I think this indicates part of the problem. A First Class Counties team will face the West Indies touring side in a 3 day game at Beckenham starting on 3rd July. 13 young players in the squad. Not one from Kent.
Jas Singh, a genuine No 11 with the bat, and the 5th seamer used in this innings, bowling just 4 overs.
Billings has said he would play in an emergency, but that he didn't want to get in the way of other players. In this game, he could have played as a specialist batsman surely, as he's in good nick and we don't need 5 seamers.
In ordinary circumstances I would agree and certainly that we don't need 5 seamers but then the only other alternative, apart from Qadri and Bhuiyan, was Jaydn.
Billings has always done what Billings wants. We should remember that he has usually put his white ball ventures in front of Kent apart from last season when he said he wasn't going to the IPL - but then he knew that he wasn't going to be picked up in the auction. He also insisted on taking the gloves when he came back from those and took time off to go to things like Coldplay concerts with Jos Buttler rather than turn out for us last season. His point about "not getting in the way" is a valid one, not necessarily in this game but what happens if he does get runs? Some of the membership would be screaming blue murder if and when Joe Denly and/or Leaning are fit for the next one and Billings isn't selected. So that would mean dropping Muyeye and/or Finch. Both will remember what happened and when it comes to contract renewals especially in the case of the former and another county comes knocking? We lose another promising youngster in the shape of Muyeye to add to Robinson and Cox. With nothing, as we've found, nothing coming in to replace them. History repeating itself.
The bottom line is this. Will Billings win us enough games to keep us up. Highly doubtful especially as his red ball exploits for the last four seasons have been woeful. Is it worth upsetting the dressing room (again) by including him for one or two? The management have to make that call and might think that it isn't.
A batting lineup with O'Riordan opening, Finch in the top 6 and bowlers coming in at 7 is an emergency situation to me! Billings coming in at 6 or 7 would have freedom to play his normal attacking white ball game.
There are only 2 red ball games in between the Blast games, so chances are that we won't have Joe AND Leaning back for Hampshire next week, and O'Riordan would surely be more at risk than Finch or Muyeye anyway.
O'Riordan is being used as the offie and second spinner - if Denly is available he wouldn't offer that as not only has he only bowled 12 overs this season and turns the ball the same way as Parkinson does. The other question would be "who opens"? It's clear that O'Riordan is opening because DBD refuses to do so. We've moved Evison up but do we want to sacrifice him in the knowledge that he is likely to get more runs not doing so. Muyeye is a busted flush against the new ball and has at last got meaningful runs in the position he always should have been batting in at red ball.
Equally, it might only be for two games but what happens if Billings does get runs come September? Has he then become part of the first team squad and how do you explain the bigger picture to those who, in the same way, refused to do so with Robinson (because they genuinely did)?
I've been in and seen too many clubs fall apart because the management think that it's best to bring in one or two people from the outside. In the short and even more so long term it can ruin the spirit. And then people will say, as in the case of Robinson and Cox, that they never saw that happening. Because they weren't the victims of that. Remember what Robinson said about being the one that always seemed to be sacrificed. And then what happens is that the one or two that came in have moved on to a bigger bidder.
Come September, we should have Joe and Leaning back anyway. Or can loan a batsman. And why don't we have another opener for when Zak is away? If the Kent management seriously thought Muyeye could be an opener, then that's another failing of squad management. We have a vast number of bowlers and bits and pieces players like O'Riordan, who is a very innocuous spinner.
Billings isn't from outside, they've been playing under him in the Blast, and will do again in 2 weeks time. If we asked him to play these 2 county games only, then that to me would help team spirit. This isn't a Robinson situation where somebody is constantly being left out despite delivering, we have a team racked by injuries that is being stuffed at the moment.
It's also the perception from outside though. You mention about loaning a player in but think about the calibre that we've been getting in recently. Who is the last successful loaned in player we had because I'm struggling to remember one. They've been the players that have either been released at the end of last season or ones that are still playing 2s cricket and may never make the grade. Last season it was Geddes, McKerr, Albert and Niijar. The year before it was
A coach of another county said last year of us "well anyone can play for Kent". That's not, unfortunately. to say that anyone wants to play for Kent. We are a second class county in every respect. When Charlton sends players out on loan, one would hope that we do due diligence to ensure that the player is going into the right environment. A player's agent will have plenty of contacts within the game and know whether they should go
We have no money. We cannot attract the very best overseas players (why is Labuschagne, for example, playing for Glamorgan, Lyon for Lancashire, Henry for Somerset?). We don't have a conveyor belt of the best youngsters because of our status and a lack of infrastructure compared to the likes of Surrey. Those that we do have mainly leave. Our Women's team have been downgraded to the benefit of the big counties so we are are now losing promising girls too.
The injuries are one thing. But how many of those have really been preforming? Even our England opener, apart from one innings from 17, has done absolutely nothing of note. Why isn't he playing in this game? Pope is so if the argument is valid for Billings playing surely it is for our best opener. We can't insist on him doing so but it seems that England or even Crawley himself has chosen to come out of the firing line. Billings has been part of that malaise for years now as his averages testify - 9.20 (2023), 23.81 (2022), 29.80 (2021) and 20.00 (2020). One man with that record is not going to change anything especially as he says that he wished he'd given up red ball a couple of years ago. It would have benefitted us if he had.
I know that you, like me, go back a long way. Below is the team I used to watch as a kid. There isn't a single one of our current team that would get into it. But there's also not a single one that would pick and choose when they wanted to play for us. Come rain or shine, whether they'd just played for England or not. That, sadly, is a reflection of how the game has changed but even more so for us. Because in those days we were on a level playing field with the other counties and senior players did not have the power or feel the need to say when they are prepared to play as they have now.
Brian Luckhurst (England) Mike Denness (England) Colin Cowdrey (England) Asif Iqbal (Pakistan) Alan Ealham John Shepherd (West Indies) Bob Woolmer (England) Alan Knott (England) Bernard Julien (West Indies) Derek Underwood (England) Norman Graham
I suppose the million dollar question ( excuse the pun ) is how do we get the money to compete ?
All those Test/Hundred hosting counties have massive incomes and bigger grounds as a result of that. Which is what the ECB want which is why they denied us the Women's upgrade to Tier 1 status despite the fact that we had produced through our pathway nine of the 80 Women selected in The Hundred. We will receive a cash injection as a result of The Hundred sell off but the real acid test will be whether we and Beckenham specifically is given the right to host one of the new franchises. That won't make us on a par with the big guns but will help to bridge the gap. If we don't then we will become a feeder club.
Beckenham isn't going to get a franchise. The facilities are not good enough.
Jas Singh, a genuine No 11 with the bat, and the 5th seamer used in this innings, bowling just 4 overs.
Billings has said he would play in an emergency, but that he didn't want to get in the way of other players. In this game, he could have played as a specialist batsman surely, as he's in good nick and we don't need 5 seamers.
In ordinary circumstances I would agree and certainly that we don't need 5 seamers but then the only other alternative, apart from Qadri and Bhuiyan, was Jaydn.
Billings has always done what Billings wants. We should remember that he has usually put his white ball ventures in front of Kent apart from last season when he said he wasn't going to the IPL - but then he knew that he wasn't going to be picked up in the auction. He also insisted on taking the gloves when he came back from those and took time off to go to things like Coldplay concerts with Jos Buttler rather than turn out for us last season. His point about "not getting in the way" is a valid one, not necessarily in this game but what happens if he does get runs? Some of the membership would be screaming blue murder if and when Joe Denly and/or Leaning are fit for the next one and Billings isn't selected. So that would mean dropping Muyeye and/or Finch. Both will remember what happened and when it comes to contract renewals especially in the case of the former and another county comes knocking? We lose another promising youngster in the shape of Muyeye to add to Robinson and Cox. With nothing, as we've found, nothing coming in to replace them. History repeating itself.
The bottom line is this. Will Billings win us enough games to keep us up. Highly doubtful especially as his red ball exploits for the last four seasons have been woeful. Is it worth upsetting the dressing room (again) by including him for one or two? The management have to make that call and might think that it isn't.
A batting lineup with O'Riordan opening, Finch in the top 6 and bowlers coming in at 7 is an emergency situation to me! Billings coming in at 6 or 7 would have freedom to play his normal attacking white ball game.
There are only 2 red ball games in between the Blast games, so chances are that we won't have Joe AND Leaning back for Hampshire next week, and O'Riordan would surely be more at risk than Finch or Muyeye anyway.
O'Riordan is being used as the offie and second spinner - if Denly is available he wouldn't offer that as not only has he only bowled 12 overs this season and turns the ball the same way as Parkinson does. The other question would be "who opens"? It's clear that O'Riordan is opening because DBD refuses to do so. We've moved Evison up but do we want to sacrifice him in the knowledge that he is likely to get more runs not doing so. Muyeye is a busted flush against the new ball and has at last got meaningful runs in the position he always should have been batting in at red ball.
Equally, it might only be for two games but what happens if Billings does get runs come September? Has he then become part of the first team squad and how do you explain the bigger picture to those who, in the same way, refused to do so with Robinson (because they genuinely did)?
I've been in and seen too many clubs fall apart because the management think that it's best to bring in one or two people from the outside. In the short and even more so long term it can ruin the spirit. And then people will say, as in the case of Robinson and Cox, that they never saw that happening. Because they weren't the victims of that. Remember what Robinson said about being the one that always seemed to be sacrificed. And then what happens is that the one or two that came in have moved on to a bigger bidder.
Come September, we should have Joe and Leaning back anyway. Or can loan a batsman. And why don't we have another opener for when Zak is away? If the Kent management seriously thought Muyeye could be an opener, then that's another failing of squad management. We have a vast number of bowlers and bits and pieces players like O'Riordan, who is a very innocuous spinner.
Billings isn't from outside, they've been playing under him in the Blast, and will do again in 2 weeks time. If we asked him to play these 2 county games only, then that to me would help team spirit. This isn't a Robinson situation where somebody is constantly being left out despite delivering, we have a team racked by injuries that is being stuffed at the moment.
It's also the perception from outside though. You mention about loaning a player in but think about the calibre that we've been getting in recently. Who is the last successful loaned in player we had because I'm struggling to remember one. They've been the players that have either been released at the end of last season or ones that are still playing 2s cricket and may never make the grade. Last season it was Geddes, McKerr, Albert and Niijar. The year before it was
A coach of another county said last year of us "well anyone can play for Kent". That's not, unfortunately. to say that anyone wants to play for Kent. We are a second class county in every respect. When Charlton sends players out on loan, one would hope that we do due diligence to ensure that the player is going into the right environment. A player's agent will have plenty of contacts within the game and know whether they should go
We have no money. We cannot attract the very best overseas players (why is Labuschagne, for example, playing for Glamorgan, Lyon for Lancashire, Henry for Somerset?). We don't have a conveyor belt of the best youngsters because of our status and a lack of infrastructure compared to the likes of Surrey. Those that we do have mainly leave. Our Women's team have been downgraded to the benefit of the big counties so we are are now losing promising girls too.
The injuries are one thing. But how many of those have really been preforming? Even our England opener, apart from one innings from 17, has done absolutely nothing of note. Why isn't he playing in this game? Pope is so if the argument is valid for Billings playing surely it is for our best opener. We can't insist on him doing so but it seems that England or even Crawley himself has chosen to come out of the firing line. Billings has been part of that malaise for years now as his averages testify - 9.20 (2023), 23.81 (2022), 29.80 (2021) and 20.00 (2020). One man with that record is not going to change anything especially as he says that he wished he'd given up red ball a couple of years ago. It would have benefitted us if he had.
I know that you, like me, go back a long way. Below is the team I used to watch as a kid. There isn't a single one of our current team that would get into it. But there's also not a single one that would pick and choose when they wanted to play for us. Come rain or shine, whether they'd just played for England or not. That, sadly, is a reflection of how the game has changed but even more so for us. Because in those days we were on a level playing field with the other counties and senior players did not have the power or feel the need to say when they are prepared to play as they have now.
Brian Luckhurst (England) Mike Denness (England) Colin Cowdrey (England) Asif Iqbal (Pakistan) Alan Ealham John Shepherd (West Indies) Bob Woolmer (England) Alan Knott (England) Bernard Julien (West Indies) Derek Underwood (England) Norman Graham
Looking at that Kent lineup brings back memories. Kent used to beat Surrey in a regular basis back then. That is also where I think Kent missed their chance of growing as a club. The two biggest catchment areas for Kent are south London and the Medway towns. Had they built a ground anywhere in the south London or Medway area I believe they would have grown as a club. I honestly believe that making Canterbury their main residence that the have cut off their main core support. Just saying
Jas Singh, a genuine No 11 with the bat, and the 5th seamer used in this innings, bowling just 4 overs.
