You seem to be suggesting there is some bigger agenda in that Surrey are sacrificing themselves in the cause of English cricket when the truth is they are using the excessive resources secured by being a test hosting County to fund extensive coaching development programmes.
Those programmes are to be applauded but other Counties simply do not have those same resources and to be competitive have to find talent where they may.
Yet rather than address the bigger picture of the squad you narrowly focus on one team on one night.
I have addressed the broader more relevant opportunities within the squad. In case you had not noticed it is a squad game. Indeed Stewart only replaced Cox because it was a 13 overs match. Stewart is an all rounder and a bigger hitter than young Cox who had played the 3 previous games.
Wian Mulder is no longer with Kent. He was a temporary overseas signing for the Championship replacing Renshaw as the club overseas Championship player.
Morkel is a Kolpak signing is he not?
I am happy to accept your comments on Cowdrey. The denigrating comments were included in the English Cricket thread.
Really don't get the sour grapes and obsession with home grown players. Things go in waves, it wasn't long ago Surrey were buying loads of mercenaries and Kent were fielding a team full of home grown talent.
This year, and it's about time too, Kent have invested some money in some decent overseas players - and what's the issue with that? Would you even be having this conversation if we hadn't hammered you?
@Addickforlife - that is probably the best constructive, non defensive or patronising post of the last 2 days. I agree with your comments .
My issue with it, as was my issue when Surrey were doing it too, is that it doesn't truly benefit England - I hated it when the likes of Northants and Glamorgan as examples took the piss re Kolpaks - just don't like it(long) Gone are the days when counties used to play their home grown players. Remember the days when you could only play for Yorkshire if you were born in the county?
I think there's two different things at play here - packing a team full of Kolpaks a la Northants, which I also disagree with, and signing decent overseas talent for a T20 campaign.
I think the latter, which is what Kent have done, and almost every county are doing, does benefit England. Granted there needs to be a balance, but having young English talent going toe to toe with top overseas players can be a good thing. As I said it's a fine line, and I would hate for Kent to suddenly just rely on Kolpaks and overseas players, but that is not what we are doing - we have have a long line of good English talent, some playing for England, some touted for England and some with England potential in the future.
They won and comfortably, they get the bragging rights that's how it goes. We would do the same if it was the other way round.
We are missing some key players as are they. We are on terrible form they are in very good form. Let them have it.
I am still gutted about the match at Canterbury a couple years ago when roy and finch put on 250 and then the rain gave a very demoralised kent a way out.
I still smile when I think about that match
But then Kent were badly affected by the weather and D/L during a 50 over match at The Oval when Matt Coles made a brilliant century in horrible conditions for batting.
The Surrey side last night contained 4 players Surrey born and bred, Jacks, Pope, Clarke and Patel The Kent side last night contained 4 players Kent born and bred, DBD, Crawley, Robinson and Blake.
Of the rest of the Surrey side, 2 were overseas players, Curran came over aged 17, while Stoneman, Foakes, Clark and Batty were all signed from other counties. Of the rest of the Kent side, 2 were overseas players, 2 were Kolpaks (one of which Kuhn was signed to replace the homegrown Northeast), 2 have EU passports while 1 was signed from another county.
So both sides had the same number of entirely home grown players. Yes Curran came over aged 17 and was then developed by Surrey, but Stewart came over aged 22 to play in the Kent leagues.
So your argument for franchise cricket was that despite fewer opportunities for English qualified players to start games (due to combination of fewer teams and more non-qualified players per team) it would improve English cricket, whilst you're argument against Kent is diametically opposed to that earlier point of view.
Which is it? Does having better teammates, but fewer opportunities improve or harm English cricket. Maybe Kent should have played England qualified Darren Stevens last night instead of Viljoen or Klassen?
So your argument for franchise cricket was that despite fewer opportunities for English qualified players to start games (due to combination of fewer teams and more non-qualified players per team) it would improve English cricket, whilst you're argument against Kent is diametically opposed to that earlier point of view.
Which is it? Does having better teammates, but fewer opportunities improve or harm English cricket. Maybe Kent should have played England qualified Darren Stevens last night instead of Viljoen or Klassen?
Good point Andy, I was waiting for someone to raise that. I am one of the few in favour of the '100'. My (simplistic) view is that it will 1) Be more entertaining (after all, would you rather see Rabada bowling to Gayle or Kohli, or Stevens trundling in to Cobb? - I know what i'd rather see) and 2) Raise the skill levels of the players around the England setup playing against high quality foreign imports.
My understanding is that the '100' is limited (a la IPL) to 4 overseas players per team, which means you have 7 others eligible to play for England. Not the same equation as last night.Now, also one of the big differences to last night is that how many of the 6 Overseas players that Kent played last night will be in the '100'? - let me guess, maybe Milne and Nabi ? - they are not really 'A' list overseas players (although clearly good enough to beat Surrey).So, they are potentially clogging up possible England players from emerging. If you have 4, or lets say 6 , (2 as reserves), overseas players for 8 teams, that's a total of 48 players. So, you are likely to have a good sprinkling of Indians (would think prob 8 at least), maybe 10 Aussies, at least 6 Kiwis,6 Windies, (thinking Gayle,Hetmyer,Pooran,Hope,Brathwaite etc) - already we have 30 players and the quality is high. For me , its about quality cricket with quality players, but primarily with the view of improving the England and England fringe players too.
