What else is he going to say? "Nahhh i definitely don't want to play for england if that means opening the batting".
Play him where he's been scoring runs - it's not rocket science.
Says the bloke on a forum but England's most successful opening batsman of all time says the opposite. The same bloke on a forum that reckons that Crawley hasn't had enough goes (48) for England even though four previous captains have said he needs to go.
1. Yes this is a forum where discussion is supposed to be encouraged.
2. I've explicitly said that crawley now needs to be dropped.
3. I don't see why saying we should play a young player in the position he's been scoring boatloads of runs in is a ridiculous position enough to warrant this kind of hostility.
When all you do is LOL me for offering an opinion you disagree with and accuse me as a form of ridicule of being a "selector from the 90s" or by trying to undermine my view by saying things like "it's not rocket science", you deserve all you get. And now you're doing exactly what you've done on other threads. Being called out for trying to make someone look silly and when that happen you accuse them of hostility. I'm just surprised that you haven't accused me of being a racist as you've done others - perhaps because you haven't found enough ammunition to hang your hat on. It probably still won't stop you.
Literally all i've said is we should play Harry Brook in the position where he's scored a lot of runs this season - I don't know why you appear to be so upset.
That isn't "literally all" you've said. You ridiculed the opinion of someone else by firstly LOLing the suggestion that Brook should open and then saying "it's not rocket science" that he shouldn't do so in an attempt to undermine an opinion of not just me but also Alastair Cook. Well Brook has opened whereas Pope had never batted at number 3 before he did so for England but it hasn't stopped him doing best in that position for his country.
I haven't batted for England but I have followed the game long enough and have watched my son open at club and county level. He has also been coached at doing so too (and I've been there for all of them bar the ones in Australia) by some of the most knowledgeable batting coaches in the world including the likes of Gary Kirsten, Greg Blewett, Carl Hooper, Rob Key, Chris Nash, Matt Walker, Philip Hudson, Jimmy Adams, Mark Dekker and Julian Wood to name but ten of many - so I would hope that this experience would allow me to offer an opinion and not expect to be ridiculed for doing so.
It's not just what you say and do. It's the way you do it which is why you have been called out for doing so on other threads. Sadly, it is a "modus operandi" that is utilised by you and one other poster on here who has also been called out for being a WUM. We can all do that if we really want to. The bad news for you and him is that I am like an elephant - not just in terms of my stature but also because I never forget! The only surprise in his case is that he hasn't yet turned round and in the very next breath following a wind up and asked "so how are you doing today?"
I'm still not sure why you're upset about the quite simple suggestion that Harry Brook bats in the middle order - which, as i said, is not exactly rocket science (a turn of phrase to say keep it simple). I'm not sure your experience of being a father pips my cricket coaching badges and own experience playing at a decent level either. But ok.
You have a problem with me for some reason, clearly. But i think everyone else is finding it a bit boring (as am i). Lets get back to talking about cricket and not make personal attacks, please.
I bet you wouldn't you say "Harry Brook has to bat in the middle. It's not rocket science" to Alastair Cook's face and then laugh in his face for suggesting that he should open (remember the LOL when I suggested it). On second thoughts, I suspect that you probably would.
I do have a problem with you. As do others. It's on other threads too because you dig people out, make cheap shots, use the LOL button for a purpose that it wasn't intended for and then cry that you're being bullied for being called out for it. I am prepared to let those things go and talk about cricket. However, if you revert to type then I won't let it go.
So let's get back to the cricket.
All i've literally done is disagree with you about Harry Brook. There's no need for personal attacks just because i've disagreed with you about Harry Brook opening the batting lmao.
And there you go again. Reverting to type with a "Lmao".
You just can't see that it isn't just about Harry Brook or that you have disagreed about it. You chose to LOL my question about Brook. That isn't disagreeing, that's an attempt to belittle. Are you going to deny that you also called me a "'90s selector"? On several occasions too. And when I asked why you did that, you refused to respond.
This is exactly the way you try to put people down. You did it on the Crypto thread, you did it on the NFT thread and now you're doing it on here. And then you have the cheek to moan about personal attacks and being threatened as you did on the NFT thread. You just can't see it which is the most amazing thing of all.
So, let's get back to the cricket.
It is about Harry Brook, because this is a cricket thread and in your own words, lets get back to the cricket. I don't know why you're bringing up the other threads in a cricket thread when we're talking about Harry Brook. Can we please, for the love of GOD talk about Harry Brook?!
Just bizarre.
Then try sticking to cricket instead of making sly digs that you aren't even prepared to justify. Rather than laughing at my suggestion of Harry Brook (which you did) when I was the first to raise his name, perhaps you could have taken that opportunity to discuss it instead. As you say.
Meanwhile CL's number one WUM continues to LOL most of my posts. It's not even subtle but thanks nevertheless WUM. Don't think that they aren't appreciated because they truly are.
Anyway, how's the Hundred going? I understand that England might have lost their white ball captain because of that meaningless "competition". Thanks ECB.
It's genuinely funny that you keep posting just to dig other posters out and ending with the phrase "...let's get back to the cricket". I assume it's intentionally funny, hence the LOLs. If they're not intentionally funny, let me know and I will remove them.
For what it's worth, I think Harry Brook, if he were to play for England, shouldn't open the batting, only because he's not really an opening bat and you should really only change a team to improve it - bringing in someone who doesn't open the batting to replace someone who does is likely to weaken the team.
I can understand why Crawley isn't being dropped. It seems to me it's for two reasons. First he's seen as good enough to be allowed the luxury of learning how to be a Test opener while opening in Tests (very few have been afforded that luxury, and it's good to see that the people in charge have identified something about him to make that a gamble worth taking). And second, that there isn't another opener forcing his way into the reckoning. If there were, then surely they'd have opened in the Lions' warm up match against South Africa, instead two openers who have already failed at Test level were brought in. Ideally Crawley should have opened in that match with whoever is being lined up as the next potential opener. That's not how the England management sees it, and I can understand why, even if I don't agree with it.
Just because he doesn't open the batting now, he has done so and had the necessary learning curve doing so. Pope had never batted at 3 before for his county. So Brook has more experience of doing a job than Pope had but Pope has been successful so why shouldn't Brook? Equally, if Brook is the best up and coming batsman in the country, we would be denying him a space for someone who isn't in such great form just because he opens for his county.
We have to also remember that there are only two opening slots at any county. If they are doing well at the job then that county isn't going to drop them to experiment. Yorkshire have their captain and former England opener, Lyth, occupying one of them and the England U19 opener, George Hill, in the other. As Brook says, he would rather bat at 4 which he does for Yorkshire but he isn't taking Root's spot is he?