Billings has said he would play in an emergency, but that he didn't want to get in the way of other players. In this game, he could have played as a specialist batsman surely, as he's in good nick and we don't need 5 seamers.
In ordinary circumstances I would agree and certainly that we don't need 5 seamers but then the only other alternative, apart from Qadri and Bhuiyan, was Jaydn.
Billings has always done what Billings wants. We should remember that he has usually put his white ball ventures in front of Kent apart from last season when he said he wasn't going to the IPL - but then he knew that he wasn't going to be picked up in the auction. He also insisted on taking the gloves when he came back from those and took time off to go to things like Coldplay concerts with Jos Buttler rather than turn out for us last season. His point about "not getting in the way" is a valid one, not necessarily in this game but what happens if he does get runs? Some of the membership would be screaming blue murder if and when Joe Denly and/or Leaning are fit for the next one and Billings isn't selected. So that would mean dropping Muyeye and/or Finch. Both will remember what happened and when it comes to contract renewals especially in the case of the former and another county comes knocking? We lose another promising youngster in the shape of Muyeye to add to Robinson and Cox. With nothing, as we've found, nothing coming in to replace them. History repeating itself.
The bottom line is this. Will Billings win us enough games to keep us up. Highly doubtful especially as his red ball exploits for the last four seasons have been woeful. Is it worth upsetting the dressing room (again) by including him for one or two? The management have to make that call and might think that it isn't.
A batting lineup with O'Riordan opening, Finch in the top 6 and bowlers coming in at 7 is an emergency situation to me! Billings coming in at 6 or 7 would have freedom to play his normal attacking white ball game.
There are only 2 red ball games in between the Blast games, so chances are that we won't have Joe AND Leaning back for Hampshire next week, and O'Riordan would surely be more at risk than Finch or Muyeye anyway.
O'Riordan is being used as the offie and second spinner - if Denly is available he wouldn't offer that as not only has he only bowled 12 overs this season and turns the ball the same way as Parkinson does. The other question would be "who opens"? It's clear that O'Riordan is opening because DBD refuses to do so. We've moved Evison up but do we want to sacrifice him in the knowledge that he is likely to get more runs not doing so. Muyeye is a busted flush against the new ball and has at last got meaningful runs in the position he always should have been batting in at red ball.
Equally, it might only be for two games but what happens if Billings does get runs come September? Has he then become part of the first team squad and how do you explain the bigger picture to those who, in the same way, refused to do so with Robinson (because they genuinely did)?
I've been in and seen too many clubs fall apart because the management think that it's best to bring in one or two people from the outside. In the short and even more so long term it can ruin the spirit. And then people will say, as in the case of Robinson and Cox, that they never saw that happening. Because they weren't the victims of that. Remember what Robinson said about being the one that always seemed to be sacrificed. And then what happens is that the one or two that came in have moved on to a bigger bidder.
Come September, we should have Joe and Leaning back anyway. Or can loan a batsman. And why don't we have another opener for when Zak is away? If the Kent management seriously thought Muyeye could be an opener, then that's another failing of squad management. We have a vast number of bowlers and bits and pieces players like O'Riordan, who is a very innocuous spinner.
Billings isn't from outside, they've been playing under him in the Blast, and will do again in 2 weeks time. If we asked him to play these 2 county games only, then that to me would help team spirit. This isn't a Robinson situation where somebody is constantly being left out despite delivering, we have a team racked by injuries that is being stuffed at the moment.
It's also the perception from outside though. You mention about loaning a player in but think about the calibre that we've been getting in recently. Who is the last successful loaned in player we had because I'm struggling to remember one. They've been the players that have either been released at the end of last season or ones that are still playing 2s cricket and may never make the grade. Last season it was Geddes, McKerr, Albert and Niijar. The year before it was
A coach of another county said last year of us "well anyone can play for Kent". That's not, unfortunately. to say that anyone wants to play for Kent. We are a second class county in every respect. When Charlton sends players out on loan, one would hope that we do due diligence to ensure that the player is going into the right environment. A player's agent will have plenty of contacts within the game and know whether they should go
We have no money. We cannot attract the very best overseas players (why is Labuschagne, for example, playing for Glamorgan, Lyon for Lancashire, Henry for Somerset?). We don't have a conveyor belt of the best youngsters because of our status and a lack of infrastructure compared to the likes of Surrey. Those that we do have mainly leave. Our Women's team have been downgraded to the benefit of the big counties so we are are now losing promising girls too.
The injuries are one thing. But how many of those have really been preforming? Even our England opener, apart from one innings from 17, has done absolutely nothing of note. Why isn't he playing in this game? Pope is so if the argument is valid for Billings playing surely it is for our best opener. We can't insist on him doing so but it seems that England or even Crawley himself has chosen to come out of the firing line. Billings has been part of that malaise for years now as his averages testify - 9.20 (2023), 23.81 (2022), 29.80 (2021) and 20.00 (2020). One man with that record is not going to change anything especially as he says that he wished he'd given up red ball a couple of years ago. It would have benefitted us if he had.
I know that you, like me, go back a long way. Below is the team I used to watch as a kid. There isn't a single one of our current team that would get into it. But there's also not a single one that would pick and choose when they wanted to play for us. Come rain or shine, whether they'd just played for England or not. That, sadly, is a reflection of how the game has changed but even more so for us. Because in those days we were on a level playing field with the other counties and senior players did not have the power or feel the need to say when they are prepared to play as they have now.
Brian Luckhurst (England) Mike Denness (England) Colin Cowdrey (England) Asif Iqbal (Pakistan) Alan Ealham John Shepherd (West Indies) Bob Woolmer (England) Alan Knott (England) Bernard Julien (West Indies) Derek Underwood (England) Norman Graham
I suppose the million dollar question ( excuse the pun ) is how do we get the money to compete ?
All those Test/Hundred hosting counties have massive incomes and bigger grounds as a result of that. Which is what the ECB want which is why they denied us the Women's upgrade to Tier 1 status despite the fact that we had produced through our pathway nine of the 80 Women selected in The Hundred. We will receive a cash injection as a result of The Hundred sell off but the real acid test will be whether we and Beckenham specifically is given the right to host one of the new franchises. That won't make us on a par with the big guns but will help to bridge the gap. If we don't then we will become a feeder club.
Beckenham isn't going to get a franchise. The facilities are not good enough.
From The Times:
Kent County Cricket Club are seeking to buy their ground in Beckenham and develop the site to allow them to bid to become a third London Hundred team when the tournament expands.
Kent lease the site in southeast London, which is situated next to Crystal Palace FC’s training ground. There are 11 years left on the lease and the county were due to write to their members on Wednesday setting out their plans to try to buy the site and develop it into a premier facility. That would help them put forward a good case to the ECB that it should be the home of a new Hundred team when the tournament expands in size from its present eight teams.
Although discussions about the future of the Hundred are still taking place, it is set to expand in size to probably ten teams after the present broadcast deal runs out in 2028.
As revealed by the Times, the tournament is set to receive a huge injection of private investment later in the year when the ECB auctions off 49 per cent stakes in each of the teams with a 51 per cent stake being handed over to the host venues. They can, in turn, sell off a further stake to investors (although some, including Surrey, have said they would not be interested in selling any of their stake preferring to keep control themselves).
Valuations of the Hundred teams have shown that the London teams would have a significantly higher value to private investors and, therefore, a third London team when the tournament expands could raise significant further investment.
The site is 24 acres, which is bigger than the footprint of the Kia Oval and Lord’s combined, and already houses the second-largest indoor school in London. Kent already host a number of men’s and women’s matches there as well as offering it for use as a base for overseas touring sides. Australia used Beckenham as their training base before the Ashes last summer and gave positive feedback about the quality of the square and the facilities. West Indies will play a warm-up match against a combined counties XI there before the Test series this summer.
The ground has four major London boroughs surrounding it — Lewisham, Greenwich, Bromley and Bexley — which have a combined population of 1.2 million people with a varied age and ethnically diverse demographic. Attracting spectators from outside of the traditional cricket fanbase is a key objective of the Hundred and Beckenham would tick many boxes.
Canterbury will remain Kent’s headquarters and the base for the county’s men’s matches but the development of this site would give them an option to play other matches, particularly making it the base for women’s and girls’ cricket in Kent as well as the potential Hundred team.
It had been mooted that one option for expansion of the Hundred would be to host two teams at Lord’s — the London Spirit team plus another owned by MCC, but it is understood that MCC do not regard such an option as being viable and would need members’ approval (which is not guaranteed).
Kent’s plans are in the early stages but the revenue yielded from private investment into the Hundred, for which each county is initially expected to receive a £5 million lump sum when the ECB auctions off its stakes in the teams, could help Kent’s financial plan for the development of Beckenham.
The county are exploring sustainable ways of developing the ground into a pop-up stadium which could involve having stands that could accommodate at least 12,000 people, put up for the month of August when the Hundred takes place and downsized for the rest of the year. The plan would use the same sort of stadium technology that is being used for the new stadium in New York which is being used for the T20 World Cup in June.
Decisions about the future of the Hundred will be taken by the counties, MCC and ECB in the coming months with a prospectus for buying stakes in the teams sent out to prospective investors in the summer with the equity auction expected to take place in the autumn.
Jas Singh, a genuine No 11 with the bat, and the 5th seamer used in this innings, bowling just 4 overs.
Billings has said he would play in an emergency, but that he didn't want to get in the way of other players. In this game, he could have played as a specialist batsman surely, as he's in good nick and we don't need 5 seamers.
In ordinary circumstances I would agree and certainly that we don't need 5 seamers but then the only other alternative, apart from Qadri and Bhuiyan, was Jaydn.
Billings has always done what Billings wants. We should remember that he has usually put his white ball ventures in front of Kent apart from last season when he said he wasn't going to the IPL - but then he knew that he wasn't going to be picked up in the auction. He also insisted on taking the gloves when he came back from those and took time off to go to things like Coldplay concerts with Jos Buttler rather than turn out for us last season. His point about "not getting in the way" is a valid one, not necessarily in this game but what happens if he does get runs? Some of the membership would be screaming blue murder if and when Joe Denly and/or Leaning are fit for the next one and Billings isn't selected. So that would mean dropping Muyeye and/or Finch. Both will remember what happened and when it comes to contract renewals especially in the case of the former and another county comes knocking? We lose another promising youngster in the shape of Muyeye to add to Robinson and Cox. With nothing, as we've found, nothing coming in to replace them. History repeating itself.
The bottom line is this. Will Billings win us enough games to keep us up. Highly doubtful especially as his red ball exploits for the last four seasons have been woeful. Is it worth upsetting the dressing room (again) by including him for one or two? The management have to make that call and might think that it isn't.
A batting lineup with O'Riordan opening, Finch in the top 6 and bowlers coming in at 7 is an emergency situation to me! Billings coming in at 6 or 7 would have freedom to play his normal attacking white ball game.
There are only 2 red ball games in between the Blast games, so chances are that we won't have Joe AND Leaning back for Hampshire next week, and O'Riordan would surely be more at risk than Finch or Muyeye anyway.
O'Riordan is being used as the offie and second spinner - if Denly is available he wouldn't offer that as not only has he only bowled 12 overs this season and turns the ball the same way as Parkinson does. The other question would be "who opens"? It's clear that O'Riordan is opening because DBD refuses to do so. We've moved Evison up but do we want to sacrifice him in the knowledge that he is likely to get more runs not doing so. Muyeye is a busted flush against the new ball and has at last got meaningful runs in the position he always should have been batting in at red ball.
Equally, it might only be for two games but what happens if Billings does get runs come September? Has he then become part of the first team squad and how do you explain the bigger picture to those who, in the same way, refused to do so with Robinson (because they genuinely did)?
I've been in and seen too many clubs fall apart because the management think that it's best to bring in one or two people from the outside. In the short and even more so long term it can ruin the spirit. And then people will say, as in the case of Robinson and Cox, that they never saw that happening. Because they weren't the victims of that. Remember what Robinson said about being the one that always seemed to be sacrificed. And then what happens is that the one or two that came in have moved on to a bigger bidder.
Come September, we should have Joe and Leaning back anyway. Or can loan a batsman. And why don't we have another opener for when Zak is away? If the Kent management seriously thought Muyeye could be an opener, then that's another failing of squad management. We have a vast number of bowlers and bits and pieces players like O'Riordan, who is a very innocuous spinner.
Billings isn't from outside, they've been playing under him in the Blast, and will do again in 2 weeks time. If we asked him to play these 2 county games only, then that to me would help team spirit. This isn't a Robinson situation where somebody is constantly being left out despite delivering, we have a team racked by injuries that is being stuffed at the moment.
