No surprise really, cricket has completely ignored state schools for years, and then shock horror, kids from state schools aren't interested when cricket comes to the school.
Counties and clubs have been quite happy milking the line of nice mainly white kids from public/grammar schools to produce mediocre players in the main, and not take the risk elsewhere.
I've been saying this for a decade on here. There are more kids now coming from the ethnic minorities now but they still do tend to be the ones that attend those private schools. When I've pointed out how many of our England squad have come from those schools, the argument has been that a lot of them didn't start there and received scholarships - but that is rather missing the point. That is the pathway whether the parents have money or not because the coaches at those school have a direct in to the county pathway and they have the best coaches and facilities too. How many have been missed that weren't offered a scholarship? In Seb's first four years at Kent he was one of only four non privately educated boys (albeit went to a grammar school that played cricket) in the 15 man county age group squad and they did not have a single lad of asian or black heritage.
@oohaahmortimer is so right about the cost too. In addition to the cost of kit, parents of kids at Kent actually have to pay for the privilege of trialling. If they make the squad then parents have to pay for the coaching that they get during the course of winter/summer at the County and they have to pay for their playing gear too. Imagine having to do that at a pro football club! So, the question is this - does the ECB actually earmark money that goes to the counties specifically for this and if so what happens to it? If it does I'm not sure that it has ever been passed on in its totality to the parents. If at all. This has been picked up in the report with the appropriate recommendations:
1.5.24 We strongly believe that participation in the talent pathway should be made entirely free of direct costs, so
that as of the 2024-25 pathway no player trialling for or participating in the talent pathway needs to pay to
participate.
This will also serve to level the playing field:
1.5.25 We believe that selection for representative, inter-County cricket should begin at the Under 14 level and not
before. This recommendation will mean that the widely documented challenges associated with talent
ID in younger children are removed for the first three years of a typical pathway programme. Placing less
emphasis on selection and deselection from Under 10 age groups onwards mitigates the very significant
structural advantages that private school children have over their state school counterparts. Coaches,
children and parents will be relieved of the pressures and liabilities associated with the current system.
Importantly, indirect costs such as travel and parental time will be further reduced, enabling more children to
play a high standard of cricket locally, lowering the barriers to participation.
It's not just a question of opportunity. It's about affordability too and the ability to make those that don't come from a privileged background part of the group and for them to feel accepted in that environment.
I have just taken a look at Sussex home grown products - Garton, Carson, Haines, Foreman, Ibrahim (Hurstpierpont), Atkins, Carter (Eastbourne), Clark (Ardingly), Coles (Magdalen), Rawlins, Crocombe, Hudson-Prentice, Orr, Lenham (Bede's), Currie (Millfield), Tear (Seaford) and Ward (St Edward's)
That's 17/17 privately educated. All the other 12 in their 29 man squad are either overseas or signed from another county. So not one of their home grown talent graduated from a State School.
One of Seb's good friends who he has spent the last two winters in Australia with went to a State school. He was offered a scholarship (not a full one) but as his father was reliant on overtime to pay the bills they did not feel that they could commit to going to the private school in question. The boy was dropped from the county system that year. The head coach of that boy's county age group was also the head of cricket at that private school and the one that offered him a scholarship. Out of sight, out of mind. In an extremely competitive market, county products increase value of private school. State pupils do not.
did a similar review for Essex, insofar as cricinfo has that information. seems a lot more mixed in terms of people from comprehensive secondary school, and quite a few asian cricketers. I also know that Essex has been fined and reviewed for racism as well as the corruption/Danish Kaneria scandal a few years ago, so hardly a beacon of virtue.
The Asian community is a thriving one for cricket in Essex and Middlesex and that usually stems from the father's love of the game. I have been at indoor nets with Seb in the winter and virtually every other net is filled with those from an ethnic background. That is the pool that counties need to tap into.
that's how i knew there'd been a problem in yorkshire for years - the massive south asian community they have, you can't tell me they're not cricket mad - ridiculous they've not tapped into that
No surprise really, cricket has completely ignored state schools for years, and then shock horror, kids from state schools aren't interested when cricket comes to the school.