The bottom line is this - to bat in the top three you have to have two things. A solid technique and a good temperament. I thought Pope had both which is why I advocated him batting at 3 and not hiding at 6 or 7 where he didn't know whether to stick or twist. I believe that Brook should be given that chance as does the guy who has batted 291 times for England and scored 12,472 and is someone who has seen him bat at first hand in the middle when standing at slips. That's good enough for me but others seem to think that they know more than Cook.
I think very few people are saying they "know more than Cook". Lots of people agree with some people who disagree with Cook, like the England Captain, the England Coach and so forth.
There's no "right" answer. If there were, we wouldn't be in the odd position where England had 24 openers in the last ten years. And in the even odder position where three of the most successful of those 24 (runs per innings) are in the current XI, but not opening the batting.
Meanwhile CL's number one WUM continues to LOL most of my posts. It's not even subtle but thanks nevertheless WUM. Don't think that they aren't appreciated because they truly are.
Anyway, how's the Hundred going? I understand that England might have lost their white ball captain because of that meaningless "competition". Thanks ECB.
It's genuinely funny that you keep posting just to dig other posters out and ending with the phrase "...let's get back to the cricket". I assume it's intentionally funny, hence the LOLs. If they're not intentionally funny, let me know and I will remove them.
For what it's worth, I think Harry Brook, if he were to play for England, shouldn't open the batting, only because he's not really an opening bat and you should really only change a team to improve it - bringing in someone who doesn't open the batting to replace someone who does is likely to weaken the team.
I can understand why Crawley isn't being dropped. It seems to me it's for two reasons. First he's seen as good enough to be allowed the luxury of learning how to be a Test opener while opening in Tests (very few have been afforded that luxury, and it's good to see that the people in charge have identified something about him to make that a gamble worth taking). And second, that there isn't another opener forcing his way into the reckoning. If there were, then surely they'd have opened in the Lions' warm up match against South Africa, instead two openers who have already failed at Test level were brought in. Ideally Crawley should have opened in that match with whoever is being lined up as the next potential opener. That's not how the England management sees it, and I can understand why, even if I don't agree with it.
Just because he doesn't open the batting now, he has done so and had the necessary learning curve doing so. Pope had never batted at 3 before for his county. So Brook has more experience of doing a job than Pope had but Pope has been successful so why shouldn't Brook? Equally, if Brook is the best up and coming batsman in the country, we would be denying him a space for someone who isn't in such great form just because he opens for his county.
We have to also remember that there are only two opening slots at any county. If they are doing well at the job then that county isn't going to drop them to experiment. Yorkshire have their captain and former England opener, Lyth, occupying one of them and the England U19 opener, George Hill, in the other. As Brook says, he would rather bat at 4 which he does for Yorkshire but he isn't taking Root's spot is he?
The bottom line is this - to bat in the top three you have to have two things. A solid technique and a good temperament. I thought Pope had both which is why I advocated him batting at 3 and not hiding at 6 or 7 where he didn't know whether to stick or twist. I believe that Brook should be given that chance as does the guy who has batted 291 times for England and scored 12,472 and is someone who has seen him bat at first hand in the middle when standing at slips. That's good enough for me but others seem to think that they know more than Cook.
I think very few people are saying they "know more than Cook". Lots of people agree with some people who disagree with Cook, like the England Captain, the England Coach and so forth.
There's no "right" answer. If there were, we wouldn't be in the odd position where England had 24 openers in the last ten years. And in the even odder position where three of the most successful of those 24 (runs per innings) are in the current XI, but not opening the batting.
And I have no problem with that argument. I have an issue with people who laugh at the suggestion and then claim that we should be discussing it.
What else is he going to say? "Nahhh i definitely don't want to play for england if that means opening the batting".
Play him where he's been scoring runs - it's not rocket science.
Says the bloke on a forum but England's most successful opening batsman of all time says the opposite. The same bloke on a forum that reckons that Crawley hasn't had enough goes (48) for England even though four previous captains have said he needs to go.
1. Yes this is a forum where discussion is supposed to be encouraged.
2. I've explicitly said that crawley now needs to be dropped.
3. I don't see why saying we should play a young player in the position he's been scoring boatloads of runs in is a ridiculous position enough to warrant this kind of hostility.
When all you do is LOL me for offering an opinion you disagree with and accuse me as a form of ridicule of being a "selector from the 90s" or by trying to undermine my view by saying things like "it's not rocket science", you deserve all you get. And now you're doing exactly what you've done on other threads. Being called out for trying to make someone look silly and when that happen you accuse them of hostility. I'm just surprised that you haven't accused me of being a racist as you've done others - perhaps because you haven't found enough ammunition to hang your hat on. It probably still won't stop you.
Literally all i've said is we should play Harry Brook in the position where he's scored a lot of runs this season - I don't know why you appear to be so upset.
That isn't "literally all" you've said. You ridiculed the opinion of someone else by firstly LOLing the suggestion that Brook should open and then saying "it's not rocket science" that he shouldn't do so in an attempt to undermine an opinion of not just me but also Alastair Cook. Well Brook has opened whereas Pope had never batted at number 3 before he did so for England but it hasn't stopped him doing best in that position for his country.
I haven't batted for England but I have followed the game long enough and have watched my son open at club and county level. He has also been coached at doing so too (and I've been there for all of them bar the ones in Australia) by some of the most knowledgeable batting coaches in the world including the likes of Gary Kirsten, Greg Blewett, Carl Hooper, Rob Key, Chris Nash, Matt Walker, Philip Hudson, Jimmy Adams, Mark Dekker and Julian Wood to name but ten of many - so I would hope that this experience would allow me to offer an opinion and not expect to be ridiculed for doing so.
It's not just what you say and do. It's the way you do it which is why you have been called out for doing so on other threads. Sadly, it is a "modus operandi" that is utilised by you and one other poster on here who has also been called out for being a WUM. We can all do that if we really want to. The bad news for you and him is that I am like an elephant - not just in terms of my stature but also because I never forget! The only surprise in his case is that he hasn't yet turned round and in the very next breath following a wind up and asked "so how are you doing today?"
I'm still not sure why you're upset about the quite simple suggestion that Harry Brook bats in the middle order - which, as i said, is not exactly rocket science (a turn of phrase to say keep it simple). I'm not sure your experience of being a father pips my cricket coaching badges and own experience playing at a decent level either. But ok.
You have a problem with me for some reason, clearly. But i think everyone else is finding it a bit boring (as am i). Lets get back to talking about cricket and not make personal attacks, please.
I bet you wouldn't you say "Harry Brook has to bat in the middle. It's not rocket science" to Alastair Cook's face and then laugh in his face for suggesting that he should open (remember the LOL when I suggested it). On second thoughts, I suspect that you probably would.
I do have a problem with you. As do others. It's on other threads too because you dig people out, make cheap shots, use the LOL button for a purpose that it wasn't intended for and then cry that you're being bullied for being called out for it. I am prepared to let those things go and talk about cricket. However, if you revert to type then I won't let it go.