It's also the perception from outside though. You mention about loaning a player in but think about the calibre that we've been getting in recently. Who is the last successful loaned in player we had because I'm struggling to remember one. They've been the players that have either been released at the end of last season or ones that are still playing 2s cricket and may never make the grade. Last season it was Geddes, McKerr, Albert and Niijar. The year before it was
A coach of another county said last year of us "well anyone can play for Kent". That's not, unfortunately. to say that anyone wants to play for Kent. We are a second class county in every respect. When Charlton sends players out on loan, one would hope that we do due diligence to ensure that the player is going into the right environment. A player's agent will have plenty of contacts within the game and know whether they should go
We have no money. We cannot attract the very best overseas players (why is Labuschagne, for example, playing for Glamorgan, Lyon for Lancashire, Henry for Somerset?). We don't have a conveyor belt of the best youngsters because of our status and a lack of infrastructure compared to the likes of Surrey. Those that we do have mainly leave. Our Women's team have been downgraded to the benefit of the big counties so we are are now losing promising girls too.
The injuries are one thing. But how many of those have really been preforming? Even our England opener, apart from one innings from 17, has done absolutely nothing of note. Why isn't he playing in this game? Pope is so if the argument is valid for Billings playing surely it is for our best opener. We can't insist on him doing so but it seems that England or even Crawley himself has chosen to come out of the firing line. Billings has been part of that malaise for years now as his averages testify - 9.20 (2023), 23.81 (2022), 29.80 (2021) and 20.00 (2020). One man with that record is not going to change anything especially as he says that he wished he'd given up red ball a couple of years ago. It would have benefitted us if he had.
I know that you, like me, go back a long way. Below is the team I used to watch as a kid. There isn't a single one of our current team that would get into it. But there's also not a single one that would pick and choose when they wanted to play for us. Come rain or shine, whether they'd just played for England or not. That, sadly, is a reflection of how the game has changed but even more so for us. Because in those days we were on a level playing field with the other counties and senior players did not have the power or feel the need to say when they are prepared to play as they have now.
Brian Luckhurst (England) Mike Denness (England) Colin Cowdrey (England) Asif Iqbal (Pakistan) Alan Ealham John Shepherd (West Indies) Bob Woolmer (England) Alan Knott (England) Bernard Julien (West Indies) Derek Underwood (England) Norman Graham
Looking at that Kent lineup brings back memories. Kent used to beat Surrey in a regular basis back then. That is also where I think Kent missed their chance of growing as a club. The two biggest catchment areas for Kent are south London and the Medway towns. Had they built a ground anywhere in the south London or Medway area I believe they would have grown as a club. I honestly believe that making Canterbury their main residence that the have cut off their main core support. Just saying
Yep. NW Kent where you could get to the ground easily from London would have helped.
i follow Kent and really can’t be arsed to drive to Canterbury to watch them. I would travel to Medway but that’s it
Jas Singh, a genuine No 11 with the bat, and the 5th seamer used in this innings, bowling just 4 overs.
Billings has said he would play in an emergency, but that he didn't want to get in the way of other players. In this game, he could have played as a specialist batsman surely, as he's in good nick and we don't need 5 seamers.
In ordinary circumstances I would agree and certainly that we don't need 5 seamers but then the only other alternative, apart from Qadri and Bhuiyan, was Jaydn.
Billings has always done what Billings wants. We should remember that he has usually put his white ball ventures in front of Kent apart from last season when he said he wasn't going to the IPL - but then he knew that he wasn't going to be picked up in the auction. He also insisted on taking the gloves when he came back from those and took time off to go to things like Coldplay concerts with Jos Buttler rather than turn out for us last season. His point about "not getting in the way" is a valid one, not necessarily in this game but what happens if he does get runs? Some of the membership would be screaming blue murder if and when Joe Denly and/or Leaning are fit for the next one and Billings isn't selected. So that would mean dropping Muyeye and/or Finch. Both will remember what happened and when it comes to contract renewals especially in the case of the former and another county comes knocking? We lose another promising youngster in the shape of Muyeye to add to Robinson and Cox. With nothing, as we've found, nothing coming in to replace them. History repeating itself.
The bottom line is this. Will Billings win us enough games to keep us up. Highly doubtful especially as his red ball exploits for the last four seasons have been woeful. Is it worth upsetting the dressing room (again) by including him for one or two? The management have to make that call and might think that it isn't.
A batting lineup with O'Riordan opening, Finch in the top 6 and bowlers coming in at 7 is an emergency situation to me! Billings coming in at 6 or 7 would have freedom to play his normal attacking white ball game.
There are only 2 red ball games in between the Blast games, so chances are that we won't have Joe AND Leaning back for Hampshire next week, and O'Riordan would surely be more at risk than Finch or Muyeye anyway.
O'Riordan is being used as the offie and second spinner - if Denly is available he wouldn't offer that as not only has he only bowled 12 overs this season and turns the ball the same way as Parkinson does. The other question would be "who opens"? It's clear that O'Riordan is opening because DBD refuses to do so. We've moved Evison up but do we want to sacrifice him in the knowledge that he is likely to get more runs not doing so. Muyeye is a busted flush against the new ball and has at last got meaningful runs in the position he always should have been batting in at red ball.
Equally, it might only be for two games but what happens if Billings does get runs come September? Has he then become part of the first team squad and how do you explain the bigger picture to those who, in the same way, refused to do so with Robinson (because they genuinely did)?
I've been in and seen too many clubs fall apart because the management think that it's best to bring in one or two people from the outside. In the short and even more so long term it can ruin the spirit. And then people will say, as in the case of Robinson and Cox, that they never saw that happening. Because they weren't the victims of that. Remember what Robinson said about being the one that always seemed to be sacrificed. And then what happens is that the one or two that came in have moved on to a bigger bidder.
Come September, we should have Joe and Leaning back anyway. Or can loan a batsman. And why don't we have another opener for when Zak is away? If the Kent management seriously thought Muyeye could be an opener, then that's another failing of squad management. We have a vast number of bowlers and bits and pieces players like O'Riordan, who is a very innocuous spinner.
Billings isn't from outside, they've been playing under him in the Blast, and will do again in 2 weeks time. If we asked him to play these 2 county games only, then that to me would help team spirit. This isn't a Robinson situation where somebody is constantly being left out despite delivering, we have a team racked by injuries that is being stuffed at the moment.
It's also the perception from outside though. You mention about loaning a player in but think about the calibre that we've been getting in recently. Who is the last successful loaned in player we had because I'm struggling to remember one. They've been the players that have either been released at the end of last season or ones that are still playing 2s cricket and may never make the grade. Last season it was Geddes, McKerr, Albert and Niijar. The year before it was
A coach of another county said last year of us "well anyone can play for Kent". That's not, unfortunately. to say that anyone wants to play for Kent. We are a second class county in every respect. When Charlton sends players out on loan, one would hope that we do due diligence to ensure that the player is going into the right environment. A player's agent will have plenty of contacts within the game and know whether they should go
We have no money. We cannot attract the very best overseas players (why is Labuschagne, for example, playing for Glamorgan, Lyon for Lancashire, Henry for Somerset?). We don't have a conveyor belt of the best youngsters because of our status and a lack of infrastructure compared to the likes of Surrey. Those that we do have mainly leave. Our Women's team have been downgraded to the benefit of the big counties so we are are now losing promising girls too.
The injuries are one thing. But how many of those have really been preforming? Even our England opener, apart from one innings from 17, has done absolutely nothing of note. Why isn't he playing in this game? Pope is so if the argument is valid for Billings playing surely it is for our best opener. We can't insist on him doing so but it seems that England or even Crawley himself has chosen to come out of the firing line. Billings has been part of that malaise for years now as his averages testify - 9.20 (2023), 23.81 (2022), 29.80 (2021) and 20.00 (2020). One man with that record is not going to change anything especially as he says that he wished he'd given up red ball a couple of years ago. It would have benefitted us if he had.
I know that you, like me, go back a long way. Below is the team I used to watch as a kid. There isn't a single one of our current team that would get into it. But there's also not a single one that would pick and choose when they wanted to play for us. Come rain or shine, whether they'd just played for England or not. That, sadly, is a reflection of how the game has changed but even more so for us. Because in those days we were on a level playing field with the other counties and senior players did not have the power or feel the need to say when they are prepared to play as they have now.
Brian Luckhurst (England) Mike Denness (England) Colin Cowdrey (England) Asif Iqbal (Pakistan) Alan Ealham John Shepherd (West Indies) Bob Woolmer (England) Alan Knott (England) Bernard Julien (West Indies) Derek Underwood (England) Norman Graham
Looking at that Kent lineup brings back memories. Kent used to beat Surrey in a regular basis back then. That is also where I think Kent missed their chance of growing as a club. The two biggest catchment areas for Kent are south London and the Medway towns. Had they built a ground anywhere in the south London or Medway area I believe they would have grown as a club. I honestly believe that making Canterbury their main residence that the have cut off their main core support. Just saying
Yep. NW Kent where you could get to the ground easily from London would have helped.
i follow Kent and really can’t be arsed to drive to Canterbury to watch them. I would travel to Medway but that’s it
I know plenty of Kent supporters who have been to the Oval more times than they have been to Canterbury. Several of them post on here ( I won't name them ). But seriously looking at where Kent are now I honestly think Canterbury is the problem.
Jas Singh, a genuine No 11 with the bat, and the 5th seamer used in this innings, bowling just 4 overs.
Billings has said he would play in an emergency, but that he didn't want to get in the way of other players. In this game, he could have played as a specialist batsman surely, as he's in good nick and we don't need 5 seamers.
In ordinary circumstances I would agree and certainly that we don't need 5 seamers but then the only other alternative, apart from Qadri and Bhuiyan, was Jaydn.
Billings has always done what Billings wants. We should remember that he has usually put his white ball ventures in front of Kent apart from last season when he said he wasn't going to the IPL - but then he knew that he wasn't going to be picked up in the auction. He also insisted on taking the gloves when he came back from those and took time off to go to things like Coldplay concerts with Jos Buttler rather than turn out for us last season. His point about "not getting in the way" is a valid one, not necessarily in this game but what happens if he does get runs? Some of the membership would be screaming blue murder if and when Joe Denly and/or Leaning are fit for the next one and Billings isn't selected. So that would mean dropping Muyeye and/or Finch. Both will remember what happened and when it comes to contract renewals especially in the case of the former and another county comes knocking? We lose another promising youngster in the shape of Muyeye to add to Robinson and Cox. With nothing, as we've found, nothing coming in to replace them. History repeating itself.
The bottom line is this. Will Billings win us enough games to keep us up. Highly doubtful especially as his red ball exploits for the last four seasons have been woeful. Is it worth upsetting the dressing room (again) by including him for one or two? The management have to make that call and might think that it isn't.
A batting lineup with O'Riordan opening, Finch in the top 6 and bowlers coming in at 7 is an emergency situation to me! Billings coming in at 6 or 7 would have freedom to play his normal attacking white ball game.
There are only 2 red ball games in between the Blast games, so chances are that we won't have Joe AND Leaning back for Hampshire next week, and O'Riordan would surely be more at risk than Finch or Muyeye anyway.
O'Riordan is being used as the offie and second spinner - if Denly is available he wouldn't offer that as not only has he only bowled 12 overs this season and turns the ball the same way as Parkinson does. The other question would be "who opens"? It's clear that O'Riordan is opening because DBD refuses to do so. We've moved Evison up but do we want to sacrifice him in the knowledge that he is likely to get more runs not doing so. Muyeye is a busted flush against the new ball and has at last got meaningful runs in the position he always should have been batting in at red ball.
Equally, it might only be for two games but what happens if Billings does get runs come September? Has he then become part of the first team squad and how do you explain the bigger picture to those who, in the same way, refused to do so with Robinson (because they genuinely did)?
I've been in and seen too many clubs fall apart because the management think that it's best to bring in one or two people from the outside. In the short and even more so long term it can ruin the spirit. And then people will say, as in the case of Robinson and Cox, that they never saw that happening. Because they weren't the victims of that. Remember what Robinson said about being the one that always seemed to be sacrificed. And then what happens is that the one or two that came in have moved on to a bigger bidder.
Come September, we should have Joe and Leaning back anyway. Or can loan a batsman. And why don't we have another opener for when Zak is away? If the Kent management seriously thought Muyeye could be an opener, then that's another failing of squad management. We have a vast number of bowlers and bits and pieces players like O'Riordan, who is a very innocuous spinner.
Billings isn't from outside, they've been playing under him in the Blast, and will do again in 2 weeks time. If we asked him to play these 2 county games only, then that to me would help team spirit. This isn't a Robinson situation where somebody is constantly being left out despite delivering, we have a team racked by injuries that is being stuffed at the moment.
