage improvisation and risk-taking. In
red-ball cricket, being able to repeat an action to order is a great
asset; in white-ball cricket repetition tends to hand the advantage to
the other side, so variety is desirable.

There was a time when spinners were misused in white-ball cricket and
wrist-spin was dying out. Ray Illingworth was quite correct to say in
1971 that putting young spinners on the field in English white-ball
(as it is now but wasn't then) cricket was likely to be highly
damaging. Today, though, wrist-spinners are so useful in T20 that even
a poor one will get to bowl often and will be encouraged to attack,
giving them the kind of experience which can then serve them very well
as they graduate to bowling 20-over rather than 20-ball spells. In
red-ball cricket, the same bowler would be regarded by most captains
as far too erratic to give them much exposure at crucial moments. So,
if somebody wants to become a good Test wrist-spinner, they will need
to play a lot of T20 cricket. In the other direction, red ball cricket
is great for pace bowlers to develop complete control over line and
length, thus enabling them to be parsimonious death bowlers in T20.

What would be fatal to red-ball cricket would be thinking that it's
wildly different and that cross-fertilisation should be discouraged.
People turning their noses up at T20 as if it were an unpleasant
intrusion on real cricket and ignoring evidence from white-ball
cricket when talking about a (potential) Test player exhibits a highly
deleterious snobbery which the players themselves don't share.

I am not saying that players are not going to take money into account
as they make their career /choices/, but emphasising that because they
are choices, the players' wants are factors too. They may well choose
to chase professional achievement above filling their pension pot,
particularly early in their careers while all options are still open
to them: by the time they're 30, they know what sort of cricketer they
have become and will concentrate their efforts accordingly, whereas
wise young players won't close off routes to the top if they can help
it.

If you are hoping for an orderly progression via experience at county
level through reaching the top of the averages and thereby gaining
selection, then you're out of luck. The potential international
cricketer needs to consider what will best help their careers develop
the way that they want them to.

Test cricket will only survive if enough young players make career
choices to develop the necessary skills to succeed in the Test arena,
which they will only do if they want to.

I have certainly feared that the coming generations will prefer to
take the easy way out and concentrate on short-form cricket because
it's lucrative. I am therefore pleased when I see and hear those young
players still holding the view that Test cricket is the ultimate
professional challenge and being prepared to make sacrifices to pursue
its mastery.

I apologise again for imputing that you believed that their choices
were not entirely driven by comparing numbers at the top of contracts
and that their wishes were a factor, but then I've been told that I
don't understand human nature by a 1950s relic, so that probably
explains it.

Cheers,

Mike

>On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 4:52:01?AM UTC-4, Robert Henderson wrote:

>> There is plenty of money knocking around English cricket which should be going to the counties , eg, the huge salaries paid to ECB staff. Moreover , the T20 represents a good deal of money for the counties, as does the Test distribution to the counties.

And this is presumably why Middx, for instance, are under
investigation by the ECB because they haven't got any money any more.

Why one would parade one's ignorance by maintaining that the counties
are awash with money when the evidence mounts up that they are not is
a mystery almost as deep as who wrote the program which produces
doctor "jokes" when its arguments are demonstrated to be utterly
invalid, not to mention false.

Cheers,

Mike

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 3:41:40 PM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> >On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 4:52:01?AM UTC-4, Robert Henderson wrote:
>
> >> There is plenty of money knocking around English cricket which should be going to the counties , eg, the huge salaries paid to ECB staff. Moreover , the T20 represents a good deal of money for the counties, as does the Test distribution to the counties.
> And this is presumably why Middx, for instance, are under
> investigation by the ECB because they haven't got any money any more.
>
> Why one would parade one's ignorance by maintaining that the counties
> are awash with money when the evidence mounts up that they are not is
> a mystery almost as deep as who wrote the program which produces
> doctor "jokes" when its arguments are demonstrated to be utterly
> invalid, not to mention false.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

Yet again master Unwholesome hilariously misunderstands the adult world . Money can only too often end up in the hands of rogues or s simply squandered by bad management. RH

On 19/03/2023 17:43, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>> [...] Andy Walker has
>>> often wondered whether the next generation will want to play red-ball
>>> cricket; I've rather thought that they would, but it's good to get
>>> confirmation from one of England's future stars.
>> ??? I may have mused occasionally on the future of cricket, but I
>> don't recall often wondering that, exactly. The players are professionals.
>> They will play whatever brings in the money, at whatever level their skills
>> can command.
> I'm sorry if it was an unreasonable extrapolation to think that the
> players might sign these contracts voluntarily and that which
> contracts they decide to sign would be guided to a considerable extent
> by what they wanted.

Did Mr Grumpy get out of bed the wrong side?

Obviously players can choose which of a number of available contracts
they sign; but if there is no money available for [eg] the [red-ball] CC,
then none of those contracts will be for the [by hypothesis, non-existent]
CC. The CC does not pay for itself in terms of gate money, TV rights, bar
takings and the like, so it depends on subsidy, whether from other county
activities, sponsorship or distribution of ECB money. If that subsidy stops
so does the CC, no matter how much the players [and "uk.s.c"] want it. Of
course, there's nothing to prevent an amateur inter-county tournament taking
its place, but I doubt whether it would get more traction than inter-county
bowls/golf/tennis/... tournaments -- worthy enough, but not attractive to
the top [or even second-rank] professionals or to the media.