Counties and clubs have been quite happy milking the line of nice mainly white kids from public/grammar schools to produce mediocre players in the main, and not take the risk elsewhere.
I've been saying this for a decade on here. There are more kids now coming from the ethnic minorities now but they still do tend to be the ones that attend those private schools. When I've pointed out how many of our England squad have come from those schools, the argument has been that a lot of them didn't start there and received scholarships - but that is rather missing the point. That is the pathway whether the parents have money or not because the coaches at those school have a direct in to the county pathway and they have the best coaches and facilities too. How many have been missed that weren't offered a scholarship? In Seb's first four years at Kent he was one of only four non privately educated boys (albeit went to a grammar school that played cricket) in the 15 man county age group squad and they did not have a single lad of asian or black heritage.
@oohaahmortimer is so right about the cost too. In addition to the cost of kit, parents of kids at Kent actually have to pay for the privilege of trialling. If they make the squad then parents have to pay for the coaching that they get during the course of winter/summer at the County and they have to pay for their playing gear too. Imagine having to do that at a pro football club! So, the question is this - does the ECB actually earmark money that goes to the counties specifically for this and if so what happens to it? If it does I'm not sure that it has ever been passed on in its totality to the parents. If at all. This has been picked up in the report with the appropriate recommendations:
1.5.24 We strongly believe that participation in the talent pathway should be made entirely free of direct costs, so
that as of the 2024-25 pathway no player trialling for or participating in the talent pathway needs to pay to
participate.
This will also serve to level the playing field:
1.5.25 We believe that selection for representative, inter-County cricket should begin at the Under 14 level and not
before. This recommendation will mean that the widely documented challenges associated with talent
ID in younger children are removed for the first three years of a typical pathway programme. Placing less
emphasis on selection and deselection from Under 10 age groups onwards mitigates the very significant
structural advantages that private school children have over their state school counterparts. Coaches,
children and parents will be relieved of the pressures and liabilities associated with the current system.
Importantly, indirect costs such as travel and parental time will be further reduced, enabling more children to
play a high standard of cricket locally, lowering the barriers to participation.
It's not just a question of opportunity. It's about affordability too and the ability to make those that don't come from a privileged background part of the group and for them to feel accepted in that environment.
I have just taken a look at Sussex home grown products - Garton, Carson, Haines, Foreman, Ibrahim (Hurstpierpont), Atkins, Carter (Eastbourne), Clark (Ardingly), Coles (Magdalen), Rawlins, Crocombe, Hudson-Prentice, Orr, Lenham (Bede's), Currie (Millfield), Tear (Seaford) and Ward (St Edward's)
That's 17/17 privately educated. All the other 12 in their 29 man squad are either overseas or signed from another county. So not one of their home grown talent graduated from a State School.
One of Seb's good friends who he has spent the last two winters in Australia with went to a State school. He was offered a scholarship (not a full one) but as his father was reliant on overtime to pay the bills they did not feel that they could commit to going to the private school in question. The boy was dropped from the county system that year. The head coach of that boy's county age group was also the head of cricket at that private school and the one that offered him a scholarship. Out of sight, out of mind. In an extremely competitive market, county products increase value of private school. State pupils do not.
did a similar review for Essex, insofar as cricinfo has that information. seems a lot more mixed in terms of people from comprehensive secondary school, and quite a few asian cricketers. I also know that Essex has been fined and reviewed for racism as well as the corruption/Danish Kaneria scandal a few years ago, so hardly a beacon of virtue.
The Asian community is a thriving one for cricket in Essex and Middlesex and that usually stems from the father's love of the game. I have been at indoor nets with Seb in the winter and virtually every other net is filled with those from an ethnic background. That is the pool that counties need to tap into.
I've seen quite a lot of all-asian games in Chelmsford and Fairlop (near the inlaws) and now see that there is a "south asian cricket academy" that works with Essex CCC. Any pool of talent that is passionate about cricket needs tapping into, and I hope Essex have got their act together in terms of integration, for want of a better word.