It's also the perception from outside though. You mention about loaning a player in but think about the calibre that we've been getting in recently. Who is the last successful loaned in player we had because I'm struggling to remember one. They've been the players that have either been released at the end of last season or ones that are still playing 2s cricket and may never make the grade. Last season it was Geddes, McKerr, Albert and Niijar. The year before it was
A coach of another county said last year of us "well anyone can play for Kent". That's not, unfortunately. to say that anyone wants to play for Kent. We are a second class county in every respect. When Charlton sends players out on loan, one would hope that we do due diligence to ensure that the player is going into the right environment. A player's agent will have plenty of contacts within the game and know whether they should go
We have no money. We cannot attract the very best overseas players (why is Labuschagne, for example, playing for Glamorgan, Lyon for Lancashire, Henry for Somerset?). We don't have a conveyor belt of the best youngsters because of our status and a lack of infrastructure compared to the likes of Surrey. Those that we do have mainly leave. Our Women's team have been downgraded to the benefit of the big counties so we are are now losing promising girls too.
The injuries are one thing. But how many of those have really been preforming? Even our England opener, apart from one innings from 17, has done absolutely nothing of note. Why isn't he playing in this game? Pope is so if the argument is valid for Billings playing surely it is for our best opener. We can't insist on him doing so but it seems that England or even Crawley himself has chosen to come out of the firing line. Billings has been part of that malaise for years now as his averages testify - 9.20 (2023), 23.81 (2022), 29.80 (2021) and 20.00 (2020). One man with that record is not going to change anything especially as he says that he wished he'd given up red ball a couple of years ago. It would have benefitted us if he had.
I know that you, like me, go back a long way. Below is the team I used to watch as a kid. There isn't a single one of our current team that would get into it. But there's also not a single one that would pick and choose when they wanted to play for us. Come rain or shine, whether they'd just played for England or not. That, sadly, is a reflection of how the game has changed but even more so for us. Because in those days we were on a level playing field with the other counties and senior players did not have the power or feel the need to say when they are prepared to play as they have now.
Brian Luckhurst (England) Mike Denness (England) Colin Cowdrey (England) Asif Iqbal (Pakistan) Alan Ealham John Shepherd (West Indies) Bob Woolmer (England) Alan Knott (England) Bernard Julien (West Indies) Derek Underwood (England) Norman Graham
Looking at that Kent lineup brings back memories. Kent used to beat Surrey in a regular basis back then. That is also where I think Kent missed their chance of growing as a club. The two biggest catchment areas for Kent are south London and the Medway towns. Had they built a ground anywhere in the south London or Medway area I believe they would have grown as a club. I honestly believe that making Canterbury their main residence that the have cut off their main core support. Just saying
Yep. NW Kent where you could get to the ground easily from London would have helped.
i follow Kent and really can’t be arsed to drive to Canterbury to watch them. I would travel to Medway but that’s it
I know plenty of Kent supporters who have been to the Oval more times than they have been to Canterbury. Several of them post on here ( I won't name them ). But seriously looking at where Kent are now I honestly think Canterbury is the problem.
Im guilty of that. I went to a 100 game at the oval because it was central for us to meet a s a group!
I’ve seen Kent play county cricket at dartford (my dad took me and he had a good days drinking) and Maidstone. Maidstone would make more sense than Canterbury, especially as a one day venue
What are Essex and Somerset doing right that we aren't? Neither are Test or 100 counties, yet both are far more successful than us , on and off the pitch.
I agree with the doubts about Canterbury. A long way from the main population bases of historical Kent, and it's not as if Canterbury and East Kent is the area which dominates Kent club cricket either.
As a ground it's neither picturesque nor modern, the spectator facilities are pretty poor by modern standards.
What are Essex and Somerset doing right that we aren't? Neither are Test or 100 counties, yet both are far more successful than us , on and off the pitch.
I agree with the doubts about Canterbury. A long way from the main population bases of historical Kent, and it's not as if Canterbury and East Kent is the area which dominates Kent club cricket either.
As a ground it's neither picturesque nor modern, the spectator facilities are pretty poor by modern standards.
In Somerset's case that's probably down to their ability to produce "homegrown" players due to a captive market that extends to the likes of Devon and Cornwall and they have a few very big private schools including King's which have produced the likes of Jos Buttler, James Rew, Craig Meschede, Tom Banton and "our" Nathan Gilchrist. Once you have that as an underpin and ongoing (with initial contracts at the lower end of the scale), you can then supplement the squad from outside. Those in bold below are ones playing in Kent and Somerset's current CC matches.
Somerset have just 8 players that came from outside and this is the current list of 17 players in their squad that came through their system:
Tom Abell Tom Lammonby (via Devon) Will Smeed Tom Banton Shoaib Bashir (via Berkshire) Kasey Aldridge Sonny Baker (via Devon) Jack Leach Ned Leonard Alfie Ogbourne Josh Thomas Lewis Goldsworthy (via Cornwall) Ben Green (via Devon) Lewis Gregory (via Devon) Craig Overton (via Devon) George Thomas James Rew
We have, by comparison, just 7 home grown and 17 from outside:
Crawley DBD Billings Singh Joe Denly Jaydn Denly O'Riordan
Of those only Crawley, DBD and Joe Denly are regular contributors to red and white ball cricket. That's a massive differential between us and Somerset but then we have competition from our nearest counties to fend off.
Jas Singh, a genuine No 11 with the bat, and the 5th seamer used in this innings, bowling just 4 overs.
Billings has said he would play in an emergency, but that he didn't want to get in the way of other players. In this game, he could have played as a specialist batsman surely, as he's in good nick and we don't need 5 seamers.
In ordinary circumstances I would agree and certainly that we don't need 5 seamers but then the only other alternative, apart from Qadri and Bhuiyan, was Jaydn.
Billings has always done what Billings wants. We should remember that he has usually put his white ball ventures in front of Kent apart from last season when he said he wasn't going to the IPL - but then he knew that he wasn't going to be picked up in the auction. He also insisted on taking the gloves when he came back from those and took time off to go to things like Coldplay concerts with Jos Buttler rather than turn out for us last season. His point about "not getting in the way" is a valid one, not necessarily in this game but what happens if he does get runs? Some of the membership would be screaming blue murder if and when Joe Denly and/or Leaning are fit for the next one and Billings isn't selected. So that would mean dropping Muyeye and/or Finch. Both will remember what happened and when it comes to contract renewals especially in the case of the former and another county comes knocking? We lose another promising youngster in the shape of Muyeye to add to Robinson and Cox. With nothing, as we've found, nothing coming in to replace them. History repeating itself.
The bottom line is this. Will Billings win us enough games to keep us up. Highly doubtful especially as his red ball exploits for the last four seasons have been woeful. Is it worth upsetting the dressing room (again) by including him for one or two? The management have to make that call and might think that it isn't.
A batting lineup with O'Riordan opening, Finch in the top 6 and bowlers coming in at 7 is an emergency situation to me! Billings coming in at 6 or 7 would have freedom to play his normal attacking white ball game.
There are only 2 red ball games in between the Blast games, so chances are that we won't have Joe AND Leaning back for Hampshire next week, and O'Riordan would surely be more at risk than Finch or Muyeye anyway.
O'Riordan is being used as the offie and second spinner - if Denly is available he wouldn't offer that as not only has he only bowled 12 overs this season and turns the ball the same way as Parkinson does. The other question would be "who opens"? It's clear that O'Riordan is opening because DBD refuses to do so. We've moved Evison up but do we want to sacrifice him in the knowledge that he is likely to get more runs not doing so. Muyeye is a busted flush against the new ball and has at last got meaningful runs in the position he always should have been batting in at red ball.
Equally, it might only be for two games but what happens if Billings does get runs come September? Has he then become part of the first team squad and how do you explain the bigger picture to those who, in the same way, refused to do so with Robinson (because they genuinely did)?
I've been in and seen too many clubs fall apart because the management think that it's best to bring in one or two people from the outside. In the short and even more so long term it can ruin the spirit. And then people will say, as in the case of Robinson and Cox, that they never saw that happening. Because they weren't the victims of that. Remember what Robinson said about being the one that always seemed to be sacrificed. And then what happens is that the one or two that came in have moved on to a bigger bidder.
Come September, we should have Joe and Leaning back anyway. Or can loan a batsman. And why don't we have another opener for when Zak is away? If the Kent management seriously thought Muyeye could be an opener, then that's another failing of squad management. We have a vast number of bowlers and bits and pieces players like O'Riordan, who is a very innocuous spinner.
Billings isn't from outside, they've been playing under him in the Blast, and will do again in 2 weeks time. If we asked him to play these 2 county games only, then that to me would help team spirit. This isn't a Robinson situation where somebody is constantly being left out despite delivering, we have a team racked by injuries that is being stuffed at the moment.
It's also the perception from outside though. You mention about loaning a player in but think about the calibre that we've been getting in recently. Who is the last successful loaned in player we had because I'm struggling to remember one. They've been the players that have either been released at the end of last season or ones that are still playing 2s cricket and may never make the grade. Last season it was Geddes, McKerr, Albert and Niijar. The year before it was
A coach of another county said last year of us "well anyone can play for Kent". That's not, unfortunately. to say that anyone wants to play for Kent. We are a second class county in every respect. When Charlton sends players out on loan, one would hope that we do due diligence to ensure that the player is going into the right environment. A player's agent will have plenty of contacts within the game and know whether they should go
We have no money. We cannot attract the very best overseas players (why is Labuschagne, for example, playing for Glamorgan, Lyon for Lancashire, Henry for Somerset?). We don't have a conveyor belt of the best youngsters because of our status and a lack of infrastructure compared to the likes of Surrey. Those that we do have mainly leave. Our Women's team have been downgraded to the benefit of the big counties so we are are now losing promising girls too.
The injuries are one thing. But how many of those have really been preforming? Even our England opener, apart from one innings from 17, has done absolutely nothing of note. Why isn't he playing in this game? Pope is so if the argument is valid for Billings playing surely it is for our best opener. We can't insist on him doing so but it seems that England or even Crawley himself has chosen to come out of the firing line. Billings has been part of that malaise for years now as his averages testify - 9.20 (2023), 23.81 (2022), 29.80 (2021) and 20.00 (2020). One man with that record is not going to change anything especially as he says that he wished he'd given up red ball a couple of years ago. It would have benefitted us if he had.
I know that you, like me, go back a long way. Below is the team I used to watch as a kid. There isn't a single one of our current team that would get into it. But there's also not a single one that would pick and choose when they wanted to play for us. Come rain or shine, whether they'd just played for England or not. That, sadly, is a reflection of how the game has changed but even more so for us. Because in those days we were on a level playing field with the other counties and senior players did not have the power or feel the need to say when they are prepared to play as they have now.
Brian Luckhurst (England) Mike Denness (England) Colin Cowdrey (England) Asif Iqbal (Pakistan) Alan Ealham John Shepherd (West Indies) Bob Woolmer (England) Alan Knott (England) Bernard Julien (West Indies) Derek Underwood (England) Norman Graham
I suppose the million dollar question ( excuse the pun ) is how do we get the money to compete ?
All those Test/Hundred hosting counties have massive incomes and bigger grounds as a result of that. Which is what the ECB want which is why they denied us the Women's upgrade to Tier 1 status despite the fact that we had produced through our pathway nine of the 80 Women selected in The Hundred. We will receive a cash injection as a result of The Hundred sell off but the real acid test will be whether we and Beckenham specifically is given the right to host one of the new franchises. That won't make us on a par with the big guns but will help to bridge the gap. If we don't then we will become a feeder club.
Beckenham isn't going to get a franchise. The facilities are not good enough.
From The Times:
Kent County Cricket Club are seeking to buy their ground in Beckenham and develop the site to allow them to bid to become a third London Hundred team when the tournament expands.
Kent lease the site in southeast London, which is situated next to Crystal Palace FC’s training ground. There are 11 years left on the lease and the county were due to write to their members on Wednesday setting out their plans to try to buy the site and develop it into a premier facility. That would help them put forward a good case to the ECB that it should be the home of a new Hundred team when the tournament expands in size from its present eight teams.
Although discussions about the future of the Hundred are still taking place, it is set to expand in size to probably ten teams after the present broadcast deal runs out in 2028.
As revealed by the Times, the tournament is set to receive a huge injection of private investment later in the year when the ECB auctions off 49 per cent stakes in each of the teams with a 51 per cent stake being handed over to the host venues. They can, in turn, sell off a further stake to investors (although some, including Surrey, have said they would not be interested in selling any of their stake preferring to keep control themselves).
Valuations of the Hundred teams have shown that the London teams would have a significantly higher value to private investors and, therefore, a third London team when the tournament expands could raise significant further investment.
The site is 24 acres, which is bigger than the footprint of the Kia Oval and Lord’s combined, and already houses the second-largest indoor school in London. Kent already host a number of men’s and women’s matches there as well as offering it for use as a base for overseas touring sides. Australia used Beckenham as their training base before the Ashes last summer and gave positive feedback about the quality of the square and the facilities. West Indies will play a warm-up match against a combined counties XI there before the Test series this summer.