> It also seems to rely on the assumption that if faced with a choice
> between two contracts, the only actual choice is to determine which
> one offers the most money and that a player's career preferences have
> nothing to do with it.

I made no such assumption. Indeed, as a retired academic, I'm all
too familiar with a career choice of congeniality over pay.

> Since in the case under discussion, Rehan Ahmed could have made more
> money by taking an IPL contract rather than playing red-ball cricket
> for Leics, I am inclined to believe that his personal preference
> entered into the decision, but since that can't be the case, I am at a
> loss to explain it. Perhaps you would enlighten me.

See above.

>> In that context, it scarcely matters what the players want,
>> only what the spectators [inc TV audiences and the like] and [therefore]
>> sponsors want.
> So the analysis of Ben Stokes that Test cricket will only survive if
> spectators want to watch it and that if players want to play Test
> cricket, then they have to make it watchable and the only people who
> can do that are the players themselves and that they have to want to
> do it to achieve their objective is irrelevant?

` ??? No, it's the other side of my coin, and he's [therefore] right.
It's a virtuous circle. The difficulty will be sustaining the excitement
and [therefore] spectator interest and [therefore] player enjoyment and
[therefore] excitement ... through the next few seasons, through good times
and bad, and long after Stokes himself has retired. He is saying that he
and other players have to attract spectators; I was saying essentially the
same -- if cricket doesn't attract spectators, then professional cricket is
unviable [no matter how keen the players are to play it].

> Sponsors and spectators can only have what players are able to supply;
> the players have to be willing to co-operate for any proposal to be
> successful.

£1 million pa per international player buys, even in these inflated
times, a lot of willing co-operation. Even county pay, at least for the
established players, is decent by middle-class professional standards.

[...]
> I have certainly feared that the coming generations will prefer to
> take the easy way out and concentrate on short-form cricket because
> it's lucrative. I am therefore pleased when I see and hear those young
> players still holding the view that Test cricket is the ultimate
> professional challenge and being prepared to make sacrifices to pursue
> its mastery.

Sure. But the question is whether f-c cricket /below Test level/
holds the same attraction /to those paying the piper/. If not, then it
will die, and be replaced by other mechanisms for getting youngsters [who
all start and learn their craft in "short-form" cricket -- unless you know
of many schools or leagues that habitually play four-day matches against
their rivals] into "long-form" cricket. We're part-way there with [eg]
Lions tours, age-limited tours, and the like, which are much cheaper than
the CC. County members, who expect to be able to drop in "free" to f-c
matches, won't like change, so I hope some compromise will be possible.

> I apologise again for imputing that you believed that their choices
> were not entirely driven by comparing numbers at the top of contracts
> and that their wishes were a factor, but then I've been told that I
> don't understand human nature by a 1950s relic, so that probably
> explains it.

The "1950s relic" has no experience or professional knowledge of
human nature beyond that of a career spent bullying those who had problems
paying their taxes. He seems to think that gives him more insight than,
for example, a career spent educating and advising young people. He's
best left to his fantasies.

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

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 3:33:43 PM UTC, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 19/03/2023 17:43, Mike Holmans wrote:
> >>> [...] Andy Walker has
> >>> often wondered whether the next generation will want to play red-ball
> >>> cricket; I've rather thought that they would, but it's good to get
> >>> confirmation from one of England's future stars.
> >> ??? I may have mused occasionally on the future of cricket, but I
> >> don't recall often wondering that, exactly. The players are professionals.
> >> They will play whatever brings in the money, at whatever level their skills
> >> can command.
> > I'm sorry if it was an unreasonable extrapolation to think that the
> > players might sign these contracts voluntarily and that which
> > contracts they decide to sign would be guided to a considerable extent
> > by what they wanted.

> Did Mr Grumpy ROTFL!!!!