Ok, I’ve
done my research, as you clearly all want to know the truth…
Kent
Bell-D ,
Born In UK,eligible to play for England
Crawley ,
Born in UK,eligible to play for England
Kuhn, Born and
raised in SA, NOT eligible to play for England
Nabi, Born
an Afghan, always an Afghan.NOT eligible to play for England
Robinson,
Born in UK, eligible to play for England
Blake, Born
in UK,eligible to play for England
Stewart,
Born and raised in Oz, eligible via Italian Mother?
Milne, born
and raised in NZ, Not eligible for England
Viljoen,
born and raised in SA, not eligible for England
Qayyum, born
in UK, eligible for England
Klaasen,born
in UK, not eligible for England as he has played for Netherlands.
So, I that
as 5 eligible for England with 1 (very) tenuous.
Surrey
Finch, Oz
(has an English grand parent, but we wont count that, who do you think we are,
Jack Charlton?)
Stoneman, born
and raised UK
Jacks, born
and raised UK
Pope , born
and raised UK
Foakes, born
and raised UK
Clark, born
and raised UK
Clarke,born
and raised UK
CurrenT,Born
in SA, raised in UK.
Patel, born
and raised UK
Batty, born
and raised UK
Tahir, SA
I have that
as 9 eligible to play for England.
Take that as you wish. Ok, I got it wrong , its 5 instead of 4 !
Tom Curran was still living and playing in SA at the age of 17 for Kwa-Zulu Natal U19s. I would not consider that as being "raised" in England.
Kent had 4 born in Kent and who came through the age group system. Surrey had the same number. All the rest of the players on the pitch were "imported" from other counties or countries so none of those can truly be considered "homegrown". It's just that Surrey used financial inducements to buy more of their players from other counties as opposed to from abroad.
Ok, I’ve
done my research, as you clearly all want to know the truth…
Kent
Bell-D ,
Born In UK,eligible to play for England
Crawley ,
Born in UK,eligible to play for England
Kuhn, Born and
raised in SA, NOT eligible to play for England
Nabi, Born
an Afghan, always an Afghan.NOT eligible to play for England
Robinson,
Born in UK, eligible to play for England
Blake, Born
in UK,eligible to play for England
Stewart,
Born and raised in Oz, eligible via Italian Mother?
Milne, born
and raised in NZ, Not eligible for England
Viljoen,
born and raised in SA, not eligible for England
Qayyum, born
in UK, eligible for England
Klaasen,born
in UK, not eligible for England as he has played for Netherlands.
So, I that
as 5 eligible for England with 1 (very) tenuous.
Surrey
Finch, Oz
(has an English grand parent, but we wont count that, who do you think we are,
Jack Charlton?)
Stoneman, born
and raised UK
Jacks, born
and raised UK
Pope , born
and raised UK
Foakes, born
and raised UK
Clark, born
and raised UK
Clarke,born
and raised UK
CurrenT,Born
in SA, raised in UK.
Patel, born
and raised UK
Batty, born
and raised UK
Tahir, SA
I have that
as 9 eligible to play for England.
Take that as you wish. Ok, I got it wrong , its 5 instead of 4 !
Tom Curran was still living and playing in SA at the age of 17 for Kwa-Zulu Natal U19s. I would not consider that as being "raised" in England.
Kent had 4 born in Kent and who came through the age group system. Surrey had the same number. All the rest of the players on the pitch were "imported" from other counties or countries so none of those can truly be considered "homegrown". It's just that Surrey used financial inducements to buy more of their players from other counties as opposed to from abroad.
And still lost.
For me, it still comes down to how many were eligible to play for England, and the bottom line is 9 for Surrey, and less than half the team for Kent.
Ok, I’ve
done my research, as you clearly all want to know the truth…
Kent
Bell-D ,
Born In UK,eligible to play for England
Crawley ,
Born in UK,eligible to play for England
Kuhn, Born and
raised in SA, NOT eligible to play for England
Nabi, Born
an Afghan, always an Afghan.NOT eligible to play for England
Robinson,
Born in UK, eligible to play for England
Blake, Born
in UK,eligible to play for England
Stewart,
Born and raised in Oz, eligible via Italian Mother?
Milne, born
and raised in NZ, Not eligible for England
Viljoen,
born and raised in SA, not eligible for England
Qayyum, born
in UK, eligible for England
Klaasen,born
in UK, not eligible for England as he has played for Netherlands.
So, I that
as 5 eligible for England with 1 (very) tenuous.
Surrey
Finch, Oz
(has an English grand parent, but we wont count that, who do you think we are,
Jack Charlton?)
Stoneman, born
and raised UK
Jacks, born
and raised UK
Pope , born
and raised UK
Foakes, born
and raised UK
Clark, born
and raised UK
Clarke,born
and raised UK
CurrenT,Born
in SA, raised in UK.
Patel, born
and raised UK
Batty, born
and raised UK
Tahir, SA
I have that
as 9 eligible to play for England.
Take that as you wish. Ok, I got it wrong , its 5 instead of 4 !
Tom Curran was still living and playing in SA at the age of 17 for Kwa-Zulu Natal U19s. I would not consider that as being "raised" in England.
Kent had 4 born in Kent and who came through the age group system. Surrey had the same number. All the rest of the players on the pitch were "imported" from other counties or countries so none of those can truly be considered "homegrown". It's just that Surrey used financial inducements to buy more of their players from other counties as opposed to from abroad.
And still lost.
For me, it still comes down to how many were eligible to play for England, and the bottom line is 9 for Surrey, and less than half the team for Kent.
I can understand your argument if it is accepted that the county set-up exists solely to produce an England team (I actually support that premise). The argument is stronger for me in the red ball game though, and I also accept (as others have said) that not all counties have the resources to mop up the best English talent or the academies to develop homegrown.