So let's get back to the cricket.
All i've literally done is disagree with you about Harry Brook. There's no need for personal attacks just because i've disagreed with you about Harry Brook opening the batting lmao.
And there you go again. Reverting to type with a "Lmao".
You just can't see that it isn't just about Harry Brook or that you have disagreed about it. You chose to LOL my question about Brook. That isn't disagreeing, that's an attempt to belittle. Are you going to deny that you also called me a "'90s selector"? On several occasions too. And when I asked why you did that, you refused to respond.
This is exactly the way you try to put people down. You did it on the Crypto thread, you did it on the NFT thread and now you're doing it on here. And then you have the cheek to moan about personal attacks and being threatened as you did on the NFT thread. You just can't see it which is the most amazing thing of all.
So, let's get back to the cricket.
It is about Harry Brook, because this is a cricket thread and in your own words, lets get back to the cricket. I don't know why you're bringing up the other threads in a cricket thread when we're talking about Harry Brook. Can we please, for the love of GOD talk about Harry Brook?!
Just bizarre.
Then try sticking to cricket instead of making sly digs that you aren't even prepared to justify. Rather than laughing at my suggestion of Harry Brook (which you did) when I was the first to raise his name, perhaps you could have taken that opportunity to discuss it instead. As you say.
I literally did. I simply asked there's a lot of risk in throwing a young player into the test arena to open the batting when he's got his place on runs he's scored in the middle order, you then had a complete meltdown and here we are.
What else is he going to say? "Nahhh i definitely don't want to play for england if that means opening the batting".
Play him where he's been scoring runs - it's not rocket science.
Says the bloke on a forum but England's most successful opening batsman of all time says the opposite. The same bloke on a forum that reckons that Crawley hasn't had enough goes (48) for England even though four previous captains have said he needs to go.
1. Yes this is a forum where discussion is supposed to be encouraged.
2. I've explicitly said that crawley now needs to be dropped.
3. I don't see why saying we should play a young player in the position he's been scoring boatloads of runs in is a ridiculous position enough to warrant this kind of hostility.
When all you do is LOL me for offering an opinion you disagree with and accuse me as a form of ridicule of being a "selector from the 90s" or by trying to undermine my view by saying things like "it's not rocket science", you deserve all you get. And now you're doing exactly what you've done on other threads. Being called out for trying to make someone look silly and when that happen you accuse them of hostility. I'm just surprised that you haven't accused me of being a racist as you've done others - perhaps because you haven't found enough ammunition to hang your hat on. It probably still won't stop you.
Literally all i've said is we should play Harry Brook in the position where he's scored a lot of runs this season - I don't know why you appear to be so upset.
That isn't "literally all" you've said. You ridiculed the opinion of someone else by firstly LOLing the suggestion that Brook should open and then saying "it's not rocket science" that he shouldn't do so in an attempt to undermine an opinion of not just me but also Alastair Cook. Well Brook has opened whereas Pope had never batted at number 3 before he did so for England but it hasn't stopped him doing best in that position for his country.
I haven't batted for England but I have followed the game long enough and have watched my son open at club and county level. He has also been coached at doing so too (and I've been there for all of them bar the ones in Australia) by some of the most knowledgeable batting coaches in the world including the likes of Gary Kirsten, Greg Blewett, Carl Hooper, Rob Key, Chris Nash, Matt Walker, Philip Hudson, Jimmy Adams, Mark Dekker and Julian Wood to name but ten of many - so I would hope that this experience would allow me to offer an opinion and not expect to be ridiculed for doing so.
It's not just what you say and do. It's the way you do it which is why you have been called out for doing so on other threads. Sadly, it is a "modus operandi" that is utilised by you and one other poster on here who has also been called out for being a WUM. We can all do that if we really want to. The bad news for you and him is that I am like an elephant - not just in terms of my stature but also because I never forget! The only surprise in his case is that he hasn't yet turned round and in the very next breath following a wind up and asked "so how are you doing today?"
I'm still not sure why you're upset about the quite simple suggestion that Harry Brook bats in the middle order - which, as i said, is not exactly rocket science (a turn of phrase to say keep it simple). I'm not sure your experience of being a father pips my cricket coaching badges and own experience playing at a decent level either. But ok.
You have a problem with me for some reason, clearly. But i think everyone else is finding it a bit boring (as am i). Lets get back to talking about cricket and not make personal attacks, please.
I bet you wouldn't you say "Harry Brook has to bat in the middle. It's not rocket science" to Alastair Cook's face and then laugh in his face for suggesting that he should open (remember the LOL when I suggested it). On second thoughts, I suspect that you probably would.
I do have a problem with you. As do others. It's on other threads too because you dig people out, make cheap shots, use the LOL button for a purpose that it wasn't intended for and then cry that you're being bullied for being called out for it. I am prepared to let those things go and talk about cricket. However, if you revert to type then I won't let it go.
So let's get back to the cricket.
All i've literally done is disagree with you about Harry Brook. There's no need for personal attacks just because i've disagreed with you about Harry Brook opening the batting lmao.
And there you go again. Reverting to type with a "Lmao".
You just can't see that it isn't just about Harry Brook or that you have disagreed about it. You chose to LOL my question about Brook. That isn't disagreeing, that's an attempt to belittle. Are you going to deny that you also called me a "'90s selector"? On several occasions too. And when I asked why you did that, you refused to respond.
This is exactly the way you try to put people down. You did it on the Crypto thread, you did it on the NFT thread and now you're doing it on here. And then you have the cheek to moan about personal attacks and being threatened as you did on the NFT thread. You just can't see it which is the most amazing thing of all.
So, let's get back to the cricket.
It is about Harry Brook, because this is a cricket thread and in your own words, lets get back to the cricket. I don't know why you're bringing up the other threads in a cricket thread when we're talking about Harry Brook. Can we please, for the love of GOD talk about Harry Brook?!
Just bizarre.
Then try sticking to cricket instead of making sly digs that you aren't even prepared to justify. Rather than laughing at my suggestion of Harry Brook (which you did) when I was the first to raise his name, perhaps you could have taken that opportunity to discuss it instead. As you say.
I literally did. I simply asked there's a lot of risk in throwing a young player into the test arena to open the batting when he's got his place on runs he's scored in the middle order, you then had a complete meltdown and here we are.
You literally only did after you LOL'd the suggestion. So, again, why did you do that?
I think we should park this now. It's very boring for everyone involved. As i said, you obviously have some strange problem with me for suggesting Brook shouldn't open. Let's talk about cricket rather than this endless bickering.
So the ECB now want five competitions when we can't even fit in four. Dilute the CC to 10 games and play it during periods when we will be at the mercy of the weather and the CC could become of 8 match duration?