get out of bed the wrong side?
>
> Obviously players can choose which of a number of available contracts
> they sign; but if there is no money available for [eg] the [red-ball] CC,
> then none of those contracts will be for the [by hypothesis, non-existent]
> CC. The CC does not pay for itself in terms of gate money, TV rights, bar
> takings and the like, so it depends on subsidy, whether from other county
> activities, sponsorship or distribution of ECB money. If that subsidy stops
> so does the CC, no matter how much the players [and "uk.s.c"] want it. Of
> course, there's nothing to prevent an amateur inter-county tournament taking
> its place, but I doubt whether it would get more traction than inter-county
> bowls/golf/tennis/... tournaments -- worthy enough, but not attractive to
> the top [or even second-rank] professionals or to the media.
> > It also seems to rely on the assumption that if faced with a choice
> > between two contracts, the only actual choice is to determine which
> > one offers the most money and that a player's career preferences have
> > nothing to do with it.
> I made no such assumption. Indeed, as a retired academic, I'm all
> too familiar with a career choice of congeniality over pay.
> > Since in the case under discussion, Rehan Ahmed could have made more
> > money by taking an IPL contract rather than playing red-ball cricket
> > for Leics, I am inclined to believe that his personal preference
> > entered into the decision, but since that can't be the case, I am at a
> > loss to explain it. Perhaps you would enlighten me.
> See above.
> >> In that context, it scarcely matters what the players want,
> >> only what the spectators [inc TV audiences and the like] and [therefore]
> >> sponsors want.
> > So the analysis of Ben Stokes that Test cricket will only survive if
> > spectators want to watch it and that if players want to play Test
> > cricket, then they have to make it watchable and the only people who
> > can do that are the players themselves and that they have to want to
> > do it to achieve their objective is irrelevant?
> ` ??? No, it's the other side of my coin, and he's [therefore] right.
> It's a virtuous circle. The difficulty will be sustaining the excitement
> and [therefore] spectator interest and [therefore] player enjoyment and
> [therefore] excitement ... through the next few seasons, through good times
> and bad, and long after Stokes himself has retired. He is saying that he
> and other players have to attract spectators; I was saying essentially the
> same -- if cricket doesn't attract spectators, then professional cricket is
> unviable [no matter how keen the players are to play it].
> > Sponsors and spectators can only have what players are able to supply;
> > the players have to be willing to co-operate for any proposal to be
> > successful.
> £1 million pa per international player buys, even in these inflated
> times, a lot of willing co-operation. Even county pay, at least for the
> established players, is decent by middle-class professional standards.
>
> [...]
> > I have certainly feared that the coming generations will prefer to
> > take the easy way out and concentrate on short-form cricket because
> > it's lucrative. I am therefore pleased when I see and hear those young
> > players still holding the view that Test cricket is the ultimate
> > professional challenge and being prepared to make sacrifices to pursue
> > its mastery.
> Sure. But the question is whether f-c cricket /below Test level/
> holds the same attraction /to those paying the piper/. If not, then it
> will die, and be replaced by other mechanisms for getting youngsters [who
> all start and learn their craft in "short-form" cricket -- unless you know
> of many schools or leagues that habitually play four-day matches against
> their rivals] into "long-form" cricket. We're part-way there with [eg]
> Lions tours, age-limited tours, and the like, which are much cheaper than
> the CC. County members, who expect to be able to drop in "free" to f-c
> matches, won't like change, so I hope some compromise will be possible.
> > I apologise again for imputing that you believed that their choices
> > were not entirely driven by comparing numbers at the top of contracts
> > and that their wishes were a factor, but then I've been told that I
> > don't understand human nature by a 1950s relic, so that probably
> > explains it.
> The "1950s relic" has no experience or professional knowledge of
> human nature beyond that of a career spent bullying those who had problems
> paying their taxes.

Translation: there are few if any better situations for judging human nature than someone under question by someone armed with the authority of the state,. RH

He seems to think that gives him more insight than,
> for example, a career spent educating and advising young people.

What a limited range of human beings . All you would be meeting are those with an academic bent . Moreover, mathematics is the most bloodless of subjects. I on the other hand not only read History and Politics as my degree subjects but had to take two o subsidiary subjects philosophy and geology - Keele insisted that students reading arts and social sciences as their degree subject took a natural science and those reading sciences took an arts or social science subsidiary..

Then there was my my freshman year. That involved tackling a gigantic regime of over 300 lectures which covered every aspect of academic study (with chucking out exams at the end of the freshman year so freshmen couldn't take it lightly .).

Finally, when I was at Keele the degree course described above was 4 years long,.

> best left to his fantasies.

I think we all know who has fantasies ... RH
> --
> Andy Walker, Nottingham.
> Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
> Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Byrd