The ground has four major London boroughs surrounding it — Lewisham, Greenwich, Bromley and Bexley — which have a combined population of 1.2 million people with a varied age and ethnically diverse demographic. Attracting spectators from outside of the traditional cricket fanbase is a key objective of the Hundred and Beckenham would tick many boxes.
Canterbury will remain Kent’s headquarters and the base for the county’s men’s matches but the development of this site would give them an option to play other matches, particularly making it the base for women’s and girls’ cricket in Kent as well as the potential Hundred team.
It had been mooted that one option for expansion of the Hundred would be to host two teams at Lord’s — the London Spirit team plus another owned by MCC, but it is understood that MCC do not regard such an option as being viable and would need members’ approval (which is not guaranteed).
Kent’s plans are in the early stages but the revenue yielded from private investment into the Hundred, for which each county is initially expected to receive a £5 million lump sum when the ECB auctions off its stakes in the teams, could help Kent’s financial plan for the development of Beckenham.
The county are exploring sustainable ways of developing the ground into a pop-up stadium which could involve having stands that could accommodate at least 12,000 people, put up for the month of August when the Hundred takes place and downsized for the rest of the year. The plan would use the same sort of stadium technology that is being used for the new stadium in New York which is being used for the T20 World Cup in June.
Decisions about the future of the Hundred will be taken by the counties, MCC and ECB in the coming months with a prospectus for buying stakes in the teams sent out to prospective investors in the summer with the equity auction expected to take place in the autumn.
As the ground is right next door to Palace's training ground , i wouldn't be surprised if they were in competition for the land once the lease expired.
Jas Singh, a genuine No 11 with the bat, and the 5th seamer used in this innings, bowling just 4 overs.
Billings has said he would play in an emergency, but that he didn't want to get in the way of other players. In this game, he could have played as a specialist batsman surely, as he's in good nick and we don't need 5 seamers.
In ordinary circumstances I would agree and certainly that we don't need 5 seamers but then the only other alternative, apart from Qadri and Bhuiyan, was Jaydn.
Billings has always done what Billings wants. We should remember that he has usually put his white ball ventures in front of Kent apart from last season when he said he wasn't going to the IPL - but then he knew that he wasn't going to be picked up in the auction. He also insisted on taking the gloves when he came back from those and took time off to go to things like Coldplay concerts with Jos Buttler rather than turn out for us last season. His point about "not getting in the way" is a valid one, not necessarily in this game but what happens if he does get runs? Some of the membership would be screaming blue murder if and when Joe Denly and/or Leaning are fit for the next one and Billings isn't selected. So that would mean dropping Muyeye and/or Finch. Both will remember what happened and when it comes to contract renewals especially in the case of the former and another county comes knocking? We lose another promising youngster in the shape of Muyeye to add to Robinson and Cox. With nothing, as we've found, nothing coming in to replace them. History repeating itself.
The bottom line is this. Will Billings win us enough games to keep us up. Highly doubtful especially as his red ball exploits for the last four seasons have been woeful. Is it worth upsetting the dressing room (again) by including him for one or two? The management have to make that call and might think that it isn't.
A batting lineup with O'Riordan opening, Finch in the top 6 and bowlers coming in at 7 is an emergency situation to me! Billings coming in at 6 or 7 would have freedom to play his normal attacking white ball game.
There are only 2 red ball games in between the Blast games, so chances are that we won't have Joe AND Leaning back for Hampshire next week, and O'Riordan would surely be more at risk than Finch or Muyeye anyway.
O'Riordan is being used as the offie and second spinner - if Denly is available he wouldn't offer that as not only has he only bowled 12 overs this season and turns the ball the same way as Parkinson does. The other question would be "who opens"? It's clear that O'Riordan is opening because DBD refuses to do so. We've moved Evison up but do we want to sacrifice him in the knowledge that he is likely to get more runs not doing so. Muyeye is a busted flush against the new ball and has at last got meaningful runs in the position he always should have been batting in at red ball.
Equally, it might only be for two games but what happens if Billings does get runs come September? Has he then become part of the first team squad and how do you explain the bigger picture to those who, in the same way, refused to do so with Robinson (because they genuinely did)?
I've been in and seen too many clubs fall apart because the management think that it's best to bring in one or two people from the outside. In the short and even more so long term it can ruin the spirit. And then people will say, as in the case of Robinson and Cox, that they never saw that happening. Because they weren't the victims of that. Remember what Robinson said about being the one that always seemed to be sacrificed. And then what happens is that the one or two that came in have moved on to a bigger bidder.
Come September, we should have Joe and Leaning back anyway. Or can loan a batsman. And why don't we have another opener for when Zak is away? If the Kent management seriously thought Muyeye could be an opener, then that's another failing of squad management. We have a vast number of bowlers and bits and pieces players like O'Riordan, who is a very innocuous spinner.
Billings isn't from outside, they've been playing under him in the Blast, and will do again in 2 weeks time. If we asked him to play these 2 county games only, then that to me would help team spirit. This isn't a Robinson situation where somebody is constantly being left out despite delivering, we have a team racked by injuries that is being stuffed at the moment.
It's also the perception from outside though. You mention about loaning a player in but think about the calibre that we've been getting in recently. Who is the last successful loaned in player we had because I'm struggling to remember one. They've been the players that have either been released at the end of last season or ones that are still playing 2s cricket and may never make the grade. Last season it was Geddes, McKerr, Albert and Niijar. The year before it was
A coach of another county said last year of us "well anyone can play for Kent". That's not, unfortunately. to say that anyone wants to play for Kent. We are a second class county in every respect. When Charlton sends players out on loan, one would hope that we do due diligence to ensure that the player is going into the right environment. A player's agent will have plenty of contacts within the game and know whether they should go
We have no money. We cannot attract the very best overseas players (why is Labuschagne, for example, playing for Glamorgan, Lyon for Lancashire, Henry for Somerset?). We don't have a conveyor belt of the best youngsters because of our status and a lack of infrastructure compared to the likes of Surrey. Those that we do have mainly leave. Our Women's team have been downgraded to the benefit of the big counties so we are are now losing promising girls too.
The injuries are one thing. But how many of those have really been preforming? Even our England opener, apart from one innings from 17, has done absolutely nothing of note. Why isn't he playing in this game? Pope is so if the argument is valid for Billings playing surely it is for our best opener. We can't insist on him doing so but it seems that England or even Crawley himself has chosen to come out of the firing line. Billings has been part of that malaise for years now as his averages testify - 9.20 (2023), 23.81 (2022), 29.80 (2021) and 20.00 (2020). One man with that record is not going to change anything especially as he says that he wished he'd given up red ball a couple of years ago. It would have benefitted us if he had.
I know that you, like me, go back a long way. Below is the team I used to watch as a kid. There isn't a single one of our current team that would get into it. But there's also not a single one that would pick and choose when they wanted to play for us. Come rain or shine, whether they'd just played for England or not. That, sadly, is a reflection of how the game has changed but even more so for us. Because in those days we were on a level playing field with the other counties and senior players did not have the power or feel the need to say when they are prepared to play as they have now.
Brian Luckhurst (England) Mike Denness (England) Colin Cowdrey (England) Asif Iqbal (Pakistan) Alan Ealham John Shepherd (West Indies) Bob Woolmer (England) Alan Knott (England) Bernard Julien (West Indies) Derek Underwood (England) Norman Graham
I suppose the million dollar question ( excuse the pun ) is how do we get the money to compete ?
All those Test/Hundred hosting counties have massive incomes and bigger grounds as a result of that. Which is what the ECB want which is why they denied us the Women's upgrade to Tier 1 status despite the fact that we had produced through our pathway nine of the 80 Women selected in The Hundred. We will receive a cash injection as a result of The Hundred sell off but the real acid test will be whether we and Beckenham specifically is given the right to host one of the new franchises. That won't make us on a par with the big guns but will help to bridge the gap. If we don't then we will become a feeder club.
Beckenham isn't going to get a franchise. The facilities are not good enough.
From The Times:
Kent County Cricket Club are seeking to buy their ground in Beckenham and develop the site to allow them to bid to become a third London Hundred team when the tournament expands.
Kent lease the site in southeast London, which is situated next to Crystal Palace FC’s training ground. There are 11 years left on the lease and the county were due to write to their members on Wednesday setting out their plans to try to buy the site and develop it into a premier facility. That would help them put forward a good case to the ECB that it should be the home of a new Hundred team when the tournament expands in size from its present eight teams.
Although discussions about the future of the Hundred are still taking place, it is set to expand in size to probably ten teams after the present broadcast deal runs out in 2028.
As revealed by the Times, the tournament is set to receive a huge injection of private investment later in the year when the ECB auctions off 49 per cent stakes in each of the teams with a 51 per cent stake being handed over to the host venues. They can, in turn, sell off a further stake to investors (although some, including Surrey, have said they would not be interested in selling any of their stake preferring to keep control themselves).
Valuations of the Hundred teams have shown that the London teams would have a significantly higher value to private investors and, therefore, a third London team when the tournament expands could raise significant further investment.
The site is 24 acres, which is bigger than the footprint of the Kia Oval and Lord’s combined, and already houses the second-largest indoor school in London. Kent already host a number of men’s and women’s matches there as well as offering it for use as a base for overseas touring sides. Australia used Beckenham as their training base before the Ashes last summer and gave positive feedback about the quality of the square and the facilities. West Indies will play a warm-up match against a combined counties XI there before the Test series this summer.
The ground has four major London boroughs surrounding it — Lewisham, Greenwich, Bromley and Bexley — which have a combined population of 1.2 million people with a varied age and ethnically diverse demographic. Attracting spectators from outside of the traditional cricket fanbase is a key objective of the Hundred and Beckenham would tick many boxes.
Canterbury will remain Kent’s headquarters and the base for the county’s men’s matches but the development of this site would give them an option to play other matches, particularly making it the base for women’s and girls’ cricket in Kent as well as the potential Hundred team.
It had been mooted that one option for expansion of the Hundred would be to host two teams at Lord’s — the London Spirit team plus another owned by MCC, but it is understood that MCC do not regard such an option as being viable and would need members’ approval (which is not guaranteed).
Kent’s plans are in the early stages but the revenue yielded from private investment into the Hundred, for which each county is initially expected to receive a £5 million lump sum when the ECB auctions off its stakes in the teams, could help Kent’s financial plan for the development of Beckenham.
The county are exploring sustainable ways of developing the ground into a pop-up stadium which could involve having stands that could accommodate at least 12,000 people, put up for the month of August when the Hundred takes place and downsized for the rest of the year. The plan would use the same sort of stadium technology that is being used for the new stadium in New York which is being used for the T20 World Cup in June.
Decisions about the future of the Hundred will be taken by the counties, MCC and ECB in the coming months with a prospectus for buying stakes in the teams sent out to prospective investors in the summer with the equity auction expected to take place in the autumn.
As the ground is right next door to Palace's training ground , i wouldn't be surprised if they were in competition for the land once the lease expired.
I'm pretty sure that Palace frequently use the facilities, for parking for example, already for their age group teams I believe presumably on an ad hoc basis for some sort of minor recompense
Jas Singh, a genuine No 11 with the bat, and the 5th seamer used in this innings, bowling just 4 overs.
Billings has said he would play in an emergency, but that he didn't want to get in the way of other players. In this game, he could have played as a specialist batsman surely, as he's in good nick and we don't need 5 seamers.
In ordinary circumstances I would agree and certainly that we don't need 5 seamers but then the only other alternative, apart from Qadri and Bhuiyan, was Jaydn.
Billings has always done what Billings wants. We should remember that he has usually put his white ball ventures in front of Kent apart from last season when he said he wasn't going to the IPL - but then he knew that he wasn't going to be picked up in the auction. He also insisted on taking the gloves when he came back from those and took time off to go to things like Coldplay concerts with Jos Buttler rather than turn out for us last season. His point about "not getting in the way" is a valid one, not necessarily in this game but what happens if he does get runs? Some of the membership would be screaming blue murder if and when Joe Denly and/or Leaning are fit for the next one and Billings isn't selected. So that would mean dropping Muyeye and/or Finch. Both will remember what happened and when it comes to contract renewals especially in the case of the former and another county comes knocking? We lose another promising youngster in the shape of Muyeye to add to Robinson and Cox. With nothing, as we've found, nothing coming in to replace them. History repeating itself.
The bottom line is this. Will Billings win us enough games to keep us up. Highly doubtful especially as his red ball exploits for the last four seasons have been woeful. Is it worth upsetting the dressing room (again) by including him for one or two? The management have to make that call and might think that it isn't.
A batting lineup with O'Riordan opening, Finch in the top 6 and bowlers coming in at 7 is an emergency situation to me! Billings coming in at 6 or 7 would have freedom to play his normal attacking white ball game.
There are only 2 red ball games in between the Blast games, so chances are that we won't have Joe AND Leaning back for Hampshire next week, and O'Riordan would surely be more at risk than Finch or Muyeye anyway.