Bickley's overseas (he's actually settled here but still considered an overseas for this and next season) plays in the Asian Sunday League. There is a lot of talent on show,
Presumably Robinson bats at 8 because Tongue bats at 10 for his county? Whoever it is, in losing Moeen, we do have a bit of a tail. By comparison, if Starc comes in, given he averages 28 against England here, then that will probably mean Cummins batting at 9. Small margins and all that but possibly enough to make the difference as Cummins proved in the last Test.
No surprise really, cricket has completely ignored state schools for years, and then shock horror, kids from state schools aren't interested when cricket comes to the school.
Counties and clubs have been quite happy milking the line of nice mainly white kids from public/grammar schools to produce mediocre players in the main, and not take the risk elsewhere.
I've been saying this for a decade on here. There are more kids now coming from the ethnic minorities now but they still do tend to be the ones that attend those private schools. When I've pointed out how many of our England squad have come from those schools, the argument has been that a lot of them didn't start there and received scholarships - but that is rather missing the point. That is the pathway whether the parents have money or not because the coaches at those school have a direct in to the county pathway and they have the best coaches and facilities too. How many have been missed that weren't offered a scholarship? In Seb's first four years at Kent he was one of only four non privately educated boys (albeit went to a grammar school that played cricket) in the 15 man county age group squad and they did not have a single lad of asian or black heritage.
@oohaahmortimer is so right about the cost too. In addition to the cost of kit, parents of kids at Kent actually have to pay for the privilege of trialling. If they make the squad then parents have to pay for the coaching that they get during the course of winter/summer at the County and they have to pay for their playing gear too. Imagine having to do that at a pro football club! So, the question is this - does the ECB actually earmark money that goes to the counties specifically for this and if so what happens to it? If it does I'm not sure that it has ever been passed on in its totality to the parents. If at all. This has been picked up in the report with the appropriate recommendations:
1.5.24 We strongly believe that participation in the talent pathway should be made entirely free of direct costs, so
that as of the 2024-25 pathway no player trialling for or participating in the talent pathway needs to pay to
participate.
This will also serve to level the playing field:
1.5.25 We believe that selection for representative, inter-County cricket should begin at the Under 14 level and not
before. This recommendation will mean that the widely documented challenges associated with talent
ID in younger children are removed for the first three years of a typical pathway programme. Placing less
emphasis on selection and deselection from Under 10 age groups onwards mitigates the very significant
structural advantages that private school children have over their state school counterparts. Coaches,
children and parents will be relieved of the pressures and liabilities associated with the current system.
Importantly, indirect costs such as travel and parental time will be further reduced, enabling more children to
play a high standard of cricket locally, lowering the barriers to participation.
It's not just a question of opportunity. It's about affordability too and the ability to make those that don't come from a privileged background part of the group and for them to feel accepted in that environment.
I have just taken a look at Sussex home grown products - Garton, Carson, Haines, Foreman, Ibrahim (Hurstpierpont), Atkins, Carter (Eastbourne), Clark (Ardingly), Coles (Magdalen), Rawlins, Crocombe, Hudson-Prentice, Orr, Lenham (Bede's), Currie (Millfield), Tear (Seaford) and Ward (St Edward's)
That's 17/17 privately educated. All the other 12 in their 29 man squad are either overseas or signed from another county. So not one of their home grown talent graduated from a State School.
One of Seb's good friends who he has spent the last two winters in Australia with went to a State school. He was offered a scholarship (not a full one) but as his father was reliant on overtime to pay the bills they did not feel that they could commit to going to the private school in question. The boy was dropped from the county system that year. The head coach of that boy's county age group was also the head of cricket at that private school and the one that offered him a scholarship. Out of sight, out of mind. In an extremely competitive market, county products increase value of private school. State pupils do not.
did a similar review for Essex, insofar as cricinfo has that information. seems a lot more mixed in terms of people from comprehensive secondary school, and quite a few asian cricketers. I also know that Essex has been fined and reviewed for racism as well as the corruption/Danish Kaneria scandal a few years ago, so hardly a beacon of virtue.