On Tuesday, 21 March 2023 at 16:19:00 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 3:33:43 PM UTC, Andy Walker wrote:
> > On 19/03/2023 17:43, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > >>> [...] Andy Walker has
> > >>> often wondered whether the next generation will want to play red-ball
> > >>> cricket; I've rather thought that they would, but it's good to get
> > >>> confirmation from one of England's future stars.
> > >> ??? I may have mused occasionally on the future of cricket, but I
> > >> don't recall often wondering that, exactly. The players are professionals.
> > >> They will play whatever brings in the money, at whatever level their skills
> > >> can command.
> > > I'm sorry if it was an unreasonable extrapolation to think that the
> > > players might sign these contracts voluntarily and that which
> > > contracts they decide to sign would be guided to a considerable extent
> > > by what they wanted.
> > Did Mr Grumpy ROTFL!!!!
> get out of bed the wrong side?
> >
> > Obviously players can choose which of a number of available contracts
> > they sign; but if there is no money available for [eg] the [red-ball] CC,
> > then none of those contracts will be for the [by hypothesis, non-existent]
> > CC. The CC does not pay for itself in terms of gate money, TV rights, bar
> > takings and the like, so it depends on subsidy, whether from other county
> > activities, sponsorship or distribution of ECB money. If that subsidy stops
> > so does the CC, no matter how much the players [and "uk.s.c"] want it. Of
> > course, there's nothing to prevent an amateur inter-county tournament taking
> > its place, but I doubt whether it would get more traction than inter-county
> > bowls/golf/tennis/... tournaments -- worthy enough, but not attractive to
> > the top [or even second-rank] professionals or to the media.
> > > It also seems to rely on the assumption that if faced with a choice
> > > between two contracts, the only actual choice is to determine which
> > > one offers the most money and that a player's career preferences have
> > > nothing to do with it.
> > I made no such assumption. Indeed, as a retired academic, I'm all
> > too familiar with a career choice of congeniality over pay.
> > > Since in the case under discussion, Rehan Ahmed could have made more
> > > money by taking an IPL contract rather than playing red-ball cricket
> > > for Leics, I am inclined to believe that his personal preference
> > > entered into the decision, but since that can't be the case, I am at a
> > > loss to explain it. Perhaps you would enlighten me.
> > See above.
> > >> In that context, it scarcely matters what the players want,
> > >> only what the spectators [inc TV audiences and the like] and [therefore]
> > >> sponsors want.
> > > So the analysis of Ben Stokes that Test cricket will only survive if
> > > spectators want to watch it and that if players want to play Test
> > > cricket, then they have to make it watchable and the only people who
> > > can do that are the players themselves and that they have to want to
> > > do it to achieve their objective is irrelevant?
> > ` ??? No, it's the other side of my coin, and he's [therefore] right.
> > It's a virtuous circle. The difficulty will be sustaining the excitement
> > and [therefore] spectator interest and [therefore] player enjoyment and
> > [therefore] excitement ... through the next few seasons, through good times
> > and bad, and long after Stokes himself has retired. He is saying that he
> > and other players have to attract spectators; I was saying essentially the
> > same -- if cricket doesn't attract spectators, then professional cricket is
> > unviable [no matter how keen the players are to play it].
> > > Sponsors and spectators can only have what players are able to supply;
> > > the players have to be willing to co-operate for any proposal to be
> > > successful.
> > £1 million pa per international player buys, even in these inflated
> > times, a lot of willing co-operation. Even county pay, at least for the
> > established players, is decent by middle-class professional standards.
> >
> > [...]
> > > I have certainly feared that the coming generations will prefer to
> > > take the easy way out and concentrate on short-form cricket because
> > > it's lucrative. I am therefore pleased when I see and hear those young
> > > players still holding the view that Test cricket is the ultimate
> > > professional challenge and being prepared to make sacrifices to pursue
> > > its mastery.
> > Sure. But the question is whether f-c cricket /below Test level/
> > holds the same attraction /to those paying the piper/. If not, then it
> > will die, and be replaced by other mechanisms for getting youngsters [who
> > all start and learn their craft in "short-form" cricket -- unless you know
> > of many schools or leagues that habitually play four-day matches against
> > their rivals] into "long-form" cricket. We're part-way there with [eg]
> > Lions tours, age-limited tours, and the like, which are much cheaper than
> > the CC. County members, who expect to be able to drop in "free" to f-c
> > matches, won't like change, so I hope some compromise will be possible.
> > > I apologise again for imputing that you believed that their choices
> > > were not entirely driven by comparing numbers at the top of contracts
> > > and that their wishes were a factor, but then I've been told that I
> > > don't understand human nature by a 1950s relic, so that probably
> > > explains it.
> > The "1950s relic" has no experience or professional knowledge of
> > human nature beyond that of a career spent bullying those who had problems
> > paying their taxes.
> Translation: there are few if any better situations for judging human nature than someone under question by someone armed with the authority of the state,. RH
> He seems to think that gives him more insight than,
> > for example, a career spent educating and advising young people.

> What a limited range of human beings . All you would be meeting are those with an academic bent . Moreover, mathematics is the most bloodless of subjects. I on the other hand not only read History and Politics as my degree subjects but had to take two o subsidiary subjects philosophy and geology - Keele insisted that students reading arts and social sciences as their degree subject took a natural science and those reading sciences took an arts or social science subsidiary..
>
> Then there was my my freshman year. That involved tackling a gigantic regime of over 300 lectures which covered every aspect of academic study (with chucking out exams at the end of the freshman year so freshmen couldn't take it lightly .).
>
> Finally, when I was at Keele the degree course described above was 4 years long,.

It isn't any wonder then that you are every bit as stupid as you appear. You have only been educated, you haven't learn anything.
Someday you might grow up but I rather think you are too stupid even to do that.