O'Riordan is being used as the offie and second spinner - if Denly is available he wouldn't offer that as not only has he only bowled 12 overs this season and turns the ball the same way as Parkinson does. The other question would be "who opens"? It's clear that O'Riordan is opening because DBD refuses to do so. We've moved Evison up but do we want to sacrifice him in the knowledge that he is likely to get more runs not doing so. Muyeye is a busted flush against the new ball and has at last got meaningful runs in the position he always should have been batting in at red ball.
Equally, it might only be for two games but what happens if Billings does get runs come September? Has he then become part of the first team squad and how do you explain the bigger picture to those who, in the same way, refused to do so with Robinson (because they genuinely did)?
I've been in and seen too many clubs fall apart because the management think that it's best to bring in one or two people from the outside. In the short and even more so long term it can ruin the spirit. And then people will say, as in the case of Robinson and Cox, that they never saw that happening. Because they weren't the victims of that. Remember what Robinson said about being the one that always seemed to be sacrificed. And then what happens is that the one or two that came in have moved on to a bigger bidder.
Come September, we should have Joe and Leaning back anyway. Or can loan a batsman. And why don't we have another opener for when Zak is away? If the Kent management seriously thought Muyeye could be an opener, then that's another failing of squad management. We have a vast number of bowlers and bits and pieces players like O'Riordan, who is a very innocuous spinner.
Billings isn't from outside, they've been playing under him in the Blast, and will do again in 2 weeks time. If we asked him to play these 2 county games only, then that to me would help team spirit. This isn't a Robinson situation where somebody is constantly being left out despite delivering, we have a team racked by injuries that is being stuffed at the moment.
It's also the perception from outside though. You mention about loaning a player in but think about the calibre that we've been getting in recently. Who is the last successful loaned in player we had because I'm struggling to remember one. They've been the players that have either been released at the end of last season or ones that are still playing 2s cricket and may never make the grade. Last season it was Geddes, McKerr, Albert and Niijar. The year before it was
A coach of another county said last year of us "well anyone can play for Kent". That's not, unfortunately. to say that anyone wants to play for Kent. We are a second class county in every respect. When Charlton sends players out on loan, one would hope that we do due diligence to ensure that the player is going into the right environment. A player's agent will have plenty of contacts within the game and know whether they should go
We have no money. We cannot attract the very best overseas players (why is Labuschagne, for example, playing for Glamorgan, Lyon for Lancashire, Henry for Somerset?). We don't have a conveyor belt of the best youngsters because of our status and a lack of infrastructure compared to the likes of Surrey. Those that we do have mainly leave. Our Women's team have been downgraded to the benefit of the big counties so we are are now losing promising girls too.
The injuries are one thing. But how many of those have really been preforming? Even our England opener, apart from one innings from 17, has done absolutely nothing of note. Why isn't he playing in this game? Pope is so if the argument is valid for Billings playing surely it is for our best opener. We can't insist on him doing so but it seems that England or even Crawley himself has chosen to come out of the firing line. Billings has been part of that malaise for years now as his averages testify - 9.20 (2023), 23.81 (2022), 29.80 (2021) and 20.00 (2020). One man with that record is not going to change anything especially as he says that he wished he'd given up red ball a couple of years ago. It would have benefitted us if he had.
I know that you, like me, go back a long way. Below is the team I used to watch as a kid. There isn't a single one of our current team that would get into it. But there's also not a single one that would pick and choose when they wanted to play for us. Come rain or shine, whether they'd just played for England or not. That, sadly, is a reflection of how the game has changed but even more so for us. Because in those days we were on a level playing field with the other counties and senior players did not have the power or feel the need to say when they are prepared to play as they have now.
Brian Luckhurst (England) Mike Denness (England) Colin Cowdrey (England) Asif Iqbal (Pakistan) Alan Ealham John Shepherd (West Indies) Bob Woolmer (England) Alan Knott (England) Bernard Julien (West Indies) Derek Underwood (England) Norman Graham
I suppose the million dollar question ( excuse the pun ) is how do we get the money to compete ?
All those Test/Hundred hosting counties have massive incomes and bigger grounds as a result of that. Which is what the ECB want which is why they denied us the Women's upgrade to Tier 1 status despite the fact that we had produced through our pathway nine of the 80 Women selected in The Hundred. We will receive a cash injection as a result of The Hundred sell off but the real acid test will be whether we and Beckenham specifically is given the right to host one of the new franchises. That won't make us on a par with the big guns but will help to bridge the gap. If we don't then we will become a feeder club.
Beckenham isn't going to get a franchise. The facilities are not good enough.
From The Times:
Kent County Cricket Club are seeking to buy their ground in Beckenham and develop the site to allow them to bid to become a third London Hundred team when the tournament expands.
Kent lease the site in southeast London, which is situated next to Crystal Palace FC’s training ground. There are 11 years left on the lease and the county were due to write to their members on Wednesday setting out their plans to try to buy the site and develop it into a premier facility. That would help them put forward a good case to the ECB that it should be the home of a new Hundred team when the tournament expands in size from its present eight teams.
Although discussions about the future of the Hundred are still taking place, it is set to expand in size to probably ten teams after the present broadcast deal runs out in 2028.
As revealed by the Times, the tournament is set to receive a huge injection of private investment later in the year when the ECB auctions off 49 per cent stakes in each of the teams with a 51 per cent stake being handed over to the host venues. They can, in turn, sell off a further stake to investors (although some, including Surrey, have said they would not be interested in selling any of their stake preferring to keep control themselves).
Valuations of the Hundred teams have shown that the London teams would have a significantly higher value to private investors and, therefore, a third London team when the tournament expands could raise significant further investment.
The site is 24 acres, which is bigger than the footprint of the Kia Oval and Lord’s combined, and already houses the second-largest indoor school in London. Kent already host a number of men’s and women’s matches there as well as offering it for use as a base for overseas touring sides. Australia used Beckenham as their training base before the Ashes last summer and gave positive feedback about the quality of the square and the facilities. West Indies will play a warm-up match against a combined counties XI there before the Test series this summer.
The ground has four major London boroughs surrounding it — Lewisham, Greenwich, Bromley and Bexley — which have a combined population of 1.2 million people with a varied age and ethnically diverse demographic. Attracting spectators from outside of the traditional cricket fanbase is a key objective of the Hundred and Beckenham would tick many boxes.
Canterbury will remain Kent’s headquarters and the base for the county’s men’s matches but the development of this site would give them an option to play other matches, particularly making it the base for women’s and girls’ cricket in Kent as well as the potential Hundred team.
It had been mooted that one option for expansion of the Hundred would be to host two teams at Lord’s — the London Spirit team plus another owned by MCC, but it is understood that MCC do not regard such an option as being viable and would need members’ approval (which is not guaranteed).
Kent’s plans are in the early stages but the revenue yielded from private investment into the Hundred, for which each county is initially expected to receive a £5 million lump sum when the ECB auctions off its stakes in the teams, could help Kent’s financial plan for the development of Beckenham.
The county are exploring sustainable ways of developing the ground into a pop-up stadium which could involve having stands that could accommodate at least 12,000 people, put up for the month of August when the Hundred takes place and downsized for the rest of the year. The plan would use the same sort of stadium technology that is being used for the new stadium in New York which is being used for the T20 World Cup in June.
Decisions about the future of the Hundred will be taken by the counties, MCC and ECB in the coming months with a prospectus for buying stakes in the teams sent out to prospective investors in the summer with the equity auction expected to take place in the autumn.
As the ground is right next door to Palace's training ground , i wouldn't be surprised if they were in competition for the land once the lease expired.
They will help finance the stadium rebuild and the team will be called Kentish eagles
What are Essex and Somerset doing right that we aren't? Neither are Test or 100 counties, yet both are far more successful than us , on and off the pitch.
I agree with the doubts about Canterbury. A long way from the main population bases of historical Kent, and it's not as if Canterbury and East Kent is the area which dominates Kent club cricket either.
As a ground it's neither picturesque nor modern, the spectator facilities are pretty poor by modern standards.
Very true - Neither are particularly big grounds either.
Jas Singh, a genuine No 11 with the bat, and the 5th seamer used in this innings, bowling just 4 overs.
Billings has said he would play in an emergency, but that he didn't want to get in the way of other players. In this game, he could have played as a specialist batsman surely, as he's in good nick and we don't need 5 seamers.
In ordinary circumstances I would agree and certainly that we don't need 5 seamers but then the only other alternative, apart from Qadri and Bhuiyan, was Jaydn.
Billings has always done what Billings wants. We should remember that he has usually put his white ball ventures in front of Kent apart from last season when he said he wasn't going to the IPL - but then he knew that he wasn't going to be picked up in the auction. He also insisted on taking the gloves when he came back from those and took time off to go to things like Coldplay concerts with Jos Buttler rather than turn out for us last season. His point about "not getting in the way" is a valid one, not necessarily in this game but what happens if he does get runs? Some of the membership would be screaming blue murder if and when Joe Denly and/or Leaning are fit for the next one and Billings isn't selected. So that would mean dropping Muyeye and/or Finch. Both will remember what happened and when it comes to contract renewals especially in the case of the former and another county comes knocking? We lose another promising youngster in the shape of Muyeye to add to Robinson and Cox. With nothing, as we've found, nothing coming in to replace them. History repeating itself.
The bottom line is this. Will Billings win us enough games to keep us up. Highly doubtful especially as his red ball exploits for the last four seasons have been woeful. Is it worth upsetting the dressing room (again) by including him for one or two? The management have to make that call and might think that it isn't.
A batting lineup with O'Riordan opening, Finch in the top 6 and bowlers coming in at 7 is an emergency situation to me! Billings coming in at 6 or 7 would have freedom to play his normal attacking white ball game.
There are only 2 red ball games in between the Blast games, so chances are that we won't have Joe AND Leaning back for Hampshire next week, and O'Riordan would surely be more at risk than Finch or Muyeye anyway.
O'Riordan is being used as the offie and second spinner - if Denly is available he wouldn't offer that as not only has he only bowled 12 overs this season and turns the ball the same way as Parkinson does. The other question would be "who opens"? It's clear that O'Riordan is opening because DBD refuses to do so. We've moved Evison up but do we want to sacrifice him in the knowledge that he is likely to get more runs not doing so. Muyeye is a busted flush against the new ball and has at last got meaningful runs in the position he always should have been batting in at red ball.
Equally, it might only be for two games but what happens if Billings does get runs come September? Has he then become part of the first team squad and how do you explain the bigger picture to those who, in the same way, refused to do so with Robinson (because they genuinely did)?
I've been in and seen too many clubs fall apart because the management think that it's best to bring in one or two people from the outside. In the short and even more so long term it can ruin the spirit. And then people will say, as in the case of Robinson and Cox, that they never saw that happening. Because they weren't the victims of that. Remember what Robinson said about being the one that always seemed to be sacrificed. And then what happens is that the one or two that came in have moved on to a bigger bidder.
Come September, we should have Joe and Leaning back anyway. Or can loan a batsman. And why don't we have another opener for when Zak is away? If the Kent management seriously thought Muyeye could be an opener, then that's another failing of squad management. We have a vast number of bowlers and bits and pieces players like O'Riordan, who is a very innocuous spinner.
Billings isn't from outside, they've been playing under him in the Blast, and will do again in 2 weeks time. If we asked him to play these 2 county games only, then that to me would help team spirit. This isn't a Robinson situation where somebody is constantly being left out despite delivering, we have a team racked by injuries that is being stuffed at the moment.
It's also the perception from outside though. You mention about loaning a player in but think about the calibre that we've been getting in recently. Who is the last successful loaned in player we had because I'm struggling to remember one. They've been the players that have either been released at the end of last season or ones that are still playing 2s cricket and may never make the grade. Last season it was Geddes, McKerr, Albert and Niijar. The year before it was
A coach of another county said last year of us "well anyone can play for Kent". That's not, unfortunately. to say that anyone wants to play for Kent. We are a second class county in every respect. When Charlton sends players out on loan, one would hope that we do due diligence to ensure that the player is going into the right environment. A player's agent will have plenty of contacts within the game and know whether they should go
We have no money. We cannot attract the very best overseas players (why is Labuschagne, for example, playing for Glamorgan, Lyon for Lancashire, Henry for Somerset?). We don't have a conveyor belt of the best youngsters because of our status and a lack of infrastructure compared to the likes of Surrey. Those that we do have mainly leave. Our Women's team have been downgraded to the benefit of the big counties so we are are now losing promising girls too.
