An Open Letter to Colin Graves

[MUFC1987]

I disagree. When a county coach sits down at the start of the season and has a choice between the reliable 32 year old bowler, or the 20 year old without experience, they will choose the 32 year old every single time. And why? Because they have their own success to think about. I mean look at teams like Notts. They're much more willing to take players from other teams (James Taylor, Will Gidman etc) than promote from within. I'd say the 'smaller' counties are the ones that give opportunities to younger cricketers (admittedly mainly due to budget constraints). Hence why the likes of Leicestershire have produced so many decent players. Without those counties, they're not going to get a go. Much like a franchise system for T20 may result in the senior players getting better, but it would harm the chance that the youngsters get. Even in India they still play domestic T20, which gives that pathway for players outside of the IPL.

Oh, and that's rich from Boycott. It's just the same as he's happy to jump on the current players for everything they do badly, but goes very quiet when they do well. It did make me laugh with his claim that Ballance might be upset at the slights on his fellow Yorkshiremen.

 

[IceAgeComing]

ermm, now i'm slightly torn on this whole thing

e: although boycott apparently liked it, which is good

 

[barmyarmy]

Yeah my twitter feed has been going a bit nuts.

 

[swacker]

We are concerned though by reports that Andrew Strauss is set to be appointed to the new Director of Cricket role. We feel that Strauss’s brand of leadership is part of the problem.

Can't disagree with that though - unhealthy siege mentality, blinkered thinking and the appointment of Strauss designed to maintain the power status quo.

 

[blockerdave]

Boycott's article is absolutely brilliant.

In a way it's a shame Boycott wrote it since it will be dismissed as Boycott moaning as usual (actually, I think he's a much fairer judge than given credit for, both with praise and criticism) but what he wrote is 100% correct and definitely needed to be said.

 

[blockerdave]

I disagree. When a county coach sits down at the start of the season and has a choice between the reliable 32 year old bowler, or the 20 year old without experience, they will choose the 32 year old every single time. And why? Because they have their own success to think about. I mean look at teams like Notts. They're much more willing to take players from other teams (James Taylor, Will Gidman etc) than promote from within. I'd say the 'smaller' counties are the ones that give opportunities to younger cricketers (admittedly mainly due to budget constraints). Hence why the likes of Leicestershire have produced so many decent players. Without those counties, they're not going to get a go. Much like a franchise system for T20 may result in the senior players getting better, but it would harm the chance that the youngsters get. Even in India they still play domestic T20, which gives that pathway for players outside of the IPL.

Oh, and that's rich from Boycott. It's just the same as he's happy to jump on the current players for everything they do badly, but goes very quiet when they do well. It did make me laugh with his claim that Ballance might be upset at the slights on his fellow Yorkshiremen.

Australia has vastly fewer teams, and don't have a problem producing young players in state or international teams...

We need a better structured season, with less games on better pitches and preferably with the England players playing more domestic cricket (less internationals part of it).

There is no way that can be done in the current set up.

 

[richowebbo]

I just think we've had this talk for years about 'jobs for the boys' and all this stuff, which I think is fair enough. There are some great points to be made there. But is replacing all that with the entire Yorkshire set up and even throwing Michael Vaughan into that really going to solve anything? It'll be the exact same, just with a slightly different direction.

And don't get me wrong, Yorkshire had a great year last year, but so did Warwickshire just before we hired Ashley Giles and so did Lancashire just before we put Peter Moores into the job. It's not a cast iron guarantee of success.

And I'm not buying Graves as some sort of messiah. I'm sure the media love him, for the sound bites he gives, but I imagine there are a fair few of us who think he is talking utter, utter rubbish most of the time.

I may be a bit late, but I am a Yorkshire fan. They won the county championship. They had some of the highest scoring players in England and some of the best bowling stats. They are, at present, the best county. Hasn't always been this way. So, it makes sense to pick the players who are at the top of the game, right?

 

[richowebbo]

I really feel that us fans should be allowed details of what this new role entails. I understand that not everything should be relayed to the fans, and stuff needs to stay internal, but the ECB are media whores at the best of times, and have been telling us all, via their mates in the media, that this new role is going to improve the structure of English cricket, but they havn't told us how. All we getting is Colin Graves shouting his mouth off (before he's even started!) and Moores saying he's the right man to lead us because he's re-built teams at Lancashire and Nottingham before. What is Moores re-building? Its basically the same team as before he joined! Its a joke! We also Cook blaming everyone except himself or the lads in the side.