It doesn't say that. It says a review panel will meet next week to agree proposals with a view to a vote of county chairs next month. And it says the proposal could include red ball cricket in August, which is something that a few people have been banging on (and on and on) about for a number of months.
Nothing's been concluded. And nothing's been offered for vote yet.
Meanwhile CL's number one WUM continues to LOL most of my posts. It's not even subtle but thanks nevertheless WUM. Don't think that they aren't appreciated because they truly are.
Anyway, how's the Hundred going? I understand that England might have lost their white ball captain because of that meaningless "competition". Thanks ECB.
It's genuinely funny that you keep posting just to dig other posters out and ending with the phrase "...let's get back to the cricket". I assume it's intentionally funny, hence the LOLs. If they're not intentionally funny, let me know and I will remove them.
For what it's worth, I think Harry Brook, if he were to play for England, shouldn't open the batting, only because he's not really an opening bat and you should really only change a team to improve it - bringing in someone who doesn't open the batting to replace someone who does is likely to weaken the team.
I can understand why Crawley isn't being dropped. It seems to me it's for two reasons. First he's seen as good enough to be allowed the luxury of learning how to be a Test opener while opening in Tests (very few have been afforded that luxury, and it's good to see that the people in charge have identified something about him to make that a gamble worth taking). And second, that there isn't another opener forcing his way into the reckoning. If there were, then surely they'd have opened in the Lions' warm up match against South Africa, instead two openers who have already failed at Test level were brought in. Ideally Crawley should have opened in that match with whoever is being lined up as the next potential opener. That's not how the England management sees it, and I can understand why, even if I don't agree with it.
Just because he doesn't open the batting now, he has done so and had the necessary learning curve doing so. Pope had never batted at 3 before for his county. So Brook has more experience of doing a job than Pope had but Pope has been successful so why shouldn't Brook? Equally, if Brook is the best up and coming batsman in the country, we would be denying him a space for someone who isn't in such great form just because he opens for his county.
We have to also remember that there are only two opening slots at any county. If they are doing well at the job then that county isn't going to drop them to experiment. Yorkshire have their captain and former England opener, Lyth, occupying one of them and the England U19 opener, George Hill, in the other. As Brook says, he would rather bat at 4 which he does for Yorkshire but he isn't taking Root's spot is he?
The bottom line is this - to bat in the top three you have to have two things. A solid technique and a good temperament. I thought Pope had both which is why I advocated him batting at 3 and not hiding at 6 or 7 where he didn't know whether to stick or twist. I believe that Brook should be given that chance as does the guy who has batted 291 times for England and scored 12,472 and is someone who has seen him bat at first hand in the middle when standing at slips. That's good enough for me but others seem to think that they know more than Cook.
I think very few people are saying they "know more than Cook". Lots of people agree with some people who disagree with Cook, like the England Captain, the England Coach and so forth.
There's no "right" answer. If there were, we wouldn't be in the odd position where England had 24 openers in the last ten years. And in the even odder position where three of the most successful of those 24 (runs per innings) are in the current XI, but not opening the batting.
I'd also say, although cook was a great opener, he wasn't the best at picking his partners.
Isn't the current (and a decade old reality) problem we don't have two/any test match class openers. We do have 5 or 6 potentially test class middle order bats man.
They can't all bat 4-7 can they?
Do you pick 2 of the dozen or so, I am not that sure it matters which 2 to be honest, players that aren't good enough but are openers or do you pick you best 6 batsmen then worry about the order?
I think other countries are more inclined to do the latter, certainly more than we are. But playing half our test matches in England where opening the batting is harder makes that option less attractive.
So the ECB now want five competitions when we can't even fit in four. Dilute the CC to 10 games and play it during periods when we will be at the mercy of the weather and the CC could become of 8 match duration?
It doesn't say that. It says a review panel will meet next week to agree proposals with a view to a vote of county chairs next month. And it says the proposal could include red ball cricket in August, which is something that a few people have been banging on (and on and on) about for a number of months.
Nothing's been concluded. And nothing's been offered for vote yet.
That's not correct. They've been banging on not just red ball but the CC being played in August.
Strauss said last week in an interview that, because the Hundred is all signed and sealed, any proposal would have to take into account that this competition is set in stone. So, we don't have enough room for all four comps without reducing the standard of at least one of them. By definition, the top players will be playing in the Hundred in order to justify the hype and money so any comp that is going on at the same time will be of 2nd XI standard - or one not involving all the counties i.e. an amalgam of counties playing a red ball comp. Which would make it a fifth competition. And not a County Championship of a length that makes it meaningful especially with potential bad weather if we are going to play most of the matches in April/May and September.
So the ECB now want five competitions when we can't even fit in four. Dilute the CC to 10 games and play it during periods when we will be at the mercy of the weather and the CC could become of 8 match duration?
It doesn't say that. It says a review panel will meet next week to agree proposals with a view to a vote of county chairs next month. And it says the proposal could include red ball cricket in August, which is something that a few people have been banging on (and on and on) about for a number of months.
Nothing's been concluded. And nothing's been offered for vote yet.
That's not correct. They've been banging on not just red ball but the CC being played in August.
Strauss said last week in an interview that, because the Hundred is all signed and sealed, any proposal would have to take into account that this competition is set in stone. So, we don't have enough room for all four comps without reducing the standard of at least one of them. By definition, the top players will be playing in the Hundred in order to justify the hype and money so any comp that is going on at the same time will be of 2nd XI standard - or one not involving all the counties i.e. an amalgam of counties playing a red ball comp. Which would make it a fifth competition. And not a County Championship of a length that makes it meaningful especially with potential bad weather if we are going to play most of the matches in April/May and September.
I can't comment, because I don't know what's in the proposal
Meanwhile CL's number one WUM continues to LOL most of my posts. It's not even subtle but thanks nevertheless WUM. Don't think that they aren't appreciated because they truly are.
Anyway, how's the Hundred going? I understand that England might have lost their white ball captain because of that meaningless "competition". Thanks ECB.
It's genuinely funny that you keep posting just to dig other posters out and ending with the phrase "...let's get back to the cricket". I assume it's intentionally funny, hence the LOLs. If they're not intentionally funny, let me know and I will remove them.
For what it's worth, I think Harry Brook, if he were to play for England, shouldn't open the batting, only because he's not really an opening bat and you should really only change a team to improve it - bringing in someone who doesn't open the batting to replace someone who does is likely to weaken the team.
I can understand why Crawley isn't being dropped. It seems to me it's for two reasons. First he's seen as good enough to be allowed the luxury of learning how to be a Test opener while opening in Tests (very few have been afforded that luxury, and it's good to see that the people in charge have identified something about him to make that a gamble worth taking). And second, that there isn't another opener forcing his way into the reckoning. If there were, then surely they'd have opened in the Lions' warm up match against South Africa, instead two openers who have already failed at Test level were brought in. Ideally Crawley should have opened in that match with whoever is being lined up as the next potential opener. That's not how the England management sees it, and I can understand why, even if I don't agree with it.
