Solution to England?s Woes?

[Griffo]

the depth in english cricket is so shallow that these young talents need to be developed against top quiality opposition week in week out and if the players in the english comp are so tired why isnt the competetion shorter to avoid player burnout if the english came over to australia they would get used to most of the conditions and the difference between home and away fixtures wouldnt be so great

 

[Iron-Haggis]

Griffo, most English players do and have spent time in Australia playing in different sorts of conditions. Also with Australia's good depth in State cricket, why would State sides want to play County players for one season when they can help produce their own players of same quality for many seasons.

County Cricket would benefit from fewer teams, but how much they would benefit is purely speculation. Plus with the rising number of 'A' tours it would help adjust County cricketers to International cricket. Plus I think the overseas players who play county cricket help give the English guys a bit more tougher competition.

 

[cricketmad09]

And has a smaller population to choose from, and therefore less players. Sure if they have their International players, there are some good Australian sides. But I'd say outside the top two or three, the rest are no better or worse than the English sides. Lets not forget that the newest County in England has produced Harmison, Collingwood and Plunkett.

On that logic England should be more than twice as good as Australia because they have twice as many people.

No, if the team wasn't there, they wouldn't get noticed and would be lost to the sport. It's all very well for you to slag off County Cricket but it's the first place Australian players look for experience and has resulted in many of them being fast tracked to the team. Imagine if there was only 6 county teams, it would hurt Australias prospects.

To whoever said English football is poor is talking rubbish. The English team is decent and the domestic sides are 4 of the best 12 or so in Europe easily.

Fast tracked? I dont think so. Took Mike Hussey years and years to get into the Aussie team after Bradmanesque performences in country cricket. It wasnt until he was performing consistently in the Australian Domestic 4 day comp that he was chosen. No way in hell it fast tracks them.

 

[puddleduck]

Except what proportion of our population, and what proportion of Australias population actually plays cricket. Sure in Football and a fair amount of other sports with levelish playing fields we are better than Australia and the sheer size of our population says that it's likely merely on the law of averages. But in cricket the percentage of people actually playing probably isn't too different, in the same way that the percentage of people playing football in England is probably far more than in Australia.

 

[stereotype]

Australia have just as many sports as England...is not really an excuse i think...

There are that many county sides compared to our 6 state sides that it is unbelievable....

fact is England would struggle against many state sides...particularly if they were full strength....one guy said that a county side had created 3 major English players...NSW is so strong that Stuart Clark probably would be overlooked...the bowling line up of Stuart MacGill, Nathan Bracken, Glenn McGrath and Brett Lee all from NSW

England would also struggle against Western Australia...prior to the Ashes series a full strength WA would include Martyn, Langer, Hussey and Gilchrist

Queensland would have Symonds, Johnson, Hayden and Bichel

Tasmania even prior to this summer had Ponting, Hilfenhaus, Bevan...

If Australia and England had roughly the same amount players playing cricket then why is the gap so big? If England would have trouble beating full strength state sides how could a county side do it?

 

[angryangy]

No, if the team wasn't there, they wouldn't get noticed and would be lost to the sport.

I guess that's the difference between Australian players and English players. I mean, pretty much all counties are within a day's drive of each other, if players can be lost to the game so easily, no wonder we have this discussion.

Except what proportion of our population, and what proportion of Australias population actually plays cricket. Sure in Football and a fair amount of other sports with levelish playing fields we are better than Australia and the sheer size of our population says that it's likely merely on the law of averages. But in cricket the percentage of people actually playing probably isn't too different, in the same way that the percentage of people playing football in England is probably far more than in Australia.

This is going around in circles.

If there's a similar percentage of cricketers in Aus and England, then there should be more than twice as many cricketers in England and thus the question is why England can't produce twice as many elite cricketers.

If there's a far smaller percentage in England than in Australia, such that the number of players in England is similar to the number in Australia, then there isn't a good reason at all for there to be three times as many first class teams diluting the talent pool.

 

[Griffo]

the day england is consistantly competitive for 5 or more years is a good day for cricket overall but i just dont see it happening in the near future without change

 

[MUFC1987]

the day england is consistantly competitive for 2 or more years is a good day for cricket overall but i just dont see it happening in the near future without change

Where were you from about 2003-2005? In the Test arena we were beating everybody and we all know how it ended.

 

[Griffo]

sorry wrong amount of years i meant 5 lol i missed it was above

 

[puddleduck]

This is going around in circles.

The points were made earlier in this thread. Things like climate, the fact that not necessarily the best sportsmen end up playing cricket, whilst in Australia real Athletes won't consider cricket a step down from something like football.

In England as I said, the very same chaps may only actually get to play cricket for 4 months a year maximum, in a good summer, whilst in Australia they could feasibly play all year round. Without the stigma attached to cricket those very same people could feasibly be some of the finest atheletes the country has, whilst in England chances are those very same athletes would spend all year playing football.

 

[RoboRocks]

I was chatting to my dad the other day and I said to him we need someone to tough up the team like Allan Border did in 1989.
Unless that happens, England won't be winning any Ashes series in the near future If Australia continue to be the dominant force they are now.

 

[Adarsh]

Population doesn't really come into it, neither does the percentage of people playing - not to a great extent. If that's the case India would be far far ahead of everyone, but they're not. Australia do very well in many sports and are a great sporting nation. They do pretty well in rugby, cricket, swimming, athletics, hockey, etc, and their population is really small.

 

[puddleduck]

Yes but the setups they have in terms of nurturing the talent is far superior to somewhere like India, so a greater percentage of the playing population makes the grade.