The injuries are one thing. But how many of those have really been preforming? Even our England opener, apart from one innings from 17, has done absolutely nothing of note. Why isn't he playing in this game? Pope is so if the argument is valid for Billings playing surely it is for our best opener. We can't insist on him doing so but it seems that England or even Crawley himself has chosen to come out of the firing line. Billings has been part of that malaise for years now as his averages testify - 9.20 (2023), 23.81 (2022), 29.80 (2021) and 20.00 (2020). One man with that record is not going to change anything especially as he says that he wished he'd given up red ball a couple of years ago. It would have benefitted us if he had.
I know that you, like me, go back a long way. Below is the team I used to watch as a kid. There isn't a single one of our current team that would get into it. But there's also not a single one that would pick and choose when they wanted to play for us. Come rain or shine, whether they'd just played for England or not. That, sadly, is a reflection of how the game has changed but even more so for us. Because in those days we were on a level playing field with the other counties and senior players did not have the power or feel the need to say when they are prepared to play as they have now.
Brian Luckhurst (England) Mike Denness (England) Colin Cowdrey (England) Asif Iqbal (Pakistan) Alan Ealham John Shepherd (West Indies) Bob Woolmer (England) Alan Knott (England) Bernard Julien (West Indies) Derek Underwood (England) Norman Graham
I suppose the million dollar question ( excuse the pun ) is how do we get the money to compete ?
All those Test/Hundred hosting counties have massive incomes and bigger grounds as a result of that. Which is what the ECB want which is why they denied us the Women's upgrade to Tier 1 status despite the fact that we had produced through our pathway nine of the 80 Women selected in The Hundred. We will receive a cash injection as a result of The Hundred sell off but the real acid test will be whether we and Beckenham specifically is given the right to host one of the new franchises. That won't make us on a par with the big guns but will help to bridge the gap. If we don't then we will become a feeder club.
Beckenham isn't going to get a franchise. The facilities are not good enough.
From The Times:
Kent County Cricket Club are seeking to buy their ground in Beckenham and develop the site to allow them to bid to become a third London Hundred team when the tournament expands.
Kent lease the site in southeast London, which is situated next to Crystal Palace FC’s training ground. There are 11 years left on the lease and the county were due to write to their members on Wednesday setting out their plans to try to buy the site and develop it into a premier facility. That would help them put forward a good case to the ECB that it should be the home of a new Hundred team when the tournament expands in size from its present eight teams.
Although discussions about the future of the Hundred are still taking place, it is set to expand in size to probably ten teams after the present broadcast deal runs out in 2028.
As revealed by the Times, the tournament is set to receive a huge injection of private investment later in the year when the ECB auctions off 49 per cent stakes in each of the teams with a 51 per cent stake being handed over to the host venues. They can, in turn, sell off a further stake to investors (although some, including Surrey, have said they would not be interested in selling any of their stake preferring to keep control themselves).
Valuations of the Hundred teams have shown that the London teams would have a significantly higher value to private investors and, therefore, a third London team when the tournament expands could raise significant further investment.
The site is 24 acres, which is bigger than the footprint of the Kia Oval and Lord’s combined, and already houses the second-largest indoor school in London. Kent already host a number of men’s and women’s matches there as well as offering it for use as a base for overseas touring sides. Australia used Beckenham as their training base before the Ashes last summer and gave positive feedback about the quality of the square and the facilities. West Indies will play a warm-up match against a combined counties XI there before the Test series this summer.
The ground has four major London boroughs surrounding it — Lewisham, Greenwich, Bromley and Bexley — which have a combined population of 1.2 million people with a varied age and ethnically diverse demographic. Attracting spectators from outside of the traditional cricket fanbase is a key objective of the Hundred and Beckenham would tick many boxes.
Canterbury will remain Kent’s headquarters and the base for the county’s men’s matches but the development of this site would give them an option to play other matches, particularly making it the base for women’s and girls’ cricket in Kent as well as the potential Hundred team.
It had been mooted that one option for expansion of the Hundred would be to host two teams at Lord’s — the London Spirit team plus another owned by MCC, but it is understood that MCC do not regard such an option as being viable and would need members’ approval (which is not guaranteed).
Kent’s plans are in the early stages but the revenue yielded from private investment into the Hundred, for which each county is initially expected to receive a £5 million lump sum when the ECB auctions off its stakes in the teams, could help Kent’s financial plan for the development of Beckenham.
The county are exploring sustainable ways of developing the ground into a pop-up stadium which could involve having stands that could accommodate at least 12,000 people, put up for the month of August when the Hundred takes place and downsized for the rest of the year. The plan would use the same sort of stadium technology that is being used for the new stadium in New York which is being used for the T20 World Cup in June.
Decisions about the future of the Hundred will be taken by the counties, MCC and ECB in the coming months with a prospectus for buying stakes in the teams sent out to prospective investors in the summer with the equity auction expected to take place in the autumn.
As the ground is right next door to Palace's training ground , i wouldn't be surprised if they were in competition for the land once the lease expired.
I'm pretty sure that Palace frequently use the facilities, for parking for example, already for their age group teams I believe presumably on an ad hoc basis for some sort of minor recompense
Hopefully the Kent medical team that keep our players in tip top condition and injury free can give Palace a hand next season.
What are Essex and Somerset doing right that we aren't? Neither are Test or 100 counties, yet both are far more successful than us , on and off the pitch.
I agree with the doubts about Canterbury. A long way from the main population bases of historical Kent, and it's not as if Canterbury and East Kent is the area which dominates Kent club cricket either.
As a ground it's neither picturesque nor modern, the spectator facilities are pretty poor by modern standards.
In Somerset's case that's probably down to their ability to produce "homegrown" players due to a captive market that extends to the likes of Devon and Cornwall and they have a few very big private schools including King's which have produced the likes of Jos Buttler, James Rew, Craig Meschede, Tom Banton and "our" Nathan Gilchrist. Once you have that as an underpin and ongoing (with initial contracts at the lower end of the scale), you can then supplement the squad from outside. Those in bold below are ones playing in Kent and Somerset's current CC matches.
Somerset have just 8 players that came from outside and this is the current list of 17 players in their squad that came through their system:
Tom Abell Tom Lammonby (via Devon) Will Smeed Tom Banton Shoaib Bashir (via Berkshire) Kasey Aldridge Sonny Baker (via Devon) Jack Leach Ned Leonard Alfie Ogbourne Josh Thomas Lewis Goldsworthy (via Cornwall) Ben Green (via Devon) Lewis Gregory (via Devon) Craig Overton (via Devon) George Thomas James Rew
We have, by comparison, just 7 home grown and 17 from outside:
Crawley DBD Billings Singh Joe Denly Jaydn Denly O'Riordan
Of those only Crawley, DBD and Joe Denly are regular contributors to red and white ball cricket. That's a massive differential between us and Somerset but then we have competition from our nearest counties to fend off.
So, having established that we have 7 home grown players and Somerset have 17, I thought I would look at Essex. They have:
Charlie Allison Nick Browne Robin Das Feroze Khushi Tom Westley Jamal Richards Noah Thain Michael Pepper (via Cambridge) Aaron Beard Ben Allison
So that's 10. However, you can legitimately add the likes of Jamie Porter, Sam Cook and Paul Walter who were all born in Essex and came via club/university cricket. So that makes 13 "home grown" players in total. That extra half a dozen, compared to us, makes a significant contribution to the squad overall.
What are Essex and Somerset doing right that we aren't? Neither are Test or 100 counties, yet both are far more successful than us , on and off the pitch.
I agree with the doubts about Canterbury. A long way from the main population bases of historical Kent, and it's not as if Canterbury and East Kent is the area which dominates Kent club cricket either.
As a ground it's neither picturesque nor modern, the spectator facilities are pretty poor by modern standards.
In Somerset's case that's probably down to their ability to produce "homegrown" players due to a captive market that extends to the likes of Devon and Cornwall and they have a few very big private schools including King's which have produced the likes of Jos Buttler, James Rew, Craig Meschede, Tom Banton and "our" Nathan Gilchrist. Once you have that as an underpin and ongoing (with initial contracts at the lower end of the scale), you can then supplement the squad from outside. Those in bold below are ones playing in Kent and Somerset's current CC matches.
Somerset have just 8 players that came from outside and this is the current list of 17 players in their squad that came through their system:
Tom Abell Tom Lammonby (via Devon) Will Smeed Tom Banton Shoaib Bashir (via Berkshire) Kasey Aldridge Sonny Baker (via Devon) Jack Leach Ned Leonard Alfie Ogbourne Josh Thomas Lewis Goldsworthy (via Cornwall) Ben Green (via Devon) Lewis Gregory (via Devon) Craig Overton (via Devon) George Thomas James Rew
We have, by comparison, just 7 home grown and 17 from outside:
Crawley DBD Billings Singh Joe Denly Jaydn Denly O'Riordan
Of those only Crawley, DBD and Joe Denly are regular contributors to red and white ball cricket. That's a massive differential between us and Somerset but then we have competition from our nearest counties to fend off.
So, having established that we have 7 home grown players and Somerset have 17, I thought I would look at Essex. They have:
Charlie Allison Nick Browne Robin Das Feroze Khushi Tom Westley Jamal Richards Noah Thain Michael Pepper (via Cambridge) Aaron Beard Ben Allison
So that's 10. However, you can legitimately add the likes of Jamie Porter, Sam Cook and Paul Walter who were all born in Essex and came via club/university cricket. So that makes 13 "home grown" players in total. That extra half a dozen, compared to us, makes a significant contribution to the squad overall.
Be interesting to see the differences in the finances as well . When I last looked Somerset generated over 1 mill more than us with Matchday Receipts and Subscriptions, but that was in 2022 so there may have been a covid factor in there.
What are Essex and Somerset doing right that we aren't? Neither are Test or 100 counties, yet both are far more successful than us , on and off the pitch.
I agree with the doubts about Canterbury. A long way from the main population bases of historical Kent, and it's not as if Canterbury and East Kent is the area which dominates Kent club cricket either.
As a ground it's neither picturesque nor modern, the spectator facilities are pretty poor by modern standards.
In Somerset's case that's probably down to their ability to produce "homegrown" players due to a captive market that extends to the likes of Devon and Cornwall and they have a few very big private schools including King's which have produced the likes of Jos Buttler, James Rew, Craig Meschede, Tom Banton and "our" Nathan Gilchrist. Once you have that as an underpin and ongoing (with initial contracts at the lower end of the scale), you can then supplement the squad from outside. Those in bold below are ones playing in Kent and Somerset's current CC matches.
Somerset have just 8 players that came from outside and this is the current list of 17 players in their squad that came through their system:
Tom Abell Tom Lammonby (via Devon) Will Smeed Tom Banton Shoaib Bashir (via Berkshire) Kasey Aldridge Sonny Baker (via Devon) Jack Leach Ned Leonard Alfie Ogbourne Josh Thomas Lewis Goldsworthy (via Cornwall) Ben Green (via Devon) Lewis Gregory (via Devon) Craig Overton (via Devon) George Thomas James Rew
We have, by comparison, just 7 home grown and 17 from outside:
Crawley DBD Billings Singh Joe Denly Jaydn Denly O'Riordan
Of those only Crawley, DBD and Joe Denly are regular contributors to red and white ball cricket. That's a massive differential between us and Somerset but then we have competition from our nearest counties to fend off.
So, having established that we have 7 home grown players and Somerset have 17, I thought I would look at Essex. They have:
Charlie Allison Nick Browne Robin Das Feroze Khushi Tom Westley Jamal Richards Noah Thain Michael Pepper (via Cambridge) Aaron Beard Ben Allison
So that's 10. However, you can legitimately add the likes of Jamie Porter, Sam Cook and Paul Walter who were all born in Essex and came via club/university cricket. So that makes 13 "home grown" players in total. That extra half a dozen, compared to us, makes a significant contribution to the squad overall.
Essex have been much more successful than us in bringing though players, from both the private schools and the London state schools. Yes Kent have produced and lost Northeast, Cox and Robinson, but Essex have also produced in recent years Foakes, Topley, Lawrence and to an extent Tymal Mills. Plus Ravi Bopara and the recently retired A Cook.
What are Essex and Somerset doing right that we aren't? Neither are Test or 100 counties, yet both are far more successful than us , on and off the pitch.
I agree with the doubts about Canterbury. A long way from the main population bases of historical Kent, and it's not as if Canterbury and East Kent is the area which dominates Kent club cricket either.
As a ground it's neither picturesque nor modern, the spectator facilities are pretty poor by modern standards.
In Somerset's case that's probably down to their ability to produce "homegrown" players due to a captive market that extends to the likes of Devon and Cornwall and they have a few very big private schools including King's which have produced the likes of Jos Buttler, James Rew, Craig Meschede, Tom Banton and "our" Nathan Gilchrist. Once you have that as an underpin and ongoing (with initial contracts at the lower end of the scale), you can then supplement the squad from outside. Those in bold below are ones playing in Kent and Somerset's current CC matches.