I did something similar a few years ago with the England team they had all either
1) Been to private school 2) Spent a significant part of their childhood overseas Or 3) They had a parent, normally dad, who played at least very good club cricket.
A lot of them had at least two of those, some even all three. You could probably make the argument that 2 or 3 would be much more likely to get a scholarship at 1 than if you were from a non cricket family at a state school.
Wood not fit enough. Probably fit enough to bowl three or four over stints but without a front line spinner and the doubts about Stokes' ability to bowl they went for Tongue. He is quicker than the other seamers and probably the reason we didn't pick Woakes. That said, I do wonder if Woakes is capable of bowling long spells too at the moment because I probably would have brought him in for one of the other three given his record here and the fact that he would be a massive improvement at 8 to our batting line up.
Agreed Woakes for one of the 3 to give them a rest and give Woakes a go on his best ground. Improves the batting too.
Been thinking about Liam Dawson. Done well this week as the pitches become more spinner friendly as the weather has been better. He didn't tear up any trees when tried in test cricket 6 or 7 years ago but did alright. Spinners develop much later and take longer to learn/perfect their game. He wont have been helped by pitches in county cricket over the last few years but because he bats hes probably played as much as any spinner out there. I certainly think he would be worth another go in tests hes probably just reaching his peak, hopefully he can do a Swann and have a second coming in international cricket. Would improve our lower order too. Left arm so a like for like for Leach too.
I was semi-tempted to go along to the cricket this morning given the overhead conditions. Might be the only chance I get in a while to see Surrey lose. Sadly I think they're still going to find a way to win
No surprise really, cricket has completely ignored state schools for years, and then shock horror, kids from state schools aren't interested when cricket comes to the school.
Counties and clubs have been quite happy milking the line of nice mainly white kids from public/grammar schools to produce mediocre players in the main, and not take the risk elsewhere.
I've been saying this for a decade on here. There are more kids now coming from the ethnic minorities now but they still do tend to be the ones that attend those private schools. When I've pointed out how many of our England squad have come from those schools, the argument has been that a lot of them didn't start there and received scholarships - but that is rather missing the point. That is the pathway whether the parents have money or not because the coaches at those school have a direct in to the county pathway and they have the best coaches and facilities too. How many have been missed that weren't offered a scholarship? In Seb's first four years at Kent he was one of only four non privately educated boys (albeit went to a grammar school that played cricket) in the 15 man county age group squad and they did not have a single lad of asian or black heritage.
@oohaahmortimer is so right about the cost too. In addition to the cost of kit, parents of kids at Kent actually have to pay for the privilege of trialling. If they make the squad then parents have to pay for the coaching that they get during the course of winter/summer at the County and they have to pay for their playing gear too. Imagine having to do that at a pro football club! So, the question is this - does the ECB actually earmark money that goes to the counties specifically for this and if so what happens to it? If it does I'm not sure that it has ever been passed on in its totality to the parents. If at all. This has been picked up in the report with the appropriate recommendations:
1.5.24 We strongly believe that participation in the talent pathway should be made entirely free of direct costs, so
that as of the 2024-25 pathway no player trialling for or participating in the talent pathway needs to pay to
participate.
This will also serve to level the playing field:
1.5.25 We believe that selection for representative, inter-County cricket should begin at the Under 14 level and not
before. This recommendation will mean that the widely documented challenges associated with talent
ID in younger children are removed for the first three years of a typical pathway programme. Placing less
emphasis on selection and deselection from Under 10 age groups onwards mitigates the very significant
structural advantages that private school children have over their state school counterparts. Coaches,
children and parents will be relieved of the pressures and liabilities associated with the current system.
Importantly, indirect costs such as travel and parental time will be further reduced, enabling more children to
play a high standard of cricket locally, lowering the barriers to participation.
It's not just a question of opportunity. It's about affordability too and the ability to make those that don't come from a privileged background part of the group and for them to feel accepted in that environment.