We are also talking about a 20 over bash competition that is not designed to develop English talent for the test team but rather to attract more people to the game and generate much needed (by most) income.
That's enough of the sensible talk - we whipped your arses!! ;-)
Ok, I’ve
done my research, as you clearly all want to know the truth…
Kent
Bell-D ,
Born In UK,eligible to play for England
Crawley ,
Born in UK,eligible to play for England
Kuhn, Born and
raised in SA, NOT eligible to play for England
Nabi, Born
an Afghan, always an Afghan.NOT eligible to play for England
Robinson,
Born in UK, eligible to play for England
Blake, Born
in UK,eligible to play for England
Stewart,
Born and raised in Oz, eligible via Italian Mother?
Milne, born
and raised in NZ, Not eligible for England
Viljoen,
born and raised in SA, not eligible for England
Qayyum, born
in UK, eligible for England
Klaasen,born
in UK, not eligible for England as he has played for Netherlands.
So, I that
as 5 eligible for England with 1 (very) tenuous.
Surrey
Finch, Oz
(has an English grand parent, but we wont count that, who do you think we are,
Jack Charlton?)
Stoneman, born
and raised UK
Jacks, born
and raised UK
Pope , born
and raised UK
Foakes, born
and raised UK
Clark, born
and raised UK
Clarke,born
and raised UK
CurrenT,Born
in SA, raised in UK.
Patel, born
and raised UK
Batty, born
and raised UK
Tahir, SA
I have that
as 9 eligible to play for England.
Take that as you wish. Ok, I got it wrong , its 5 instead of 4 !
Tom Curran was still living and playing in SA at the age of 17 for Kwa-Zulu Natal U19s. I would not consider that as being "raised" in England.
Kent had 4 born in Kent and who came through the age group system. Surrey had the same number. All the rest of the players on the pitch were "imported" from other counties or countries so none of those can truly be considered "homegrown". It's just that Surrey used financial inducements to buy more of their players from other counties as opposed to from abroad.
And still lost.
For me, it still comes down to how many were eligible to play for England, and the bottom line is 9 for Surrey, and less than half the team for Kent.
To me it comes down to which side scores the most runs. And it makes no difference at all whether the team has, say, an English captain (like Kent) or has had to go and get one from Australia (like Surrey). The most important thing is who scores the most runs.
I am not sure where the pathetic need to denigrate Colin Cowdrey comes from as the man along with Peter May and Tom Graveney was one of the classiest batsmen of his era while being one of finest slip fielders in the game as well as being a Charlton supporter and one time Director.
Anyone who had the pleasure of watching him effortlessly absolutely destroy John Snow in a 60 over Gillette semi-final at Canterbury will know what I mean. It was an exhibition of pure timing as he stroked the ball around to secure boundary after boundary. Snow, England's premier fast bowler at the time, looked like a schoolboy.
Equally I am not sure where someone is getting their information but 8 of the Kent squad last night were born in England and 7 are eligible for England.
Bell- Drummond, Crawley, Blake, Robinson, Milnes, Cox, Qayyam, with Klaassen of Dutch parentage born in Sussex. Does he have to go to the Netherlands to play his cricket or can he play in the country of his birth?
All of this excluding of course absentees Billings and Denly who would normally be in the squad.
Of the six "overseas" players in the full squad;
- Dickson is of Kentish stock. His mother comes from Beckenham
- Two are the allocated overseas recruit every county makes - Nabi and Milne
- Leaving just two "questionable" Kolpak" signings Kuhn and Viljoen and Stewart an Aussie Italian developed through the 2nds (as indeed was Dickson)
Of course we can also ignore overseas players have been part and parcel of our cricket for decades.
In case you had not noticed it helps put bums on seats and drives the financial well being of the game for every County. For those not favoured with the benefits of Test Arena such mechanisms are helpful in trying to redress the financial imbalance while improving the overall standard of the game for everybody.
BTW how is Morkel doing these days?
Still never let the facts get in the way of a good whinge eh!
Kent have after many years chosen to invest in players to raise the standard of its County side commensurate with the 2nd largest cricket playing population in the country.
And that can only be a healthy approach for the long term health of the professional game in the County.
I just thought we played rather well!
BTW, Morkel didn't play , for the same reason Wiaan Mulder didn't for Kent.
Morkel is rested. Not his best format and not needed with our bowling depth.
I am not sure where the pathetic need to denigrate Colin Cowdrey comes from as the man along with Peter May and Tom Graveney was one of the classiest batsmen of his era while being one of finest slip fielders in the game as well as being a Charlton supporter and one time Director.
Anyone who had the pleasure of watching him effortlessly absolutely destroy John Snow in a 60 over Gillette semi-final at Canterbury will know what I mean. It was an exhibition of pure timing as he stroked the ball around to secure boundary after boundary. Snow, England's premier fast bowler at the time, looked like a schoolboy.
Equally I am not sure where someone is getting their information but 8 of the Kent squad last night were born in England and 7 are eligible for England.
Bell- Drummond, Crawley, Blake, Robinson, Milnes, Cox, Qayyam, with Klaassen of Dutch parentage born in Sussex. Does he have to go to the Netherlands to play his cricket or can he play in the country of his birth?
All of this excluding of course absentees Billings and Denly who would normally be in the squad.
Of the six "overseas" players in the full squad;
- Dickson is of Kentish stock. His mother comes from Beckenham
- Two are the allocated overseas recruit every county makes - Nabi and Milne
- Leaving just two "questionable" Kolpak" signings Kuhn and Viljoen and Stewart an Aussie Italian developed through the 2nds (as indeed was Dickson)
Of course we can also ignore overseas players have been part and parcel of our cricket for decades.