Somerset have just 8 players that came from outside and this is the current list of 17 players in their squad that came through their system:
Tom Abell Tom Lammonby (via Devon) Will Smeed Tom Banton Shoaib Bashir (via Berkshire) Kasey Aldridge Sonny Baker (via Devon) Jack Leach Ned Leonard Alfie Ogbourne Josh Thomas Lewis Goldsworthy (via Cornwall) Ben Green (via Devon) Lewis Gregory (via Devon) Craig Overton (via Devon) George Thomas James Rew
We have, by comparison, just 7 home grown and 17 from outside:
Crawley DBD Billings Singh Joe Denly Jaydn Denly O'Riordan
Of those only Crawley, DBD and Joe Denly are regular contributors to red and white ball cricket. That's a massive differential between us and Somerset but then we have competition from our nearest counties to fend off.
So, having established that we have 7 home grown players and Somerset have 17, I thought I would look at Essex. They have:
Charlie Allison Nick Browne Robin Das Feroze Khushi Tom Westley Jamal Richards Noah Thain Michael Pepper (via Cambridge) Aaron Beard Ben Allison
So that's 10. However, you can legitimately add the likes of Jamie Porter, Sam Cook and Paul Walter who were all born in Essex and came via club/university cricket. So that makes 13 "home grown" players in total. That extra half a dozen, compared to us, makes a significant contribution to the squad overall.
Essex have been much more successful than us in bringing though players, from both the private schools and the London state schools. Yes Kent have produced and lost Northeast, Cox and Robinson, but Essex have also produced in recent years Foakes, Topley, Lawrence and to an extent Tymal Mills. Plus Ravi Bopara and the recently retired A Cook.
Hmmm.
And where are 3 of those luminaries now plying their trade ?
No prize for answering correctly.
The Manchester City of cricket.
It breaks my heart to be so passionate about & obviously 100% loyal to my home county.
What are Essex and Somerset doing right that we aren't? Neither are Test or 100 counties, yet both are far more successful than us , on and off the pitch.
I agree with the doubts about Canterbury. A long way from the main population bases of historical Kent, and it's not as if Canterbury and East Kent is the area which dominates Kent club cricket either.
As a ground it's neither picturesque nor modern, the spectator facilities are pretty poor by modern standards.
In Somerset's case that's probably down to their ability to produce "homegrown" players due to a captive market that extends to the likes of Devon and Cornwall and they have a few very big private schools including King's which have produced the likes of Jos Buttler, James Rew, Craig Meschede, Tom Banton and "our" Nathan Gilchrist. Once you have that as an underpin and ongoing (with initial contracts at the lower end of the scale), you can then supplement the squad from outside. Those in bold below are ones playing in Kent and Somerset's current CC matches.
Somerset have just 8 players that came from outside and this is the current list of 17 players in their squad that came through their system:
Tom Abell Tom Lammonby (via Devon) Will Smeed Tom Banton Shoaib Bashir (via Berkshire) Kasey Aldridge Sonny Baker (via Devon) Jack Leach Ned Leonard Alfie Ogbourne Josh Thomas Lewis Goldsworthy (via Cornwall) Ben Green (via Devon) Lewis Gregory (via Devon) Craig Overton (via Devon) George Thomas James Rew
We have, by comparison, just 7 home grown and 17 from outside:
Crawley DBD Billings Singh Joe Denly Jaydn Denly O'Riordan
Of those only Crawley, DBD and Joe Denly are regular contributors to red and white ball cricket. That's a massive differential between us and Somerset but then we have competition from our nearest counties to fend off.
So, having established that we have 7 home grown players and Somerset have 17, I thought I would look at Essex. They have:
Charlie Allison Nick Browne Robin Das Feroze Khushi Tom Westley Jamal Richards Noah Thain Michael Pepper (via Cambridge) Aaron Beard Ben Allison
So that's 10. However, you can legitimately add the likes of Jamie Porter, Sam Cook and Paul Walter who were all born in Essex and came via club/university cricket. So that makes 13 "home grown" players in total. That extra half a dozen, compared to us, makes a significant contribution to the squad overall.
Be interesting to see the differences in the finances as well . When I last looked Somerset generated over 1 mill more than us with Matchday Receipts and Subscriptions, but that was in 2022 so there may have been a covid factor in there.
From Kent's 2023 accounts:
The financial review in last year’s annual report concluded that our key financial risk was that of many
organisations in the current environment. It will be difficult to grow income significantly yet there are
going to be pressures on maintaining expenditure levels given the cost of living crisis.
This has very much proved to be the case.
Expenditure increasing at 10 times the rate of the increase in income led to a significant adverse
movement in the overall result for the year and a deficit before taxation of £469,000 (2022: deficit - £31,000).
Are we the only county that charges for their streams ?
on the Essex forum they were up in arms about it last Friday saying free everywhere else
I believe this to be the case
We purchased a Six Pack around Xmas & have only used 1 match ticket each so far. Aim to get to the Sussex, Glamorgan & Surrey games ( why ???) and a couple of the One Dayers.
With other issues in our lives, I don't begrudge paying the £5.99 for matches we can't manage to get to in person.
Same situation with Charlton /season tickets and the live stream but have to factor in the trips to Tenerife in order to access the stream
Don't think many counties will match Sussex for the " players from local private schools that have links into the county setup " level of things - okay the side currently playing against Leicestershire isn't quite as heavy on that as some of the sides we fielded last season where I think it was 8 at one point and the various jokes going around about it being a pseudo U23s side. At least this season seems a bit more settled than that was despite another bizarre winter with the loss of Ali Orr to Hampshire to add to the long list of players we've not been able to hold onto over the past 3-5 years.
Current side just for comparison to the Essex and Somerset setups posted earlier.
Oli Carter (academy) Tom Haines (Academy) Tom Alsop (Hampshire) James Coles (pathway programme with Oxfordshire) John Simpson (Middlesex) Fynn Hudson-Prentice (academy) Jack Carson (Academy via Northern Ireland) Danny Lamb (Lancashire) Sean Hunt (Surrey) Ollie Robinson (Yorkshire) Nathan McAndrew (Overseas)
Unless Lancashire declare at lunch, they will become the 6th team in our 8 CC matches to reach 500 against us. In one of the two games where the opposition didn't do that, they got over 400. The only game when the oppo didn't reach 400 was the first game against Lancashire which was, of course, our only win to date. Strange coincidence that stopping a side from getting to 400 results in a win.
Comments
Kent used to beat Surrey in a regular basis back then.
That is also where I think Kent missed their chance of growing as a club.
The two biggest catchment areas for Kent are south London and the Medway towns.
Had they built a ground anywhere in the south London or Medway area I believe they would have grown as a club.
I honestly believe that making Canterbury their main residence that the have cut off their main core support.
Just saying
Kent County Cricket Club are seeking to buy their ground in Beckenham and develop the site to allow them to bid to become a third London Hundred team when the tournament expands.
Kent lease the site in southeast London, which is situated next to Crystal Palace FC’s training ground. There are 11 years left on the lease and the county were due to write to their members on Wednesday setting out their plans to try to buy the site and develop it into a premier facility. That would help them put forward a good case to the ECB that it should be the home of a new Hundred team when the tournament expands in size from its present eight teams.
Although discussions about the future of the Hundred are still taking place, it is set to expand in size to probably ten teams after the present broadcast deal runs out in 2028.
As revealed by the Times, the tournament is set to receive a huge injection of private investment later in the year when the ECB auctions off 49 per cent stakes in each of the teams with a 51 per cent stake being handed over to the host venues. They can, in turn, sell off a further stake to investors (although some, including Surrey, have said they would not be interested in selling any of their stake preferring to keep control themselves).
Valuations of the Hundred teams have shown that the London teams would have a significantly higher value to private investors and, therefore, a third London team when the tournament expands could raise significant further investment.
The site is 24 acres, which is bigger than the footprint of the Kia Oval and Lord’s combined, and already houses the second-largest indoor school in London. Kent already host a number of men’s and women’s matches there as well as offering it for use as a base for overseas touring sides. Australia used Beckenham as their training base before the Ashes last summer and gave positive feedback about the quality of the square and the facilities. West Indies will play a warm-up match against a combined counties XI there before the Test series this summer.
The ground has four major London boroughs surrounding it — Lewisham, Greenwich, Bromley and Bexley — which have a combined population of 1.2 million people with a varied age and ethnically diverse demographic. Attracting spectators from outside of the traditional cricket fanbase is a key objective of the Hundred and Beckenham would tick many boxes.
Canterbury will remain Kent’s headquarters and the base for the county’s men’s matches but the development of this site would give them an option to play other matches, particularly making it the base for women’s and girls’ cricket in Kent as well as the potential Hundred team.
It had been mooted that one option for expansion of the Hundred would be to host two teams at Lord’s — the London Spirit team plus another owned by MCC, but it is understood that MCC do not regard such an option as being viable and would need members’ approval (which is not guaranteed).
Kent’s plans are in the early stages but the revenue yielded from private investment into the Hundred, for which each county is initially expected to receive a £5 million lump sum when the ECB auctions off its stakes in the teams, could help Kent’s financial plan for the development of Beckenham.
The county are exploring sustainable ways of developing the ground into a pop-up stadium which could involve having stands that could accommodate at least 12,000 people, put up for the month of August when the Hundred takes place and downsized for the rest of the year. The plan would use the same sort of stadium technology that is being used for the new stadium in New York which is being used for the T20 World Cup in June.
Decisions about the future of the Hundred will be taken by the counties, MCC and ECB in the coming months with a prospectus for buying stakes in the teams sent out to prospective investors in the summer with the equity auction expected to take place in the autumn.
i follow Kent and really can’t be arsed to drive to Canterbury to watch them. I would travel to Medway but that’s it
Several of them post on here ( I won't name them ).
But seriously looking at where Kent are now I honestly think Canterbury is the problem.
meet a s a group!
I’ve seen Kent play county cricket at dartford (my dad took me and he had a good days drinking) and Maidstone. Maidstone would
make more sense than Canterbury, especially as a one day venue
I agree with the doubts about Canterbury. A long way from the main population bases of historical Kent, and it's not as if Canterbury and East Kent is the area which dominates Kent club cricket either.
As a ground it's neither picturesque nor modern, the spectator facilities are pretty poor by modern standards.
Somerset have just 8 players that came from outside and this is the current list of 17 players in their squad that came through their system:
Tom Abell
Tom Lammonby (via Devon)
Will Smeed
Tom Banton
Shoaib Bashir (via Berkshire)
Kasey Aldridge
Sonny Baker (via Devon)
Jack Leach
Ned Leonard
Alfie Ogbourne
Josh Thomas
Lewis Goldsworthy (via Cornwall)
Ben Green (via Devon)
Lewis Gregory (via Devon)
Craig Overton (via Devon)
George Thomas
James Rew
We have, by comparison, just 7 home grown and 17 from outside:
Crawley
DBD
Billings
Singh
Joe Denly
Jaydn Denly
O'Riordan
Of those only Crawley, DBD and Joe Denly are regular contributors to red and white ball cricket. That's a massive differential between us and Somerset but then we have competition from our nearest counties to fend off.
Charlie Allison
Nick Browne
Robin Das
Feroze Khushi
Tom Westley
Jamal Richards
Noah Thain
Michael Pepper (via Cambridge)
Aaron Beard
Ben Allison
So that's 10. However, you can legitimately add the likes of Jamie Porter, Sam Cook and Paul Walter who were all born in Essex and came via club/university cricket. So that makes 13 "home grown" players in total. That extra half a dozen, compared to us, makes a significant contribution to the squad overall.
Hmmm.
And where are 3 of those luminaries now plying their trade ?
No prize for answering correctly.
The Manchester City of cricket.
It breaks my heart to be so passionate about & obviously 100% loyal to my home county.
I fear for the future...
on the Essex forum they were up in arms about it last Friday saying free everywhere else
The financial review in last year’s annual report concluded that our key financial risk was that of many organisations in the current environment. It will be difficult to grow income significantly yet there are going to be pressures on maintaining expenditure levels given the cost of living crisis. This has very much proved to be the case.
Expenditure increasing at 10 times the rate of the increase in income led to a significant adverse movement in the overall result for the year and a deficit before taxation of £469,000 (2022: deficit - £31,000).
With other issues in our lives, I don't begrudge paying the £5.99 for matches we can't manage to get to in person.
Same situation with Charlton /season tickets and the live stream but have to factor in the trips to Tenerife in order to access the stream
Current side just for comparison to the Essex and Somerset setups posted earlier.
Oli Carter (academy)
Tom Haines (Academy)
Tom Alsop (Hampshire)
James Coles (pathway programme with Oxfordshire)
John Simpson (Middlesex)
Fynn Hudson-Prentice (academy)
Jack Carson (Academy via Northern Ireland)
Danny Lamb (Lancashire)
Sean Hunt (Surrey)
Ollie Robinson (Yorkshire)
Nathan McAndrew (Overseas)