Just because he doesn't open the batting now, he has done so and had the necessary learning curve doing so. Pope had never batted at 3 before for his county. So Brook has more experience of doing a job than Pope had but Pope has been successful so why shouldn't Brook? Equally, if Brook is the best up and coming batsman in the country, we would be denying him a space for someone who isn't in such great form just because he opens for his county.
We have to also remember that there are only two opening slots at any county. If they are doing well at the job then that county isn't going to drop them to experiment. Yorkshire have their captain and former England opener, Lyth, occupying one of them and the England U19 opener, George Hill, in the other. As Brook says, he would rather bat at 4 which he does for Yorkshire but he isn't taking Root's spot is he?
The bottom line is this - to bat in the top three you have to have two things. A solid technique and a good temperament. I thought Pope had both which is why I advocated him batting at 3 and not hiding at 6 or 7 where he didn't know whether to stick or twist. I believe that Brook should be given that chance as does the guy who has batted 291 times for England and scored 12,472 and is someone who has seen him bat at first hand in the middle when standing at slips. That's good enough for me but others seem to think that they know more than Cook.
I think very few people are saying they "know more than Cook". Lots of people agree with some people who disagree with Cook, like the England Captain, the England Coach and so forth.
There's no "right" answer. If there were, we wouldn't be in the odd position where England had 24 openers in the last ten years. And in the even odder position where three of the most successful of those 24 (runs per innings) are in the current XI, but not opening the batting.
"The England Captain, the England Coach and so forth" or just the plain old ECB trying to protect the credibility of the Hundred disagreed with Cook on this one too for which there is, clearly, a right answer:
Ironically, England got caught cold by a touring side. Usually, it is the other way round. It is a reminder that if you don’t prepare properly you can come unstuck very quickly. I know the modern way is to play fewer warm-up games, but you have got to have at least one. Yet not one of these guys had played a red-ball game since the County Championship round starting on July 25, while the five most senior men had not played one since the India Test ending on July 5. It showed. You cannot be having your run-out in the first Test of a three-match series, but that is what this England side did.
Even Jimmy Anderson and Stuart Broad did not bowl as well as they could have done in those conditions, and that was not down to their lack of skill. They were rusty. Matthew Potts was absolutely relentless in his line and length against New Zealand and India, and rightly we all praised his control, but in this game, though he bowled some jaffas, there was a fair bit of dross as well, and that can only be down to him playing so little red-ball. At the start of the summer he had played a lot of championship cricket. That is no coincidence.
Ok - I am no cricket expert by any means . But surely it has got to be easier for bowlers to keep in form than batsmen. If they run up to bowl in the nets they must be looking to hit one place like the top of off stump. Or a point on the pitch ? If the coaches give them different situations to bowl at surely that should be good enough ?
They can bowl 5 or 10 over spells at a time in the nets
The problem is that ANY red ball cricket in August will be played at the same time as the Hundred, so a lot of the best players, including those who can play both formats, will be missing. Yes it's great for those left behind to play some red ball cricket, but it will against weakened opponents.
And if the Tests will be all over by the end of July next summer, so any good performances in August will be too late anyway
The problem is that ANY red ball cricket in August will be played at the same time as the Hundred, so a lot of the best players, including those who can play both formats, will be missing. Yes it's great for those left behind to play some red ball cricket, but it will against weakened opponents.
And if the Tests will be all over by the end of July next summer, so any good performances in August will be too late anyway
Isn't it next summer when we have 3 test matches and 8 white ball games in September?
Ok - I am no cricket expert by any means . But surely it has got to be easier for bowlers to keep in form than batsmen. If they run up to bowl in the nets they must be looking to hit one place like the top of off stump. Or a point on the pitch ? If the coaches give them different situations to bowl at surely that should be good enough ?
They can bowl 5 or 10 over spells at a time in the nets
Not buying this rusty bit .
I stand to be corrected by the bowlers out there.
I think you can hone your skills and gain an element of fitness in the nets but the actual place to test yourself is in the middle against batsmen in a proper match situation without the restrictions that nets can impose i.e. front foot cheating, no bowling to a field, inability to change your delivery according to the batsman you are bowling to and what scoring areas they have/perceived weaknesses, having to adapt to the prevalent weather and pitch conditions and that element of competitiveness that nets cannot give you. You are also unlikely to be bowling at batsmen in the nets that will test your skills anyway because under the present calendar they are all elsewhere anyway. If they were to become available then you would surely arrange a match as preparation as was the case for South Africa.
Ok - I am no cricket expert by any means . But surely it has got to be easier for bowlers to keep in form than batsmen. If they run up to bowl in the nets they must be looking to hit one place like the top of off stump. Or a point on the pitch ? If the coaches give them different situations to bowl at surely that should be good enough ?
They can bowl 5 or 10 over spells at a time in the nets
Not buying this rusty bit .
I stand to be corrected by the bowlers out there.
I think you can hone your skills and gain an element of fitness in the nets but the actual place to test yourself is in the middle against batsmen in a proper match situation without the restrictions that nets can impose i.e. front foot cheating, no bowling to a field, inability to change your delivery according to the batsman you are bowling to and what scoring areas they have/perceived weaknesses, having to adapt to the prevalent weather and pitch conditions and that element of competitiveness that nets cannot give you. You are also unlikely to be bowling at batsmen in the nets that will test your skills anyway because under the present calendar they are all elsewhere anyway. If they were to become available then you would surely arrange a match as preparation as was the case for South Africa.
Sorry still not buying that.
Those problems may occur at u14 level but at test level with the tech and coaches they have available to them all of those objections with the exception of the batsman should be able to be circumvented.
The issue that was hilighted was bowling some good balls interspersed with rubbish . If you are hitting the top of off each ball that can’t be described as rubbish. Or just outside off stump. That can be practised.
The problem is that ANY red ball cricket in August will be played at the same time as the Hundred, so a lot of the best players, including those who can play both formats, will be missing. Yes it's great for those left behind to play some red ball cricket, but it will against weakened opponents.
And if the Tests will be all over by the end of July next summer, so any good performances in August will be too late anyway
I think if the ECB will fund it we may be heading to having 2 x county squads - red ball and white ball. England are certainly looking that way, just with a small crossover.
Ok - I am no cricket expert by any means . But surely it has got to be easier for bowlers to keep in form than batsmen. If they run up to bowl in the nets they must be looking to hit one place like the top of off stump. Or a point on the pitch ? If the coaches give them different situations to bowl at surely that should be good enough ?
They can bowl 5 or 10 over spells at a time in the nets
Not buying this rusty bit .
I stand to be corrected by the bowlers out there.