In case you had not noticed it helps put bums on seats and drives the financial well being of the game for every County. For those not favoured with the benefits of Test Arena such mechanisms are helpful in trying to redress the financial imbalance while improving the overall standard of the game for everybody.
BTW how is Morkel doing these days?
Still never let the facts get in the way of a good whinge eh!
Kent have after many years chosen to invest in players to raise the standard of its County side commensurate with the 2nd largest cricket playing population in the country.
And that can only be a healthy approach for the long term health of the professional game in the County.
I just thought we played rather well!
BTW, Morkel didn't play , for the same reason Wiaan Mulder didn't for Kent.
Morkel is rested. Not his best format and not needed with our bowling depth.
Surrey bowling was more about distance than depth really
I am not sure where the pathetic need to denigrate Colin Cowdrey comes from as the man along with Peter May and Tom Graveney was one of the classiest batsmen of his era while being one of finest slip fielders in the game as well as being a Charlton supporter and one time Director.
Anyone who had the pleasure of watching him effortlessly absolutely destroy John Snow in a 60 over Gillette semi-final at Canterbury will know what I mean. It was an exhibition of pure timing as he stroked the ball around to secure boundary after boundary. Snow, England's premier fast bowler at the time, looked like a schoolboy.
Equally I am not sure where someone is getting their information but 8 of the Kent squad last night were born in England and 7 are eligible for England.
Bell- Drummond, Crawley, Blake, Robinson, Milnes, Cox, Qayyam, with Klaassen of Dutch parentage born in Sussex. Does he have to go to the Netherlands to play his cricket or can he play in the country of his birth?
All of this excluding of course absentees Billings and Denly who would normally be in the squad.
Of the six "overseas" players in the full squad;
- Dickson is of Kentish stock. His mother comes from Beckenham
- Two are the allocated overseas recruit every county makes - Nabi and Milne
- Leaving just two "questionable" Kolpak" signings Kuhn and Viljoen and Stewart an Aussie Italian developed through the 2nds (as indeed was Dickson)
Of course we can also ignore overseas players have been part and parcel of our cricket for decades.
In case you had not noticed it helps put bums on seats and drives the financial well being of the game for every County. For those not favoured with the benefits of Test Arena such mechanisms are helpful in trying to redress the financial imbalance while improving the overall standard of the game for everybody.
BTW how is Morkel doing these days?
Still never let the facts get in the way of a good whinge eh!
Kent have after many years chosen to invest in players to raise the standard of its County side commensurate with the 2nd largest cricket playing population in the country.
And that can only be a healthy approach for the long term health of the professional game in the County.
I just thought we played rather well!
BTW, Morkel didn't play , for the same reason Wiaan Mulder didn't for Kent.
Morkel is rested. Not his best format and not needed with our bowling depth.
He has a young family who he recently moved to Aus which is to be their permanent home. I suspect there was an agreement to allow him this part of the season off to go home.
I am not sure where the pathetic need to denigrate Colin Cowdrey comes from as the man along with Peter May and Tom Graveney was one of the classiest batsmen of his era while being one of finest slip fielders in the game as well as being a Charlton supporter and one time Director.
Anyone who had the pleasure of watching him effortlessly absolutely destroy John Snow in a 60 over Gillette semi-final at Canterbury will know what I mean. It was an exhibition of pure timing as he stroked the ball around to secure boundary after boundary. Snow, England's premier fast bowler at the time, looked like a schoolboy.
Equally I am not sure where someone is getting their information but 8 of the Kent squad last night were born in England and 7 are eligible for England.
Bell- Drummond, Crawley, Blake, Robinson, Milnes, Cox, Qayyam, with Klaassen of Dutch parentage born in Sussex. Does he have to go to the Netherlands to play his cricket or can he play in the country of his birth?
All of this excluding of course absentees Billings and Denly who would normally be in the squad.
Of the six "overseas" players in the full squad;
- Dickson is of Kentish stock. His mother comes from Beckenham
- Two are the allocated overseas recruit every county makes - Nabi and Milne
- Leaving just two "questionable" Kolpak" signings Kuhn and Viljoen and Stewart an Aussie Italian developed through the 2nds (as indeed was Dickson)
Of course we can also ignore overseas players have been part and parcel of our cricket for decades.
In case you had not noticed it helps put bums on seats and drives the financial well being of the game for every County. For those not favoured with the benefits of Test Arena such mechanisms are helpful in trying to redress the financial imbalance while improving the overall standard of the game for everybody.
BTW how is Morkel doing these days?
Still never let the facts get in the way of a good whinge eh!
Kent have after many years chosen to invest in players to raise the standard of its County side commensurate with the 2nd largest cricket playing population in the country.
And that can only be a healthy approach for the long term health of the professional game in the County.
I just thought we played rather well!
BTW, Morkel didn't play , for the same reason Wiaan Mulder didn't for Kent.
Morkel is rested. Not his best format and not needed with our bowling depth.
He has a young family who he recently moved to Aus which is to be their permanent home. I suspect there was an agreement to allow him this part of the season off to go home.
Hope we can face that "depth" of bowling every week! If we had been allowed to finish our seven overs, we would have likely doubled the score posted by Surrey "-)
I am not sure where the pathetic need to denigrate Colin Cowdrey comes from as the man along with Peter May and Tom Graveney was one of the classiest batsmen of his era while being one of finest slip fielders in the game as well as being a Charlton supporter and one time Director.