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 4:41:42 PM UTC, Najeeb ybo wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 March 2023 at 16:19:00 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 3:33:43 PM UTC, Andy Walker wrote:
> > > On 19/03/2023 17:43, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > > >>> [...] Andy Walker has
> > > >>> often wondered whether the next generation will want to play red-ball
> > > >>> cricket; I've rather thought that they would, but it's good to get
> > > >>> confirmation from one of England's future stars.
> > > >> ??? I may have mused occasionally on the future of cricket, but I
> > > >> don't recall often wondering that, exactly. The players are professionals.
> > > >> They will play whatever brings in the money, at whatever level their skills
> > > >> can command.
> > > > I'm sorry if it was an unreasonable extrapolation to think that the
> > > > players might sign these contracts voluntarily and that which
> > > > contracts they decide to sign would be guided to a considerable extent
> > > > by what they wanted.
> > > Did Mr Grumpy ROTFL!!!!
> > get out of bed the wrong side?
> > >
> > > Obviously players can choose which of a number of available contracts
> > > they sign; but if there is no money available for [eg] the [red-ball] CC,
> > > then none of those contracts will be for the [by hypothesis, non-existent]
> > > CC. The CC does not pay for itself in terms of gate money, TV rights, bar
> > > takings and the like, so it depends on subsidy, whether from other county
> > > activities, sponsorship or distribution of ECB money. If that subsidy stops
> > > so does the CC, no matter how much the players [and "uk.s.c"] want it.. Of
> > > course, there's nothing to prevent an amateur inter-county tournament taking
> > > its place, but I doubt whether it would get more traction than inter-county
> > > bowls/golf/tennis/... tournaments -- worthy enough, but not attractive to
> > > the top [or even second-rank] professionals or to the media.
> > > > It also seems to rely on the assumption that if faced with a choice
> > > > between two contracts, the only actual choice is to determine which
> > > > one offers the most money and that a player's career preferences have
> > > > nothing to do with it.
> > > I made no such assumption. Indeed, as a retired academic, I'm all
> > > too familiar with a career choice of congeniality over pay.
> > > > Since in the case under discussion, Rehan Ahmed could have made more
> > > > money by taking an IPL contract rather than playing red-ball cricket
> > > > for Leics, I am inclined to believe that his personal preference
> > > > entered into the decision, but since that can't be the case, I am at a
> > > > loss to explain it. Perhaps you would enlighten me.
> > > See above.
> > > >> In that context, it scarcely matters what the players want,
> > > >> only what the spectators [inc TV audiences and the like] and [therefore]
> > > >> sponsors want.
> > > > So the analysis of Ben Stokes that Test cricket will only survive if
> > > > spectators want to watch it and that if players want to play Test
> > > > cricket, then they have to make it watchable and the only people who
> > > > can do that are the players themselves and that they have to want to
> > > > do it to achieve their objective is irrelevant?
> > > ` ??? No, it's the other side of my coin, and he's [therefore] right.
> > > It's a virtuous circle. The difficulty will be sustaining the excitement
> > > and [therefore] spectator interest and [therefore] player enjoyment and
> > > [therefore] excitement ... through the next few seasons, through good times
> > > and bad, and long after Stokes himself has retired. He is saying that he
> > > and other players have to attract spectators; I was saying essentially the
> > > same -- if cricket doesn't attract spectators, then professional cricket is
> > > unviable [no matter how keen the players are to play it].
> > > > Sponsors and spectators can only have what players are able to supply;
> > > > the players have to be willing to co-operate for any proposal to be
> > > > successful.
> > > £1 million pa per international player buys, even in these inflated
> > > times, a lot of willing co-operation. Even county pay, at least for the
> > > established players, is decent by middle-class professional standards..
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > > I have certainly feared that the coming generations will prefer to
> > > > take the easy way out and concentrate on short-form cricket because
> > > > it's lucrative. I am therefore pleased when I see and hear those young
> > > > players still holding the view that Test cricket is the ultimate
> > > > professional challenge and being prepared to make sacrifices to pursue
> > > > its mastery.
> > > Sure. But the question is whether f-c cricket /below Test level/
> > > holds the same attraction /to those paying the piper/. If not, then it
> > > will die, and be replaced by other mechanisms for getting youngsters [who
> > > all start and learn their craft in "short-form" cricket -- unless you know
> > > of many schools or leagues that habitually play four-day matches against
> > > their rivals] into "long-form" cricket. We're part-way there with [eg]
> > > Lions tours, age-limited tours, and the like, which are much cheaper than
> > > the CC. County members, who expect to be able to drop in "free" to f-c
> > > matches, won't like change, so I hope some compromise will be possible.
> > > > I apologise again for imputing that you believed that their choices
> > > > were not entirely driven by comparing numbers at the top of contracts
> > > > and that their wishes were a factor, but then I've been told that I
> > > > don't understand human nature by a 1950s relic, so that probably
> > > > explains it.
> > > The "1950s relic" has no experience or professional knowledge of
> > > human nature beyond that of a career spent bullying those who had problems
> > > paying their taxes.
> > Translation: there are few if any better situations for judging human nature than someone under question by someone armed with the authority of the state,. RH
> > He seems to think that gives him more insight than,
> > > for example, a career spent educating and advising young people.
>
> > What a limited range of human beings . All you would be meeting are those with an academic bent . Moreover, mathematics is the most bloodless of subjects. I on the other hand not only read History and Politics as my degree subjects but had to take two o subsidiary subjects philosophy and geology - Keele insisted that students reading arts and social sciences as their degree subject took a natural science and those reading sciences took an arts or social science subsidiary..
> >
> > Then there was my my freshman year. That involved tackling a gigantic regime of over 300 lectures which covered every aspect of academic study (with chucking out exams at the end of the freshman year so freshmen couldn't take it lightly .).
> >
> > Finally, when I was at Keele the degree course described above was 4 years long,.
> It isn't any wonder then that you are every bit as stupid as you appear. You have only been educated, you haven't learn anything.
> Someday you might grow up but I rather think you are too stupid even to do that.