I think you can hone your skills and gain an element of fitness in the nets but the actual place to test yourself is in the middle against batsmen in a proper match situation without the restrictions that nets can impose i.e. front foot cheating, no bowling to a field, inability to change your delivery according to the batsman you are bowling to and what scoring areas they have/perceived weaknesses, having to adapt to the prevalent weather and pitch conditions and that element of competitiveness that nets cannot give you. You are also unlikely to be bowling at batsmen in the nets that will test your skills anyway because under the present calendar they are all elsewhere anyway. If they were to become available then you would surely arrange a match as preparation as was the case for South Africa.
Sorry still not buying that.
Those problems may occur at u14 level but at test level with the tech and coaches they have available to them all of those objections with the exception of the batsman should be able to be circumvented.
The issue that was hilighted was bowling some good balls interspersed with rubbish . If you are hitting the top of off each ball that can’t be described as rubbish. Or just outside off stump. That can be practised.
Accepting what you say about the other elements but the absence of a batsman makes it uncompetitive and unrealistic doesn't it? It is what makes a bowler match sharp bowling at a number of them after all and makes him have to think in the middle what he needs to bowl to a certain batsman rather than something being put down and asked to hit the top of off. In fact, wouldn't you say that it is easier for an U14 to practice in the nets hitting a spot and then play a game and take wickets doing that than, say, an international bowler against Test class batsmen who have a much higher level of skill than their age group counter parts?
I'm also not sure that a bowler just wants to be practising hitting top of off because there will be times (and not the way we used it) where you will want to bowl a bouncer to a set field. You can't replicate that in the nets and certainly not without bowling against a proper batsman because there's not just a combination of left and right handers but they also come in different heights so one man's good length for a drive shot and/or head high bouncer will be totally different for two different batsmen - Marco Jansen is 6' 8'' whereas Kyle Verreyne is 5' 9'' for example - and isn't it honing those skills in the middle that can make the difference?
The match situation covers absolutely all bases but, as you've said, the schedule doesn't allow it although it does allow us, ironically, to put a side up against South Africa for that very purpose.
There’s a big - at least psychological difference between bowling in the nets and bowling in a match situation. Bowlers also don’t tend to go on their full run up in the nets.
I’d say it’s easier for a batsman to stay in shape - they can face a bowling machine for as long as they want to.
Ok - I am no cricket expert by any means . But surely it has got to be easier for bowlers to keep in form than batsmen. If they run up to bowl in the nets they must be looking to hit one place like the top of off stump. Or a point on the pitch ? If the coaches give them different situations to bowl at surely that should be good enough ?
They can bowl 5 or 10 over spells at a time in the nets
Not buying this rusty bit .
I stand to be corrected by the bowlers out there.
I think you can hone your skills and gain an element of fitness in the nets but the actual place to test yourself is in the middle against batsmen in a proper match situation without the restrictions that nets can impose i.e. front foot cheating, no bowling to a field, inability to change your delivery according to the batsman you are bowling to and what scoring areas they have/perceived weaknesses, having to adapt to the prevalent weather and pitch conditions and that element of competitiveness that nets cannot give you. You are also unlikely to be bowling at batsmen in the nets that will test your skills anyway because under the present calendar they are all elsewhere anyway. If they were to become available then you would surely arrange a match as preparation as was the case for South Africa.
Sorry still not buying that.
Those problems may occur at u14 level but at test level with the tech and coaches they have available to them all of those objections with the exception of the batsman should be able to be circumvented.
The issue that was hilighted was bowling some good balls interspersed with rubbish . If you are hitting the top of off each ball that can’t be described as rubbish. Or just outside off stump. That can be practised.
Accepting what you say about the other elements but the absence of a batsman makes it uncompetitive and unrealistic doesn't it? It is what makes a bowler match sharp bowling at a number of them after all and makes him have to think in the middle what he needs to bowl to a certain batsman rather than something being put down and asked to hit the top of off. In fact, wouldn't you say that it is easier for an U14 to practice in the nets hitting a spot and then play a game and take wickets doing that than, say, an international bowler against Test class batsmen who have a much higher level of skill than their age group counter parts?
I'm also not sure that a bowler just wants to be practising hitting top of off because there will be times (and not the way we used it) where you will want to bowl a bouncer to a set field. You can't replicate that in the nets and certainly not without bowling against a proper batsman because there's not just a combination of left and right handers but they also come in different heights so one man's good length for a drive shot and/or head high bouncer will be totally different for two different batsmen - Marco Jansen is 6' 8'' whereas Kyle Verreyne is 5' 9'' for example - and isn't it honing those skills in the middle that can make the difference?
The match situation covers absolutely all bases but, as you've said, the schedule doesn't allow it although it does allow us, ironically, to put a side up against South Africa for that very purpose.
Appreciating your points , but in order to make it completely realistic in your scenario we would need to find a 6ft 8 batsman to bowl against who was good enough to face test bowlers, because if you are a bunny who cant play fast bowling then its completely unrealistic again ?
There’s a big - at least psychological difference between bowling in the nets and bowling in a match situation. Bowlers also don’t tend to go on their full run up in the nets.
I’d say it’s easier for a batsman to stay in shape - they can face a bowling machine for as long as they want to.
Perhaps there is a tech solution that could make it more realistic ? If the nets were in the middle on the square there isn't any reason why they cant use their full run up ?
Is the psych difference because that the way its always been done ?
There’s a big - at least psychological difference between bowling in the nets and bowling in a match situation. Bowlers also don’t tend to go on their full run up in the nets.
I’d say it’s easier for a batsman to stay in shape - they can face a bowling machine for as long as they want to.
Perhaps there is a tech solution that could make it more realistic ? If the nets were in the middle on the square there isn't any reason why they cant use their full run up ?
Is the psych difference because that the way its always been done ?
It’s the same reason why footballers don’t play 90 mins of a football match every day. Recovery and fitness. Bowling is a very unnatural movement for the body. You need to give it time to rest and heal.
There’s a big - at least psychological difference between bowling in the nets and bowling in a match situation. Bowlers also don’t tend to go on their full run up in the nets.
I’d say it’s easier for a batsman to stay in shape - they can face a bowling machine for as long as they want to.
Perhaps there is a tech solution that could make it more realistic ? If the nets were in the middle on the square there isn't any reason why they cant use their full run up ?
Is the psych difference because that the way its always been done ?
It’s the same reason why footballers don’t play 90 mins of a football match every day. Recovery and fitness. Bowling is a very unnatural movement for the body. You need to give it time to rest and heal.
OK understood , what i was trying to get to the bottom of was that the article was saying that we don't have enough red ball matches, and as a result our bowlers bowled some dross in the test match.
My thoughts were that if we didn't have any red ball matches we must be able to simulate that at least with the bowlers. ie use a full run up bowl an over , have a overs rest while someone else bowls , bowl a spell of 5 or 10 overs depending on what spells they would usually bowl in matches, so make it as realistic as possible.