Anyone who had the pleasure of watching him effortlessly absolutely destroy John Snow in a 60 over Gillette semi-final at Canterbury will know what I mean. It was an exhibition of pure timing as he stroked the ball around to secure boundary after boundary. Snow, England's premier fast bowler at the time, looked like a schoolboy.
Equally I am not sure where someone is getting their information but 8 of the Kent squad last night were born in England and 7 are eligible for England.
Bell- Drummond, Crawley, Blake, Robinson, Milnes, Cox, Qayyam, with Klaassen of Dutch parentage born in Sussex. Does he have to go to the Netherlands to play his cricket or can he play in the country of his birth?
All of this excluding of course absentees Billings and Denly who would normally be in the squad.
Of the six "overseas" players in the full squad;
- Dickson is of Kentish stock. His mother comes from Beckenham
- Two are the allocated overseas recruit every county makes - Nabi and Milne
- Leaving just two "questionable" Kolpak" signings Kuhn and Viljoen and Stewart an Aussie Italian developed through the 2nds (as indeed was Dickson)
Of course we can also ignore overseas players have been part and parcel of our cricket for decades.
In case you had not noticed it helps put bums on seats and drives the financial well being of the game for every County. For those not favoured with the benefits of Test Arena such mechanisms are helpful in trying to redress the financial imbalance while improving the overall standard of the game for everybody.
BTW how is Morkel doing these days?
Still never let the facts get in the way of a good whinge eh!
Kent have after many years chosen to invest in players to raise the standard of its County side commensurate with the 2nd largest cricket playing population in the country.
And that can only be a healthy approach for the long term health of the professional game in the County.
I just thought we played rather well!
BTW, Morkel didn't play , for the same reason Wiaan Mulder didn't for Kent.
Morkel is rested. Not his best format and not needed with our bowling depth.
He has a young family who he recently moved to Aus which is to be their permanent home. I suspect there was an agreement to allow him this part of the season off to go home.
Hope we can face that "depth" of bowling every week! If we had been allowed to finish our seven overs, we would have likely doubled the score posted by Surrey "-)
I've said above the decision to bowl Clarke was a very strange one.
Nonetheless to be able to put out a bowling line-up of TC Clark Batty Tahir Patel Clarke when you are already missing Dernbach Plunkett Sam Curran and Morkel is pretty decent.
I am not sure where the pathetic need to denigrate Colin Cowdrey comes from as the man along with Peter May and Tom Graveney was one of the classiest batsmen of his era while being one of finest slip fielders in the game as well as being a Charlton supporter and one time Director.
Anyone who had the pleasure of watching him effortlessly absolutely destroy John Snow in a 60 over Gillette semi-final at Canterbury will know what I mean. It was an exhibition of pure timing as he stroked the ball around to secure boundary after boundary. Snow, England's premier fast bowler at the time, looked like a schoolboy.
Equally I am not sure where someone is getting their information but 8 of the Kent squad last night were born in England and 7 are eligible for England.
Bell- Drummond, Crawley, Blake, Robinson, Milnes, Cox, Qayyam, with Klaassen of Dutch parentage born in Sussex. Does he have to go to the Netherlands to play his cricket or can he play in the country of his birth?
All of this excluding of course absentees Billings and Denly who would normally be in the squad.
Of the six "overseas" players in the full squad;
- Dickson is of Kentish stock. His mother comes from Beckenham
- Two are the allocated overseas recruit every county makes - Nabi and Milne
- Leaving just two "questionable" Kolpak" signings Kuhn and Viljoen and Stewart an Aussie Italian developed through the 2nds (as indeed was Dickson)
Of course we can also ignore overseas players have been part and parcel of our cricket for decades.
In case you had not noticed it helps put bums on seats and drives the financial well being of the game for every County. For those not favoured with the benefits of Test Arena such mechanisms are helpful in trying to redress the financial imbalance while improving the overall standard of the game for everybody.
BTW how is Morkel doing these days?
Still never let the facts get in the way of a good whinge eh!
Kent have after many years chosen to invest in players to raise the standard of its County side commensurate with the 2nd largest cricket playing population in the country.
And that can only be a healthy approach for the long term health of the professional game in the County.
I just thought we played rather well!
BTW, Morkel didn't play , for the same reason Wiaan Mulder didn't for Kent.
Morkel is rested. Not his best format and not needed with our bowling depth.
He has a young family who he recently moved to Aus which is to be their permanent home. I suspect there was an agreement to allow him this part of the season off to go home.
Hope we can face that "depth" of bowling every week! If we had been allowed to finish our seven overs, we would have likely doubled the score posted by Surrey "-)
Only if Nabi had retired at the end of the next over.
If he'd batted all three overs it would have been even worse for them!
Apologies for turning up late to this particular party; I went to the U23 game at King's Lynn so recorded the cricket and have just watched it.
Wow!
Nabi Star, what a signing he's been. That was brutal hitting and made a mockery of those boundaries.
Nice to see DBD go back to the tried-and-tested tactics of getting himself out incredibly quickly and winning the match.
That was a great catch by Ollie when Curran edged behind, such a shame that Curran didn't walk having near-as-damned middled it and the ump didn't give it.
Finally, that win for the Mighty Spitfires appears to have fractured the space-time continuum and sent me spiralling off into a parallel universe. I swear I've read posts from Slurrey fans complaining about the number of "overseas" players in our side ...
So your argument for franchise cricket was that despite fewer opportunities for English qualified players to start games (due to combination of fewer teams and more non-qualified players per team) it would improve English cricket, whilst you're argument against Kent is diametically opposed to that earlier point of view.