Najeeb ybo mistakes abuse for argument... RH

On Wednesday, 22 March 2023 at 17:22:54 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 4:41:42 PM UTC, Najeeb ybo wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 21 March 2023 at 16:19:00 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 3:33:43 PM UTC, Andy Walker wrote:
> > > > On 19/03/2023 17:43, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > > > >>> [...] Andy Walker has
> > > > >>> often wondered whether the next generation will want to play red-ball
> > > > >>> cricket; I've rather thought that they would, but it's good to get
> > > > >>> confirmation from one of England's future stars.
> > > > >> ??? I may have mused occasionally on the future of cricket, but I
> > > > >> don't recall often wondering that, exactly. The players are professionals.
> > > > >> They will play whatever brings in the money, at whatever level their skills
> > > > >> can command.
> > > > > I'm sorry if it was an unreasonable extrapolation to think that the
> > > > > players might sign these contracts voluntarily and that which
> > > > > contracts they decide to sign would be guided to a considerable extent
> > > > > by what they wanted.
> > > > Did Mr Grumpy ROTFL!!!!
> > > get out of bed the wrong side?
> > > >
> > > > Obviously players can choose which of a number of available contracts
> > > > they sign; but if there is no money available for [eg] the [red-ball] CC,
> > > > then none of those contracts will be for the [by hypothesis, non-existent]
> > > > CC. The CC does not pay for itself in terms of gate money, TV rights, bar
> > > > takings and the like, so it depends on subsidy, whether from other county
> > > > activities, sponsorship or distribution of ECB money. If that subsidy stops
> > > > so does the CC, no matter how much the players [and "uk.s.c"] want it. Of
> > > > course, there's nothing to prevent an amateur inter-county tournament taking
> > > > its place, but I doubt whether it would get more traction than inter-county
> > > > bowls/golf/tennis/... tournaments -- worthy enough, but not attractive to
> > > > the top [or even second-rank] professionals or to the media.
> > > > > It also seems to rely on the assumption that if faced with a choice
> > > > > between two contracts, the only actual choice is to determine which
> > > > > one offers the most money and that a player's career preferences have
> > > > > nothing to do with it.
> > > > I made no such assumption. Indeed, as a retired academic, I'm all
> > > > too familiar with a career choice of congeniality over pay.
> > > > > Since in the case under discussion, Rehan Ahmed could have made more
> > > > > money by taking an IPL contract rather than playing red-ball cricket
> > > > > for Leics, I am inclined to believe that his personal preference
> > > > > entered into the decision, but since that can't be the case, I am at a
> > > > > loss to explain it. Perhaps you would enlighten me.
> > > > See above.
> > > > >> In that context, it scarcely matters what the players want,
> > > > >> only what the spectators [inc TV audiences and the like] and [therefore]
> > > > >> sponsors want.
> > > > > So the analysis of Ben Stokes that Test cricket will only survive if
> > > > > spectators want to watch it and that if players want to play Test
> > > > > cricket, then they have to make it watchable and the only people who
> > > > > can do that are the players themselves and that they have to want to
> > > > > do it to achieve their objective is irrelevant?
> > > > ` ??? No, it's the other side of my coin, and he's [therefore] right.
> > > > It's a virtuous circle. The difficulty will be sustaining the excitement
> > > > and [therefore] spectator interest and [therefore] player enjoyment and
> > > > [therefore] excitement ... through the next few seasons, through good times
> > > > and bad, and long after Stokes himself has retired. He is saying that he
> > > > and other players have to attract spectators; I was saying essentially the
> > > > same -- if cricket doesn't attract spectators, then professional cricket is
> > > > unviable [no matter how keen the players are to play it].
> > > > > Sponsors and spectators can only have what players are able to supply;
> > > > > the players have to be willing to co-operate for any proposal to be
> > > > > successful.
> > > > £1 million pa per international player buys, even in these inflated
> > > > times, a lot of willing co-operation. Even county pay, at least for the
> > > > established players, is decent by middle-class professional standards.
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > > > I have certainly feared that the coming generations will prefer to
> > > > > take the easy way out and concentrate on short-form cricket because
> > > > > it's lucrative. I am therefore pleased when I see and hear those young
> > > > > players still holding the view that Test cricket is the ultimate
> > > > > professional challenge and being prepared to make sacrifices to pursue
> > > > > its mastery.
> > > > Sure. But the question is whether f-c cricket /below Test level/
> > > > holds the same attraction /to those paying the piper/. If not, then it
> > > > will die, and be replaced by other mechanisms for getting youngsters [who
> > > > all start and learn their craft in "short-form" cricket -- unless you know
> > > > of many schools or leagues that habitually play four-day matches against
> > > > their rivals] into "long-form" cricket. We're part-way there with [eg]
> > > > Lions tours, age-limited tours, and the like, which are much cheaper than
> > > > the CC. County members, who expect to be able to drop in "free" to f-c
> > > > matches, won't like change, so I hope some compromise will be possible.
> > > > > I apologise again for imputing that you believed that their choices
> > > > > were not entirely driven by comparing numbers at the top of contracts
> > > > > and that their wishes were a factor, but then I've been told that I
> > > > > don't understand human nature by a 1950s relic, so that probably
> > > > > explains it.
> > > > The "1950s relic" has no experience or professional knowledge of
> > > > human nature beyond that of a career spent bullying those who had problems
> > > > paying their taxes.
> > > Translation: there are few if any better situations for judging human nature than someone under question by someone armed with the authority of the state,. RH
> > > He seems to think that gives him more insight than,
> > > > for example, a career spent educating and advising young people.
> >
> > > What a limited range of human beings . All you would be meeting are those with an academic bent . Moreover, mathematics is the most bloodless of subjects. I on the other hand not only read History and Politics as my degree subjects but had to take two o subsidiary subjects philosophy and geology - Keele insisted that students reading arts and social sciences as their degree subject took a natural science and those reading sciences took an arts or social science subsidiary..
> > >
> > > Then there was my my freshman year. That involved tackling a gigantic regime of over 300 lectures which covered every aspect of academic study (with chucking out exams at the end of the freshman year so freshmen couldn't take it lightly .).
> > >
> > > Finally, when I was at Keele the degree course described above was 4 years long,.
> > It isn't any wonder then that you are every bit as stupid as you appear.. You have only been educated, you haven't learn anything.
> > Someday you might grow up but I rather think you are too stupid even to do that.
>
>
> Najeeb ybo mistakes abuse for argument... RH
>
>
“Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.”
It is you who is abusing Holmans and Walker without a hint of argument or irony and you cannot understand why people point out that you are stupid. Then you list your limited education as if it was some recognition of your advanced stupidity.