I am by no means an expert, but to me that excuse it doesn't stack up if we are training properly.
There’s a big - at least psychological difference between bowling in the nets and bowling in a match situation. Bowlers also don’t tend to go on their full run up in the nets.
I’d say it’s easier for a batsman to stay in shape - they can face a bowling machine for as long as they want to.
Perhaps there is a tech solution that could make it more realistic ? If the nets were in the middle on the square there isn't any reason why they cant use their full run up ?
Is the psych difference because that the way its always been done ?
It’s the same reason why footballers don’t play 90 mins of a football match every day. Recovery and fitness. Bowling is a very unnatural movement for the body. You need to give it time to rest and heal.
OK understood , what i was trying to get to the bottom of was that the article was saying that we don't have enough red ball matches, and as a result our bowlers bowled some dross in the test match.
My thoughts were that if we didn't have any red ball matches we must be able to simulate that at least with the bowlers. ie use a full run up bowl an over , have a overs rest while someone else bowls , bowl a spell of 5 or 10 overs depending on what spells they would usually bowl in matches, so make it as realistic as possible.
I am by no means an expert, but to me that excuse it doesn't stack up if we are training properly.
But i will bow to others superior knowledge.
If they're not already doing exactly that, then tinkering with which first cricket is played at which time of year is entirely moot.
I can understand how you learn a Boycott style forward defensive shot in the nets, I'm less sure how you can practice piercing the field, or getting the right power to clear the fielder or drop short of the fielder.
Ok - I am no cricket expert by any means . But surely it has got to be easier for bowlers to keep in form than batsmen. If they run up to bowl in the nets they must be looking to hit one place like the top of off stump. Or a point on the pitch ? If the coaches give them different situations to bowl at surely that should be good enough ?
They can bowl 5 or 10 over spells at a time in the nets
Not buying this rusty bit .
I stand to be corrected by the bowlers out there.
I think you can hone your skills and gain an element of fitness in the nets but the actual place to test yourself is in the middle against batsmen in a proper match situation without the restrictions that nets can impose i.e. front foot cheating, no bowling to a field, inability to change your delivery according to the batsman you are bowling to and what scoring areas they have/perceived weaknesses, having to adapt to the prevalent weather and pitch conditions and that element of competitiveness that nets cannot give you. You are also unlikely to be bowling at batsmen in the nets that will test your skills anyway because under the present calendar they are all elsewhere anyway. If they were to become available then you would surely arrange a match as preparation as was the case for South Africa.
Sorry still not buying that.
Those problems may occur at u14 level but at test level with the tech and coaches they have available to them all of those objections with the exception of the batsman should be able to be circumvented.
The issue that was hilighted was bowling some good balls interspersed with rubbish . If you are hitting the top of off each ball that can’t be described as rubbish. Or just outside off stump. That can be practised.
Accepting what you say about the other elements but the absence of a batsman makes it uncompetitive and unrealistic doesn't it? It is what makes a bowler match sharp bowling at a number of them after all and makes him have to think in the middle what he needs to bowl to a certain batsman rather than something being put down and asked to hit the top of off. In fact, wouldn't you say that it is easier for an U14 to practice in the nets hitting a spot and then play a game and take wickets doing that than, say, an international bowler against Test class batsmen who have a much higher level of skill than their age group counter parts?
I'm also not sure that a bowler just wants to be practising hitting top of off because there will be times (and not the way we used it) where you will want to bowl a bouncer to a set field. You can't replicate that in the nets and certainly not without bowling against a proper batsman because there's not just a combination of left and right handers but they also come in different heights so one man's good length for a drive shot and/or head high bouncer will be totally different for two different batsmen - Marco Jansen is 6' 8'' whereas Kyle Verreyne is 5' 9'' for example - and isn't it honing those skills in the middle that can make the difference?
The match situation covers absolutely all bases but, as you've said, the schedule doesn't allow it although it does allow us, ironically, to put a side up against South Africa for that very purpose.
Appreciating your points , but in order to make it completely realistic in your scenario we would need to find a 6ft 8 batsman to bowl against who was good enough to face test bowlers, because if you are a bunny who cant play fast bowling then its completely unrealistic again ?
Like Zak Crawley - I believe he is just over 6' 5''
Ok - I am no cricket expert by any means . But surely it has got to be easier for bowlers to keep in form than batsmen. If they run up to bowl in the nets they must be looking to hit one place like the top of off stump. Or a point on the pitch ? If the coaches give them different situations to bowl at surely that should be good enough ?
They can bowl 5 or 10 over spells at a time in the nets
Not buying this rusty bit .
I stand to be corrected by the bowlers out there.
I think you can hone your skills and gain an element of fitness in the nets but the actual place to test yourself is in the middle against batsmen in a proper match situation without the restrictions that nets can impose i.e. front foot cheating, no bowling to a field, inability to change your delivery according to the batsman you are bowling to and what scoring areas they have/perceived weaknesses, having to adapt to the prevalent weather and pitch conditions and that element of competitiveness that nets cannot give you. You are also unlikely to be bowling at batsmen in the nets that will test your skills anyway because under the present calendar they are all elsewhere anyway. If they were to become available then you would surely arrange a match as preparation as was the case for South Africa.
Sorry still not buying that.
Those problems may occur at u14 level but at test level with the tech and coaches they have available to them all of those objections with the exception of the batsman should be able to be circumvented.
The issue that was hilighted was bowling some good balls interspersed with rubbish . If you are hitting the top of off each ball that can’t be described as rubbish. Or just outside off stump. That can be practised.
Accepting what you say about the other elements but the absence of a batsman makes it uncompetitive and unrealistic doesn't it? It is what makes a bowler match sharp bowling at a number of them after all and makes him have to think in the middle what he needs to bowl to a certain batsman rather than something being put down and asked to hit the top of off. In fact, wouldn't you say that it is easier for an U14 to practice in the nets hitting a spot and then play a game and take wickets doing that than, say, an international bowler against Test class batsmen who have a much higher level of skill than their age group counter parts?
I'm also not sure that a bowler just wants to be practising hitting top of off because there will be times (and not the way we used it) where you will want to bowl a bouncer to a set field. You can't replicate that in the nets and certainly not without bowling against a proper batsman because there's not just a combination of left and right handers but they also come in different heights so one man's good length for a drive shot and/or head high bouncer will be totally different for two different batsmen - Marco Jansen is 6' 8'' whereas Kyle Verreyne is 5' 9'' for example - and isn't it honing those skills in the middle that can make the difference?
The match situation covers absolutely all bases but, as you've said, the schedule doesn't allow it although it does allow us, ironically, to put a side up against South Africa for that very purpose.