Which is it? Does having better teammates, but fewer opportunities improve or harm English cricket. Maybe Kent should have played England qualified Darren Stevens last night instead of Viljoen or Klassen?
Good point Andy, I was waiting for someone to raise that. I am one of the few in favour of the '100'. My (simplistic) view is that it will 1) Be more entertaining (after all, would you rather see Rabada bowling to Gayle or Kohli, or Stevens trundling in to Cobb? - I know what i'd rather see) and 2) Raise the skill levels of the players around the England setup playing against high quality foreign imports.
My understanding is that the '100' is limited (a la IPL) to 4 overseas players per team, which means you have 7 others eligible to play for England. Not the same equation as last night.Now, also one of the big differences to last night is that how many of the 6 Overseas players that Kent played last night will be in the '100'? - let me guess, maybe Milne and Nabi ? - they are not really 'A' list overseas players (although clearly good enough to beat Surrey).So, they are potentially clogging up possible England players from emerging. If you have 4, or lets say 6 , (2 as reserves), overseas players for 8 teams, that's a total of 48 players. So, you are likely to have a good sprinkling of Indians (would think prob 8 at least), maybe 10 Aussies, at least 6 Kiwis,6 Windies, (thinking Gayle,Hetmyer,Pooran,Hope,Brathwaite etc) - already we have 30 players and the quality is high. For me , its about quality cricket with quality players, but primarily with the view of improving the England and England fringe players too.
Wrong thread, but this really is a load of tosh. Improving England players? At a format of the game nobody plays? Improving England players by downgrading the 50 over version of the game. Didn't we just win the Cup at format How does it help test players, the most important form of the game. A competition just being launched when we all just want to talk about the Ashes. The newly set up world cup has been totally underplayed by the ECB. Talk about mixed up priorities and messages!
Anyone else going to Lords tmrw evening. 1st vs 2nd. Should be a great game
Yes, should be a really good contest. Eoin Morgan's first game back, I remember a Kent Middlesex game at Richmond where a Morgan 6 narrowly missed my head and hit one of the catering stalls instead!
So your argument for franchise cricket was that despite fewer opportunities for English qualified players to start games (due to combination of fewer teams and more non-qualified players per team) it would improve English cricket, whilst you're argument against Kent is diametically opposed to that earlier point of view.
Which is it? Does having better teammates, but fewer opportunities improve or harm English cricket. Maybe Kent should have played England qualified Darren Stevens last night instead of Viljoen or Klassen?
Good point Andy, I was waiting for someone to raise that. I am one of the few in favour of the '100'. My (simplistic) view is that it will 1) Be more entertaining (after all, would you rather see Rabada bowling to Gayle or Kohli, or Stevens trundling in to Cobb? - I know what i'd rather see) and 2) Raise the skill levels of the players around the England setup playing against high quality foreign imports.
My understanding is that the '100' is limited (a la IPL) to 4 overseas players per team, which means you have 7 others eligible to play for England. Not the same equation as last night.Now, also one of the big differences to last night is that how many of the 6 Overseas players that Kent played last night will be in the '100'? - let me guess, maybe Milne and Nabi ? - they are not really 'A' list overseas players (although clearly good enough to beat Surrey).So, they are potentially clogging up possible England players from emerging. If you have 4, or lets say 6 , (2 as reserves), overseas players for 8 teams, that's a total of 48 players. So, you are likely to have a good sprinkling of Indians (would think prob 8 at least), maybe 10 Aussies, at least 6 Kiwis,6 Windies, (thinking Gayle,Hetmyer,Pooran,Hope,Brathwaite etc) - already we have 30 players and the quality is high. For me , its about quality cricket with quality players, but primarily with the view of improving the England and England fringe players too.
Wrong thread, but this really is a load of tosh. Improving England players? At a format of the game nobody plays? Improving England players by downgrading the 50 over version of the game. Didn't we just win the Cup at format How does it help test players, the most important form of the game. A competition just being launched when we all just want to talk about the Ashes. The newly set up world cup has been totally underplayed by the ECB. Talk about mixed up priorities and messages!
Everyone with any sense knows it's complete bollocks. The argument its needed to improbe englands one day sides has been null since we reached the final pf the 2016 world T20. Winning the world cuo has backed that up.
The arguments about the number of overseas players and the development of English players have been laid out pretty clearly on the t20 franchise thread by myself and others. Pres always refused to reply to any of the points raised there so I've kinda given up engaging on that issue.
So your argument for franchise cricket was that despite fewer opportunities for English qualified players to start games (due to combination of fewer teams and more non-qualified players per team) it would improve English cricket, whilst you're argument against Kent is diametically opposed to that earlier point of view.
Which is it? Does having better teammates, but fewer opportunities improve or harm English cricket. Maybe Kent should have played England qualified Darren Stevens last night instead of Viljoen or Klassen?
Good point Andy, I was waiting for someone to raise that. I am one of the few in favour of the '100'. My (simplistic) view is that it will 1) Be more entertaining (after all, would you rather see Rabada bowling to Gayle or Kohli, or Stevens trundling in to Cobb? - I know what i'd rather see) and 2) Raise the skill levels of the players around the England setup playing against high quality foreign imports.