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 6:38:27 PM UTC, Najeeb ybo wrote:
> On Wednesday, 22 March 2023 at 17:22:54 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 4:41:42 PM UTC, Najeeb ybo wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 21 March 2023 at 16:19:00 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 3:33:43 PM UTC, Andy Walker wrote:
> > > > > On 19/03/2023 17:43, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > > > > >>> [...] Andy Walker has
> > > > > >>> often wondered whether the next generation will want to play red-ball
> > > > > >>> cricket; I've rather thought that they would, but it's good to get
> > > > > >>> confirmation from one of England's future stars.
> > > > > >> ??? I may have mused occasionally on the future of cricket, but I
> > > > > >> don't recall often wondering that, exactly. The players are professionals.
> > > > > >> They will play whatever brings in the money, at whatever level their skills
> > > > > >> can command.
> > > > > > I'm sorry if it was an unreasonable extrapolation to think that the
> > > > > > players might sign these contracts voluntarily and that which
> > > > > > contracts they decide to sign would be guided to a considerable extent
> > > > > > by what they wanted.
> > > > > Did Mr Grumpy ROTFL!!!!
> > > > get out of bed the wrong side?
> > > > >
> > > > > Obviously players can choose which of a number of available contracts
> > > > > they sign; but if there is no money available for [eg] the [red-ball] CC,
> > > > > then none of those contracts will be for the [by hypothesis, non-existent]
> > > > > CC. The CC does not pay for itself in terms of gate money, TV rights, bar
> > > > > takings and the like, so it depends on subsidy, whether from other county
> > > > > activities, sponsorship or distribution of ECB money. If that subsidy stops
> > > > > so does the CC, no matter how much the players [and "uk.s.c"] want it. Of
> > > > > course, there's nothing to prevent an amateur inter-county tournament taking
> > > > > its place, but I doubt whether it would get more traction than inter-county
> > > > > bowls/golf/tennis/... tournaments -- worthy enough, but not attractive to
> > > > > the top [or even second-rank] professionals or to the media.
> > > > > > It also seems to rely on the assumption that if faced with a choice
> > > > > > between two contracts, the only actual choice is to determine which
> > > > > > one offers the most money and that a player's career preferences have
> > > > > > nothing to do with it.
> > > > > I made no such assumption. Indeed, as a retired academic, I'm all
> > > > > too familiar with a career choice of congeniality over pay.
> > > > > > Since in the case under discussion, Rehan Ahmed could have made more
> > > > > > money by taking an IPL contract rather than playing red-ball cricket
> > > > > > for Leics, I am inclined to believe that his personal preference
> > > > > > entered into the decision, but since that can't be the case, I am at a
> > > > > > loss to explain it. Perhaps you would enlighten me.
> > > > > See above.
> > > > > >> In that context, it scarcely matters what the players want,
> > > > > >> only what the spectators [inc TV audiences and the like] and [therefore]
> > > > > >> sponsors want.
> > > > > > So the analysis of Ben Stokes that Test cricket will only survive if
> > > > > > spectators want to watch it and that if players want to play Test
> > > > > > cricket, then they have to make it watchable and the only people who
> > > > > > can do that are the players themselves and that they have to want to
> > > > > > do it to achieve their objective is irrelevant?
> > > > > ` ??? No, it's the other side of my coin, and he's [therefore] right.
> > > > > It's a virtuous circle. The difficulty will be sustaining the excitement
> > > > > and [therefore] spectator interest and [therefore] player enjoyment and
> > > > > [therefore] excitement ... through the next few seasons, through good times
> > > > > and bad, and long after Stokes himself has retired. He is saying that he
> > > > > and other players have to attract spectators; I was saying essentially the
> > > > > same -- if cricket doesn't attract spectators, then professional cricket is
> > > > > unviable [no matter how keen the players are to play it].
> > > > > > Sponsors and spectators can only have what players are able to supply;
> > > > > > the players have to be willing to co-operate for any proposal to be
> > > > > > successful.
> > > > > £1 million pa per international player buys, even in these inflated
> > > > > times, a lot of willing co-operation. Even county pay, at least for the
> > > > > established players, is decent by middle-class professional standards.
> > > > >
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > > I have certainly feared that the coming generations will prefer to
> > > > > > take the easy way out and concentrate on short-form cricket because
> > > > > > it's lucrative. I am therefore pleased when I see and hear those young
> > > > > > players still holding the view that Test cricket is the ultimate
> > > > > > professional challenge and being prepared to make sacrifices to pursue
> > > > > > its mastery.
> > > > > Sure. But the question is whether f-c cricket /below Test level/
> > > > > holds the same attraction /to those paying the piper/. If not, then it
> > > > > will die, and be replaced by other mechanisms for getting youngsters [who
> > > > > all start and learn their craft in "short-form" cricket -- unless you know
> > > > > of many schools or leagues that habitually play four-day matches against
> > > > > their rivals] into "long-form" cricket. We're part-way there with [eg]
> > > > > Lions tours, age-limited tours, and the like, which are much cheaper than
> > > > > the CC. County members, who expect to be able to drop in "free" to f-c
> > > > > matches, won't like change, so I hope some compromise will be possible.
> > > > > > I apologise again for imputing that you believed that their choices
> > > > > > were not entirely driven by comparing numbers at the top of contracts
> > > > > > and that their wishes were a factor, but then I've been told that I
> > > > > > don't understand human nature by a 1950s relic, so that probably
> > > > > > explains it.
> > > > > The "1950s relic" has no experience or professional knowledge of
> > > > > human nature beyond that of a career spent bullying those who had problems
> > > > > paying their taxes.
> > > > Translation: there are few if any better situations for judging human nature than someone under question by someone armed with the authority of the state,. RH
> > > > He seems to think that gives him more insight than,
> > > > > for example, a career spent educating and advising young people.
> > >
> > > > What a limited range of human beings . All you would be meeting are those with an academic bent . Moreover, mathematics is the most bloodless of subjects. I on the other hand not only read History and Politics as my degree subjects but had to take two o subsidiary subjects philosophy and geology - Keele insisted that students reading arts and social sciences as their degree subject took a natural science and those reading sciences took an arts or social science subsidiary..
> > > >
> > > > Then there was my my freshman year. That involved tackling a gigantic regime of over 300 lectures which covered every aspect of academic study (with chucking out exams at the end of the freshman year so freshmen couldn't take it lightly .).
> > > >
> > > > Finally, when I was at Keele the degree course described above was 4 years long,.
> > > It isn't any wonder then that you are every bit as stupid as you appear. You have only been educated, you haven't learn anything.
> > > Someday you might grow up but I rather think you are too stupid even to do that.
> >
> >
> > Najeeb ybo mistakes abuse for argument... RH
> >
> >
> “Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.”
> It is you who is abusing Holmans and Walker without a hint of argument or irony and you cannot understand why people point out that you are stupid. Then you list your limited education as if it was some recognition of your advanced stupidity.
>
> Why do you think Keele has prepared you so poorly for real life social interactions and why your education has failed to teach you how to think and learn?
> Have you considered adult education? You aren't the first person to waste an education, but it isn't too late for you to learn the basics; if you begin now.