I have just taken a look at Sussex home grown products - Garton, Carson, Haines, Foreman, Ibrahim (Hurstpierpont), Atkins, Carter (Eastbourne), Clark (Ardingly), Coles (Magdalen), Rawlins, Crocombe, Hudson-Prentice, Orr, Lenham (Bede's), Currie (Millfield), Tear (Seaford) and Ward (St Edward's)
That's 17/17 privately educated. All the other 12 in their 29 man squad are either overseas or signed from another county. So not one of their home grown talent graduated from a State School.
One of Seb's good friends who he has spent the last two winters in Australia with went to a State school. He was offered a scholarship (not a full one) but as his father was reliant on overtime to pay the bills they did not feel that they could commit to going to the private school in question. The boy was dropped from the county system that year. The head coach of that boy's county age group was also the head of cricket at that private school and the one that offered him a scholarship. Out of sight, out of mind. In an extremely competitive market, county products increase value of private school. State pupils do not.
did a similar review for Essex, insofar as cricinfo has that information. seems a lot more mixed in terms of people from comprehensive secondary school, and quite a few asian cricketers. I also know that Essex has been fined and reviewed for racism as well as the corruption/Danish Kaneria scandal a few years ago, so hardly a beacon of virtue.
The Asian community is a thriving one for cricket in Essex and Middlesex and that usually stems from the father's love of the game. I have been at indoor nets with Seb in the winter and virtually every other net is filled with those from an ethnic background. That is the pool that counties need to tap into.
I've seen quite a lot of all-asian games in Chelmsford and Fairlop (near the inlaws) and now see that there is a "south asian cricket academy" that works with Essex CCC. Any pool of talent that is passionate about cricket needs tapping into, and I hope Essex have got their act together in terms of integration, for want of a better word.
Essex seem pretty good at bringing through Asian talent from the "London" end of their area. Bopara and Chopra spring to mind, and in the current squad Khushi, Nijjar and Das all are from East London.
Wood not fit enough. Probably fit enough to bowl three or four over stints but without a front line spinner and the doubts about Stokes' ability to bowl they went for Tongue. He is quicker than the other seamers and probably the reason we didn't pick Woakes. That said, I do wonder if Woakes is capable of bowling long spells too at the moment because I probably would have brought him in for one of the other three given his record here and the fact that he would be a massive improvement at 8 to our batting line up.
Agreed Woakes for one of the 3 to give them a rest and give Woakes a go on his best ground. Improves the batting too.
Been thinking about Liam Dawson. Done well this week as the pitches become more spinner friendly as the weather has been better. He didn't tear up any trees when tried in test cricket 6 or 7 years ago but did alright. Spinners develop much later and take longer to learn/perfect their game. He wont have been helped by pitches in county cricket over the last few years but because he bats hes probably played as much as any spinner out there. I certainly think he would be worth another go in tests hes probably just reaching his peak, hopefully he can do a Swann and have a second coming in international cricket. Would improve our lower order too. Left arm so a like for like for Leach too.
You need to be a bloody good spinner to play in England in a four man attack.
England have got in a silly situation where they need to drop rwo of their top 7 to get a balanced team, but like I said yesterday they don't see it like that.
Comments
4 seamers on a greenish wicket, makes sense to bowl.
1) Been to private school
2) Spent a significant part of their childhood overseas
Or
3) They had a parent, normally dad, who played at least very good club cricket.
A lot of them had at least two of those, some even all three. You could probably make the argument that 2 or 3 would be much more likely to get a scholarship at 1 than if you were from a non cricket family at a state school.
Been thinking about Liam Dawson. Done well this week as the pitches become more spinner friendly as the weather has been better. He didn't tear up any trees when tried in test cricket 6 or 7 years ago but did alright. Spinners develop much later and take longer to learn/perfect their game. He wont have been helped by pitches in county cricket over the last few years but because he bats hes probably played as much as any spinner out there. I certainly think he would be worth another go in tests hes probably just reaching his peak, hopefully he can do a Swann and have a second coming in international cricket. Would improve our lower order too. Left arm so a like for like for Leach too.
England have got in a silly situation where they need to drop rwo of their top 7 to get a balanced team, but like I said yesterday they don't see it like that.
Australia 2.28
Draw 7.80
Utter pricks