My understanding is that the '100' is limited (a la IPL) to 4 overseas players per team, which means you have 7 others eligible to play for England. Not the same equation as last night.Now, also one of the big differences to last night is that how many of the 6 Overseas players that Kent played last night will be in the '100'? - let me guess, maybe Milne and Nabi ? - they are not really 'A' list overseas players (although clearly good enough to beat Surrey).So, they are potentially clogging up possible England players from emerging. If you have 4, or lets say 6 , (2 as reserves), overseas players for 8 teams, that's a total of 48 players. So, you are likely to have a good sprinkling of Indians (would think prob 8 at least), maybe 10 Aussies, at least 6 Kiwis,6 Windies, (thinking Gayle,Hetmyer,Pooran,Hope,Brathwaite etc) - already we have 30 players and the quality is high. For me , its about quality cricket with quality players, but primarily with the view of improving the England and England fringe players too.
Wrong thread, but this really is a load of tosh. Improving England players? At a format of the game nobody plays? Improving England players by downgrading the 50 over version of the game. Didn't we just win the Cup at format How does it help test players, the most important form of the game. A competition just being launched when we all just want to talk about the Ashes. The newly set up world cup has been totally underplayed by the ECB. Talk about mixed up priorities and messages!
Everyone with any sense knows it's complete bollocks. The argument its needed to improbe englands one day sides has been null since we reached the final pf the 2016 world T20. Winning the world cuo has backed that up.
The arguments about the number of overseas players and the development of English players have been laid out pretty clearly on the t20 franchise thread by myself and others. Pres always refused to reply to any of the points raised there so I've kinda given up engaging on that issue.
Cmon Canters, I never 'refused' to reply, because as I have stated , probably many times (I cant remember), that I don't have the answers to your points - like most people don't have the answers to what is going to happen in the '100' but to suggest that 'everyone with any sense knows its bollocks' is a bit of a (very) low shot at the likes of Nasser Hussain,Ashley Giles,Joe Root, Michael Vaughan,Eoin Morgan - who I might suggest know a bit more about cricket than me and you together.What do you think? TBH, I really don't get the negativity from cricket fans - I love all forms of cricket - everyone slagged off 20/20 when it first came out. As I've always stated, this will be a opportunity to watch quality cricketers play quality cricket with the likelihood that it will benefit English qualified players and hopefully raise their game. As I've said many times, I don't want to go to The Oval and watch Stevens trundle in to Cobb. I want to see Archer coming in and trying to knock Kohlis head off. I don't care if its 100 balls or 120 balls (after all, all Kent fans had a wankfest after 4 overs yesterday!) - to me, its a game of cricket.
So your argument for franchise cricket was that despite fewer opportunities for English qualified players to start games (due to combination of fewer teams and more non-qualified players per team) it would improve English cricket, whilst you're argument against Kent is diametically opposed to that earlier point of view.
Which is it? Does having better teammates, but fewer opportunities improve or harm English cricket. Maybe Kent should have played England qualified Darren Stevens last night instead of Viljoen or Klassen?
Good point Andy, I was waiting for someone to raise that. I am one of the few in favour of the '100'. My (simplistic) view is that it will 1) Be more entertaining (after all, would you rather see Rabada bowling to Gayle or Kohli, or Stevens trundling in to Cobb? - I know what i'd rather see) and 2) Raise the skill levels of the players around the England setup playing against high quality foreign imports.
My understanding is that the '100' is limited (a la IPL) to 4 overseas players per team, which means you have 7 others eligible to play for England. Not the same equation as last night.Now, also one of the big differences to last night is that how many of the 6 Overseas players that Kent played last night will be in the '100'? - let me guess, maybe Milne and Nabi ? - they are not really 'A' list overseas players (although clearly good enough to beat Surrey).So, they are potentially clogging up possible England players from emerging. If you have 4, or lets say 6 , (2 as reserves), overseas players for 8 teams, that's a total of 48 players. So, you are likely to have a good sprinkling of Indians (would think prob 8 at least), maybe 10 Aussies, at least 6 Kiwis,6 Windies, (thinking Gayle,Hetmyer,Pooran,Hope,Brathwaite etc) - already we have 30 players and the quality is high. For me , its about quality cricket with quality players, but primarily with the view of improving the England and England fringe players too.
Wrong thread, but this really is a load of tosh. Improving England players? At a format of the game nobody plays? Improving England players by downgrading the 50 over version of the game. Didn't we just win the Cup at format How does it help test players, the most important form of the game. A competition just being launched when we all just want to talk about the Ashes. The newly set up world cup has been totally underplayed by the ECB. Talk about mixed up priorities and messages!
Simply your opinion. Try saying that to any Indian - the nation that effectively controls cricket now. To call it a 'load of tosh' is really quite conceited, tbh - a poor statement. If you were to listen to many current and ex players who are in favour of the 100 (Hussain,Root,Giles,Vaughan, as an example) then maybe you might not have your high-and-mighty attitude. But , anyway, carry on with your dismissive view.
Comments
Those programmes are to be applauded but other Counties simply do not have those same resources and to be competitive have to find talent where they may.
Yet rather than address the bigger picture of the squad you narrowly focus on one team on one night.
I have addressed the broader more relevant opportunities within the squad. In case you had not noticed it is a squad game. Indeed Stewart only replaced Cox because it was a 13 overs match. Stewart is an all rounder and a bigger hitter than young Cox who had played the 3 previous games.
Wian Mulder is no longer with Kent. He was a temporary overseas signing for the Championship replacing Renshaw as the club overseas Championship player.
Morkel is a Kolpak signing is he not?
I am happy to accept your comments on Cowdrey. The denigrating comments were included in the English Cricket thread.