On Tuesday, 21 March 2023 at 16:19:00 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:

> What a limited range of human beings . All you would be meeting are those with an academic bent . Moreover, mathematics is the most bloodless of subjects. I on the other hand not only read History and Politics as my degree subjects but had to take two o subsidiary subjects philosophy and geology - Keele insisted that students reading arts and social sciences as their degree subject took a natural science and those reading sciences took an arts or social science subsidiary..
>
> Then there was my my freshman year. That involved tackling a gigantic regime of over 300 lectures which covered every aspect of academic study (with chucking out exams at the end of the freshman year so freshmen couldn't take it lightly .).
>
> Finally, when I was at Keele the degree course described above was 4 years long,

Not been on here a while and it's good to know that Robert's failure to get into Oxbridge still grates and he has to boast about his degree course. Boasting: the preserve of the dim.

On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 9:28:36 AM UTC+1, Richard Dixon wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 March 2023 at 16:19:00 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > What a limited range of human beings . All you would be meeting are those with an academic bent . Moreover, mathematics is the most bloodless of subjects. I on the other hand not only read History and Politics as my degree subjects but had to take two o subsidiary subjects philosophy and geology - Keele insisted that students reading arts and social sciences as their degree subject took a natural science and those reading sciences took an arts or social science subsidiary..
> >
> > Then there was my my freshman year. That involved tackling a gigantic regime of over 300 lectures which covered every aspect of academic study (with chucking out exams at the end of the freshman year so freshmen couldn't take it lightly .).
> >
> > Finally, when I was at Keele the degree course described above was 4 years long,
> Not been on here a while and it's good to know that Robert's failure to get into Oxbridge still grates

Wrong. Keele provided an all round view of the world which was right up my street,. RH

and he has to boast about his degree course. Boasting:

Wrong again. I was answering a libel ... RH

the preserve of the dim.

I think we all know who is dim in this matter .... RH