Trott has wasted an oppurtunity for a new opener to get 6 vital Test Match innings under his belt. If he wasn't god enough to take the number 3 spot from Bllance, why did they think opening would be a good idea? It seems its all about getting your mates in.

Despite Jordans heroic fielding, his bowling was, once again, inconsistent. Plunkett should be picked and allowed to bowl as a fast bowler, not "the enforcer" role (i.e bowling short) he has been made to play. Ben Stokes is a better ODI player than FC player, yet he wasn't selected for the WC. Bizarre. I'd like Woakes back in the side when he is fit.

Moeen Ali is not a first choice spinner, and if Rashid wasn't going to be used, we'd have liked him back at Yorkshire so we can challenge for the title again. Utterly stubborn management from the Captain, coach and selectors. The same applies for Lyth instead of Trott.

 

[_Sam_]

Think stokes exclusion from the WC squad was one of the things that was justifiable really given how he'd been going. You'd assume he'd be very close to a place in the team now and is hopefully more successful than last time.

 

[MUFC1987]

I may be a bit late, but I am a Yorkshire fan. They won the county championship. They had some of the highest scoring players in England and some of the best bowling stats. They are, at present, the best county. Hasn't always been this way. So, it makes sense to pick the players who are at the top of the game, right?

I didn't mention players. I'm all for the players who are performing well, getting chances. But that doesn't mean that the Yorkshire lads should get a free ride. Sure, Lyth had a good season, get him in the squad. But surely you can agree that recalling Sidebottom would be a bad idea, no matter how good a season he had? My main point though, was the coaches. We picked Giles as Coach because he performed well. We picked Moores as Coach because he performed well domestically. What's the point in changing yet again for the latest flavour of the month? And I'm not saying that Gillespie is a bad coach, he looks a very good Coach, but I just don't think changing yet again would work, because where is the proof? We let Fletcher and Flower have time and it worked. If Gillespie took over and we lost the Ashes and a different team won the Championship, should we get their coach in? Just seems like a revolving door to me.

 

[MUFC1987]

Trott has wasted an oppurtunity for a new opener to get 6 vital Test Match innings under his belt. If he wasn't god enough to take the number 3 spot from Ballance, why did they think opening would be a good idea? It seems its all about getting your mates in.

I disagree with this though. Trott was brilliant for us, averaging pretty much 50 in Test match cricket. We had a gap in the line up and he deserved a go. Sure, Lyth should get the next chance, but there have been plenty of examples of players not given opportunities, or not given a decent run. Carberry and Compton to name just two, it's not a new problem, especially because it's Lyth.

 

[Lecrunch]

Dear Mr Graves

1] Please could we have the following TYPE of players in the England test cricket team / 50-over team / 20-over team:

DAVID WARNER
MARTIN GUPTILL
CHETESWAR PUJARA
MICHAEL CLARKE
VIRAT KOHLI
BRENDON McCULLUM (c)
AB DE VILLIERS (wk)
MITCHELL JOHNSON
MITCHELL STARK
IMRAN TAHIR
DALE STEYN

12th men:
MORNE MORKEL
BRAD HADDIN
SHANE WATSON
STEVE SMITH
KANE WILLIAMSON
SAEED AJMAL
RAVICHANDRAN ASHWIN

2] Could you also please get a coach who has played a lot of international cricket and who knows how to get the best out of his players (someone like Darren Lehmann, maybe?)

3] Could you also please get a Director of Cricket who will sack the current coach and perhaps put the current captain out to grass.

4] Could you also please get the new captain off the panel of selectors.

5] Could you also please get a new panel of selectors.

4] If you can't do all of this this year before the Ashes - could you also please resign?

Thank you

M. Lecrunch

 

[Lecrunch]

Dear Mr Graves
Apologies
Sorry - MITCHELL STARC should not have been "STARK"
and it should also have been CHETESHWAR PUJARA not "CHETESWAR".
Please forgive me, I am a French resident who loves cricket!
M. Lecrunch

 

[Markkkkk]

Um...

 

[ethybubs]

Um...

I know, there's clearly an edit button for him to use... how embarrassing.