I think the latter, which is what Kent have done, and almost every county are doing, does benefit England. Granted there needs to be a balance, but having young English talent going toe to toe with top overseas players can be a good thing. As I said it's a fine line, and I would hate for Kent to suddenly just rely on Kolpaks and overseas players, but that is not what we are doing - we have have a long line of good English talent, some playing for England, some touted for England and some with England potential in the future.
Yes, it does matter, if you want someone to play for England.
The Kent side last night contained 4 players Kent born and bred, DBD, Crawley, Robinson and Blake.
Of the rest of the Surrey side, 2 were overseas players, Curran came over aged 17, while Stoneman, Foakes, Clark and Batty were all signed from other counties.
Of the rest of the Kent side, 2 were overseas players, 2 were Kolpaks (one of which Kuhn was signed to replace the homegrown Northeast), 2 have EU passports while 1 was signed from another county.
So both sides had the same number of entirely home grown players. Yes Curran came over aged 17 and was then developed by Surrey, but Stewart came over aged 22 to play in the Kent leagues.
Which is it? Does having better teammates, but fewer opportunities improve or harm English cricket. Maybe Kent should have played England qualified Darren Stevens last night instead of Viljoen or Klassen?
Good point Andy, I was waiting for someone to raise that.
I am one of the few in favour of the '100'. My (simplistic) view is that it will 1) Be more entertaining (after all, would you rather see Rabada bowling to Gayle or Kohli, or Stevens trundling in to Cobb? - I know what i'd rather see) and 2) Raise the skill levels of the players around the England setup playing against high quality foreign imports.
My understanding is that the '100' is limited (a la IPL) to 4 overseas players per team, which means you have 7 others eligible to play for England. Not the same equation as last night.Now, also one of the big differences to last night is that how many of the 6 Overseas players that Kent played last night will be in the '100'? - let me guess, maybe Milne and Nabi ? - they are not really 'A' list overseas players (although clearly good enough to beat Surrey).So, they are potentially clogging up possible England players from emerging.
If you have 4, or lets say 6 , (2 as reserves), overseas players for 8 teams, that's a total of 48 players.
So, you are likely to have a good sprinkling of Indians (would think prob 8 at least), maybe 10 Aussies, at least 6 Kiwis,6 Windies, (thinking Gayle,Hetmyer,Pooran,Hope,Brathwaite etc) - already we have 30 players and the quality is high.
For me , its about quality cricket with quality players, but primarily with the view of improving the England and England fringe players too.
Tom Curran was still living and playing in SA at the age of 17 for Kwa-Zulu Natal U19s. I would not consider that as being "raised" in England.
Kent had 4 born in Kent and who came through the age group system. Surrey had the same number. All the rest of the players on the pitch were "imported" from other counties or countries so none of those can truly be considered "homegrown". It's just that Surrey used financial inducements to buy more of their players from other counties as opposed to from abroad.
For me, it still comes down to how many were eligible to play for England, and the bottom line is 9 for Surrey, and less than half the team for Kent.
I can understand your argument if it is accepted that the county set-up exists solely to produce an England team (I actually support that premise). The argument is stronger for me in the red ball game though, and I also accept (as others have said) that not all counties have the resources to mop up the best English talent or the academies to develop homegrown.
We are also talking about a 20 over bash competition that is not designed to develop English talent for the test team but rather to attract more people to the game and generate much needed (by most) income.
That's enough of the sensible talk - we whipped your arses!! ;-)
He has a young family who he recently moved to Aus which is to be their permanent home. I suspect there was an agreement to allow him this part of the season off to go home.
Nonetheless to be able to put out a bowling line-up of TC Clark Batty Tahir Patel Clarke when you are already missing Dernbach Plunkett Sam Curran and Morkel is pretty decent.
If he'd batted all three overs it would have been even worse for them!
Wow!
Nabi Star, what a signing he's been. That was brutal hitting and made a mockery of those boundaries.
Nice to see DBD go back to the tried-and-tested tactics of getting himself out incredibly quickly and winning the match.
That was a great catch by Ollie when Curran edged behind, such a shame that Curran didn't walk having near-as-damned middled it and the ump didn't give it.
Finally, that win for the Mighty Spitfires appears to have fractured the space-time continuum and sent me spiralling off into a parallel universe. I swear I've read posts from Slurrey fans complaining about the number of "overseas" players in our side ...
Improving England players by downgrading the 50 over version of the game. Didn't we just win the Cup at format
How does it help test players, the most important form of the game. A competition just being launched when we all just want to talk about the Ashes. The newly set up world cup has been totally underplayed by the ECB. Talk about mixed up priorities and messages!
The arguments about the number of overseas players and the development of English players have been laid out pretty clearly on the t20 franchise thread by myself and others. Pres always refused to reply to any of the points raised there so I've kinda given up engaging on that issue.
Fingers crossed we can continue our winning run(s)
Enjoy beautiful lady xx
TBH, I really don't get the negativity from cricket fans - I love all forms of cricket - everyone slagged off 20/20 when it first came out.
As I've always stated, this will be a opportunity to watch quality cricketers play quality cricket with the likelihood that it will benefit English qualified players and hopefully raise their game.
As I've said many times, I don't want to go to The Oval and watch Stevens trundle in to Cobb.
I want to see Archer coming in and trying to knock Kohlis head off. I don't care if its 100 balls or 120 balls (after all, all Kent fans had a wankfest after 4 overs yesterday!) - to me, its a game of cricket.
To call it a 'load of tosh' is really quite conceited, tbh - a poor statement.
If you were to listen to many current and ex players who are in favour of the 100 (Hussain,Root,Giles,Vaughan, as an example) then maybe you might not have your high-and-mighty attitude. But , anyway, carry on with your dismissive view.