Appreciating your points , but in order to make it completely realistic in your scenario we would need to find a 6ft 8 batsman to bowl against who was good enough to face test bowlers, because if you are a bunny who cant play fast bowling then its completely unrealistic again ?
Like Zak Crawley - I believe he is just over 6' 5''
Ok - I am no cricket expert by any means . But surely it has got to be easier for bowlers to keep in form than batsmen. If they run up to bowl in the nets they must be looking to hit one place like the top of off stump. Or a point on the pitch ? If the coaches give them different situations to bowl at surely that should be good enough ?
They can bowl 5 or 10 over spells at a time in the nets
Not buying this rusty bit .
I stand to be corrected by the bowlers out there.
I think you can hone your skills and gain an element of fitness in the nets but the actual place to test yourself is in the middle against batsmen in a proper match situation without the restrictions that nets can impose i.e. front foot cheating, no bowling to a field, inability to change your delivery according to the batsman you are bowling to and what scoring areas they have/perceived weaknesses, having to adapt to the prevalent weather and pitch conditions and that element of competitiveness that nets cannot give you. You are also unlikely to be bowling at batsmen in the nets that will test your skills anyway because under the present calendar they are all elsewhere anyway. If they were to become available then you would surely arrange a match as preparation as was the case for South Africa.
Sorry still not buying that.
Those problems may occur at u14 level but at test level with the tech and coaches they have available to them all of those objections with the exception of the batsman should be able to be circumvented.
The issue that was hilighted was bowling some good balls interspersed with rubbish . If you are hitting the top of off each ball that can’t be described as rubbish. Or just outside off stump. That can be practised.
Accepting what you say about the other elements but the absence of a batsman makes it uncompetitive and unrealistic doesn't it? It is what makes a bowler match sharp bowling at a number of them after all and makes him have to think in the middle what he needs to bowl to a certain batsman rather than something being put down and asked to hit the top of off. In fact, wouldn't you say that it is easier for an U14 to practice in the nets hitting a spot and then play a game and take wickets doing that than, say, an international bowler against Test class batsmen who have a much higher level of skill than their age group counter parts?
I'm also not sure that a bowler just wants to be practising hitting top of off because there will be times (and not the way we used it) where you will want to bowl a bouncer to a set field. You can't replicate that in the nets and certainly not without bowling against a proper batsman because there's not just a combination of left and right handers but they also come in different heights so one man's good length for a drive shot and/or head high bouncer will be totally different for two different batsmen - Marco Jansen is 6' 8'' whereas Kyle Verreyne is 5' 9'' for example - and isn't it honing those skills in the middle that can make the difference?
The match situation covers absolutely all bases but, as you've said, the schedule doesn't allow it although it does allow us, ironically, to put a side up against South Africa for that very purpose.
Appreciating your points , but in order to make it completely realistic in your scenario we would need to find a 6ft 8 batsman to bowl against who was good enough to face test bowlers, because if you are a bunny who cant play fast bowling then its completely unrealistic again ?
Like Zak Crawley - I believe he is just over 6' 5''
Ok and if there was a 6 ft 8 left hander ?
Crawley would have to bat the other way. Wouldn't make much difference for him. Or we could use Alex Blake instead!
Comments
There's no "right" answer. If there were, we wouldn't be in the odd position where England had 24 openers in the last ten years. And in the even odder position where three of the most successful of those 24 (runs per innings) are in the current XI, but not opening the batting.
And I have no problem with that argument. I have an issue with people who laugh at the suggestion and then claim that we should be discussing it.
Nothing's been concluded. And nothing's been offered for vote yet.
They can't all bat 4-7 can they?
Do you pick 2 of the dozen or so, I am not that sure it matters which 2 to be honest, players that aren't good enough but are openers or do you pick you best 6 batsmen then worry about the order?
I think other countries are more inclined to do the latter, certainly more than we are. But playing half our test matches in England where opening the batting is harder makes that option less attractive.
Anyway that's enough cricket, as you were.
Strauss said last week in an interview that, because the Hundred is all signed and sealed, any proposal would have to take into account that this competition is set in stone. So, we don't have enough room for all four comps without reducing the standard of at least one of them. By definition, the top players will be playing in the Hundred in order to justify the hype and money so any comp that is going on at the same time will be of 2nd XI standard - or one not involving all the counties i.e. an amalgam of counties playing a red ball comp. Which would make it a fifth competition. And not a County Championship of a length that makes it meaningful especially with potential bad weather if we are going to play most of the matches in April/May and September.
"The England Captain, the England Coach and so forth" or just the plain old ECB trying to protect the credibility of the Hundred disagreed with Cook on this one too for which there is, clearly, a right answer:
Ironically, England got caught cold by a touring side. Usually, it is the other way round. It is a reminder that if you don’t prepare properly you can come unstuck very quickly. I know the modern way is to play fewer warm-up games, but you have got to have at least one. Yet not one of these guys had played a red-ball game since the County Championship round starting on July 25, while the five most senior men had not played one since the India Test ending on July 5. It showed. You cannot be having your run-out in the first Test of a three-match series, but that is what this England side did.
Even Jimmy Anderson and Stuart Broad did not bowl as well as they could have done in those conditions, and that was not down to their lack of skill. They were rusty. Matthew Potts was absolutely relentless in his line and length against New Zealand and India, and rightly we all praised his control, but in this game, though he bowled some jaffas, there was a fair bit of dross as well, and that can only be down to him playing so little red-ball. At the start of the summer he had played a lot of championship cricket. That is no coincidence.
They can bowl 5 or 10 over spells at a time in the nets
I stand to be corrected by the bowlers out there.
And if the Tests will be all over by the end of July next summer, so any good performances in August will be too late anyway
I think if the ECB will fund it we may be heading to having 2 x county squads - red ball and white ball. England are certainly looking that way, just with a small crossover.
I'm also not sure that a bowler just wants to be practising hitting top of off because there will be times (and not the way we used it) where you will want to bowl a bouncer to a set field. You can't replicate that in the nets and certainly not without bowling against a proper batsman because there's not just a combination of left and right handers but they also come in different heights so one man's good length for a drive shot and/or head high bouncer will be totally different for two different batsmen - Marco Jansen is 6' 8'' whereas Kyle Verreyne is 5' 9'' for example - and isn't it honing those skills in the middle that can make the difference?
The match situation covers absolutely all bases but, as you've said, the schedule doesn't allow it although it does allow us, ironically, to put a side up against South Africa for that very purpose.
Is the psych difference because that the way its always been done ?
My thoughts were that if we didn't have any red ball matches we must be able to simulate that at least with the bowlers. ie use a full run up bowl an over , have a overs rest while someone else bowls , bowl a spell of 5 or 10 overs depending on what spells they would usually bowl in matches, so make it as realistic as possible.
I am by no means an expert, but to me that excuse it doesn't stack up if we are training properly.
But i will bow to others superior knowledge.